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.
Professor, Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, University of Toronto
Yes, there has been wonderful virtual round table consultation with, I think, someone from Global Affairs.
The short answer is yes.
8:35 p.m.
Conservative
8:35 p.m.
Co-founder and Trustee, Hong Kong Watch
It was not consultation, but we did talk about it.
8:35 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
The reason I raised it is that I took note of Dr. Ong's opening statement. I thought it was quite good the way you framed the fact that China is structurally changing. You talked about the changes amongst the elites, the changes amongst the non-elites and then some of the economic challenges they're facing.
One of the things I picked up in your advice to this committee was that, in response to a rapidly changing China, the Canadian government needed to be effective in scenario playing. I'm wondering if you can elaborate on that.
My sense of the government is that it's not very good, not very nimble, at scenario playing. We've been trying to come up with this China policy, this Indo-Pacific strategy, now for some three years. We are the only G7 power that doesn't have a written foreign policy document that you can point to on the Indo-Pacific region, and it seems very painful even to come up with that basic blueprint.
From your knowledge, Dr. Ong, of how Global Affairs works, where are the deficiencies in the department that are preventing us from being more nimble in producing these documents and ensuring that they're regularly updated to respond to the various scenarios that might unfold?
8:35 p.m.
Professor, Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, University of Toronto
Yes, that is a great question.
In my view, the constant in the very near future, the constant in dealing with China, is uncertainty. That is the only thing that we can be certain of.
I think both politics and economics are going through some very structural and fundamental changes. It could go bad very quickly, or it could just gradually decline. No one can be certain of that.
In a sense, we need to have really strong China endowment, and I know a little bit about Global Affairs. I don't know Global Affairs well enough to say whether or not they have the capacity to amass China resources, people who really know elite politics, people who really know society and people who really know the Chinese economy and formulations to be able to be nimble and to enable Canada to have the adaptive capacity should things turn around very quickly, which I think they will.
8:35 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Thank you for that answer. I appreciate it.
I want to switch to a slightly different topic, which has to do with foreign direct investment into Canada from China and foreign direct investment into China from Canada, the two-way FDI between our two countries.
The reason I want to bring this up quickly is that I know, Dr. Houlden, your institute at the University of Alberta has done research on this. I took note that tens of billions of dollars have come from China into Canada over the last few decades.
I think of what would happen if China ever invaded Taiwan. I think we would see a commensurate response by western allies in terms of sanctions as we've seen with respect to Russia. Because our exposure to two-way trade and investment to China is much greater than that of Russia, I'm wondering what the implications are for Canada if that were ever to happen.
8:35 p.m.
Liberal
Jean Yip Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
What steps do you feel the Canadian government can take to encourage ethical investing?
8:35 p.m.
Co-founder and Trustee, Hong Kong Watch
There are two sides to be considered. First is legislation. Second is country risk analysis. Let me talk about country risk analysis first.
A year ago—
8:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
Excuse me, Ms. Calverley, but we are out of time for Ms. Yip's round. Hold that thought. I'm sure you'll have an opportunity to finish that one. Thank you very much.
I'd like to go to Monsieur Bergeron, for six minutes or less.
8:35 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would first like to express my enormous thanks to our witnesses for being here this evening. I want to thank them for participating in the exercise, even at this late hour, and informing our discussions of Canada-China relations.
When the former ambassador of Canada to China, Dominic Barton, appeared before the committee on February 5, 2020, he said that relations between the two countries had fundamentally changed in December 2018 and the chill was real.
My question for the three witnesses is very simple: is it your feeling that since the end of the Meng Wanzhou case and the release of the two Michaels, the relationship between the two countries has improved, or are we still in that sort of crisis situation that does not seem to want to right itself?
8:35 p.m.
Director Emeritus, China Institute, University of Alberta, As an Individual
Perhaps I will speak first.
8:35 p.m.
Director Emeritus, China Institute, University of Alberta, As an Individual
Thank you.
My impression is that the situation has changed, but very little. There is still little contact with high-level visitors, scientists and businesspeople. There is no longer a crisis as there was before; rather, there is a situation in which progress is stagnant and there is a lack of trust on both sides. Above all, there is distrust of China on the part of the Canadian public and there are markedly negative attitudes between the two countries.
8:35 p.m.
Professor, Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, University of Toronto
Has it changed? Largely no. If you look at the latest Pew Research poll that polls societal views of China, I don't think it has actually recovered, and that is very much in line with the popular opinion poll results of many western societies. People have a lack of trust of China. I don't think things have gone back to normal.
Speaking in a personal capacity, I used to teach a course in China on a Chinese campus. We have no plans of returning to China anytime soon, because things.... You know, there has been a scar, and we know the root cause of the scar. I don't think the root cause has actually gone away, even though the two Michaels have been released.
8:35 p.m.
Co-founder and Trustee, Hong Kong Watch
Releasing the two Michaels has not changed anything. Actually, many Canadians want to know what happened to the two Michaels, but since they've returned, it's been quiet. In our hearts, the scars are there. They were never repaired. For Canadian and Chinese relations to mend, or continue, Beijing needs to do a lot of work. For now, with the situation in Russia and Ukraine, we start to worry about Taiwan.
This is not a period of time when we feel safe to visit, for example, Hong Kong, to visit Taiwan or to visit China. I think there's still a lot of work to be done to mend the relationship.
8:35 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
I'm wondering if you can comment as well on the quadrilateral security dialogue. Should we be pursuing a membership here?
8:35 p.m.
Director Emeritus, China Institute, University of Alberta, As an Individual
I would say yes. Members are going to ask what we have to bring to the table. I would argue that it is now too modest in terms of the military presence, the political clout and the apparent long-term commitment of governments—plural—in the past. I think this is not something that could be done tomorrow. That right will have to be earned and not simply, “Can we join? Thank you very much.” This is something that might be a longer-term goal, but I think it has to be presaged by that investment—military, political and economic—in the relationships with Asia. Then that fruit might fall into our lap.
8:35 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
It sounds like Canada has a lot of work to do to be invited and welcomed to the table in these key security alliances.
What would be the impacts to Canada long term if we just allowed the status quo, our presence as it is now, to continue? Can you explain in layman's terms why you think it's important? It sounds like you think it's very important. Can you explain that to the committee?
8:35 p.m.
Director Emeritus, China Institute, University of Alberta, As an Individual
I think it will just bump along where we're at. In other words, if you want to know what will happen if we don't do anything dramatic or significant or substantive, it will be like it has been. My warning here is that, historically, when the security situation in Asia has gone very badly wrong, when it has gone south.... I'm thinking of 1941, when the troops in Hong Kong were overwhelmed. I'm thinking of the Korean War, when all of a sudden within months we were fighting with desperation in the Korean peninsula. One could even say that 9/11 catapulted, with almost no warning, into a west Asia conflict.
We are a small player and probably always will be, but if we don't pay close attention and we don't have some substantive contribution to make in terms of hardware, attention and political effort, we'll find ourselves just dragged willy-nilly into situations where we'll be severely impacted and have little warning and little opportunity to shape the response.
8:35 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
I think about the response we had to the two Michaels and the various agricultural issues we've faced with our trade. It's been talked about at this committee quite significantly how much Canada depends on China for trade, and likely vice versa. I feel that because we're not part of these alliances, we're not being invited to the table and we're not investing in the resources you've outlined, Canada is at risk of being pushed around by bigger players, particularly China, when they want to do something. For example, we recently heard reports that they have set up three satellite police stations in the Toronto area.
Does not having a presence and not taking this perhaps as seriously as we should not impact our options of how we respond to, for example, these satellite police stations that are reportedly in Toronto?
8:35 p.m.
Director Emeritus, China Institute, University of Alberta, As an Individual
It's a very complex question, and I appreciate it.
I'm in my 36th year of full-time work on China. In my experience, when it comes to political interference, to espionage if you wish, or to just unwarranted interference, it's a bit like crabgrass: You pull it up but it grows back. The idea that you're going to take one step and it'll be gone is not realistic. I think it takes vigilance.
You're quite right, in my view, that a higher-profile presence in Asia will help, but as I said in my remarks, I think close attention to China itself and having a dialogue with them, being able to speak to senior officials.... I know every Canadian ambassador. I've met every Chinese ambassador to Canada since we established relations in 1970, some of those when I was still just a student. I know that we've had these problems, but some of them have been to go in to speak to the ministers of public security or state security and say, “Look, this is unacceptable. If you do this, we will do that.”
That kind of dialogue is not—
8:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
Professor Houlden, I'm sorry. I have to intervene. We're quite over time.
8:35 p.m.
Director Emeritus, China Institute, University of Alberta, As an Individual
Of course. Thank you.