Canada-China Relations Committee on April 12th, 2021

[Weldon Epp]

Listen, Mr. Chair; I want to be clear. I'm not going to go beyond the language in the travel advisory. That language is quite clear. As for the question about the Olympics, I would just say that this is an important question. I appreciate it, and I would say there are very active discussions currently under way interdepartmentally, as you can imagine, as well as with our close partners, because I think we need to look at the kind of behaviour we have seen from China, unfortunately.

It's behaviour that we've called out: arbitrary detentions of our citizens and treatment of Canadian citizens who may or may not be [Technical difficulty—Editor] but are treated by the Chinese differently. That's the reason for the updated warning, and that's why we're going to be looking at all situations around the Olympics very closely.

Thank you.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you for the answer.

Is Ambassador Barton back in China, or is he still in Canada?

[Weldon Epp]

No, the ambassador is not in China at the moment.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

He was recalled to Canada and went through a hotel quarantine because there was something sufficiently compelling for him to come back to Canada during this crisis in relations and during the trials of Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor. Can you tell us why he was called back to Canada?

[Weldon Epp]

Yes. You're right. The ambassador was in Canada for a series of meetings. He wasn't recalled, per se, but he came back to undertake a fairly intensive outreach program that was really focused on, as you can imagine, the priority of the government with respect to China: to seek the earliest possible release for Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor. I won't speak about the details of his program or his discussions, but I'm happy to say that this was the focus of a very extensive program that he undertook in Ottawa.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you.

I have one final comment and question.

Mr. Epp, it could be argued that the only thing we provide China is about half a per cent of its economic output, about four-tenths of 1% of its GDP. In other words, we purchase about 70 billion dollars' worth of products from China per year. Per capita GDP in Canadian dollars is about $10,000 a year. In other words, our $70 billion employs about seven million Chinese workers. We know that 20 million people a year are moving from China's rural areas into cities, a phenomenon that has been going on for more than a decade and is predicted to go on for some time in the future, and this is something confirmed by the Chinese ministry of housing and urban-rural development.

Has Global Affairs done an analysis of this phenomenon related to the existential need for China to grow at a certain rate, GDP currently [Technical difficulty—Editor] to ensure that internal migrants are gainfully employed? If so, what can you tell us about the conclusions of this analysis?

[Weldon Epp]

Mr. Chair, that's a very specific question. I will say, off the top of my head, that I'm not aware that such a study has been done, but we're a large department. I would be happy to look into it and let you know if we have.

More generally, the point is an important one. It plays to a number of concerns with respect to social cohesion and stability in China, as others have said—I think including Minister Champagne when he was before the committee in January. I mean, China has in many ways some fragility, and a lot of that fragility has to do with the large gap in incomes. Even as China has developed and grown richer, it's also seen a much greater income gap, and that disparity between urban centres and rural is, I think, well known to many of the members of this committee who have travelled to China and been briefed on that before.

In the mix, there has also been.... As urbanization has rapidly accelerated in China, it has created other issues beyond social and political, including environmental. However, it's also offered opportunities for Canadian exporters in areas where Canada is highly sought by Chinese consumers, whether that's with respect to our products or our homes, building, construction, etc.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chong.

Now we'll go to Ms. Yip for five minutes.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you to all the witnesses who are continuing to stay so late to answer our questions.

My first question is for Ms. Thomas. In a Globe and Mail article published earlier last month, you suggested that we deploy warships to the South China Sea in an effort to send a message to China that “we will not be bullied into changing the geography of the world”. Does Canada have any allies currently doing this? Is there room for collaboration there?

[Jody Thomas]

The approach of Canada and our allies to the South China Sea is very consistent. All of our Five Eyes allies use the same approach, and they see the South China Sea and the Strait of Taiwan as free and open areas to navigate through, so I would say that our approach is absolutely consistent with those of our allies.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you.

My next question is for CSE. On March 24, CBC News reported Facebook's announcement that members of Canada's Uighur community were being targeted in a cyber-espionage campaign. Facebook has managed to trace it to two companies in China reportedly attempting to infect devices with malware to permit surveillance.

Has there been an increase in cyber-attacks traceable to Chinese entities since the House voted to qualify China's action in Xinjiang as a genocide?

[Shelly Bruce]

I would say first of all that we were very pleased to hear the reports of Facebook disrupting the campaigns that were directed against Uighurs around the world and [Technical difficulty—Editor] in Canada.

It's important to note that CSE does not have a mandate to direct any of its activities at entities in Canada—so we're a foreign intelligence agency—and that prohibits [Technical difficulty—Editor] but when we detect information or indications that foreign actors are targeting individuals in Canada we can work with our domestic partners to ensure they have that information and can take action. I can't speak specifically about sensitive techniques, methods or intelligence activities we've undertaken, but I can assure you that when we see activities directed at Canadians we take action through our partners.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Do Facebook and other social media platforms alert CSE at the same time as the public, then?

[Shelly Bruce]

It takes a very broad group of different players in the private sector and in government to monitor all of this space and to work together. Facebook plays a very specific role, and when it takes down these kinds of campaigns, we learn about it usually at the same time as everybody else.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Do you have any concerns about WeChat?

[Shelly Bruce]

CSE is not a regulator. We do not comment, endorse or ban specific technologies or specific companies, but we publish advice that helps Canadians to choose wisely and to understand how an app works, where their data resides, how to turn on the security features, how to update those apps when prompted and how to delete them when they're no longer used.

We do not comment specifically on apps, but we encourage very safe and responsible use and the best cyber-hygiene.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I'm not sure if this question can be answered, but I'm going to give it a try anyway.

During the pandemic, getting accurate information backed by science to Canadians is really important. Sometimes this is difficult. You have a community that perhaps doesn't speak much English and/or are seniors relying on foreign media for information on vaccines. Sometimes in these media, they spread misinformation and cause vaccine hesitancy.

In particular, I've heard that some of the Chinese cable networks have been doing that. It's alleged that the Chinese government has a stake in those cable networks. What can we do to limit this type of telecommunications interference or misinformation campaign?

[Shelly Bruce]

I'll assume that's directed at me, unless somebody else wants to weigh in.

I can't really speak to the specifics of your question, but I can confirm that disinformation and misinformation are very serious matters and we are looking at them very carefully.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Ms. Yip.

This will conclude our second panel.

As promised to my colleagues before the meeting started, I'll now suspend for five minutes for a health break. I think that would be appreciated.

We'll thank the witnesses and let them go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I call this meeting back to order.

The first issue to deal with is in regard to the motion for the production of documents. The clerk would like to confirm one aspect of the motion that was adopted on Wednesday, March 31, 2021. As the deadline for the production of documents was changed to 20 days, the deadline for Mr. Stewart and Mr. Poliquin to appear, should they fail to produce the documents, should now be 27 days as opposed to 17 days. The motion would change to include the part that says “within 27 days of this motion passing”.

Are there any objections to this? The clerk is simply looking for confirmation. Seeing no objections, I'll consider that adopted.

Also, the schedule of the committee has changed, as you know. We now meet only once a week, every Monday, for three hours. The clerk has distributed the proposed schedule to reflect this change.

Are there any comments on this?

The clerk has informed me that next Monday, April 19, 2021, Ms. Bartholomew, chairperson of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, has confirmed her appearance. She's currently on a two-witness panel. The clerk and analyst would like to know if members would prefer to hear from Ms. Bartholomew for a full hour on her own.

Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Did you say next Monday, April 19?

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Yes, April 19. That's correct.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

That's the evening of the budget. Are we planning to meet?

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

That's up to the committee, of course. If the committee doesn't want to meet that night, the committee won't meet that night, but I'm in your hands.

Mr. Bergeron.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

I think Mr. Harris' comment is very relevant. That said, we can choose to meet even if the budget speech is scheduled a few hours earlier. Presumably it will start at 4:00 p.m. and be over by 6:30 p.m.

Will the committee members want to meet anyway? I think that needs to be asked. It's still possible to do so.

I don't have any particular view on the matter, but we have to accept that it could be a problem.