Canada-China Relations Committee on April 12th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

You have 25 seconds.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I just have a question directly for officials from Foreign Affairs.

In the unredacted documents that were ATIPed, we read some push-back from your officials on the chief of the defence staff's decision to cancel winter warfare training with the Communist Chinese People's Liberation Army. Why does your minister continue to insist that diplomatic relations should trump national security?

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I'm afraid that's your six minutes, Mr. Bezan. We'll have to wait for an answer to that, perhaps with another questioner.

Mr. Fragiskatos, you have six minutes, please.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the officials for appearing tonight.

To begin, Ms. Thomas, I think anyone who looks at Canada-China relations obviously recognizes the importance of multilateralism. I'm wondering if you could shed some more light on exactly [Technical difficulty—Editor] on the issue of multilateralism. Are the Five Eyes allies the most important avenue through which we respond to China, or are there other partnerships and relationships you would point to that are critical?

I'm not asking you to rank them. I think it's important for us as a committee to recognize, from a defence perspective, where exactly the energy is focused. Is it focused through the Five Eyes allies or other relationships?

[Jody Thomas]

Certainly Canada's primordial defence relationship is NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO has an interest in China, there's absolutely no doubt, but the majority of our exercising in the NATO environment, which I would invite either of the military members to comment on, is focused on the Atlantic and the North Atlantic.

The Five Eyes partnership certainly is very important for us in the Indo-Pacific. We have other alliances. The minister has been asked to join ADMM-Plus, the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting Plus, which focuses on the Indo-Pacific, as an observer this year. That's been a critical move forward, as was mentioned earlier.

The partnerships provide different strengths and benefits, depending on the activity and the geographic nature of the world. Of course, we share a NATO relationship with two of the Five Eyes. There is an Indo-Pacific interest with all of the Five Eyes. Our activities are always in a coalition. We are a country that believes in multilateralism. We rely on and work with our allies for all the activities that the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces undertake. I don't think there's a ranking or a difference. It depends on the focus and the need.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I know you might be limited in what you can say here, but I still think it's an important question. Can you share anything on the Quad? I know there was some media focus on this recently and on whether or not Canada would work with the entity that's emerged, known as the Quad, to deal with China. Is there anything you can elaborate on there?

[Jody Thomas]

Canada is not currently a member of the Quad. I would invite that question to go to Foreign Affairs.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Costello or Mr. Epp, can you add anything?

[Daniel Costello, Assistant Deputy Minister, International Security, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Sure. I'm glad to speak to that. Thank you.

The Quad is an informal consultation group. We have great relations with every member of it. We look to co-operate with each member of it. It's something that is increasingly important in regard to the new strategic environment we're seeing in the Indo-Pacific, which is something that will be of greater and greater interest. As the deputy minister was saying, our partnerships in the region are really important to us, and they're growing.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I'll stick with Foreign Affairs for my last question, Mr. Chair.

We've seen the federal government take steps in recent months to ensure as much as possible that any products sourced from the Xinjiang region of China that may have had as their source forced labour are not allowed to enter Canada. However, it is unfortunately still the case that websites like eBay and Amazon.ca—I just saw it myself tonight on Amazon.ca—advertise Xinjiang cotton. For those who might not know, Xinjiang cotton is a major source of the global cotton supply.

What can the Canadian government do further to what it's already done? Important steps have been taken, but I think there's clearly a call here to do even more to ensure that products and/or services that are the result of forced labour do not end up coming into Canada, period.

I know you might pivot now to talk about Employment and Social Development Canada and how it's their responsibility, and how Public Safety has a role. I get that. I get that there are various departments working on this, but can Foreign Affairs also be involved in looking at this? Is this happening? To what extent are you coordinating with other departments on this matter? It's a very critical issue facing the country right now.

[Daniel Costello]

[Technical difficulty—Editor] but I will just say as I do that the situation in Xinjiang does concern us and we're working very closely with allies on these issues, which is what you saw in our joint approach on sanctions.

Weldon, perhaps you could take the question.

[Weldon Epp, Director General, North Asia and Oceania Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Mr. Chairman, I want to echo Dan's comments as well. We are deeply disturbed by developments in Xinjiang. They're not new. They've been ongoing, but the more that information comes to light, the more we are refining the advice we've provided to government.

To your specific question, it's an excellent point that, as you can imagine, we're well aware of. The government was very clear that it took a first step earlier in January, and we're exploring with other departments—

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. Epp. I'm sorry to cut you off, but Mr. Fragiskatos's time is up.

Mr. Bergeron, you have six minutes.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the new panel for joining us at this late hour.

First of all, I would simply like to come back to the information published in the media that Global Affairs Canada wanted the joint exercise to continue with the Chinese People's Liberation Army.

What prompted officials with Global Affairs Canada to want this exercise to continue?

[Daniel Costello]

I wasn't in Ottawa at the time, but in Brussels.

I'm pleased to answer on behalf of the department because I keep in touch with my colleagues.

If I remember correctly, it was very soon after the arrest of the two Michaels, who were of great concern. A full and comprehensive assessment of the intentions of the Chinese authorities had not yet been conducted. So we wanted to keep all the channels open and keep all the commitments in place to make sure that we had access to all the mechanisms of dialogue [Technical difficulty—Editor] as a result of this escalation and arbitrary arrests.

At that time, we were still doing our assessments and we weren't trying to escalate, but we didn't want to back off either. That assessment was necessary to really understand the situation and to be in a better position to free the two Michaels as soon as possible through the dialogue mechanisms available to us.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you for that frank response.

Today, would I be right in saying that you now agree with the Department of National Defence's decision to interrupt this exercise?

[Daniel Costello]

Yes, absolutely.

China isn't the same country we knew a few years ago. It's much more repressive there and much more combative abroad. Our relationship with China has evolved a great deal, and we can now see that these dialogue mechanisms have not freed the Michaels. You still have to adapt to that very complex and difficult context and relationship.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you very much.

You've probably been following this committee's work, including on the contracts awarded to a Chinese conglomerate for visa management in the People's Republic of China, which subcontracted them to a Chinese state-owned company. It was done without much security screening.

I'd now like to take you to the department's plan to order Nuctech to equip 170 embassies, consulates and high commissions. The company was founded by the son of former Communist Party secretary general and president of the People's Republic of China, Hu Jintao. In addition, a number of concerns have been expressed by the U.S. government regarding corruption cases involving the company, particularly in Namibia.

In light of all that, were security checks done before this project was launched?

[Daniel Costello]

As I understand it, the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development never ordered this equipment. It was a standing offer awarded to this company following a Public Services and Procurement Canada process, but that offer was never used.

I'm not responsible for this part of the department, but there was an independent analysis by Deloitte & Touche that was submitted to another committee of the House of Commons. It's under review by this committee. The bottom line is that we never bought or deployed that equipment in our embassies or in our system.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

You're referring to the study of the analysis by Deloitte. When he appeared before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the then-minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Champagne, informed us that this company was conducting an analysis. According to what you're telling me, the analysis has been completed and the recommendation is negative.

[Daniel Costello]

The report has already been submitted to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps my colleagues can confirm that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Unfortunately, Mr. Bergeron's time is up.

Now we'll go to Mr. Harris for six minutes.

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

Thank you.

If I may follow along from Mr. Bergeron's question, the recommendation from Deloitte was that consultations with security subject matter experts in the department be undertaken to do the assessment of the requirements regarding security.

The question I have is [Technical difficulty—Editor] the Communications Security Establishment or anyone else, regarding the Nuctech contract that Mr. Bergeron referred to, and if not, why not?

[Daniel Costello]

Again, I'm not the expert in this area. This is a different.... The corporate services part—

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

Maybe CSE can tell us.