Canada-China Relations Committee on March 20th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Thank you, Mr. Trudel. You are out of time, I'm afraid, sir.

Ms. McPherson, go ahead for two and a half minutes.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Harth, you spoke about the fact that while this has been going on for a very long time, there is now an awareness of it and it has come into the public eye. Do you think that the value of trade with China has blinded countries like Canada to the interference that has been going on?

[Laura Harth]

Yes, absolutely, and it continues to do so.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

When we look at how the Government of China is influencing Canada and other countries, can you talk a little bit about what that might look like in non-European, non-North American contexts? What does that look like in sub-Saharan Africa, for example?

[Laura Harth]

It depends on the country. This is not necessarily my expertise, but we see, obviously, that they are using their economic weight or the promise of economic investments, infrastructure and so on to try, let's say, to co-opt certain governments. We see them being particularly effective in countries where that same government might have authoritarian streaks or be very eager to remain in power. We see them corrupting governments, very often in countries that are not exactly democratic or not stably democratic, and it's all toward the same aim. Especially over the past years, Xi Jinping has launched a couple of so-called global initiatives. We see them very heavily investing in the so-called global south and trying in a way to align that global south with its interests, with its new design for the future world order, which is radically different and alternative to the international rules-based order based on fundamental human rights, as we understand them.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I guess the real answer now is that we see this happening all over the world. We see this happening in multiple countries, not just with China but with other countries as well.

What are the lessons, the best-case scenarios, the best lessons learned from other countries? How are they responding to this appropriately?

[Laura Harth]

Do you mean to the Chinese threat? I don't think we've seen a complete comprehensive response from any country so far. Obviously, the United States is the country that has woken up first to the threat. They are also obviously the prime enemy of the Chinese Communist Party. It's not hiding that.

In that sense, I think it is important to see that when the PRC targets a certain country for influence operations, similar to Russia, it is not looking at influencing only that particular country; it's also trying to chip away at existing democratic alliances, defence alliances for when it plans to make its next move, for example, on Taiwan. That is something very similar to what we have seen Russia do and still see Russia doing, for example, with its disinformation campaigns or by creating those kinds of dependencies. It was energy dependencies with Europe. For Russia we see the PRC heavily investing and quite openly talking about wanting to enhance economic interdependency of other countries on its economy, all the while working to insulate its own economy from external shocks.

There are a couple of things going on, and I think we have only recently begun to actually be aware of that issue. It is high time. This is not any individual country's individual issue. This is a big threat to the democratic alliance as a whole, to the international rules-based order, so we need to coordinate on this and really start responding.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to Mr. Genuis, for five minutes or less.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

In our Canadian debate about foreign interference, I would say that there have been two predominant views expressed. One has come from many in the government, which is to say that they view the purpose of foreign intervention as being to create chaos and undermine trust in institutions in every case, and therefore they think that we should avoid talking about foreign interference too much because the discussion of it undermines trust.

On the other hand, my view would be that foreign interference is sometimes about undermining trust in institutions but it's more fundamentally about trying to advance the interests of a foreign power through whatever means. That could involve weakening trust, but also electing more pliant candidates, stealing technology, breaking alliances or stifling criticism.

My view is also that we need to talk about this problem in order to resolve it. That includes holding institutions accountable for their failures.

I'd like to hear briefly from all of the witnesses. What do you think is the purpose of foreign interference? In other words, which of the two views do you identify with more? Should we be talking about it or not?

Ms. Harth, we'll start with you.

[Laura Harth]

I think the aims are very often both. It's my impression that the Chinese Communist Party mainly invested in the first place in trying to advance its interests, and other witnesses have said that this has been going on for decades. They've been laying the foundations for a long time. At the same time, obviously we see their trying to undermine the allure of democracies on a global scale, trying to say that democracies can't deliver and can't work.

There's a bit of both going on. I do agree with you that the more we talk about this problem publicly and raise awareness across society, the better to start tackling it.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you.

We'll go to the witnesses online.

[Dr. Roromme Chantal]

I would say that China is doing something that all the major powers do, which is that it is trying to change international opinion to suit its interests. However, most of the major western powers use public diplomacy, while China, thinking like Sun Tzu, one of the great Chinese strategists, is trying to win without fighting. That means that China is using much more subtle means, given that it obviously does not attract a consensus in a large segment of western opinion. This is obviously a question that should be examined further.

However, I believe that the West is starting under a handicap in addressing the China question. For example, the discussion of the Chinese threat in recent years in the West has essentially revolved around issues relating to nuisance power or persuasive power.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I'm sorry. Can I just...?

[Dr. Roromme Chantal]

However, there has rarely been discussion of China's nuisance power: that country's ability to infiltrate societies hostile to it in the West, and so...

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I'm sorry to jump in, but—

[Dr. Roromme Chantal]

...to try to change public opinion in its favour.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you for your comments.

Because of limited time, we'll go to Professor Leuprecht.

[Dr. Christian Leuprecht]

I would say that sowing chaos and undermining trust is more a function of polarization, more closely associated with misinformation and disinformation than foreign interference. Although foreign interference can, of course, support it, I think that's obfuscating the problem.

Look at Australia. Australia reorganized its national intelligence community precisely because of its understanding of foreign interference as advancing the interest of a foreign power, and Australia's perceiving itself as not having been postured adequately in its intelligence structure and posture. The United Kingdom has organized its community. In Canada, we have not, and I would say this is related to a misunderstanding of the objectives of foreign interference. A rereading of annual CSIS reports might be in order.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you.

I have a brief follow-up question for Professor Leuprecht. You talked about how our failures on this issue are affecting American security. We've seen with AUKUS that a lot of the functions of intelligence-sharing that are supposed to be happening through the Five Eyes are now happening effectively through three eyes.

I wonder if you could just bluntly tell us if we are seen by allies as being more vulnerable and therefore less trustworthy? Do you think that's a contributing factor to our not being part of AUKUS?

[Dr. Christian Leuprecht]

I provide a link to a U.S.-sourced intelligence assessment that now expresses precisely these concerns about Canada as a national security problem to the United States. I believe that a public inquiry in Canada peeling back the onion would reveal this to a point where I think even the current government would not have an interest in having this out in public.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you.

Could any follow-up information from witnesses be provided in writing?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Mr. Genuis, you are out of time, sir.

We will go now to Mr. Cormier for five minutes or less.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chantal, thank you for being with us, live from the Université de Moncton in New Brunswick. The university may be getting a new name in the next few weeks or months. We never know.

This evening, other witnesses and yourself have told the committee that foreign interference was not something new. We have been hearing about interference by China for years. Some people seem to be saying that this has only been going on since the government was elected in 2015, but I don't think that is the case.

What do you see as the reason why we are seeing a resurgence of interest in this subject at present, and what has prompted the public to take much more of an interest in this problem?

Is there something that should be done to demystify it all and explain that this is not a new phenomenon and that the government is making all the necessary arrangements to put measures in place for preventing it from happening?

[Dr. Roromme Chantal]

Mr. Cormier, that is an important question. The rise in public interest in the subject of interference is connected with the change in the western paradigm since the election of Donald Trump in the United States, in particular. He himself broke with the idea that the emergence of China could be something beneficial, and he tried to impose a set of sanctions, thereby succeeding in bringing about a paradigm shift.

The connection must also be made with what is perceived as the aggressive stance taken by Xi Jinping toward Hong Kong and Taiwan. Given his global ambitions, by launching a set of planet-wide initiatives, he has tried to shape global opinion in his country's image and thus in favour of China. In that sense, the rise in attention given to this subject is connected with the fact that he is seeking to reverse the negative trend in western public opinion regarding China that stems from what is perceived as its aggressive foreign policy.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Perfect, thank you.

Some witnesses have also addressed the subject of trade. As you probably know, we do a lot of business with China in the Atlantic provinces, especially when it comes to fishery exports.

How can we reconcile the two interests: still having a business relationship with China while at the same time ensuring that we preserve democracy and prevent this foreign interference at the highest level?

Can we find a balance between the two, do you think?