Front Burner - The Canadian MP targeted by China

Episode Date: March 30, 2021

Conservative MP and foreign affairs critic Michael Chong talks to guest host Vassy Kapelos about being sanctioned by China, and the growing international chorus that says China is committing genocide.

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Hi, I'm Vashie Capellos, in for Jamie Poisson. There is an escalating international fight happening over China's treatment of Uyghur people. After Canada and other countries sanctioned four Chinese officials who are suspected to be involved in human rights violations against Uyghurs, China retaliated, and Conservative MP Michael Chong was among those slapped with sanctions. He's been really

outspoken on this issue. And this growing fight, it's not just happening between governments. Billion-dollar companies that have previously raised concerns about forced labor allegations in Xinjiang were also targeted. H&M was virtually shut out of the Chinese internet. Today, my conversation with foreign affairs critic Michael Chong. Hi, Mr. Chong. Good to talk to you and good to have you with us today. Great to be here, Bashi. How did you find out that you were being sanctioned and what went through your head when you did find out? Well, I woke up on Saturday morning and I got a text from a friend who said that I'd been sanctioned.

And the text had a link to the foreign ministry site of the People's Republic of China. And so I clicked on the link and read the statement and saw that I was one of the people being sanctioned. And what went through your head when you did read that? Well, initially, it's a surprise to wake up to that. I had had a busy week at work in Ottawa, and I thought I was going to have a relaxing Saturday morning over a couple of cups of coffee. And instead, I woke up to this news. So I suddenly realized that it would be very much a working Saturday. The second thing that crossed my mind was that the statement indicated that I and other officials in other countries were being sanctioned for their violation of human rights.

And I thought, that's kind of odd. I'm not in government. I'm a Conservative MP, a member of the opposition. And why are they sanctioning a member of the opposition who's not in government? It wasn't me who imposed those sanctions. It was Liberal government. So I thought that was a bit odd. I was wondering that as well. And do you have any thoughts as to why? Because it's you and the Parliamentary Subcommittee on Human Rights. And just for everyone listening, that's the committee that came to the conclusion months ago that genocide against the Uyghur population in China was occurring. the persecution of this population and was persuaded to state that these actions constitute genocide, as laid out in the Genocide Convention. Yeah, Vashi, on reflection, I think it's for two reasons. I think we've been quite effective in calling out China on its violations of human

rights and its genocide in Xinjiang province. I think that's one reason why I was singled out. I think the second reason is that it was a tacit message to the Liberal government. As you know, Liberal ministers abstained from the vote that recognized the Uyghur genocide. And I think it was China's way of approving of that abstention from the vote. I think it was China's way of approving of that abstention from the vote. You also tweeted out that you wear it like a badge of honour. Why do you say that? You know, you often toil away in Ottawa in Parliament and its committees and you often wonder whether the work is being noticed.

Well, clearly it has been. And so I take it as a badge of honour that we've been sanctioned. Contrary to what China may have expected, these sanctions aren't going to work. In fact, they're doing quite the opposite. I want to ask you more about that. What practically, in sort of pragmatic terms, do these sanctions mean? Like, what can't you do because of them? Well, they mean two things. First, I'm prohibited from travelling to China. And the second thing it means is that Chinese citizens and Chinese companies are prohibited from doing business with me.

So in practical terms, it doesn't have any impact on me. As you know, we're all living through this pandemic for far too long, and I have no plans to travel outside the country for the foreseeable future. And as elected member of parliament, I have no dealings with Chinese authorities or Chinese companies. When you say that they're not going to work, is that in part informed by the fact that it's not just Canadian people who are being sanctioned? We've got people in the UK, in the EU, in the US.

There seems to be a lot of weight in that allyship. What do you think? I think that's a part, a reason why they're not going to be effective. I think it's a desperate attempt on part of China, who doesn't understand democratic systems to shut down debate. I think they thought by putting these sanctions on elected officials who are speaking up that they would somehow put a chill on debate. In fact, quite the opposite is happening. It's helping us get the message out about what is going on in China. To discuss these and other issues, I'm joined by Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Martin Garneau. I've known bullies in my life, and I know bullies can change.

But bullies don't change unless you send very clear messages to them. We are going to do it in Canada, but we're doing it more and more with our like-minded allies who believe in the principles of democracy, in the respect for human rights. And that message is going to be given to China more and more as we move forward. Do you feel like there is more international cohesion at this point, even maybe than more than six months ago, when it comes to calling that stuff out? I do. I think the recent actions by the federal government in concert with the United States, with the United Kingdom and with the European Union speaks to that. I think that there's a number of things that have happened in the last number of measures announced by democracies, including the Canadian government in the last six months that speak to that growing coordination. Do you think that consensus is starting to emerge because of a heightened awareness about what is actually happening to Uyghurs in China? And what is it about what's happening to them that has, I guess, influenced you or been the impetus for you to speak out?

I think there is a heightened awareness. And I think it's come about because of Western media. We've had investigative journalists sneak in with video cameras and with other recording devices into Xinjiang province, journalists from reputable news organizations like the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the BBC, that have documented these atrocities. The Genocide Convention of 1948 enumerates a number of elements that constitute genocide, any one of which constitutes genocide. At least two of them are present in Xinjiang province. The first is a systemic suppression of births. Births in that part of China amongst the Uyghur Muslim minority have plummeted by more than 50% in the last several years. There's evidence of systemic

sterilization, forced abortions. The second element that constitutes genocide is systematic and mass separation of children from their parents. That's the second element. And there's evidence that millions of Uyghurs have been forced into detention camps, hundreds of which have been documented by satellite evidence. And I know that you have, in particular, advocated for calling that genocide. And there's been a debate and then a vote in Parliament. I know that your party has been critical of the federal government for not doing so. The outgoing Secretary of State and then the

incoming one during his hearings in the United States said that it was genocide. But other countries have been hesitant as well. I'm thinking of the UK in particular. Yesterday, or on Sunday, rather, the Secretary General of the UN told my colleague Rosemary Barton that they are actually in serious negotiations with China for unfettered access to Xinjiang, the region of China where what is happening to the Uyghurs is happening. And we have asked for the Human Rights High Commissioner to be able to have a visit in China

without any limitations in the excess. This is being negotiated at the present moment between the Office of the High Commissioner to be able to have a visit in China without any limitations in the excess. This is being negotiated at the present moment between the Office of the High Commissioner and the Chinese authorities, and I hope that they will reach an agreement soon and that the Human Rights High Commissioner will be able to visit China without restrictions or limitations. Do you think that that kind of access will actually ever be granted? I'm skeptical about whether or not full and unfettered access will be granted by Chinese authorities. I think, to me, it sounds like panic on part of China. They, for years, have denied that any genocide was taking place. They have denied access to that

part of China. And now they're indicating to the United Nations that they're open to negotiations about allowing this full and unfettered access. So I have a healthy degree of skepticism about whether or not that will actually take place. Yeah, the foreign ministry responded in a press conference to those remarks from the Secretary General saying that they welcome a visit, but they're against the visit being an investigation with, quote, presumption of guilt. What do you take from that? Well, I take, that just confirms my suspicions that these discussions they're having with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights are just a stall tactic. I think they're very worried about an investigation. And so they're doing everything

they can to try to silence the critics and to stall by using these sorts of tactics. I'm going to go. through Angel Investment and Industry Connections. Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix. I've been talking about money for 20 years. I've talked to millions of people and I have some startling numbers to share with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to, 50% of them do not know their own household income? That's not a typo, 50%. That's because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast,

Money for Couples, I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Couples. Speaking of silencing the critics, I wanted to also ask you if you think the private sector can play a role here. I'm thinking specifically of the clothing company H&M. They took a stance about a year ago over cotton produced in Xinjiang. They said they wouldn't be using it over forced labor concerns. China denies that that's the case, of course. And it is hard to determine.

I mean, we've seen it here in Canada as well. Supply chains make things complicated, so it's difficult. But last Thursday, H&M was virtually, you know, cut out of the internet in China, you can't even get a rideshare app to get you to an H&M store. Nike and H&M are among major clothing retailers facing a backlash in China, after expressing concern about allegations that Uyghurs are being used as forced labor in the production of cotton. What does China's reaction there tell you?

Well, it tells me that they're very worried about trade sanctions. China needs 6% per annum growth in order to keep the peace. And in order to do that, they need to ensure that their rapid growth of at least 6% per year continues apace. If that growth is threatened because of trade sanctions, it puts the very stability of the regime at risk. And so for them, this is an existential question, why they're very worried about potential trade sanctions and why they react in such a hostile way when people contemplate them. Do you think the private sector here, given that emerging consensus we were discussing earlier, do you think the private sector could have a big impact in this realm as well? Absolutely. I think that large multinational corporations not only have an obligation,

but are required under law to ensure that no, that their products are not produced using forced or coerced labor. But more importantly, I think it's up to governments to take action. The federal government recently announced measures on January 12th to prevent the importation of products from Xinjiang province, where the Uyghur Muslim minority lives, into Canada that were produced with forced labor. However, our assessment is that those measures announced in January are not going to be effective because they put the onus on Canadian importers to collect the information and make a determination about whether or not forced labor was produced in the manufacture of these products. Most Canadian

importers are small to medium-sized businesses that simply don't have that kind of information or those resources to make that determination. So we think the government should bring forth new measures, more effective measures, that would do the reverse, implement the reverse of what was done in January. In other words, put a blanket ban on tomatoes and cotton from China and instead allow companies that can prove and demonstrate that their products weren't produced with forced labor to apply for an exemption to that ban. And the reason why I single out tomatoes and cotton is that Xinjiang province is home to 20% of the world's cotton production and is one of the largest sources of tomato exports for China. And China is one of the

largest tomato exporters in the world. And so there's evidence that forced labor is being used in the production of those two products. And so by putting a blanket ban on, we will prevent the import of products using forced labor. Do you think that gets around the issue, like the Globe and Mail is reporting, for example, that retailers like Amazon and eBay have products featuring Jinjang cotton, you know, pillowcases to t-shirts? Do you think that would address some of the loopholes in the measures that both Canada and the UK implemented back in January? Yeah, I think it would address the loophole because clearly that cotton is coming from China.

So that would immediately ban those products and allow Amazon to say, look, if it's from China and it's cotton, if it's from China and it's tomatoes, we ban it. The other thing I might add is that I think governments need to use the power of our research and universities to enforce these bans. We have world-leading agricultural research universities here in Canada. For example, the University of Guelph is one of the leading agricultural research universities in the world. And they've developed for several years now, traceability technologies that are able to trace through genetics, the source of products, whether it's fish, tomatoes, or even cotton. Pollen is a powerful indicator of where products have come from and trace elements of pollen on cotton are a way to ensure that we're not importing cotton from Xinjiang.

That leads me to kind of my last set of existential questions around the greater relationship between China and Canada and China and other Western democracies. And what I wanted to ask you was, look, we have seen, for example, we do that. We ban cotton. We ban tomatoes. We have seen in the past, you know, in relation to Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor being detained now for more than 800 days, retaliation taken by China. And they hit us also where it hurts, in the areas of trade, canola, pork, beef imports, for example. When you're thinking about striking that balance, are you worried about, and should we be worried about, the retaliation that could come our way if, for example, the government were to implement that blanket ban? And no doubt, if we put in place trade sanctions that ban cotton or tomatoes, for example,

we have to be prepared for the countermeasures. That said, I would say two things with respect to Canada-China trade. The first is that we shouldn't overstate the amount of trade we do with China. While China is Canada's second largest trading partner, and it is an important source of exports for Canadian products, it pales into comparison to the trade relationship we have with the United States and with the European Union. The second point is this. We have a trade imbalance with China in China's favor. And at the end of the day, when it comes to trade, they've got far more to lose in this relationship than we do.

I get that. I'll put some statistics to what you said there from StatsCan in 2019. Imports from China totaled $46.8 billion. Exports to China settled at $24.4 billion. I also take your point about not overstating the relationship, but I think it's probably significant not to understate it as well, only insofar as I remember so many discussions during NAFTA, wherein everyone was advocating for us to be less reliant on the United States, for example, as our primary trading partner. And there was a time where China was looked at as an alternative market. So again, I guess I put to you, are you sympathetic to, and I'm not singling out any one government, but I'm thinking of the U.S., U.K.'s foreign policy review or even the remarks from Secretary Blinken in the past few weeks around the U.S.'s potential relationship.

This idea that there may be areas of cooperation with China, though, at the same time, countries should stand up for their values. Like, is that balance possible, I guess, is my question. We have to at very least try, is that balance possible, I guess, is my question. We have to, at very least, try to achieve that balance. I think China is not the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was remarkably disconnected from the Western alliance. There were very few trade and investment linkages. There were very few people-to-people ties. There were very few linkages in general. There was literally an iron curtain. There was literally a wall that divided east from west. China's not like that. China is an integrated part of the global economy. And so in that sense, it's going to continue to

be part of the global economy, and we're going to continue to trade with them. That said, we can't allow that global trade to undermine and water down the fundamental principles on which our society is based, a belief in human rights and freedoms, a belief in the rule of law, and a belief in democracy. Because the minute we subjugate those fundamental principles to the almighty dollar, it's over. And so we have to stand by these principles and do the difficult reconciliation of dealing with the reality that China is part of the global economy while at the same time standing up for these principles. On that note, I'll leave it there. Thank you, Mr. Chong. Appreciate your time. Thank you very much. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spoke briefly about China's sanctions on Canada on Monday. It was at a United Nations press conference, part of a world leaders meeting that Trudeau

was co-hosting virtually. He said Canada has always been, quote, very, very strong in its defense of human rights and highlighting the concerns for what's happening in Xinjiang. That's all for today. I'm Vashie Capellos. Jamie is back tomorrow. For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.