Canada-China Relations Committee on Jan. 29th, 2024

[Prof. Paul Evans]

I've been a critic of elements of the Indo-Pacific strategy, so let me be clear: I'm not here to defend the government's position on this. I think the Indo-Pacific strategy is about a lot more than the Indo-Pacific. It's partly about our relationship with the United States, but it's also about our relationship with the developing world and the points that Mr. Houlden made about the fundamental importance of China in the global economy in other regions.

What I saw as a possible element in our Indo-Pacific strategy is that we should be opening dialogues and discussions with China about issues—including debt relief in the global south—and that there are elements of what they are proposing, some of it through belt and road but some through some other financing mechanisms, that might not be the best ones. They might not be good ones, but we should try to engage them in that. When we're now putting more resources into China, we're putting more resources into our embassies, etc., to see where China is playing in Africa. We're putting designated officers in 24 or 25 of our foreign embassies who focus on China even if it's not in China—if it's in southeast Asia, if it's in Africa and parts of it—because China is such a global actor.

We have to understand that this is so much bigger than a bilateral relationship between Canada and China. These are issues that are reshaping the global order, and it's useful for us to at least know what the Chinese are thinking and—this is the key—where we see it as good and where there is overlap to reinforce, not automatically reject.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

There are obviously some real risks, as well, in sub-Saharan Africa in terms of debt relief when China offers infrastructure—

[Prof. Paul Evans]

That's correct.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

—without perhaps providing the support to the country. I have some concerns with how that is ruled out.

[Prof. Paul Evans]

Absolutely.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Maybe I'll ask you, Dr. Ramraj. You were the co-chair for the Indo-Pacific advisory committee—were you not?

[Dr. Victor V. Ramraj]

I was an academic adviser to the co-chairs.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

You might as well just take the bigger title.

As somebody who actually was involved in the writing of this or the advising of it—I saw your eyebrows go up—can you...? I know that, obviously, there are some strengths in this, but what are the gaps in the strategy? Can you identify those real, key gaps where we've kind of missed the mark on the Indo-Pacific strategy?

[Dr. Victor V. Ramraj]

First of all, let me clarify. As I said, I was one of a handful of advisers. I had a small role, and I'm not at liberty to talk about the deliberations of the committee.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

What about looking forward with the botched policy we have?

[Dr. Victor V. Ramraj]

I've suggested to you in my comments where I think we should be going. It actually riffs off of Professor Evans' comments as well.

I think we need to invest even more in the societal ties. Professor Evans is right that a policy that addresses China or Asia needs to be globally focused. There are all kinds of ways that Canada can engage globally. I think that we have been looking more inward. Maybe since NAFTA, as it used to be called, we became more continentalist in our focus. I don't think 9/11 helped. We became a very continentalist power. This is part of a long-term correction in which we need to be engaging with the world again. I mean, there was a time when Canada was truly globally engaged.

This is part of an answer—the IPS. I guess to answer your question more directly, I would say that we need to go a lot further. We have to do it across party lines, and we have to do it for the long term.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Thank you, Ms. McPherson. That's your six minutes.

We'll now go to our second round.

Mr. Seeback, you have five minutes.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Actually, I'm going to use this opportunity now to move my motion that I served on December 8. I know that the clerk will probably now try to find it and distribute it to members because she has a copy of it, but I will read it now so that everyone, as they're waiting for it, can understand what I'm doing.

I move:

That the Special Committee on the Canada-People’s Republic of China Relationship express its deep disappointment that the Finance Minister ignored invitations sent by the committee; and, that the Minister of Finance has chosen not to appear during the committee’s meeting on Canada’s freeze in government-led activity with the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank; and that this be reported to the House.

I am moving this motion because, as I look at this now, the first invitation went to the finance minister's office on October 27. It is now January 29. That is four months of our committee clerk sending requests to the Minister of Finance to give us dates to appear on the study—four months—and there has not been a single date that has been given to this committee. This is an important issue. During testimony at this committee, Mr. Steven Kuhn from the Government of Canada said, “I am aware that there are instances of projects that have been approved by the AIIB where Canada and other partners around the board have raised questions about forced labour and where Canada's engagement has not allowed for those projects to be blocked as a result of that.”

It's very clear that Canadian taxpayer dollars went into the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and then funded projects that may have used forced labour. That the finance minister will not even give us a date to come and testify is, I think, deeply disrespectful to this committee. It's deeply disrespectful to members of this committee to not have responded, and I think that the minister should have responded and given us dates. Given that she's clearly not going to, we should express our deep disappointment in the finance minister. That's why I move my motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Is there debate or comment?

Mr. Fragiskatos.

We'll keep a list of comments here.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do remember the meeting that took place several weeks ago now. Certainly I can speak for myself, but I know that members around the table, especially on this side, had a great deal of confidence in the comments of public servants, who made clear that, once those allegations were made by the individual in question, they were taken very seriously. Meetings did happen, and that was echoed by the witness himself.

When I asked him point-blank about how he felt about the engagement from the Department of Finance, he responded confidently to say that he felt that department officials did very well in terms of reaching out to him and listening to his particular view of the matter.

It's interesting that the Conservatives want to keep going back to this. They were trying to get some headlines out of that meeting, and it didn't work for them. I think we have three outstanding witnesses in front of us. Their testimony has been interrupted. It's not the first time this, unfortunately, has happened. It seems to be a Conservative approach that when they don't get their way in one forum, they try to distract in another forum. That's exactly what's happening here.

I know that colleagues on this side will have a view on the issues that have been raised as well. I'll let them make comments accordingly. However, I think it's a bit rich to hear from the Conservatives this anger, which I think, frankly, is highly performative, that they haven't received answers to the substantive matter at hand, which is what took place when allegations were made. I think they were responded to in a very meaningful way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

I'm keeping track of people who've requested to speak. In order, I have Mrs. Lalonde and then Ms. McPherson.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Thank you very much.

Again, I'm very disappointed in what we're seeing. I'm happy to have a discussion on this. I'm terribly sorry to our witnesses who, at 8:58 p.m. on a Monday, have made time to come and appear on our study.

Thank you.

Maybe, as a first step, I can ask, through you, Mr. Chair, if there is some correspondence from the clerk between the Department of Finance and the clerk. I know they came here to see us, as my colleague stipulated.

Could we have some aspects of the back and forth between the clerk and the Department of Finance on the appearance, or anything that justified stopping this meeting that was extremely valuable for all of us?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

We may be at a bit of a disadvantage with our regular clerk not being here.

I don't know, Nancy, if you're....

I'll look over this way and put our analyst in the spotlight. Were you privy to the conduct of the emails going back and forth?

[Marie Dumont, Committee Researcher]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Can you comment on that, Madam Clerk?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Nancy Vohl]

Yes.

The usual clerk of the committee told me that she did a lot of back and forth. I don't have all of the details, but she did send me pretty much everything so that I could be ready today for the meeting.

I can tell you that she did a lot of back and forth. Again, the last time she did some communications was on the 26th, and we're still waiting for a date.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

All right.

Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also would like to get back to the testimony, so I think we should try to wrap this up and have a vote as soon as possible.

I will say, very quickly, that this is a worrying trend for me, when ministers are refusing to come to committee. This is not the only committee that I'm seeing this in. In fact, I just came this afternoon from the foreign affairs committee where we have also not been able to get either the international development minister or the foreign affairs minister to attend our committee.

For me, it is a dangerous precedent that ministers are not making themselves available to committees when we have important information that we would like to ask them about.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

With that, in essence, the motion—I'll look to Mr. Seeback to ensure we're getting very solid on what it is we're asked to decide—is asking that a report be made to the House, because the Minister of Finance has yet to confirm a date after an extended period since a request was made.

I don't know where you want to go with that, beyond this.

I'll ask for a comment from Mr. Seeback, and then go to you, Mr. Fragiskatos.