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

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Please give a very brief answer, sir.

[Alex Neve]

Okay.

Well, absolutely, I think it is very reflective of the growing influence of China in those institutions, and within the Human Rights Council in particular. It's also more broadly reflective of other challenges that exist within the council. It's not only reflective of China's role; I think the degree to which China actively and energetically pulled out all the stops to make sure that the resolution was defeated tells us a lot.

That's why, to go back to my response to Mr. Oliphant's earlier question, I think Canada really needs to get in the game, with our partners, of developing and putting in place a very comprehensive, resourced, forward-looking strategy for how we're going to start to respond to the dysfunctional, divisive and undermining influence we're seeing from China in those institutions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Thank you very much.

Ms. McPherson, you have six minutes.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank our witnesses for being here this evening. I know it's late.

Mr. Neve, I'd like to follow up on some of the questions asked by my colleague Monsieur Bergeron on what that multilateral strategy would look like. Obviously, Canada can play a role. We do have that diplomatic role or that middle power role that we can play, but if we are trying to have a forward-looking strategy and if we are trying to make sure we're not always on our heels when these things come up, what exactly would that look like? Can you give me some more details on what Canada should do right now to make that happen?

[Alex Neve]

Certainly this is not a strategy that we develop on our own. I think it's a very clear example of a strategy that needs to be developed collaboratively with a number of partners, and not just the United States, western Europe and Australia. I think when we look at some of the voting patterns we've seen recently with respect to some of the statements dealing with Uighurs and Hong Kong, etc., there are starting to be a few other countries willing to come to the table and be part of saying the right thing.

The strategy needs to be developed with them, because I think you're quite right that if we just sit around a table on our own here in Ottawa and craft a strategy for how to deal with China at the UN Human Rights Council, that will largely be ineffective. We really need to start to think about relationships and who can perhaps be brought on board. We need to have a larger constituency of countries than the usual suspects who have been coming together so far, and bring some real experts into thinking this through.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Yes. We're talking about the Human Rights Council, but there are the other multilateral institutions where that same sort of consensus-building or community-building, I guess, is very important.

Of course, one area that I also see—we've seen this with the vote, to some degree—is the growing influence of China in sub-Saharan Africa as other traditional partners with sub-Saharan African countries have stepped back. Can you talk a little bit about the implications of that and how we could counter that influence?

[Alex Neve]

I think that would have to be a key plank of the strategy, because there's no question that this is a very real trend. It's not just problematic within the Human Rights Council. We saw it, and it was very problematic, with respect to this vote, obviously. China's economic footprint in sub-Saharan Africa is immense. It's being leveraged and used in a whole host of ways when it comes to those sorts of votes.

It sometimes feels as though we're just kind of watching and letting it happen. We need to come together with other countries who share that concern to come up with some meaningful strategies for how to respond, whether it is starting to more meaningfully respond to that growing presence on the ground in countries in sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, or having different approaches to relationship-building within some of the institutions.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Yes. I would suggest that the abandonment of many of these countries by Canada and others has left a void that was very easy to fill.

Mr. Nagy, if I could ask you, as well, I'm also concerned when we talk about China's growing influence. I'd love it if you could share your thoughts on the growing influence of China in sub-Saharan Africa, as well as the growing threat of China with regard to the Canadian Arctic region.

[Stephen R. Nagy]

Thank you very much for the question.

In terms of sub-Saharan Africa, I think the primary influence that China is deploying is anything related to aid and anything related to the belt and road initiative. That creates dependent relationships through the provision of infrastructure connectivity within the region.

You mentioned sub-Saharan Africa. I think we should be more concerned about areas such as the Congo, which has a supply of rare earth materials. The Chinese government is very intent on monopolizing those rare earth materials so that they can capture the market and use that to again pressure allies of the United States that depend on those rare earth materials for the production of electronics. They go into our vehicles and into many things.

I think the belt and road initiative is very critical. We should be looking at where that's deployed in Africa and how it's related to the monopolization of critical minerals.

With regard to the Arctic, I think it's premature to say the Chinese are very proactive within the region, first because they lack the resources and second because they lack the expertise. Also, they are challenged right now in engaging within the region.

Most evidence suggests that they will eventually be interested in acquiring resources in the Arctic, especially as global climate change opens up the Arctic Ocean, creating opportunities for resource exploitation. However, how will they deploy resources? This is an open question at this particular time.

I don't think the evidence suggests that they are intent on deploying military resources; rather, they're in a premature stage of developing the expertise to exploit resources.

How will they do that? Most likely they will co-operate with Russia, and this will create more complications. I think an area that we haven't brought up in today's discussion is where China and Russia are in their alignment on many different issues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

You have time for a very quick question and a quick answer.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

You always give me these very quick questions. I'll save it for the next round.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

All right. Thank you.

We'll now to go Ms. Dancho for five minutes or less.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here. I've listened very intently to your expertise and your testimony today.

I'm going to start with some questions for Professor Nagy.

I'm listening to what you're saying. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that we move away from aligning ourselves with our American allies in a security relationship in response to China and instead move toward other allies and international institutions like the UN, the World Health Organization and the IMF.

Is that a correct assessment of what you've said?

[Stephen R. Nagy]

No. Again, I will reiterate that I think it's really important that we co-operate with our closest ally, the United States. We also need to be conscious how the degree of co-operation we engage in may open us up to being used as leverage in the U.S.-China competition. This happened with the arrest of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. The economic coercion that happened against Australia is another example.

We need to be finding and threading the needle in terms of how we co-operate with the United States, but at the same time, we need to find an independent way to engage.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you very much.

You mentioned specifically that if we move closer to.... I believe the word you kept using was “securitized”. I'm not quite sure.

I believe you're referring to our security relationship with the U.S. If we move closer and align ourselves more closely, you said we can have Canadians and Canadian businesses in danger in China. Is that not what you said?

[Stephen R. Nagy]

Yes, I said that.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Right.

You would disagree, then, that we should be pursuing relationships with AUKUS, for example—which, as you know, is a security agreement with the U.S., the UK and Australia—or with the quadrilateral security dialogue with India, Japan, Australia and the U.S. We should, in your opinion, not be joining these.

[Stephen R. Nagy]

No, and I've written explicitly about this.

I said that Canada should co-operate with the quadrilateral security dialogue in an ad hoc, functional way, not as a membership in the quad but in finding ways to co-operate in maritime security. If you follow the developments of the quad, they're talking about technological co-operation, infrastructure and connectivity co-operation. AUKUS is as well.

I think the nuclear submarine aspect of AUKUS takes up a lot of media space, but the real area for Canadian co-operation is in AI and quantum computing. We've already allocated budgets to work in international partnerships for AI and quantum computing co-operation. We should be fully on board in those areas and contribute the resources and our excellent institutions and experts to add value to both the quad and AUKUS in those particular areas.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Professor.

We heard recently from our top generals in the Canadian military, and I think they have an opinion very different from yours on the need to align ourselves with our allies in terms of defence equipment and procurement. They seem to have a different opinion in terms of protecting our Canadian sovereignty. I could go on, but our defence experts in this country don't seem to be aligned quite with where you're at on this aspect.

Would you suggest, then, that we should be putting our time into the UN, for example? In your opinion, is that where we should be putting a little more of our time?

[Stephen R. Nagy]

I think the UN is a compromised institution.

Again, I think we should be working with like-minded countries, and I don't think we need to solely focus on the defence area of co-operation. We could work on enlarging the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership so that we can shape the rules of the region that will potentially shape Chinese behaviour. We can talk about digital co-operation. We can talk about AI and quantum computing co-operation.

Defence is important, but there are many other partners within the region that can help us engage with the Indo-Pacific and also with China, and it doesn't necessarily need to revolve strictly around defence.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Understood:

I do have some concerns about your position, though, in the sense that the United States is the only power in the world that can really rival anything that China has. I don't think you would disagree with that.

On the idea that we would move away from aligning ourselves with our oldest and strongest ally and of avoid international agreements with our allies that include the U.S., AUKUS and the quadrilateral security dialogue, I feel that that's a bit reckless. The farther away we are from the U.S., the more we may open ourselves up to being hurt.

I take your point fully regarding the two Michaels, though I think that may be more of a case of the President of the United States and our Prime Minister not having a strong enough relationship. I think there's something to be said there. That said, I do have concerns with your position.

I'll just conclude, Mr. Chair.

You said earlier that we need to align with the UN and the IMF and the World Health Organization a bit more, but as was pointed out by Mr. Neve, the UN Human Rights Council voted against condemning the Uighur genocide in China. I do have concerns with the priorities you've outlined today, but I do very much appreciate your perspective.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Thank you, Ms. Dancho.

We will now go to Mr. Cormier for five minutes or less.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Nagy and Mr. Neve, I think you both have some expertise regarding our trade relations. We've had a number of witnesses who had a somewhat different view of our trade relationship with China.

Do you think Canada can really do without China in terms of trade, in terms of what we import from China and even in terms of our exports? I'd like to hear your views on that.

Can Canada really do without its trade and business relationship with China without a direct impact on Canada's economy and its businesses?

[Alex Neve]

On the question of what the nature of our business dealings and trading relationship with China should be, again, from my perspective, I think it has to much more seriously take human rights on board.

Over 20 years, in my previous role as secretary general of Amnesty International, I can't count the number of times that I and other civil society leaders were putting in front of governments from both parties a set of recommendations as to how human rights considerations need to be much more directly brought into shaping the nature and extent of our business relationship—not ending it and not even necessarily limiting it, but very deliberately bringing human rights into its core, including human rights impact assessments, for instance, and having human rights considerations shape the nature of trade missions; and so much more.

We really haven't seen that. I think that's where we need to start in terms of really grappling with the nature of our business dealings.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Neve.

Mr. Nagy, do you have anything to add?