There's absolutely a contradiction, or a tension, as I would call it in this case. I think there are two possible answers to the question. There's a more general answer and a more specific one.
Generally, to a certain extent, it is normal and inevitable that the foreign policy objectives of a country like Canada involve internal tensions and contradictions. I think it's inevitable that there won't be absolute consistency. I don't think absolute consistency is a standard that should be applied to foreign policy in general. I'm not saying that to justify the choice, but I think it's an important point to mention at the outset.
More specifically, I would say that the case of China raises a useful and meaningful debate in terms of our policy choices. We can wonder what it means to move closer to a country like China, which is obviously responsible for a significant and intense amount of transnational repression, when it comes to China's transnational repression in Canada.
There's the rosy argument, which I think is naive and doesn't work. According to that argument, slightly more cordial relations with China will lead it to slow down its transnational repression activities in Canada. There isn't really any data to solidly confirm that hypothesis, but my gut tells me it's not true.