Visa-free visits to China are a risk for Canadians
Irwin Cotler and Mehmet Tohti Special to The Globe and Mail13 April 2026
Irwin Cotler is the international chair of the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights.
Mehmet Tohti is the executive director of the Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project.
China’s new visa-free policy for Canadians may appear to signal openness. In reality, it exposes Canadians to risks our government has found difficult to mitigate.
Consider Huseyin Celil, a Canadian citizen illegally detained in China for two decades.
Mr. Celil, a peaceful advocate for the rights of the Uyghur people, travelled to Uzbekistan in 2006, where he was detained and forcibly transferred to China. There, he was convicted on baseless “terrorism” charges in a sham trial condemned by Canada.
China has continued to refuse to recognize Mr. Celil’s Canadian citizenship, thereby denying him the basic protections owed to him under international law, including consular access. His family in Canada has been without meaningful communication or reliable information about his condition for almost two decades. Their uncertainty is continuing; their suffering is immeasurable.
His case is an enduring injustice and test of Canada’s capacity to protect its citizens abroad.
It exposes a contradiction: How can a state that denies a Canadian citizen his rights simultaneously claim to welcome Canadians?
Some hailed China’s February announcement that Canadian citizens will be permitted to enter the country visa-free, calling this a convenience in support of renewed people-to-people exchange.
However, many members of diaspora communities, including Uyghur, Tibetan, Taiwanese, and Hong Kong Canadians, are not celebrating. They are asking what this policy means for their safety, rights and future.
Until now, visa applications provided at least one layer of precaution. Canadians could receive a decision while still on Canadian soil, offering predictability and some degree of protection. A denial, while disappointing, did not carry the risk of detention.
The removal of this process fundamentally shifts that dynamic. Now, individuals must make the decision to travel to China without knowing how they will be treated upon arrival.
For those engaged in human rights advocacy, political activity, or public criticism of the Chinese Communist Party, this creates a major vulnerability at the border. They may face increased risks of refusal of entry, disappearance or imprisonment.
For many Canadians in these diaspora communities, the question is no longer “Can I travel?” but “Will I be safe if I do – and will my country help me if I am not?” This risk is not confined to diaspora communities. If Canadian citizenship can be ignored in Mr. Celil’s case, it can be ignored in others’.
When a foreign state can detain a Canadian with impunity and deny their Canadian citizenship, the protection that citizenship is meant to guarantee erodes for everyone.
