Evidence of meeting #3 for Canada-China Relations in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was taiwan.
A video is available from Parliament.
8:35 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you very much.
One of the things I'm going to ask a few questions about, if I could, Ms. Calverley, is that you talked about the need for a human rights defender strategy for people fleeing violence in Hong Kong. Can you talk a bit more about that, but perhaps talk a bit more as well about what other steps Global Affairs Canada and IRCC could take to support the people of Hong Kong?
8:35 p.m.
Co-founder and Trustee, Hong Kong Watch
I think that first they need to repair the problem. People who actually got their open work permit to come to Canada somehow could not apply for primary residency. I hope that you can speak to Global Affairs and immigration to fix that.
I think the existing so-called lifeboat is actually a leaking lifeboat, because it has helped only a very small percentage of people. There is a very small percentage of people who can qualify. Human rights defenders—for example, Jimmy Lai—all the journalists and also medical professionals are not covered.
We can see, in the situation in Ukraine, that there's a human rights defender category. Why can't we create the same category for Hong Kong to make the lifeboat more like a lifeboat? Right now, it's leaking. Those people who arrived who actually were interviewed by the Toronto Star, they're scared that they will be sent back to Hong Kong because they got the work permit, but they cannot apply for permanent residency.
This is something that Global Affairs and immigration need to work on.
8:35 p.m.
Director Emeritus, China Institute, University of Alberta, As an Individual
The China Institute has the most comprehensive database of Chinese investment in this country.
You asked a question about if there were a conflict over Taiwan, a vulnerable southern ally. The investment, in my view, would be the smaller part. The biggest effect would be the disruption of supply chains. Look at what happened in Russia and how that has affected the energy sector. A sustained disruption of the economic relationship between China and the west would have far greater effect. As soon as those ships that were en route landed or were turned back, you would see empty stores. You would see absolutely essential inputs to Canadian businesses and to Canadian lives disrupted. We're highly vulnerable to the effects of that trade being disrupted—investment, yes, but especially the trade flows.
8:35 p.m.
Liberal
8:35 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses.
Professor Ong, I was especially taken by your testimony, which at the outset was really about this point on regime durability. You talked about spoils. You talked about fear. You talked about—in response to Ms. Yip's question—the way the regime has dealt with the middle class, the reduction of the role of the private sector and these kinds of things.
The question is a straightforward one. I take the point on certainty that you raised before, but I think it would benefit the committee if you were to share with us your view on just how durable this regime is. From the outside it looks quite stable, but is it quite stable?
October 4th, 2022 / 8:35 p.m.
Professor, Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, University of Toronto
In my personal opinion it is still quite durable, but in relative terms I think durability has declined considerably because I think the foundation of its durability, particularly elite stability, has been eroded.
China has been a country of crony capitalism for many years—since reform and opening up in 1979—and I think in the last 10 years or so the very foundation, the glue, that holds the system together, which is mutual trading of interest and reciprocity, has been eroded by President Xi's anti-corruption campaign. He has really torn the fabric that holds the elite politicians together.
8:35 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Because I have limited time, I'm going to jump to Professor Houlden and ask him the same question.
Sir, how durable is the regime in China in your view?
8:35 p.m.
Director Emeritus, China Institute, University of Alberta, As an Individual
Thank you so much.
I've had the opportunity to serve in Canadian embassies in three communist countries on three different continents. It's not an easy question to answer, but the watchword for me—and the reason I'm careful—is that I served in eastern Europe. My job was actually tracking opposition parties in Warsaw. I could see the cracks in the wall. I felt the Soviet Union would collapse. I thought it would take 50 years, but 18 months after I left, it was gone. These are very tough questions.
To me communist regimes have the strength of iron, not of steel. They can be very brittle. When you have disunity at the top, which to me is the most likely cause of change in China—that is, regime collapse—there will be a struggle at the top.
China has spent so much money and effort to manage and control dissidents at the street level, but my money would be on problems at the top. When those will emerge to such a point as to threaten the regime is a tough question. It could be soon or it could take a long time.
8:35 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you.
With my last question, I want to pick up on what Mr. Chong was talking about in economic terms. Which parts of Canada are most exposed to China, in economic terms, and which sectors are most exposed?
In other words, at some point in the future if we were to see western allies, Canada included, put in place sanctions in response to something that China had done—whether it's an invasion of Taiwan or something along those lines—which parts, geographically, of the country would be most impacted and which sectors would be most impacted?
8:35 p.m.
Director Emeritus, China Institute, University of Alberta, As an Individual
Who is the question for?
8:35 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Thank you.
On March 21, 2022, the American State Department announced new visa restrictions on representatives of the government of the People's Republic of China. The statement by the State Department called on the PRC government, and I quote, to end its genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang, repressive policies in Tibet, crackdown on fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong, and human rights violations and abuses, including violations of religious freedoms, elsewhere in the country.
My question is very simple: when our closest ally and trading partner is speaking openly of genocide in Xinjiang, how do you explain the Government of Canada's timidity about applying that term to the situation in Xinjiang?
8:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
We have time for one answer, Mr. Bergeron. To whom do you wish to direct your question?
8:35 p.m.
Director Emeritus, China Institute, University of Alberta, As an Individual
The word “genocide” is the strongest one of all. Even the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights spoke of “crimes against humanity” in the report he produced after his visit.
If we are talking about genocide in the sense of the repression of a minority, I agree. If we are talking about genocide in the sense of the physical elimination of a group, we have to distinguish the genocide in Xinjiang from the genocide of the Jews in Europe. That may be a technical point.
Even though the United States has limited visits by Chinese officials, the President of the United States is going to have a meeting with the President of China. We can strongly criticize the people who are directly associated with the repressive actions and human rights violations and deny them visas, but I think we have to maintain contacts and private conversations with high- or mid-level PRC officials.
8:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
Thank you, Professor Houlden.
Now we will go to Ms. McPherson for six minutes.
8:35 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here. Again, it is very late, and I'm very grateful that you've agreed to be with us. It's perhaps a little less late for Dr. Houlden at the University of Alberta, which is, of course, the university that I went to.
Mr. Houlden, I was going to start with you. You talked a little bit about the diplomatic failures. We didn't have an ambassador for nine or 10 months, but I think it's a larger discussion around Canada and Canada's diplomatic commitments, I guess, to diplomacy. In my opinion, we have privileged trade over development, over diplomacy, for far too long.
Can you talk a little bit about what that stagnation looks like, what that lack of investment in our relationship has been and the impacts that have resulted because we have not had an ambassador?
8:35 p.m.
Director Emeritus, China Institute, University of Alberta, As an Individual
First of all, I'd say that Jim Nickel, our chargé d’affaires, whom I know very well and who is now going off to Taipei, has done a stellar job in the absence of an ambassador.
Having an ambassador is symbolically important, but it is substantively important as well. It allows better access to Beijing now—not great access but better access. An ambassador is not just there to eat canapés and go for cocktails. An ambassador is there to go in and deliver tough messages, and also, through his or her contacts—her contacts in the case of Jennifer May—to provide Ottawa with great advice.
One request I would have, though, is to keep the expectations on Madam May reasonable. We're sending a talented official. I know her well. She worked for me when I was in Beijing when she was a junior officer. Let's keep our expectations modest. Do not expect her to make a substantive difference in the conditions in Xinjiang. Do not expect her to solve our consular hangover in Hong Kong. If we keep our expectations modest but know that she will be there to provide a strong voice for Canada when we are unhappy....
It may be a private voice. I don't actually believe in loudspeaker diplomacy when it comes to an ambassador in place like Beijing, but, heavens, we have an ambassador in Moscow of all places where there's a war going on.
Let's get an ambassador there. I'm sure she'll be there very soon. Keep expectations modest, but a Canadian voice is necessary, as is a uniquely Canadian evaluation of the situation so that we're not just depending on our allies. I think that's important.
8:35 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I'm very sorry that you feel so threatened in this country.
8:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
Ms. McPherson, you are way over time.
Mr. Chong, go ahead for five minutes.
8:35 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This question is for all three of you.
In the latter part of 2019, the government announced that it would be coming forward with a new framework on China. We know that we still don't have one. It's now morphed into the Indo-Pacific strategy that Minister Joly has indicated will be released at the end of this year, some time before Christmas.
My simple question to all three of you is this: Have you been consulted by the government on the Indo-Pacific strategy?
8:35 p.m.
Director Emeritus, China Institute, University of Alberta, As an Individual
From Gordon Houlden, the answer would be no.
8:35 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Thank you for that. I appreciate that.
Dr. Ong...?