Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Feb. 20th, 2007

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Somewhat, I would imagine.

It's been brought to the attention of the committee and the media and Canadians that in China, at the present time, there is one Celil, a Canadian citizen, who has been denied certain basic rights—rights to consular services, and others. You say, and we know, that China doesn't recognize full dual citizenship and that our government should engage these Chinese counterparts to develop a workable formula so as to serve the interests of these dual nationals.

It would seem that China is unbending and unwavering in some of its stands on this case. From a political perspective, then, or maybe even from the business perspective—you're involved with the Canada China Business Council—what would be the best practices the Canadian government could put in place to make a difference on this file?

We've gone through the Maher Arar deal, where some would suggest government didn't do enough or didn't do what they should have done. In a case like this, how can we make sure that this new government is responding in a way that can make the maximum amount of difference? And what could private interests—business—do to drive some of those things home?

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Mr. Marchi, unfortunately Mr. Sorenson is at eight minutes of a seven-minute round. So if you could, be brief in your response.

[Sergio Marchi]

I'm not sure I'd need to take my hat off, because, quite frankly, in my dealings when I visited China for the first time in my capacity wearing the presidency of the CCBC in November, and subsequently, we talked to our Chinese interlocutors above and beyond simply business and commercial transactions.

Many of our companies go beyond their service or product as well. You look at Alcan and the things that Alcan is doing in the northwest province of China, not only for their workers but for the local communities. They're jumping a much higher bar than is necessary, but they do it. This is where I also embrace the idea of good corporate governance and social responsibility.

Many of our firms are doing that, so we think they are also exporting those kinds of values, first because now in a global economy you have one brand, and therefore, quite frankly, you should have one standard and one approach. So you will find many Canadian companies who go beyond their essential product or services, improving the lot not only of their employees but of the communities and various hospitals, transportation systems, and elsewhere.

Second, it is because at times it is so frustrating that we need a good relationship and an approach that really is going to try to crunch this issue for the positive. I also sympathize with the difficulty in trying to engage the Chinese on saying we would like our consular officials to be available for that individual who happens to be a Canadian citizen and who is carrying a Canadian passport.

There are times the Chinese don't make life easy for our government. I've been there. I can fully appreciate that, but I don't think it is reason enough to shout louder. Who knows? Maybe shouting louder would work, but I'm not sure it will.

If there is really an obstacle you really need genuine engagement, and the question is therefore how do you build a new means or instrument to get around the fact that they don't recognize dual citizenship and we do? It is going to take a leader, a minister, officials to really eyeball each other, and cross those t's and dot those i's, so that we figure out a way where these consular cases will not continue to impede the growth of our relationship.

So we would advocate that those frustrations are cause for greater engagement and deliberation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Thank you, Mr. Marchi.

Mr. Marston.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

This will probably come as no great surprise to you. You talk about a divergence of opinions. There certainly are some between me and the government members present on the how. When Mr. Harper was aboard the plane and made the pronouncements he made, it was read in some circles as a lecture to the Chinese on human rights. I don't think that was helpful at all. I have been working with Mr. Celil's family and lawyers since March, and they just shook their heads in great disappointment.

To set that aside for a moment, there seems to be a disconnect, at least from what I'm hearing you say, between the political side and the economic side. It sounds like market-driven economics with these folks is working reasonably well. People and businesses are able to get in there and conclude their contracts, but there's a change in the politics.

I was listening to what you were saying about the relationship before, where you were able to lay on the table a number of differing issues, but now there seems to be some kind of a difficulty in doing that.

We're looking at the bilateral human rights dialogue here. I think some folks would like to park human rights there. The dialogue hasn't been that effective. We've had a situation where senior Chinese officials didn't even attend.

Human rights is a core fundamental value for Canadians, I think ahead of most countries in the world. Can you give any advice as to how you think we should proceed to try to re-establish that political relationship?

[Sergio Marchi]

From what I can gather, there was testimony from many different organizations, many of which are on the same page in saying that the dialogue either needs to be improved or that we need another instrument. Certainly I'm prepared to take that advice. We are not the human rights organization, and I will certainly yield the floor to those who perhaps have better ways to create those instruments. We would certainly support either an improved dialogue, which a number of countries have taken, or another instrument in its place. We don't think megaphone diplomacy is an alternative that is going to advance the cause.

The other thing I would like to say is that this is absolutely an opportune moment for real creative engagement on the whole issue of values. Never before in the history of the Chinese five-year plans have they dedicated so much political currency to the issue of building a harmonious society. I think there is concern that the huge gap that exists is potentially a source of instability. Stability is job one for many in that administration.

You see quality-of-life issues in that five-year plan—issues that we talk about in Canada. They are asking how to improve education, air and water quality, and health care for their citizens. I think there is a particular window of opportunity for engagement on a whole set of what one can say are social rather than commercial interests.

In terms of shared experiences and best practices—not that we're perfect—I think we do have a good story to tell. The question is how we engage the Chinese. They are quite well known for looking at various approaches, taking some on board, test-driving them, and either replacing them or fixing them or letting them be. I think there's a real opportunity to engage them, but to do so in a way that is preceded by a relationship, as I said, and I think as Paul enunciated, of real mutual respect and understanding that will allow those more difficult issues to be settled.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

In listening to your remarks about the changes in China, the iron rice bowl is gone. Essentially, the state is no longer taking care of people quite in the fashion that they did. I would agree with you that we're sitting in a place where we have great opportunities. I think the critical, crucial thing is a demonstration of respect. Sometimes that's hard to do when human rights are called into question.

I tend to agree with much of your presentation. You're right that we've had presenters who have pushed the human rights side, saying trade will take care of itself. There was less impetus than what we're hearing today; it was more about standing up for human rights. I appreciate your—

[Sergio Marchi]

I can also say, I remember—

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Mr. Evans, would you like to get in here? You were signalling to me. Go ahead.

[Paul Evans]

Thank you.

I see that if you're a former politician you get a few more words to the committee, Mr. Marchi, than academics or professors.

[Sergio Marchi]

I'm just responding to the questions, Paul.

[Paul Evans]

I think Mr. Marston's question fleshes something out, and that's that through much of the discussion before this subcommittee over the last few months, there's been a view that human rights are at the heart, at the forefront, at the very centre of Canada's view of the world and of how we should be dealing with China.

The view that we are trying to represent today is that human rights have to be a fundamental aspect of our relationship, which cannot be seen as separate from what is moving on the commercial and on the global issues side. And that makes it a real challenge for a government to get the right balance and to move comprehensively.

I think, too, that what we are saying is that you need a relationship before you deal with issues, and once that relationship is established, comments on human rights in general, and the creation of a whole new architecture—and I'd be happy to offer some thoughts on that—are possible, as will be dealing with individual consular cases.

We're now in a situation in which we've got hundreds of thousands of Canadian citizens who are very close to China, not because they're here, but because they have returned to or are close to the People's Republic. If you're wondering, as was Madame St. Hilaire, we can't go back to the old consensus. We have to move beyond it now.

Canadians are going to make sure that those consular cases are higher on our priority list. Our Prime Minister has signalled that. It's now a matter of how we're going to get our hands dirty and our feet dirty to make sure we have arrangements put in place and understandings with the Chinese that are going to deal not just with a specific case but with a huge issue for us in transnational relations, that of the several hundred thousand Canadians who are potentially vulnerable in situations of dual citizenship.

So the status quo isn't enough. We have to push harder. But what I think we're suggesting is that we push harder in the context of a comprehensive relationship.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

That terminates the first round. Before going to the second round, I'm just going to ask some factual questions to get some facts on the table here, so we can reference some concrete issues.

Mr. Evans, I understand that Canada's export share of the total Chinese export market has shrunk in recent years. Is that accurate?

[Paul Evans]

Yes, sir, it is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

I also understand that the Canadian trade deficit with China has increased considerably. Is that accurate?

[Paul Evans]

Yes, sir, it has.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

It's been by about fourfold in the last decade or so?

[Paul Evans]

Well, it's even worse than that. According to the statistics we have for January to November 2006, Canadian goods exports to China were about $6 billion. Our imports from China were about $38 billion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

You suggested that one characterization of the current government's policy could be warm economics, cold politics. Would you characterize the previous administration's policy as warm politics?

[Paul Evans]

I would say that it was not just the previous administration, if you mean the last Liberal government. I would suggest that really dating back to Pierre Trudeau, every Canadian government has tried to pursue warm politics. By the way, I'm not saying hot politics. No one feels that we can have the kind of complexity and depth of a relationship with China at the values level.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

So would you characterize a trade relationship in which our exports go down and our trade deficit sextuples as cold or warm economics?

[Paul Evans]

I would say we are bordering on hot economics, and that on balance, that economic relationship, even with that enormous trade difference, is great for the Canadian economy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Which of the two countries generates greater benefit from that relationship, given the current trade deficit?

[Paul Evans]

It's impossible to say, and the reason for that is we are now becoming so increasingly integrated in our production systems that a trade deficit with China can be helpful to us in our trade relationship with other parts of the world.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

A $25 billion trade deficit is equally beneficial to us as it is to China?