Canada-China Relations Committee on May 6th, 2024

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

One of the highlights in the Indo-Pacific strategy is the Government of Canada's efforts to support democracy in the region. If we look at research from think tanks and other research organizations, what we notice is that over the last decade and a half or the last two decades, there has been democratic backsliding in the region, particularly in Southeast Asia in countries like Thailand, Myanmar, Cambodia and other countries.

My question is simple. What should the Government of Canada be doing in practical, actionable terms to strengthen democracy in those jurisdictions, seeing that they are of a size that Canada could have an influence in?

That's for all three of them, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

All right. We'll start with you, Mr. Mehdi, and then we'll go to Ms. Tethong and then Ms. Wang.

[Feroz Mehdi]

I think it's very important, as we all know, that there is no international co-operation development aid between Canada and India. That has cut a lot of people-to-people dialogue between Canadian civil society organizations and human rights and civil society organizations in India. I know of very few.

I have been working in alternatives in the NGO sector for 30 years and more, and there were a lot of people-to-people exchanges that shared and advocated with our specific governments, both provincial and federal, about the situations and what we think should be done to tell our governments and our representatives how to promote democratic institutions as a watch on what's happening in India. That is missing.

I think the Canadian government could invest in some kind of a platform to open that dialogue again, which is very much missing. I noticed personally in my career how it went down from a very vibrant exchange to nearly zero exchanges happening today at the civil society level.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thailand has a population of about 70 million. Myanmar has a population of about 55 million. Cambodia has a population of about 17 million. These are countries that are within an order of magnitude of the size of Canada's population. We are also an economy that's much larger than countries like that, where we could have an outsized influence.

In practical terms, the government's Indo-Pacific strategy acknowledges that issue of scale. It focuses particularly on the north Indo-Pacific in terms of economic strategy by focusing on places like Japan and South Korea. It has a special mention of diplomatic outreach in the island chains in the Indo-Pacific. I think that's all predicated on an acknowledgement that Canada is not the world's largest country by population and not the second-largest country by population.

With the limited resources we bring to bear, how can we use them most effectively in the region? The government has decided that with respect to certain areas of this strategy, there will be a focus on the north Indo-Pacific. In other areas, they've decided to focus on ASEAN.

The question I have is, with respect to democratic backsliding when it comes to Southeast Asia—the part of the Indo-Pacific that organizations like the Hudson Institute have identified as the greatest weakness, and particularly countries like Thailand, Myanmar and Cambodia—what practical actions can the government take to stop the backsliding and strengthen democratic institutions in those areas and in those countries?

Maybe we could go to Madam Wang.

[Maya Wang]

Thank you.

I know that your to-do list is probably going to be very long. I could send you human rights research reports from decades before with a very long to-do list.

We see democratic backsliding across the world at the same time as essentially a period of unprincipled international trade and economics—globalization, essentially. We see a growing inequality between the richest and the workers. You see China as exhibit A. We used to hear former president Clinton talk about how as China grows, the middle class grows, so it will become democratic. That wasn't true. What happened was the Chinese government became incredibly empowered.

I'm not an expert on all of these other governments that you have to deal with, but a lot of these governments also became rich and very powerful in a way that is authoritarian. I would suspect that some legislation having to do with putting human rights and labour rights back into international trade and globalization would go a long way towards addressing that kind of imbalance in power between the people and the governments. That can address broader issues beyond China and the region.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Thank you, Mr. Chong.

Now we go to Mr. Fragiskatos for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Chair, and to the witnesses.

In the early 2000s, it was common, not just in academic circles but in foreign policy circles, to champion the idea of democracy promotion. The concept basically said that if the world was to be stable and if we were to have peace as much as possible, then democracies should promote democracy as a concept in theory and practice at every opportunity because, among other things, no two democracies have ever gone to war against each other. Democracy is seen as exactly that—a stabilizing force.

It was built into the foreign policies of the United States and even Canada. Other democracies made it a real focal point as well.

After the Iraq war, for reasons that I think will be obvious, the idea fell out of favour entirely. Out of that, in turn, came a view that if democracy was to be lasting, if it was to be achieved in a way that was truly meaningful and if it was to be a stabilizing force on its own, it would have to be organic.

The question that I have builds upon what Mr. Oliphant was raising earlier: How can we, as a middle power here in Canada, best promote democracy in a way that does not impose, but allows for an organic movement towards it in authoritarian environments where obviously any democratic expression is extremely limited?

That's for all of you.

[Lhadon Tethong]

I can start.

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

Sure.

[Lhadon Tethong]

I actually want to take this moment to point to a publication by a friend. The International Center on Nonviolent Conflict and the Atlantic Council put out a book by Hardy Merriman, a colleague of ours, entitled “Fostering a Fourth Democratic Wave: A Playbook for Countering the Authoritarian Threat”. It is all about investing in civil resistance and movements and people.

I think the key, especially if you don't want it to be top-down or one side lecturing to the other, is looking for natural allies in those places. Sometimes it will be an exiled movement, as in the Tibetan case. Often it's people on the ground. In most places in the world, even those that are slipping more and more towards authoritarianism, there are still people, movements, organizations and civil society groups that are the best defence in both the long game and the short term to fight for rights and freedoms and to create the societies that we want and need.

It's not always easy, but I think the answer itself is just so simple on one level. It does lie with the people.

I think what this “Fostering a Fourth Democratic Wave” does is break it down and give really clear ideas for new principles for engagement, places government can put funding into foundations and fund organizations in general. I think there's been a problem with people being afraid and governments being afraid to talk about these things openly and to say really clearly that they are funding democratic resilience, resistance or whatever it might be. I don't think that helps anyone, especially the people on the ground in those places who most need....

I know Canada as a country just from my travels and work. I live in the U.S. now. I've travelled the world working on the Tibetan issue. Canada is looked to as a beacon by a lot of people all over the world. Canadians, the Canadian government and the Canadian Parliament say things clearly, as I believe you are doing, but we could do a lot more of it. We cannot underestimate the importance for the morale of people in places like Tibet of just being out there in front, speaking and leading—

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

I'm sorry, Ms. Tethong. I only have about 40 seconds left.

Could we hear from Ms. Wang, just because she is next on my list? That's with all due respect to Mr. Mehdi.

[Maya Wang]

I would say, first of all, that Canada should not think that it's imposing values on other people. People around the world have demonstrated with their lives on the line that they love these values.

The only people who are basically saying not to impose these values are generally the people who are the authoritarian governments, the leaders who say we must not do that.

I think it has to do with how we think about these issues. I think you want to think about them as Canada standing in solidarity.

What would Canada do if you were standing on the democratic front line with these people, facing some very seriously militarized police and army these days that had come to crush them? What would Canada do?

I think the answer would come very easily to anyone.

Canada, like Germany and France, sometimes thinks of itself as a middle power, but that's not when it comes to economics and what it stands for. It has a lot of potential, especially in U.S.-China conversations, where I think Canada is not considered as necessarily.... It becomes a little bit more problematic these days, as the U.S. uses human rights as tool to compete with China, but I think Canada has a different profile.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Thank you very much.

[Maya Wang]

I would suggest you use it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

All right.

Here's what we have. We have 10 minutes left. There will be time for one five-minute round, which I'm going to give to Mr. Erskine-Smith. Then we'll split the last five minutes between Mr. Bergeron and Ms. McPherson.

If you are ready, Mr. Erskine-Smith, the next five minutes are yours.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thanks very much.

I want to start with Ms. Wang and just close the loop on forced labour legislation.

We currently have the modern slavery act, which is more about reporting obligations. You pointed to the EU and to the U.S. in different ways.

In budget 2024, there's a commitment to introduce legislation in 2024 to eradicate forced labour from Canadian supply chains.

In the interest of time, would you be able, via Human Rights Watch, to provide commentary in writing on what works in those other jurisdictions and as well as on where there are shortcomings in those jurisdictions with respect to that legislation so that it can inform the Canadian approach in 2024?

[Maya Wang]

Absolutely.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Great.

With respect to the Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise, we've seen, specifically with respect to discrimination, that the UN has the concern around crimes against humanity committed against Uyghur Muslims. CORE has opened investigations just in the last year against Walmart, Hugo Boss,Diesel Canada, Guess and Levi Strauss. In their very first determination, just recently, they found that Uyghur forced labour likely took place in respect of a mining operation.

Of course, in that very first determination, we learned what we already knew, which is that CORE can only make recommendations and has no real teeth. In fact, the minister has more teeth in the modern slavery act and in relation to just reporting obligations than the ombudsperson has with respect to actual human rights violations.

Is it your view, Ms. Wang, that in addition to any legislation to eradicate forced labour, we should actually, for once and for all, empower the CORE with proper teeth?

[Maya Wang]

I am not an expert of that particular institution, but from what you described, I would agree that we need enforcement power for legislation to act against forced labour, yes.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you very much.

Beyond taking action on the issue of forced labour, I think Ms. McPherson put it well with respect to the fact that Parliament not only debated the issue but concluded with a vote that genocide has taken place against Uyghur Muslims. The government has spoken out forcefully on a number of occasions.

What more do you think we and the government ought to do, beyond forced labour legislation?

[Maya Wang]

I already spoke about the actions that should be taken at the UN, and the next Human Rights Council session is coming up in June. In addition to that, we have lots of recommendations from our report on Xinjiang, which I'm glad to share.

For example, the Canadian government should encourage the preparation of criminal investigations into Chinese government officials responsible for crimes against humanity—preparing prosecution files, essentially.

We also encourage government to document the individuals who are still missing in the region, who are detained and imprisoned, and to press for their release, obviously.

Also, I think there are actually some families or—

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

There undoubtedly are some families connected, and actually, one of the longest-standing cases is connected to Canada.

My last question is specifically in relation to the Indo-Pacific strategy, because in black in white, Canada has a strategy that is calling out the human rights abuses in China. It actually doesn't, I think, properly mention some of the challenges we face in the Canada-India relationship, but it clearly articulates the challenges in the Canada-China relationship.

I'm not going to ask you in less than a minute to do this—and this also applies to Mr. Mehdi and Ms. Tethong—but if you could provide in writing recommendations for specific improvements you would like to see in the Indo-Pacific strategy as it currently is laid out, I would appreciate your providing that to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Thank you, Mr. Erskine-Smith.

We now have two and a half minutes for Mr. Bergeron.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, if I may, I'm going to pick up where I left off last time. Unfortunately, only Ms. Wang had a chance to answer my question about Canada's claims of normalizing relations with the PRC.

I'd like Ms. Tethong and Mr. Mehdi to comment on the possibility of normalizing relations with a dictatorship like the PRC's current government.

[Lhadon Tethong]

I don't think it's possible to normalize relations with the People's Republic of China, especially under Xi Jinping. I think his future and the Communist Party's future are very much at risk and unclear at this moment. I heard someone describe it recently as there being eight loaded weapons facing them, and it's just a question of which one goes off first, whether it's demographics, internal issues, the economy or banking—all of it.

We can think of Xi Jinping and the Chinese government at this moment more in the way we think of Russia and Putin, and think about where we're going to be and what it's going to look like. I think change is coming more quickly than we realize, and it's probably going to be upon us before we know it. Thinking very clearly now and digging into who is there, what the movements are, where the people are, what we can support and what the plans are is, I think, a safer strategy moving forward than looking to normalize relations.

I didn't get to say this earlier, but my colleague from Tibet, with 35 years of experience in the education system, is following all of this every day from the Tibetan perspective and in Chinese internal discussions and conversations. His read is that it's all going to come to a head very soon and that no one's really ready for it.

I think the way Xi Jinping has been behaving lately and the fact that he's coming out is because, as my colleague said, he needs us. He's here because he is weak, and all we do is make him strong when we keep giving him the legitimacy and the platforms that don't challenge him, but rather, in a way, just accept him. It's the way Putin used to be built up and accepted.

I don't know. I don't think you can have normal relations with the People's Republic of China, the PRC government and especially Xi Jinping and those who are in power right now.