Evidence of meeting #1 for Canada-China Relations in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was work.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
I'm going to ask that, in the future, members make sure to submit any notices of motion to the clerk. I understand this was not submitted to the clerk, but I think members may be agreeable nevertheless to having this.
Mr. Oliphant.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Ms. Alleslev, would you like to explain the motion or I can—
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
Leona Alleslev Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
To see if there's debate or do you want me to—
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
Leona Alleslev Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Perfect.
In order for us to determine what exactly we want to study first and how we want this committee to prioritize the information that we want to study, I think we need to hear from Canada's representative, the diplomat and the person who is the point man on our relationship with China, as an opening story, so that we can understand the status of the relationship in all aspects and the government's direction to the ambassador on the government strategy toward China.
He is such a critical witness. This will help us, even before we get to our subcommittee meeting, to determine what precisely we want to study, to understand the status, the lay of the land from Canada's man on the ground, as they say, so that we can identify not only what the situation is at the moment in an informed and timely way, but also the government's direction to the ambassador, in terms of how our country is approaching China. We're advocating for him to be the first witness so that this can inform everything that we do and ask afterward. Because it is such a time-sensitive thing, we would like it to be as soon as possible, i.e., when the House resumes next Monday.
Thank you.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Thank you very much for this.
I want to state the position on this side of the table very clearly. We are absolutely in favour of calling Dominic Barton, the Ambassador of Canada to the People's Republic of China, as an early witness. We think it is critical to hear from Mr. Barton and think that his insights will be helpful and important to the committee to hear at a very early stage in this study.
However, we also recognize that we do not all have the same level of experience or knowledge with respect to the issues we have been assigned to study by the House of Commons. We've been asked to look at, but not limit ourselves to, the consular, economic, legal, security and diplomatic relations we have with the People's Republic.
We think that to do that effectively and for us to ask the best questions—because asking good questions is part of our role as members of Parliament—it would be more helpful if, in the first one or two meetings, we had briefings from officials who could help lay the groundwork and bring everyone up to speed on the most recent issues we have been facing.
They could be officials from Global Affairs Canada, which also includes international trade. They could be officials from Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. They could be anybody else we decide would help us understand these issues clearly and more effectively, so that we can ask ask better questions.
As the parliamentary secretary to the former minister and now to the current minister, I've had tremendous opportunities both to travel to China and to have briefings by our officials. I have found these briefings to be valuable and insightful. I won't say I have agreed with everything I ever heard in a briefing—that's my nature—but they have helped me to do my job better. I think we have one of the best public services in the world. Our public servants are effective and efficient, and I think this committee would be well served to have them for our first meetings, and then our first witness could be Mr. Barton. I am absolutely in agreement with the sentiment of the motion that he be the first witness we hear from. However, I think as Parliament resumes it is absolutely important for all of us to get on the same page, to have our various levels of knowledge equalized—and it's unfair that the government side could have more knowledge than the opposition side because we have access to briefings.
This would be the same as every parliamentary committee I have been engaged with that undertakes a study. When you undertake a study, you ask not only your Library of Parliament analyst to prepare briefing materials, but also officials to come to present the topic. I think every committee I've been on that has engaged in a significant study has done that kind of work.
Often then, the minister would come either at the beginning or end of the study. I think in this case it would be an excellent idea to have our ambassador come, but we would suggest that doing that on Monday, January 27 would be a week or two premature, being before we have had two or three meetings to do the kind of work I mentioned. Again, I think we should take this to the subcommittee on agenda and let it really wrestle with what kinds of briefings would be effective and important and helpful to the committee, and then go from there to bringing a recommendation on that to the committee at its next meeting and we would get going very quickly.
We recognize this is an important study. We also recognize that the motion, as presented by Mr. O'Toole, did not put an end date on when we're required to report. It was suggested by the NDP, by Mr. Harris, that we have an end date. Because we don't have an end date, I think we are not urgently rushed to get this work done in the first week. Let's take our time and do it well.
I am also very aware of the comments in Mr. Bergeron's speech with respect to this motion, where he was in agreement with the whole motion but was concerned about paragraph (k) of the motion. To make sure that we don't go down the path of having a political theatre moment at that first meeting, it would be in the spirit of what Mr. Bergeron said that we would actually hear from our officials first.
I would suggest to the subcommittee that we get an update on the general diplomatic relations so that we are all aware of what has transpired in recent months, what has transpired with respect to the consular cases, not only those of Mr. Spavor and Mr. Kovrig but also any other consular cases that might be of concern to the committee, to make sure that we do this carefully and are aware of the public security issues before we engage too much in our work. This is an extremely important national security matter, and the well-being of specific Canadians in detention in China needs to be considered alongside the well-being of Canadian businesses doing important agricultural and other business in China, and the people-to-people relationships that we enjoy between Canada and China.
We are in agreement with the motion. We think that the timeline of January 27 is not appropriate, and that we should have two or three briefings before we do that. All I'm suggesting is that we delay it a week or two to allow the committee to do its work well and carefully and for it to ask the best questions possible.
Thank you.
2 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Mr. Chair , allow me to commend Mr. Oliphant for the excellent interpretation of my thoughts he offered a few moments ago.
Having said that, I find that this is indeed an extremely relevant resolution, but it may not be appropriate at this time.
I do not in any way dispute the appropriateness of calling Canada's ambassador to China before this committee to present his version, his analysis of the situation. However, the fact is that—and it must be acknowledged—regardless of the Canadian ambassador to China's intrinsic qualities, the post was vacant for eight months. For eight months, during this lengthy crisis, the ambassador's position was left vacant by the Liberal government. Before we summon the incumbent, perhaps we need to know why the position was left unfilled for eight months.
I agree with Mr. Oliphant's proposal that we hear from foreign affairs officials, that the Library of Parliament conduct an analysis and, above all, that we have the opportunity to meet in subcommittee. We have just set up the subcommittee to determine the agenda items.
This proposal, as relevant as it is, seems a little premature to me, in that we need to organize the work of this committee before embarking headlong into a poorly prepared meeting with the Canadian ambassador in Beijing. It is important to meet with the Canadian ambassador in Beijing, but it is especially important to be extremely well prepared for the meeting we will have with the ambassador. I don't think we are going to be able to do a constructive job with a week's notice for this meeting with the Canadian ambassador to China.
2 p.m.
Conservative
Leona Alleslev Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
First and foremost, I would like to say that we on the official opposition side are highly sensitive to the individuals who are wrongfully imprisoned in China and to not doing anything that would in any way put their release in peril. That is not the goal of our wanting to have the ambassador come. We understand the incredible work that's being done there. We don't want to do anything to jeopardize that.
However, we do want to hear from the ambassador. He is an official of the Government of Canada, he is the most senior official, and he is Canada's voice, although he isn't elected, obviously, and is not a minister. He should be able to speak on all things. Regardless of the information we have, he should be able to give us the information that he gives around the world, certainly in China and to other people.
We are asking for a briefing from him so that he can give us an overview of all the consular, diplomatic, trade and security aspects that apply to his position. We want to have that sooner rather than later so it can inform us when we dive deeply into the other things. It is our intention to have the opportunity to study all of those areas and that we will hear from officials who will give us more information in each one of those areas. Without a clear overview of the government's strategy towards the relationship with China, which would come from the ambassador, as well as a current update on the status of that relationship—it's the responsibility of the ambassador to advise us on it—we won't be able to know which officials to call and what information there is to do a deep dive on later.
So yes, there is a sense of urgency. The relationship is deteriorating, and we as a committee would like to be able to do some homework and provide recommendations so that we can ensure the relationship doesn't deteriorate any more and we are able to protect national security interests, economic interests and diplomatic interests of Canada.
2:05 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Thank you for this very interesting conversation. I agree that it is incredibly important and very urgent. Having the point person here and talking to the committee is really key in moving forward.
I'm curious. With this sense of urgency, if there's a lot of briefing information that needs to be given, is there a reason why some of that work can't be done quickly, even this week, so that we can move forward? Again, urgency is key here. I don't think anybody would have said, when this motion came to the House, that this is something that we can take a lot of time learning about. We need to get on point.
I'm very supportive of this motion. I think we need the ambassador here as the point person to update us. A lot of us would appreciate the briefing material as soon as possible so we can get up to speed.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
No one around the table, certainly not on this side, is disagreeing with the need to bring in the ambassador so he can shed light on the situation and we can ask questions, but there is an obligation.... Granted, this point has been made, but I speak individually here as a member. I feel much more comfortable questioning the ambassador after a briefing so that the proper foundation can be established and we can then talk to our officials about what is going on and understand more about all of those issues.
To the point Ms. Blaney just raised, I think our officials also need time to adequately prepare as well. Yes, granted, they're working on the issue and have been for some time, but let's establish an order of operations here that makes sense. Immediately leading with the ambassador is just putting the cart before the horse, quite frankly.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
I want to start off by saying that I really appreciate Mr. Oliphant's comments. Having spent over a decade working in China, I know the nuances and the sensitivities around certain issues. Any time we were going in-country to do work within China, we were briefed, as officials of Canada, by the most senior official on the ground.
I think it would behoove this committee to start with the most senior official on the ground who is the most familiar with all the geopolitical sensitivities we have and who informs the other officials. As we move forward throughout this committee, it is going to be very important that we have this information in advance of our questioning of other officials, so that we understand the sensitivities and the security issues that may arise from our line of questioning. That can only come from the ambassador.
I think it's very important that we start off this committee on the right foot, which would be to bring the most senior official here. It's no different from any other time we do business with China and are briefed by the most senior official on the ground so that we understand our work as we move forward.
To Mr. Bergeron's comments, this will then form our agenda as we move forward into a subcommittee. As was mentioned earlier, in the spirit of co-operation or consensus, we then can agree on the areas of concern and on those we want to bring before this committee.
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'm in violent agreement with my colleague, Mr. Doherty. However, I appreciate the comments of Mr. Oliphant, Mr. Bergeron and Ms. Blaney.
That being said, I do believe that Canadians expect to hear from that ambassador. That's why we've started laying the groundwork for televised meetings, the committee has been constituted and we're here before the House resumes after the Christmas break. I believe that we should hear from the ambassador next week.
To the points of my colleagues on having some briefings in advance, I think Ms. Blaney's point about having those briefings this week would satisfy all of the concerns that have been expressed, so that we act quickly and hear from our first witness, the ambassador, next week. In the meantime, by having the deputy minister of foreign affairs provide a briefing to the regular members of this committee this week and having the national security adviser provide a briefing to regular members of the committee this week, we would be well informed and would have the full suite of information that is available to those departments they represent.
The information they provide to the government would be available to the members of the committee. Then, when we hear from our top official on this file, our ambassador, we will have all of that information, and the concerns will have been satisfied. Members of Parliament are seized with this issue. They've been engaged. They have done work. I'm confident that, with the level of commitment colleagues here have given to this issue, they're prepared to do the work and to hear from those officials as soon as possible, so that we can get down to the work the House has instructed us to do. That's what Canadians expect.
I don't think it needs to be one or the other; I think we can do both. We can hear from those important officials—the deputy minister of foreign affairs and the national security adviser—this week provided they are in-country. I know that the ambassador has corresponded with Ms. Alleslev and has said that he is eager to appear, just as Canadians are eager to hear from him and just as the regular members of this committee would be eager to ask questions of him following his testimony.
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Barrett has struck a couple of different ideas with me.
First of all, I'd like to address Mr. Oliphant's key point, that some parliamentarians are disadvantaged because they don't have access to the government, such as government members or parliamentary secretaries. There is an imbalance. That being said, that's why parliamentary committees are separate from government. We have analysts, I'm sure, for members who miraculously cannot find the time after being named to this committee.
I've already taken out a few different books so that I can have an at least cursory understanding of all the different issues. I read many of the columns of the media who are here today that are informing of what the issues are. I think I can find enough questions. However, if members feel disadvantaged and don't feel that they'll have questions at the start of this committee's work, the Library of Parliament analysts will be able to supply them with good material that will help them to get a good sense of things.
Members opposite have not moved to amend. They agree that the ambassador is important and, from my understanding, the ambassador has actually shown interest in coming to the committee once it's ratified by members, but it's the dates that are in question. As well, there is this information power imbalance, that Mr. Oliphant mentioned, which seems to be the issue.
Perhaps what we can do is to have a three-hour meeting next Monday. We'll do an hour with, as you mentioned, the national security adviser, the acting one, as well as the deputy minister of foreign affairs and trade. We'll start from there for the first hour, and then we'll have the ambassador. We also have to bear in mind that the ambassador may have something come up that he needs to respond to. It seems that he indicated that in late January he would be willing to come forward.
Let's start working on this. I'm fine to manage my workload and to engage the Library of Parliament so that I can be informed and can ask good questions of Mr. Barton.
If you look at the original motions presented to the House, which it agreed with, from time to time we may call upon certain officials. That means that, perhaps at another juncture, we may have more questions because of what we've heard from various experts within Canada or outside.
This is not going to be a one-time process. It doesn't necessarily have to be. My friend from the Bloc mentioned earlier that the process now is that the subcommittee is supposed to handle the agenda. I totally understand what he means, but we're the client, right? We've hired the subcommittee, like a contractor, to handle certain things, but if we want a meeting to start with, just to open up the conversation and then let the members from that point start planning witnesses and the order of things, we can do that. I don't find a flaw with what he said; I'm just pointing out that you can also look at it from another perspective. I'm hopeful that members will be amenable to it, and that perhaps a motion can be added so that we also have the acting national security adviser and the deputy minister on the 27th. To me, that would be a good way for us to get started.
I trust that members will do their homework, and I will do mine.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Mr. Albas's comments remind me that before we finish today, we should try to deal with questions like the time of meetings, the usual meeting time and the frequency of meetings.
Mr. Oliphant.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I just repeat that there is absolutely no disagreement on this side that the first external witness will be the ambassador of Canada to China.
My experience may be different from others. I travelled to three countries in Africa last week and immediately upon arrival in each of those countries I had very good briefings by the heads of mission in those countries. Absolutely, we trust our heads of mission—ambassadors, high commissioners, chargés d'affaires—to do the work of briefing us on the ground.
However, before I left I had extensive briefings from departmental officials, those with desks in Global Affairs Canada, who brought up issues of consular affairs, international trade, investment, the issues I would be encountering so that I could have an effective trip on behalf of the people of Canada. I think that is the normal process that we engage in. We get written materials and have briefings from officials and then we have the heads of our missions do that work.
In a moment I am going to be presenting an amendment to the motion, but before I do that I want to take us back to the 40th Parliament. This is not the first time we have had a special committee established by the House on an international issue. The last time, in the 40th Parliament, an international committee was established to look at our mission in Afghanistan.
With all due respect to Ms. Blaney, we don't have Jack Harris here. His experience on that special committee, which lasted almost three years and wrote a number of reports, would be invaluable to our agenda subcommittee. I think his experience on that committee—and I was serving with him on another committee at the same time—and his understanding of the briefings, the role of expert witnesses and the roles of others who have differing opinions would be very helpful for us to consider at the agenda subcommittee.
We've just established the agenda subcommittee. I think we should use it. It needs to make some recommendations with respect to the timing of our meetings and the number of meetings we have per week. Remember, this is not a standing committee that follows the normal slots of (a), (b), (c) and (d) committees. We have to request our officials to appear. We have an ambassador who is in China. We want him to be here as soon as possible and we want to make the most effective use of his time and our time. This is something that we need to settle in to.
Parliament is just resuming next week. Most of us have other committee responsibilities. We want to get all of that fed into the agenda subcommittee so that every member can find a way to be their most effective in this committee. A meeting time and our meeting frequency are practical ways of working that I think would be best dealt with at the subcommittee on agenda. I just think it is an easier place than doing it here in this room.
I am going to suggest an amendment to Ms. Alleslev's motion. The first two lines are the same. However, we we would strike the words “on Monday, January 27, 2020”, and add this at the end so that the motion will be reading as such: “That the committee invite the Ambassador of Canada to the People's Republic of China, Mr. Dominic Barton, to appear in person before the committee for a two-hour televised meeting; that Mr. Barton be given 20 minutes to update the committee on the state of relations between Canada and the People's Republic of China; and that the remaining time be allotted for questions and comments from members of the committee; and that this meeting happen as soon as possible after the subcommittee has met and the full committee has appropriately been briefed by officials as determined by the committee, and subject to the scheduling by the clerk of the committee.”
If I can just speak to my amendment, I think we are keeping the spirit of Ms. Alleslev's motion to make sure we have as immediate a meeting with Mr. Barton as possible, that we do it subject obviously to scheduling but also subject to the work of the subcommittee getting together, determining and recommending to the committee what briefings would be appropriate, and that we do that within the next couple of weeks.
That's all. We are talking about a couple of weeks to make sure that we are organized. That's what I have to say.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Thank you, Mr. Oliphant.
We are now discussing the proposed amendment.
Ms. Zann.