Canada-China Relations Committee on Oct. 25th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Thank you, Mr. Nagy. I think we'll have to call it there for time, but you'll have more to say, and I'm sure you'll work it into some of your answers.

Now we'll go to Mr. Neve for five minutes or less.

[Alex Neve, Senior Fellow, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate having the opportunity to be in front of the special committee this evening.

Perhaps it's no surprise that my primary message to you is a simple one. It is that a strong commitment to human rights must be at the very heart of all aspects of our relationship with China. I'd like to offer four recommendations to take that a bit further.

I'm not going to focus on any of the many groups that are at grave human rights risk every single day in China, including Uighurs, Tibetans, the people of Hong Kong, Falun Gong practitioners, human rights defenders and pro-democracy advocates. Of course we could spend the entire session focusing in on any of those groups. I've had that opportunity in the past. My recommendations this evening are more overarching.

The first is that we need much more concerted action on behalf of Canadians who are unjustly imprisoned in China, as well as for the relatives of Canadians who have fled persecution in China and are stranded abroad seeking reunion and resettlement with their families. This should include perhaps appointing a special envoy dedicated to taking up these kinds of cases when Canadians and permanent residents are imprisoned in China in contravention of international human rights norms.

I think, of course, of Huseyin Celil, a Uighur Canadian who has been imprisoned for more than 16 years and has not seen his four children grow up in Burlington. His family has had no news of him for five years.

I think of Sun Qian, a Canadian citizen and Falun Gong practitioner, who has been imprisoned since 2017 and was sentenced to an eight-year prison term in 2020. Supposedly voluntarily, she has renounced her Canadian citizenship. There has been no news of her for the last two years.

I think of Ayoub Mohammed, Salahidin Abdulahad and Khalil Mamut, who are three Uighur men who escaped China in 2001. They were turned over to U.S. forces in Afghanistan by bounty hunters and ended up in Guantanamo Bay. After several years of that dystopian injustice, they were cleared by the U.S. government and resettled over a decade ago, through absurd diplomatic deals, to Bermuda and Albania. They are all married to Canadian citizens or permanent residents. They all have Canadian children. For years, they have been seeking reunion with their families here in Canada, but that has been blocked at every turn. We can do much better.

Second, picking up on Jonathan Manthorpe's comments, we must more directly confront the harassment of human rights defenders in Canada who are working to uphold human rights in China, particularly with respect to Uighurs, Tibet, Hong Kong and Falun Gong. These unlawful and sometimes violent actions against activists in Canada emanate from the Chinese government and its agents. Now we have added to the mix the reported establishment of these three police service stations mentioned earlier, in at least three locations in Canada.

The intimidation extends to family in China. Uighur Canadians tell of their relatives being detained and threatened in retaliation for their activism in Canada. Tibetan Canadians tell of being forced to sign forms renouncing the Dalai Lama if they wish to be granted visas to travel to visit their loved ones.

The intended impact is clear. It is to frighten activists and community members into silence. Amnesty International, on behalf of the Canadian Coalition for Human Rights in China prepared two comprehensive reports on this, in 2017 and 2020, with numerous recommendations for the Canadian government. There has really, sadly, been very little progress.

Now, activists increasingly do not even bother to report incidents. They find it too confusing to ascertain where to turn or are dispirited by past attempts that have gone nowhere. Civil society has laid out a blueprint for action, which we can get into in the questions if you like.

Third, we need a whole-of-government human rights action plan to guide the Canada-China relationship. Concern about human rights in China cannot be limited to the human rights desk at Global Affairs. Human rights are implicated in all aspects of that relationship, including trade, environment, health, natural resources, national security and so much more. We need that human rights action plan—we've needed it for years—that cuts across the entirety of government and ideally would draw in provincial, territorial and municipal governments as well.

Finally, there is an urgent, growing need to devote dedicated expert resources to advancing a serious multilateral strategy with respect to China and human rights.

On the world stage, China has long been adept at escaping scrutiny, let alone consequences, for the country's abysmal human rights record. Other governments are cajoled, hoodwinked and even threatened into voting against the very few attempted UN-level resolutions that have come forward over the years.

Earlier this month, of course, a resolution proposing a debate at the UN Human Rights Council about the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights' recent report on the Uighur situation was defeated. Only 17—that's just over one-third—of the members of the UN Human Rights Council voted in favour of that resolution.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Mr. Neve, I'm afraid we've gone into questioning time, so I'd better get to that.

For that, I will turn to Mr. Chong. You have six minutes or less.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to ask four very quick questions to Professor Hamilton. I hope he can respond to the clerk and you, Mr. Chair, in writing.

First, Australia's National Counter Foreign Interference Coordinator has now been in place since 2018. What is the role of the coordinator, and how effective has the office been in combatting foreign interference?

Second, Australia is generally seen as a model for western nations in addressing the threat of foreign interference. What can Canada learn from Australia in order to build resilience against PRC foreign interference?

Third, of all recent measures taken by Australia to counter PRC foreign interference, which have been the most effective?

My fourth question for Professor Hamilton is this: Does not joining AUKUS—the recent defence treaty between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States—and not being a member of a quadrilateral security dialogue represent a missed opportunity for Canada, and why, or why not?

Those are the four questions, Mr. Chair, that I would like Professor Hamilton to respond to.

Now, I'd like to ask Mr. Neve some questions.

You mentioned that human rights should be at the centre of our approach to the People's Republic of China. You mentioned the establishment of three illegal police stations here in the greater Toronto area.

I have a question related to state-controlled broadcasters getting government licences here in Canada. There's been evidence that these state-controlled broadcasters from China have actually violated human rights by broadcasting the coerced and forced confessions of prisoners of conscience. As you know as well, several months ago the CRTC pulled Russia Today, RT, off the air, because it is a state-controlled broadcaster spreading disinformation. In some cases it may even be violating international law with what it's been doing.

I'm wondering if you think that the CRTC licences of state-controlled broadcasters from China operating here in Canada should be revoked.

[Alex Neve]

I won't take a definite yes or no position, because I'm not sufficiently familiar with those. I'm very much aware of the allegations and concerns.

What is evident, though, is that there absolutely cannot be a double standard here. There were very clear, compelling and cogent reasons for the decision to revoke the Russian licence. Those should apply not only because we have heightened concern and scrutiny now with respect to Russia in the midst of the Ukraine crisis. The same concerns, approach, standards and principles should be applied to Chinese state-owned media as well. Absolutely, we should be looking very closely at any concerns with respect to how any of that media is a vehicle for propagating, advancing or promoting human rights violations.

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

Just to be clear for the record, Mr. Chair, I'm not at all in favour of banning any print media or any non-CRTC media, because I believe in the fundamental freedom of expression.

I think it's a dangerous thing for the government to ban free expression in print media, but I certainly don't believe that the Government of Canada is under any obligation to grant a licence to state-controlled broadcasters like those operating from either Russia or China to operate on government-regulated airwaves.

I have a second question before I run out of time. You mentioned in your second recommendation that the countering of the harassment of human rights defenders here in Canada needs to be a priority, and we know that has taken place. We even recently have seen in the United Kingdom people who were protesting at the consulate in Manchester being violently assaulted by accredited diplomatic staff before British police intervened and stopped the physical assault.

We know here that pro-Hong Kong democracy activists have been harassed, that people defending the rights of Uighurs and Tibetans have been harassed by proxies acting on behalf of Beijing. What are the one or two things that the government isn't doing that it should be doing to better protect the safety of those Canadians here?

[Alex Neve]

I referenced the fact that two fairly comprehensive reports were put in print in front of the government in 2017 and 2020, with a number of recommendations. These were prepared by Amnesty International, but they were on behalf of the Canadian Coalition for Human Rights in China, which comprises Uighur, Tibetans, Falun Gong and Hong Kong groups. It's a very wide-ranging coalition.

Some of those recommendations were very simple, things that really could have been advanced in a few months. For instance, one of the things that activists find the most frustrating and very disappointing is the response from law enforcement or security agencies when they do seek.... When something has happened, whether it's intimidation, something that's happened by way of online surveillance or even something that has perhaps involved an act of violence; they are frequently sent from one agency to another. The response is that it's not really for the RCMP but for municipal police, or it's not really a policing matter and they should go to CSIS, or that it's not really intelligence, so they should raise it with foreign affairs, and people give up.

A recommendation was made that there is the need for what we called a central clearing house, an office that is going to coordinate the efforts of departments and agencies that all have a piece of this pie, because right now it is scattered and ineffective.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

We'll have to pause there. I'm sorry, Mr. Neve, but Mr. Chong is out of time—a little bit more than out of time, in fact, but that's okay.

We'll now go to Mr. Oliphant, who will be given, I'm sure, the same latitude.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to both of the witnesses for being here tonight.

I wanted to begin with Professor Nagy. I'm just sorting out a couple of your remarks.

You said in your remarks that it was important for Canada to work with allies in our geopolitical strategy and in sorting out our relationship with China, and you mentioned the United States, Japan, Australia and others. You've also written that it's important for Canada to differentiate from the United Sates in our approach on the Indo-Pacific, which includes China.

I'm just wondering where that is. Is one on national security issues or international security issues, the other on trade and commerce? In your opinion, where should we be aligned and where should we differentiate, particularly with the United States?

[Stephen R. Nagy]

I think it's critical for us to continue to ensure that we are an independent stakeholder with regard to our bilateral relationship with China and also our relationships within the Indo-Pacific. There is a danger that if we align too closely with the United States, particularly on a securitized approach to dealing with China, we will become another victim of U.S. policy.

China understands—and they often use the expression that you kill the chicken to scare the monkeys—that the best way to pull apart a U.S. approach to the region is to work on its weaker partners. The weaker partners include Canada, Australia, South Korea—to a certain degree—and European countries.

We need to ensure that as we engage with China, we have a policy that is less securitized than that of the United States, and we need to find opportunities to use Canadian diplomacy to work with China. At the same time, I think it's very critical that, again, we work with the United States, Japan, Australia and other partners in concerted ways to promote trade, to promote a rules-based order, to fight against the human rights violations within the region, and to really send the message to China that as we work to shape its behaviour, Canada does have a slightly different approach. I think that is going to continue to be important so that we can build an awkward coexistence with a rising state that really does have values that are different from ours.

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

Thank you.

My next question is for both of you, and it builds on that one because we've been hearing conflicting testimony tonight. Ms. McPherson raised it as well.

We've been hearing.... One witness tonight said that we should have no diplomatic relations with China, but then also said that we should reconstruct our relationship with China, so I'm kind of confused as to what he really meant. However, last week a professor from Queen's told us that it's not a question of whether or not we have a relationship with China—because it exists, it's large, and it is influential—it's how we have a relationship with China.

I'm just trying to understand that, because in the context of health, we also heard tonight that it was absolutely critical for the health of our global population that we find a way to work with China because of its significance in issues of health. We also hear that we should withdraw from or sometimes actually isolate China.

For both of you, I'm just trying to work out that dichotomy. I'm on dichotomies tonight. I have about a minute and a bit for both of you to comment on that.

[Stephen R. Nagy]

It's a country of 1.4 billon people. We have shared interests in dealing with environmental issues and in dealing with health issues. We have to find a way to work with China. It has considerable resources that can be used to deal with these challenges. I think that those are clear areas or cross-connections on which Canada can engage with China.

Of course, there are red lines where we need to be very upfront. We need to be transparent. We need to ensure that China understands that on human rights, on interference with our democracy, and on interference with the democracies of like-minded countries like Japan and Australia, we will stand by our partners to ensure that the system we have benefited from and that is core to our prosperity remains intact.

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

Mr. Neve, would you comment?

[Alex Neve]

We can't not have a relationship with China. It's in no one's interest, including the many communities in China whose human rights are so fragile and violated every day. I think it is a question of the nature of that relationship.

I'd go back to my core message, which is that we have to go much further in very deliberately and thoughtfully putting human rights at the centre of all aspects of that relationship.

We have some tremendous work that has been done. I've seen it first-hand over the years by diplomats—both in the Pearson Building and at our embassy—who have the human rights file. However, far too often, other corners of the relationship, which extend probably across literally every single government department, pay hardly any attention at all to human rights. I think there are a lot of opportunities that are missed there. If that defined the relationship, then I think we would feel much better about what it looked like.

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

You mentioned the disappointing vote at the UN Human Rights Council. That signalled to me that we have a long piece of work to do with allies and friends and not-like-mindeds.

Do you agree on that?

[Alex Neve]

I do, absolutely. That's why I was starting to say that we need an expert and well-resourced multilateral strategy, because I think far too often what we see is that there's a bit of a mad scramble every time an opportunity or a challenge arises at the UN Human Rights Council or somewhere else—

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

No, really?

[Alex Neve]

—and it's not part of a well-planned, long-term, proactive strategy to try to put pieces in place to start to take China on meaningfully in some of those settings.

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

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Bergeron, it's over to you for six minutes.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being with us tonight.

Mr. Nagy, I'm going to go back to your answer to the first question posed by Mr. Oliphant, to whom you said that the People's Republic of China was attacking America's weakest allies.

Knowing that the most vulnerable or weakest partners of the United States are being targeted by the People's Republic of China, which is trying to isolate them, isn't that, on the contrary, an argument for closer rapprochement and coordination with the U.S.?

[Stephen R. Nagy]

Thank you very much for the question.

Again, we need to engage in a nuanced approach in working with the United States when it comes to how we engage with China. China understands that U.S. allies, such as Australia and even European countries, are much more vulnerable to Chinese coercion. If we work too closely and have an over-securitized relationship with the United States when it comes to China, it will put Canadians and Canadian businesses in a position where they could be coerced or be used as leverage for that relationship.

The cases of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor are very good examples of how Canadians were used to change the relationship and weaken the partnership between the United States and Canada. We were fortunate they were able to come out of China eventually. Again, the relationship and the choices we make with the United States need to be highly calibrated and nuanced.

Strengthening a securitized relationship on China will put Canadian businesses and Canadians in danger in China. This is why we need to continue to think about how we can have a Canadian approach that complements the United States but also very much understands how we could be leveraged to put pressure on the United States.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Nagy, I confess that I still can't quite grasp the nuance you are trying to convey to us. What you are telling us seems to be more in favour of strengthening Canada's relationship with the U.S. Anyway, I'll move on to another question.

Since the Special Committee on the Canada–People's Republic of China Relationship was established in the previous Parliament, there have been three foreign ministers.

The first of them, Minister Champagne, promised us a new policy on China. Now we are not talking about a new China policy, but a new Indo-Pacific policy.

Some critics say this is a way for the government to dodge the need for a China policy, while others think it is instead a way to foster synergy among the states in the Indo-Pacific region, in order to better oversee the actions of the People's Republic of China. What do you think?

[Stephen R. Nagy]

I think it's critical for us to engage with China through an Indo-Pacific strategy. China is part of the region; it is not the region. As we engage in the region, we work with like-minded countries such as Japan, South Korea, Australia and Singapore, as well as countries that have different political systems, such as Vietnam. As we work with those partners, we can create a more robust, institutionalized and rules-based region that can potentially shape Chinese behaviour over the long term.

If Canada is not part of that.... We use the expression, “if it's not at the table in creating the regional rules and supporting the regional rules, it's on the menu.” This is a very critical part of how we engage with China: by creating and shaping the Indo-Pacific region along with like-minded countries that have significant resources to complement Canadian resources.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Neve, you ended your opening remarks by talking about the vote that took place last October at the UN Human Rights Council, where a draft was rejected by a slim majority.

Amnesty International's Secretary General, Agnès Callamard, reacted by saying that the vote put the UN's main human rights body in the grotesque position of ignoring the findings of the UN's own human rights office.

In your view, to what extent is this Human Rights Council vote representative of the growing influence of the People's Republic of China in international institutions and organizations? How does it reflect the strategy that the People's Republic of China is pursuing through international institutions?