Canada-China Relations Committee on Oct. 18th, 2022

[Dr. Stéphanie Martel]

Once again, this is an area where our interests, preferences and values fly directly in the face of what's being promoted by China. We shouldn't shy away from continuing to express our disagreement in this regard. I doubt that Canada will be able to meaningfully change the situation in Hong Kong unless we go through multilateral channels and create and maintain collaborative relationships with other actors to put some form of group pressure on China.

That said, when it comes to what China considers its own territory, jurisdiction and internal affairs, it's extremely difficult to make our condemnation bring about a positive change of circumstances. I share your concerns about that.

With respect to the second part of your question, I'm aware of the allegations of a possible Chinese police presence in Canada resulting in illicit activities on our territory. Again, I feel it's crucial to get evidence of what's being claimed and to get our facts straight. I'm confident that our law enforcement agencies will be able to shed light on these allegations.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

You referred to “territory”. There's the territory of Hong Kong, which is in fact a part of the People's Republic of China, and there are the people of Hong Kong.

I'd like to make a distinction here. Do you believe that we can save Hong Kong? Alternatively, do you believe that we can save the people of Hong Kong by offering as many of them as we can an opportunity to come to Canada to find safe haven here in Canada, with safe haven then meaning also that we ensure we can protect their rights as Canadian citizens, as permanent residents and as individuals working here from foreign influence and intimidation campaigns from the People's Republic of China?

[Dr. Stéphanie Martel]

Obviously we certainly can do something with what falls within our own jurisdiction in terms of making sure that the allegations that are made are followed through on and that we get our facts straight and are able to respond accordingly—absolutely.

In terms of what Canada can do towards Hong Kong, again, using multilateral channels and our networks and connections with other international partners is crucial. Apart from that, I don't see, honestly, a lot for Canada in and of itself to do to make sure that the situation resolves, but working through our partnerships and alliances and using diplomatic channels might yield results.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Thank you, Mr. Kmiec.

We'll now go to Mr. Oliphant for five minutes.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

My questions will be along the same lines as Ms. Normandin's, and they were very wise questions. I'm a bit sad because this is her first time in committee and here I am asking the same questions she did.

I want to thank the witness for her time with us today. I think she's doing an important thing as we start this new phase of our committee work. She is calming us down and being rational and evidence-based.

I want to follow up a bit on that. I'll speak very personally. When I began my time as a member of Parliament, I had a very strong and open understanding of China. I wanted to have stronger relations. I had two trips to China that were eye-opening. They were my first two trips.

Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor were then arbitrarily detained for over a thousand days. That is still with me as an individual. It's still collectively with the people of Canada. I think we are still hurting from that arbitrary detention.

We're now moving into a new phase, looking for an opening to see if we should, or could, open a different door with China. The “Should we?” question has to do with better, peaceful relationships in our world and that kind of stuff. Is it in Canada's interests? Is it in the world's interests? Is it in Canadians' interests?

If we wanted to that, what is your recommendation on how we do it? Sometimes, I just don't know. We're passionate people and we've been hurt. Now we're trying to look for a possible new way.

Do you have any thoughts on that?

[Dr. Stéphanie Martel]

To your question, I don't think we have much of a choice, to be honest. China is a great power and it is not going away. We need to find ways to be able to deal and live with that reality.

That said, Canada has a good record when it comes to engaging in informal mechanisms of diplomacy, through expert diplomacy, for instance, and other channels that might be used to find areas where our interests might converge. Clearly, we're not going to agree on a number of different things. In some domains, our interests and preferences are clearly going to clash. That's something we will need to be aware of and make China aware of.

In my opinion, it doesn't mean we cannot also use informal and formal diplomatic channels to be able to find some convergence of interests in certain domains.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

If this committee were going to travel to better understand the situation and our multilateral possibilities and instincts, are there suggestions for how this committee may get a better understanding on how we could relate to China?

[Dr. Stéphanie Martel]

Anything that can support country perspective and country expertise when it comes to China, but is also able to tap into our networks that are connected with regional perspectives on how to deal with China and with great power rivalry in general....

This is where the ASEAN angle might come into play. I think that's something that deserves more attention. There is a tendency when it comes to discussions about foreign and defence policy in the Indo-Pacific in general, but also toward China in particular, to favour a certain kind of expertise, which is absolutely needed in these discussions. That is the perspective of Canadian expertise on foreign policy and defence policy.

However, whatever we can do to make room for regional expertise and perspectives that are anchored in the region is really needed.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Can I ask...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

I'm sorry, Mr. Oliphant. You are out of time.

Madame Normandin, you have two and a half minutes.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My question is somewhat general. When two superpowers who respect the rules-based international order have a dispute, they will often take a step back, ponder solutions and come back to the table to discuss them.

Someone told me that you can't expect that from a country that doesn't respect the rules-based international order. For example, Russia might interpret any step back as an opportunity to occupy the space.

First, could this analysis also apply to China and the way it intervenes when there's a dispute?

Second, what role could smaller powers, including Canada, play as a diplomatic alternative with China, but also generally in the Indo-Pacific region?

[Dr. Stéphanie Martel]

If you consider how U.S. engagement has fluctuated in the Indo-Pacific region, that could be an example of a step back from which China has benefited. Withdrawing from certain multilateral platforms or cooperative mechanisms that favour diplomatic channels as a potential mechanism for dispute or crisis mitigation is not a solution, because it raises the risk of that.

To promote rules that are beneficial to all actors, we must instead keep as many doors open as possible to foster diplomatic engagement and reinforce less confrontational and more positive tendencies. That role is typically entrusted to middle powers or even smaller powers.

It's especially important that Canada adopt an Indo-Pacific strategy to renew its multilateral engagement in the region. Given the growing concerns about the dynamics between the superpowers in the region, Canada must not only have a formal presence in key institutions, but also informal ears to the ground outside of direct and formal channels.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Thank you, Dr. Martel.

Now we go to Ms. Kwan for two and a half minutes.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm wondering what comments Ms. Martel can offer about the reality that a Canadian in Canada—Victor Ho—has now been put on a wanted list by China for a supposed violation of the national security law. There was also the latest situation in England, where a protester was demonstrating against President Xi Jinping and was reported to have been dragged inside the consulate grounds and beaten. Clearly, these are issues of concern with respect to democratic rights for the British in that instance and, in this instance with Victor Ho, for Canada. Our countries are being challenged.

How should we interpret those incidents and how should we respond to them?

[Dr. Stéphanie Martel]

We obviously need to be concerned about these incidents. Clearly, when it comes to the potential of a Chinese presence and that state-sanctioned, potentially illegal activities of surveillance are being carried out, this is a matter of getting our facts straight and making sure that whatever kinds of behaviour fall outside the line of legality are addressed and responded to.

When it comes to the other incidents that are mentioned, this is obviously a key concern and a preoccupation that needs to be addressed. It is also rooted, unfortunately, in the kind of vicious circle, basically, of animosity that gets created between China and Canada. There are repercussions for the toxicity of the public debate as well that we need to factor in, but obviously these are a cause for concern and we need to react accordingly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Thank you, Dr. Martel.

We're coming to the time for a vote, but we have time for one quick question and answer from each party.

Mr. Kmiec, do you have another quick question that you'd like to work in?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

No, not really.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Mr. Oliphant, I know you had another question that you didn't get to, but Mr. Fragiskatos, the floor is yours. Can we have a quick question and a quick answer, please?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.

On travel, if this committee were to travel in order to enhance its understanding of Canada-China relations, which countries in particular, Professor, should we look at going to?

[Dr. Stéphanie Martel]

When it comes to having very well-established experience in navigating difficult situations that have to do with great power rivalry, there are a number of ASEAN countries that Canada needs to connect more with in terms of defining our approach to China, to the major power rivalry in the Indo-Pacific, and in terms of the Indo-Pacific in general. Those would be, in my mind, Singapore, Vietnam and Indonesia in terms of being really key players in discussions about the reform of regional order grounded in the rules.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Would Japan, South Korea and Australia possibly...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Excuse me, Mr. Fragiskatos, but we'll move on.

Madame Normandin, do you have a quick question that requires a quick answer?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you. I don't know if this will elicit a quick response, but I will try.

It was said that China would be a component of the Indo-Pacific strategy. Given its proximity to China, shouldn't North Korea also be targeted in this strategy?

[Dr. Stéphanie Martel]

Recent developments in North Korea merit Canada's attention, and we've been paying attention for years. Like Canada, North Korea is a member state of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Regional Forum. The ASEAN Regional Forum has its flaws, but it's still a great place for Canada to open lines of communication with North Korea. I feel Canada should continue to be involved.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Thank you.

Ms. Kwan, do you have one more question?