Skip to main content
// //

Colin Robertson is a former Canadian diplomat and current vice-president and fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

When the new session begins, Parliamentarians will focus on COVID recovery, but they also need to pay attention to our critical relationship with China. MPs should re-establish the special committee on Canada-China relations that was created in the last session. We need continuing parliamentary oversight of this vital, complex and challenging relationship.

Created last December on a Conservative motion with Bloc Québécois, NDP and Green support, the committee held 12 meetings and the testimony of their 48 witnesses was informative.

Story continues below advertisement

The Deputy Minister of Global Affairs Canada, Marta Morgan, affirmed that Canada’s “absolute priority” with China is freeing Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig, detained since December, 2018, and securing clemency for Robert Schellenberg. A thousand diplomatic meetings later, the U.S. has been the most supportive. But only 13 other friends and allies have voiced public support. Where are the others? Mr. Kovrig’s wife, Vina Nadjibulla, is right when she says that “words are no longer enough.”

Our China policy, said Ms. Morgan, is one of “comprehensive engagement.” But since December, 2018, only International Trade Minister Mary Ng has visited China. Now Foreign Minister François-Philippe Champagne acknowledges there is no prospect of freer trade.

Our current policy is neither comprehensive nor engaged. Parliament needs to weigh in. A special committee will help keep focus on our China relationship and, hopefully, come up with a strategy enjoying broad party support.

Witnesses in the last session came mostly from the civil service, scholarly and human rights communities. We need to hear from the business community as we rethink trade and investment. What do security experts think about disinformation, “wolf warriors” and Chinese military activity? And what about Hong Kong, home to at least 300,000 Canadians? Have we done an analysis of the new national security law? What can we do to reinforce “one country, two systems”?

Our allies are re-examining their China relationships. Despite its hawkish title - Communist China and the Free World’s Future – U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recently laid out a policy based on reciprocity and transparency that also called for collective action by democracies.

Like Canada, the Australians are enduring Chinese “coercive diplomacy”: hostages, trade sanctions, subversion and cyberintrusions. Their government and public policy institutions are looking at everything from technology to the subversive activities of Chinese networks. Australia led the Five Eyes intelligence partners in banning Huawei and ZTE from their 5G networks. Both Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Foreign Minister Marise Payne have called out Chinese disinformation and cyberintrusions.

A 2019 British Foreign Affairs committee report has trenchant recommendations on China’s Belt and Road initiative; freedom of navigation in the South China Sea; and Chinese interference in U.K. affairs. Former British diplomat Charles Parton’s perceptive report for The Policy Institute describes the dilemma facing Western policy-makers: how both to co-operate with and to resist an authoritarian power with great economic and rising technological power. For Mr. Parton it comes down to four words: “Understand, Prepare, Resource, Unite.” The like-minded democracies, he argues, must act in concert. Former Australian diplomat Peter Varghese advocates an “engage and constrain” strategy to create a new equilibrium in the Indo-Pacific. Scholar-diplomat Christopher Bishop looks at case studies, including Chinese detention of the Garratts, and suggests negotiations with China will be long and difficult.

Story continues below advertisement

We need a China policy based on realism, one that is neither complacent nor paranoid. China is our second-largest trading partner. It is our second-largest source of foreign students. Nearly two million Canadians claim Chinese descent. A systemic examination of the relationship involving independent research will complement the work of Parliamentarians.

With freer trade now ditched and “comprehensive engagement” a joke, Mr. Champagne needs to speak on the China relationship. We need the same blunt language that then-foreign minister Chrystia Freeland employed when she addressed Parliamentarians on Canada’s foreign policy priorities in June, 2017.

Parliamentary committees get little attention but they are work horses of good government. In gathering information from ministers, civil servants, experts and stakeholders, committee hearings provide a vital public education role. Even with the inevitable venting and pontificating, their scrutiny results in better legislation and insightful reports.

When Parliament resumes, it should quickly reinstitute the special committee on Canada-China relations. And then as the late Chinese Chairman Mao Zedong observed, “let a hundred flowers bloom, a hundred schools of thought contend.”

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

Follow related topics

Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies