Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 7th, 2023

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Ahuntsic-Cartierville, QC]

Dear colleague, the question is too important…

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

That’s precisely what I mean, Madam Chair.

Minister, since you were appointed, what concrete measures have you taken towards any diplomat whatsoever who is on Canadian soil and responsible for foreign interference in our elections?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Ahuntsic-Cartierville, QC]

That’s a good question, Mr. Berthold. In fact, we did several things.

As Minister of Foreign Affairs, I have several tools available to me…

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

So you’ve often said.

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Ahuntsic-Cartierville, QC]

… and we began by raising the issue of foreign interference directly with my Chinese counterpart. I did so again last week, at the G20 Foreign Ministers Meeting.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I take it that no diplomats were expelled.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

The timer has gone off, which means it's the next member's turn.

Ms. Sahota, it's over to you.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hopefully, I can get some answers to some of the great questions that Mr. Berthold asked. We couldn't hear the interaction properly, so I think I will give the floor back to Minister Joly, because I think it is really important to understand the mindset or the calculation that GAC has to take when making decisions. What types of decisions does Global Affairs—you and your department—take when you are made aware of these types of troublesome interferences in our relations?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Ahuntsic-Cartierville, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, dear colleague Sahota.

First and foremost, obviously this is an issue we've been dealing with for some time. I've been the foreign minister since 2021. One of the things that were really important was to have a clear stance on China, so what we did in our Indo-Pacific strategy was to make sure that we would draw our red lines on how we would be engaging with China.

Now, since it's extremely clear, we now have our rules of engagement, but before then, as we were dealing with diplomats.... We obviously expect that they stay in their lane. If there are any issues with any form of the Vienna convention or Canadian law, first and foremost we engage directly with China, because that's what G7 countries do. It is in our national interest to do so. It is in our allies' interest to do so, as the geopolitical situation is extremely complicated and getting more complicated.

The other thing we did is that, since Canadians had concerns, I clearly instructed my department to call in the ambassador and make sure also that our ambassador in Beijing, Jennifer May, would be in direct contact with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in China. That has happened many times in the past year. The other thing, also, was that, when China wanted to send a political operative last fall, we decided to deny a visa, which obviously is the right thing to do.

These are the different actions that we've put into place and, let me tell you, if we have any form of clear evidence of any wrongdoing, we will send diplomats packing very quickly.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Do you feel that, at this point, it would be in the best interests of Canadians and our institutions to expel all Chinese diplomats?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Ahuntsic-Cartierville, QC]

I know that, on the side of the Conservatives, this is something that is an easy fix, a quick fix, but the reality is that, when we take that decision, it has an impact on us also, in China. For any expulsion, there is an expulsion afterwards of us from China, and right now our biggest challenge is to understand how China operates—how they plan, how they work.

I believe profoundly in the importance of diplomacy and our diplomats. More than ever, we need capacity. We need eyes and ears on the ground, as I said before. We need to be able to address and defend national interests that we have in our bilateral relationship and, also, I'm extremely concerned about the protection of Canadians abroad. We know that we have consular cases with China. We need to engage to protect these people. This is something that keeps me up at night.

That is why it is important that we have capacity in Beijing and across our network in China.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

How important was it in the case of the two Michaels to have diplomats present on the ground in China?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Ahuntsic-Cartierville, QC]

I would say it was fundamental. It was extremely important.

In front of this committee, I would like to thank our Beijing team, which was instrumental in making sure the two Michaels came back to Canada.

You guys all have consular cases in your office. I have had the chance to talk to many of you about them. You know how difficult it is when a citizen, one of your constituents, comes to you and says, “I have an issue with my family” or “A family member of mine is in a difficult situation elsewhere in the world.”

Of course, we want to make sure that we offer that service, and it is particularly true in China.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I have another quick question. You mentioned in your introductory remarks the G20 foreign ministers' meeting that you just had. You said you delivered a message to China.

What was the delivery of that message, what did you say and how was that message received?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Ahuntsic-Cartierville, QC]

I wanted to make sure that I was able to meet with my counterpart. Why? Because he's the new foreign minister.

I had a conversation and a relationship—a tough one—with Wang Yi, the former foreign minister, who is now at the politburo.

I wanted to create this relationship, which is a difficult one but a necessary one, with the new foreign minister. I was not the only one who wanted to talk to him, because, obviously, all my G7 counterparts and even, I would say, G19 counterparts wanted to engage.

I was extremely clear. I looked him in the eye and said to him that, first, we will never tolerate any form of foreign interference in our democracy and internal affairs and, second, we will never tolerate any form of breach of our sovereignty.

That is why I think it's important to have these types of discussions. They're not something that we like doing, but I think they're necessary for Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have six minutes.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I've been waiting for this moment. We discussed it this week. Now we are amongst ourselves and we can have a conversation. I have six minutes.

There's something our citizens would like to know, and we would too, for that matter. What was the reasoning behind the government's decision to appoint a special rapporteur? We could have done it together, in a non-partisan and fully informed manner. We could have made the choice together and demonstrated our good faith. That would have increased the trust of our fellow citizens, rather than undermining it. What was the rationale? I'm really quite curious.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you, Madame Gaudreau.

Over the past 40 minutes here, we've seen that it's not easy to address these issues in a non-partisan way. That was also evident during question period.

I fully concur with the desire you and your colleagues expressed in the House. Canada will be well served by a non-partisan, transparent review that is open to Canadians, to understand the nature of this interference and what we have done as a government. We believe we have a positive record, but we need to strengthen it. We have already strengthened it and we'll be pleased to continue to do so.

The notion of a special rapporteur is to very quickly define what steps need to be taken. It's a process. If we had immediately set up a board of inquiry, we would have been asked why we chose this mandate over another, these witnesses over others, and whether there would be access to this or that information.

We will move quickly to appoint someone and that person will be judged on their integrity, their experience and their non-partisan character. If that person can, very quickly and in a public way, advise us on the next steps, we believe it will help depoliticize this issue. I hope it will give everyone an opportunity to see that we are all working toward the same goal.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I understand all these good intentions. However, people are questioning us and plenty of polls show that trust is eroding year after year. This was a splendid opportunity to choose an individual together. Perhaps that same individual will be chosen, but I'm thinking about the optics and the next election. We could have agreed on a solution and found someone by mutual agreement, but no.

Also, we could have made this process public. That would have given the public a chance to demystify the situation and be keen to participate in the next election. I'm not used to this kind of situation. I'm not a lawyer, I'm a psychosociologist by trade, but what I saw with the Rouleau Commission was that meetings were held behind closed doors only when necessary. Right now, people think that everything is predetermined and that their vote won't change anything. That's the basis right now.

Can we go back and put things right so there is consultation? We spent significant time on this issue during question period, didn't we? We would like to move on and show that we can work together. What do you think, Minister?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

We’re here to work together. I share several of your views, but perhaps not your pessimism about people’s willingness to participate in elections. In Canada, we pride ourselves on having one of the highest general election turnouts in the world, but we can certainly always do better. I agree with you.

The Prime Minister promised to consult opposition parties before appointing the special rapporteur. As I said, we believe that choice will have to be judged based on the person chosen. I am convinced that we’ll find someone capable of assessing the current measures, identifying shortcomings and suggesting appropriate measures. If we can entrust someone credible and independent with the mandate to proceed expeditiously, the Prime Minister has promised to release their recommendations…

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Did I understand correctly…

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

… obviously, and so I hope we can achieve the same laudable goal that you and I are both seeking.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Yes, absolutely. I just want to make sure I understood what you said.

You’re retaining the option of appointing a rapporteur, but I heard that all the opposition parties would be consulted on the choice of that person. Did I get that right?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

The Prime Minister said during Monday evening’s press conference that he would consult with opposition parties before selecting the special rapporteur. Perhaps it won’t be unanimous, but when we see the proposed names, I hope we can turn down the volume, focus on the challenge that I’m certain we all share, and discuss specific current measures that could be improved and strengthened. I hope this will set us on a somewhat more promising track.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you very much, Ms. Gaudreau. That was a very good exchange. I think that’s the right way to go about it.

Kudos to you.

Ms. Blaney is next.