On China, the prime minister has Canadians in his corner

A commentary by the executive director of the Angus Reid Institute, a national, not-for-profit, non-partisan public opinion research foundation.

Almost 50 years ago, Pierre Trudeau was faced with a dreadful choice over what to do about the politically motivated kidnapping of innocent civilians. There would be no rolling over, no capitulation in order to secure the release of James Cross and Pierre Laporte, taken by FLQ terrorists during the October crisis of 1970.

Laporte would pay with his life, but whatever the then-prime minister might have experienced in his heart, he kept a stony resolve.

Today his son, also a prime minister, must look deep down the abyss of a parallel decision.

Let me be clear: the Beijing regime is not a terrorist group that has kidnapped Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig. It is a sovereign nation. But to the families and supporters of the two Canadian men detained for more than a year and only recently charged with espionage, the Chinese government’s actions have inflicted no less terror.

Michael Kovrig’s family publicly and movingly shared their pain in recent days. Adding to the pressure on Justin Trudeau’s government was a letter signed by an impressive group of his own Liberal party’s past stalwarts calling on the prime minister to act swiftly to end the Michaels’ suffering and bring them home. This can be done, they reasoned, by intervening directly in the extradition case of Meng Wanzhou, the Huawei executive whose arrest here in December 2018, at the request of the United States, set off this chain of events.

Trudeau, in turn, has pushed back hard. There will be no swap of Meng for the Michaels. Publicly, he says this is because of the message it would send to other countries hostile to Canada about effectively kidnapping our citizens. More privately, Trudeau is also preoccupied with the erratic and capricious reaction of U.S. President Donald Trump that such a swap would bring.

Trudeau has called this a “terrible and trying” situation. Not only for Spavor, Kovrig and their families, but also for the policymakers standing firm, knowing their decisions are having real, and awful impacts on those directly involved. The burden is staggering.

If Trudeau finds dissent among influential voices in his own party, he may perhaps take comfort in knowing the country is on his side. New public opinion data released by the Angus Reid Institute shows a commanding majority of

Canadians believe his path is the right one, that the federal government should continue to treat the case as a legal — not a political — matter, and leave it with the courts to decide Meng’s future.

It is an opinion that cuts across political lines among a population nearly unanimous in its view of the gravity of this situation, and equally united in the belief that China cannot be trusted on human rights and rule of law.

If there is division, it is in the pang of regret felt by the half of Canadians who wish Meng had never been arrested at all, so that her continued presence in this country — under house arrest, in much more luxurious and comfortable conditions relative to that of the Michaels — would no longer haunt this nation.

Canada has already suffered economic consequences from China for arresting and holding Meng pending her extradition trial. It is likely to face more. Now Canadians are hinting that they, too, may be a little more bloodyminded about their own spending choices. Most say consumers should boycott Chinese goods in stores, although it remains to be seen whether their intentions will match their behaviour.

Unlike other issues, this decision, this political, legal and economic tightrope Trudeau must walk, is not one he’ll proceed on by reading opinion polls alone. Still, the results may serve to strengthen the stony resolve that any individual with a heart and a shred of compassion would find difficult to maintain.