Last week, Canadian-Chinese relations took another turn for the worse.
 
Upon discovering that Canada had begun to accept refugees from Hong Kong (critics of Beijing no longer feel safe in the aftermath of a Chinese law that has all but criminalized negative commentary about the communist regime), China’s ambassador in Ottawa, Cong Peiwu, went on a tirade.
 
After labelling the asylum seekers “criminals,” he issued a clear threat:
 
“So, if the Canadian side … really cares about the good health and safety of those 300,000 Canadian passport holders in Hong Kong and the large number of Canadian companies operating in Hong Kong, you should support those efforts … to make sure the one country, two systems is most definitely and comprehensively implemented in Hong Kong.”
 
Canada’s foreign minister, François-Philippe Champagne, responded as follows:
 
“The reported comments by the Chinese Ambassador are totally unacceptable and disturbing. I have instructed Global Affairs to call the Ambassador in to make clear in no uncertain terms that Canada will always stand up for human rights and the rights of Canadians around the world.”
 
To the leader of the opposition, Erin O’Toole, Champagne’s actions were insufficient.
 
Ambassador Cong had engaged “in belligerent rhetoric unbecoming of his office.” O'Toole's party was “therefore calling on the Ambassador to fully retract his remarks and issue a public apology. Should the Ambassador fail to do so expeditiously, we expect the government to withdraw his credentials.”
 
As someone whose personal views of China today are likely closer to Mr. O’Toole’s than they are to some members of the Liberal government, I understand the anger and frustration.
 
I also recognize that it is the opposition’s job to oppose, and that in anticipation of an election that could come at any time, the Conservatives intend to differentiate themselves from the Trudeau Liberals on foreign policy. (Look, for instance, at how the Toronto Sun immediately praised O’Toole’s comments.)
 
But calling on Ottawa to escalate the conflict (since we all know that the ambassador will never retract his remarks) risks undermining Canadian interests both today and into the future.
 
First, and most important, kicking out the Chinese ambassador would inevitably lead to reciprocal action from Beijing.
 
Canada’s top representative in China, Dominic Barton, would soon be packing his bags as well, and that’s assuming that China did not escalate right back and shut down our diplomatic presence altogether.
 
From what I understand, whatever limited progress Ottawa has made in keeping tabs on the plight of the two Michaels is at least in part the result of Barton’s connections and diligence.
 
So, at best, we lose the relationships he has built. At worst, we lose access to the Canadian hostages altogether.
 
The longer-term problem is tactical.
 
States use diplomacy to resolve conflict without having to resort to war. Decisions to escalate must therefore take into consideration second- and third-order effects.
 
If Ottawa were to forcibly eject the Chinese ambassador for merely threatening the safety and security of Canadians in Hong Kong, what would it do if Beijing took real action?
 
Some might suggest that Canada could sever ties with China completely, but how would that help the Canadians stuck in Hong Kong?
 
Moreover, if or when escalation is truly necessary, Ottawa mustn’t act alone.
 
We share mutual interests with the United Kingdom, Australia, Sweden, and perhaps even the entire European Union. (Should the Americans choose a new administration in November, coordination with Washington would also be critical.)
 
We have significantly more leverage by acting together.
 
For now, it seems to me that Minister Champagne’s response was appropriate.
 
Our government is right to let Ambassador Cong’s comments be the story: yet another example of Chinese wolf warrior diplomacy that continues to undermine the communist regime’s international credibility.
 
***
On the dangers of diplomatic escalation, take a look at the recently retired (and already deeply missed) Kim Richard Nossal’s Rain Dancing: Sanctions in Canadian and Australian Foreign Policy.
 
If you’d like to read some more recent political history, check out Susie Colbourn and Tim Sayle’s new edited book, The Nuclear North: Histories of Canada in the Atomic Age.
 
To be notified of my next blog post, follow me on Twitter @achapnick. 

You can subscribe to my newsletter at https://buttondown.email/achapnick.
 

 This past weekend, the Government of Ontario sent Toronto, Peel, and Ottawa back to what it calls a modified Stage 2 in response to a surge in cases of COVID-19.
 
Practically, that means bars, restaurants, and nightclubs have joined strip clubs among the businesses that are no longer allowed to serve customers indoors.
 
Strip clubs have been prohibited from doing so since September 26th.
 
The decision to shut them down before everything else was the subject of at least two recent articles by current and former dancers.
 
In the Toronto Star, Barbara Sarpong asked: “If those other establishments are allowed to open, why aren’t we able to continue working?”
 
In the Globe and Mail, Marci Warshaft made almost the same case: “the province’s strip clubs are the only ones that, after being allowed to open at the start of Stage 3, have been ordered to shut down.”
 
And then she went on: “COVID-19 numbers are surging, and I completely understand the need to tighten our restrictions until we can get things under control. However, the callous way in which these restrictions are being enforced seems thoughtless and even misogynistic.”
 
The province’s initial explanation was hardly helpful: “Private social gatherings continue to be a significant source of transmission in many local communities, along with outbreak clusters in restaurants, bars, and other food and drink establishments, including strip clubs, with most cases in the 20-39 age group.”
 
Indeed, it could easily have been read to reinforce the idea that targeting strip clubs was, most generously, arbitrary.
 
I strongly suspect that was not the case.
 
A follow-up comment from the Ministry of Health, indicating that “contract tracing logs kept by the clubs were ‘often incomplete’,” seems to point to the real reason.
 
CTV News reported that after one outbreak, contact tracers couldn’t reach some 300 different attendees who might have been exposed because they had provided the club with phony contact information when they entered.
 
There is little incentive to hide your identity if you are dining at a restaurant. I suspect that many patrons of strip clubs are less comfortable confirming their presence.
 
So unless club managers are willing to demand photo ID and insist on working cell phone numbers and legitimate email addresses (and perhaps some would), welcoming patrons to strip clubs appears to pose a significantly greater risk to the spread of COVID-19 than does eating at a restaurant.
 
The issue might be moot for now – in Toronto, Peel, and Ottawa, at least – but I think there is a more significant lesson here.
 
Over the last nine months, Canadians have rewarded politicians who have embraced openness and authenticity in their response to this pandemic.
 
Many of us have been willing to forgive our elected officials for their flawed pandemic preparedness and action plans when we have sensed that they understand our concerns and are doing their best to respond to them.
 
I thought that Ontario premier Doug Ford – whose authenticity has always seemed genuine – got this, but the way his government dealt with closing strip clubs makes me less sure.
 
I recognize that Canadians are divided over the legitimacy of sex work. In this case, however, that really doesn’t matter.
 
Strip clubs are legal in Ontario, and when those in the industry lost their livelihoods to a decision from Queen’s Park, they deserved the same honesty and clarity as the rest of us.
 
Shame on the government for not giving it to them.
 
***
To learn more about political communication in Canada, take a look at Alex Marland, Thierry Giasson and Tamara A. Small’s book with that very title.
 
In other news, I just received my copy of Patrice Dutil’s new edited collection, The Unexpected Louis St-Laurent: Politics and Policies for a Modern Canada. It will be available for purchase (in hardcover and pdf) on November 1st and is a must for Canadian political history junkies.
 
To be notified of my next blog post, follow me on Twitter @achapnick. 

You can subscribe to my newsletter at https://buttondown.email/achapnick.