National Defence Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I call the meeting to order.

I want to welcome two very familiar witnesses to this committee, who have recently been on a keen journey together. I'm sure they're going to share it with us. I'm told that Mr. Fadden is going to go first, and he's going to stretch the five-minute barrier. General Thibault will operate with his usual military precision and stay within five minutes.

With that, I'll call upon Mr. Fadden for his opening remarks, followed by General Thibault.

[Richard Fadden, As an Individual]

Thanks very much.

Let me start by saying there were 10 of us in Taiwan on a familiarization tour, much like the ones that are offered to parliamentarians or the media. All of us have an interest in national security, defence and foreign affairs. While we were there, we met the vice-president, representatives of five or six ministries, several think tanks, the university and a number of opposition members.

From my perspective, at least, I come back with a number of my views confirmed and deepened, but no fundamentally different perspective from having been there. There are a couple of things I want to emphasize.

Whatever the heck else Taiwan is, it's a vibrant democracy. It has shared values with Canada. It's not a quasi-democracy, and it's not a make-believe democracy. I would argue we don't emphasize that enough. It has a very active and industrious private sector. They are very conscious of the black cloud that is over them from China.

From my perspective, there are a few changes in intensity. One was the extent to which they have a democracy. The population is very much aware of the threat they're facing, but they seem to be getting on with it. Having said that, the Government of Taiwan is actively working on a whole-of-society defence strategy, and like any democracy, not everybody is on side. They're having to bring along various age groups and whatnot.

They believe that Canada could and should do more to support them, both bilaterally and multilaterally, although they acknowledge very much that we were there, and we play with them. One of the things that struck me was that they are particularly grateful for the RCN transits of the strait. They appreciate that, I think, more than virtually any other thing.

One of my takeaways was that Taiwan's treatment by China is going to be a bellwether for all of that region and possibly the world. If China ever invades Taiwan, there's a message for the rest of us, which I think is one of the reasons why we should do everything we can to try to prevent that from happening.

I have a couple of reminders.

Japan is only a couple hundred kilometres away. They're doubling their defence budget. They're really worried about what may happen. If something bad happened to Taiwan, it would fundamentally change, I think, the geopolitics of the area, including the Philippines, Japan and others. Fifty per cent of the world's container traffic goes through the Taiwan Strait, so I would urge us all to consider what would happen if that were somehow declared to be internal waters of China. It would have a significant impact on the world economy.

The big thing for me and I think for General Thibault is that over the years, China has shifted the goalposts. They have become more aggressive with naval and air activity. They have become more active with misinformation, disinformation, psychological warfare and a whole variety of wares, much of which is reported in the media. The west, on the other hand, has not moved that much at all. I think that's what they're trying to tell us, that if we recognize that China is pushing, they need help pushing back a little bit.

Canada, I'll argue in a minute, as I think General Thibault will, could do more than we are doing now, although they recognize we are there. All of our close allies are there to one degree or another. However, there are other opportunities, I think, to shift the way we view Taiwan within the one China policy. We have a one China policy. It's our policy. How we interpret it, I think, is up to us. If we wanted to push a little bit more and be more supportive, we could do it.

As an example, the policy says that the Governor General, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs can't go to Taiwan, because that would be an implicit recognition that it's a sovereign state. It doesn't say that other ministers or deputy ministers can't go, but by and large, we have not allowed that to happen. They ask themselves, “Why can't the deputy minister responsible for digital affairs visit Taiwan?” That's just a small example.

There are small things like that. I think General Thibault will give you a couple more examples in the defence sphere. Their view is that, equally, on the multilateral front we could do more, and we could do more without enraging China. We might annoy them, but if you start from the premise that—if you'll forgive my use of the vernacular—we're off China's Christmas card list to begin with, annoying them is not very easy.

I do not suggest we precipitate a conflict in that part of the world, but there are a lot things we could do beneath the level of the three people I mentioned without necessarily having dancing girls and marching bands, but still help them more than we have been.

I'll stop there, because I want to give you as much time as I can to ask questions and for Guy to talk, but the core message I took away was that it's a democracy. It's one of the avowed positions of this country—both sides—that we support democracies. We could be doing more, and we should be doing more, both bilaterally and multilaterally.

Chair, I'll stop there.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Fadden.

General Thibault, you have five minutes, please.

[Lieutenant-General, Retired) Guy Thibault (Former Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, thanks very much. It's great to be back at the committee.

To the committee members, thank you for focusing on this important topic.

I passed the War Memorial on the way here, and I was thinking about Corporal Cirillo and Warrant Officer Vincent today in terms of their sacrifice for our country.

This visit, I think for me and for the vast majority of other members who were accompanying Dick, was our first opportunity to go to Taiwan, and that says a little bit about Canada's engagement or lack of engagement in this part of the world. It was a great opportunity to better understand this global hot spot. It was a fantastic opportunity not only to meet with government officials, civil society actors, academics and think tanks but also to get a chance to see the perspective of Taiwan in the context of the threats that are posed by the PRC to their very existence.

We also had a chance to meet with the executive director of the Canadian trade office in Taipei. That gave us a good chance to see where we are on our trajectory on relations with Taiwan in accordance with what's called the multi-faceted relationship that's described in the Indo-Pacific strategy.

What do I take as the bottom line for Canada and Taiwan? Well, you just finished your session on Ukraine; we have a raging war going on in the Middle East, and Africa is on fire, so I think it's easy for Canadians to lose sight of what's at issue in the Indo-Pacific with China's aggressive expansionism, the brinkmanship and the dangerous activities they're undertaking in and around Taiwan, the South China Sea, Japan and in the north with South Korea. Clearly we're at a time when we, along with western like-minded nations, including Taiwan, are in an era of persistent conflict, under-the-threshold conflict, grey-zone activities and psychological warfare with forces that are clearly not aligned with us and are hostile, in fact, to our interests. That was certainly reinforced in spades in Taiwan.

At home, of course, a casual review of our own last few years here has the stories of increased state-sanctioned foreign interference, disinformation, cyber-attacks, terrorism, theft of intellectual property and attempts to gain control of critical resources, while around the world the actions of belligerent countries and autocratic revisionist states are flaunting international norms and agreements and undermining the rules-based order upon which Canada depends for our way of life.

While we're not at war, we're certainly not in a period of peace. I think that this era of persistent conflict demands that we don't approach the world as business as usual when it comes to national security and defence. I think this means adapting our thinking, our strategies, our capabilities and our partnerships in order to counter the threats that we're facing. I would put Taiwan squarely into the mix of those partners to help us confront this world that we're in.

Taiwan fits at the intersection of our values in terms of a democratic, peace-loving, free society and our shared national interests in national security, peace, stability and security.

I think all of us who participated in this visit, just as Dick said, came away convinced that Canada could and should do more to engage deeply with Taipei in matters of national security and defence. This isn't about our necessarily helping Taipei. I think we have quite a bit to gain by working with Taipei.

First of all, given China's inevitable rising power and their warrior wolf diplomacy, if we really want to better understand China and what drives their leaders and their society, there's no better partner, I think, than Taiwan. It is basically positioned to help educate policy-makers and strategic planners about how to effectively deal with China, given their own geography, their history, their culture and, of course, the present threats and bullying that they get from China on a daily basis.

Second, we have a lot to learn from Taiwan about how they're dealing with all of the same threats that we're facing, which I just described a couple of minutes ago, their whole-of-society defence initiatives and their efforts to increase national resilience in the face of these kind of threats.

To kick off our visit, we had the vice-president speak to us. She gave us a master class in international politics, in national strategy, in defence and foreign policy budgeting against domestic priorities and squaring it all.

What was really striking was how clear the thinking was at the strategic level about how to confront the threats that they have in a calm manner, not wanting to provoke China, but nonetheless stand up for Taiwan's ability for self-determination.

Finally, if Canada is serious about engaging in this part of the world, I would say that security and defence are the first objectives of the Indo-Pacific strategy. If we're going to be relevant in this area, we need to be involved in the various multinational fora that are coming up. These are regional mechanisms, whether it be AUKUS, the Quad, or the tri-lat that's established. Canada needs a seat at the table and Taiwan needs to be at the table as well. There should be nothing about Taiwan without Taiwan.

My view, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, is that it's the time for us to pick sides in this one. If you're looking at who's the good actor and the bad actor, China, in terms of not living up to its obligations under the UN Security Council charter, is certainly not looking good when we compare it to Taiwan in fully meeting the expectations of being a member state of the United Nations.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

The Taiwanese are excellent at giving master classes in geopolitics. I share that view.

I'm going to go to the six-minute round and then we have the room until 5:51, so I may have to cut back on the second round. Let's go for six minutes in the first round.

Mr. Bezan, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank both Mr. Fadden and General Thibault for coming to committee and sharing their experience. A number of us around the table have been to Taiwan on a couple of occasions.

General Thibault, I welcome your final remarks that we have to pick sides and that it's time to move on and support Taiwan in a more robust manner.

You and Mr. Fadden talked about the whole issue of multilateral relationships.

Is it time for us as Canadians, as the Government of Canada and as the Parliament of Canada to advocate for Taiwan to be a full-fledged member in other international fora, such as the World Health Organization and the United Nations?

[Richard Fadden]

Chair, absolutely, without any reservation whatsoever. The UN Security Council resolution that made China the representative of China on the Security Council and in the General Assembly said absolutely nothing about what Taiwan could do in the specialized agencies and elsewhere.

To most people, it is incomprehensible that Taiwan could not be a member of the WHO, the UNDP or ICAO. I think if we did this in a clear, step-by-step manner, we could do this without enraging China. I do think one of our objectives in this.... I agree with General Thibault about picking sides, but enraging China is not helpful either.

There's a way of doing this, if the government decided it wanted to, in a thoughtful way, push far more than we have for membership.

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

Both of you have extensive expertise on defence and national security. Just last week we saw the PRC, using the PLA navy and air force, barricade and institute a 12-hour blockade around Taiwan, by both air and sea. After being there, do you believe Taiwan is ready for conflict with mainland China, especially when you hear the U.S. Pacific Command often reference the fact that it expects to be in war with the PRC by 2027?

[LGen (Ret'd) Guy Thibault]

Mr. Chair, I think that we came away with a very clear view from Taipei and the officials we met with about their determination and their recognition, first and foremost, that they have to be prepared to go alone however things unfold. They're determined really to be able to defend themselves and they're putting the investments in asymmetric capabilities. Their defence budget just has gone from, I think, 1.8% of GDP to 2.5% and they're on a trajectory to continue to invest more. I think that's all with a view to making sure that they're sending the right messages not only to China, but also to their allies and friends that they're doing what they need to do within the means they have available to them to be able to defend themselves.

Clearly, the issue of what the PRC, the PLA and the PLAN are doing is demonstrating, probing and continuing to exhaust the Taiwanese defence forces through the Taiwanese defence forces being required to stay on the highest levels of alert at all time. They have a strategy that is really working to exhaust the Taiwanese defence forces. I think they are in a very difficult position from that perspective.

They're doing everything they can, and I think that they would welcome other friendly countries to continue to help them make sure that they can defend themselves. I think that's where we need to be thinking about how Canada might be able to help in the defence.

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

We saw just yesterday that in response to the blockade that was instituted during exercises.... I'm not sure when an exercise actually becomes an act of aggression. You would think that if you're shut down for 12 hours, it could be interpreted as an act of aggression. I look at the whole issue that Canada did sail, with the HMCS Vancouver, I believe, through the Taiwan Strait yesterday, along with a U.S. destroyer, an Arleigh Burke.

What more should Canada be doing to provide military co-operation and assistance to Taiwan beyond practising the freedom of navigation through the Taiwan Strait?

[LGen (Ret'd) Guy Thibault]

First and foremost, I think the freedom of the high seas and what we're doing in those transits were surprisingly important to all of us—how they appreciated it. They knew when our ship sailed through. From that perspective, that obviously resonates with Taipei as being very important, so we need to continue with that.

To your question about what more to do, it comes to the last point that Mr. Fadden said. We need to be more creative in terms of allowing officials to actually engage with the Taiwanese defence and national security organizations. I would start with military and political staff talks to identify a number of menu items of what Canada could be doing in co-operation with Taiwan.

To me, there's probably a number of things we could be doing to help not only in country, but also institutionally with their efforts to make sure that they can defend themselves properly.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Bezan.

Mr. Collins, go ahead for six minutes, please.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair, and thank you to both witnesses for their attendance.

General Thibault, I'll start with you.

In terms of picking a side, I'm watching with great interest what's happening with the BRICS summit that Russia is hosting right now. That coalition started as an economic one, and it seems to be more of a military coalition slowly over time. We see North Korea's involvement now assisting Russia with the war in Ukraine, so that group's getting a little bigger and a little stronger over time.

If I look at what's happening to NATO and what's happening south of the U.S., we see some sabre-rattling, of course, with former president Trump. That situation is changing, so when you pick a side, you want to make sure that your team is as strong as, or stronger than, the others.

That's increasingly more in question as time goes on. Hopefully, all of this has to do with the election, in terms of his statements. However, if some of the things he has proposed come to fruition and he follows through on them, I think it presents an issue for Canada and its allies in terms of where we go next, especially in the Indo-Pacific region where China is coalescing a stronger group.

With all that said, what is your take in terms of picking a side under a scenario in which the U.S., as a partner, with a Trump presidency, might not be as reliable as it has been in the past?

[LGen (Ret'd) Guy Thibault]

I certainly don't want to speculate in terms of U.S. elections. What I would say is they just celebrated the 75th anniversary of NATO in Washington, and when you're looking at real alliances versus when you're looking at alliances—the nations that are coming together—that Russia is picking as its friends, we're clearly in a world in which NATO is still very relevant. I don't think, notwithstanding any posturing or any kind of comments we may be hearing for political purposes, that NATO is at any real risk in terms of continuing to serve our respective nations.

We all need to burden share. I think there is a certain continuity with the comments that the former president made, in terms of the countries of NATO sharing the burden. The United States has obviously been the backbone of the western alliance, so we all need to do our part.

I think that extends into other parts of the world, and to the partners with NATO in the Indo-Pacific as well where we have partnerships now with NATO—with Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand—to recognize that the world is moving in a way where we have the friends and we have those who are not friendly.

From that sense, I would hope that NATO will continue, or should continue, in my view, as being very relevant for the problems of the 21st century.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Fadden, I will ask you the same question.

[Richard Fadden]

To back up one step, one thing that's clear to me, and, I think, to General Thibault, is that if China for any reason decides to really pop the clutch against Taiwan, the position of the United States would be critical. We can delude ourselves as much as we want that we, Japan or Australia could help, and we probably could, but if the United States stood back and did not intervene over the course of several days, if not a week or two, there wouldn't be a lot that Japan or Australia could do—they're the two closest allies—and it would take us a while to mobilize.

Having said that, I think Canada has always been a joiner. Sometimes we join everything that's available, but I would argue that in the Indo-Pacific, we're not joining the right clubs, and we need to up our association with Japan across the board—not just militarily but politically and in trade. Australia is pretty good. There are a number of other countries that are growing at a great rate, if not in that part of the world; they're getting to be very good.

We tend not to like defence alliances. I understand why; it's not our history. In terms of dealing with China, I would submit it's the only thing they understand.

As a possible hedge against the United States not being terribly enthusiastic, I would argue the three, four or five countries that we've both talked about need to start talking yesterday about at least making sure China understands that if we can't defend against them militarily—reject their military advances per se—there will still be severe political, strategic, economic and trade sanctions instantaneously. It's not only defence. It's a whole raft of things, I would argue.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I have a quick question on the grey zone that was mentioned and the misinformation and disinformation. It seems like every study we undertake at any committee here in Parliament these days involves AI and/or misinformation and disinformation.

Jake Sullivan talked about four projects they were going to undertake in the Indo-Pacific region with NATO allies. One of them was addressing misinformation and disinformation.

What are your thoughts on the importance of our participation and investments in those areas?

[Richard Fadden]

It's not just us, but any number of the western allies.

One of the things that our Taiwanese counterparts told us when we were there is that if we thought we were being bombarded with cyber-attacks and misinformation and disinformation, we were barely being touched. They have a problem because there is not unanimity about how to push back. They're a democracy. They're having a big problem.

How Jake Sullivan thinks he's going to be able to help when he's dealing with democracies who all have very different perspectives, I'm not sure. From our immediate perspective, I think we could quite easily take three or four departments here and develop an ongoing counterpart relationship. I do believe we're working on cyber with them now. We could do far more. They have a problem that may well become ours in the next decade or so if we don't do something about it.

Canada alone can do nothing. We have to do these things amongst alliances and with other partners, and it may mean an investment of intellectual capacity and physical and financial resources. Without wishing to appear to be partisan, we've been uneven on that front. I think we just need to do more.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I'm going to leave it there.

Ms. Normandin, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to talk more about how Canada could be a stronger voice in helping Taiwan participate in a number of international organizations. You mentioned the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, the Quad, and the AUKUS alliance, but Canada itself is having trouble joining those organizations. Many see Canada as being relegated to the kids' table while the big players eat at the grown-ups' table.

I'd like to know if this situation is an advantage or a disadvantage, and to what extent. On the one hand, it might be an advantage if Canada thinks it may have nothing to lose, since it isn't currently a member of those organizations. On the other hand, it may be a disadvantage in the sense that, even if Canada decided to be more assertive, its voice would not be heard.

What are your thoughts on that?

[Richard Fadden]

I would start by choosing other agencies. I would start with the UN specialized agencies, such as the World Health Organization and the organization in Montreal. We're already members of those organizations, and we have credibility within them. I think Taiwan would be delighted if it could become a member of three or four of the UN specialized agencies.

If we don't belong to a particular organization, it's going to be very difficult for us to try to develop an engagement program for Taiwan. I would start with the agencies we already belong to. I'm talking about agencies in which we already have a lot of credibility and where there's really no reason to oppose this. These aren't national security or defence agencies. As soon as we touch defence, everyone, including China, starts getting agitated. I would start with the organizations where there's likely to be less tension.

Mr. Thibault might want to elaborate on that.

[LGen (Ret'd) Guy Thibault]

In terms of our participation or our desire to participate in sub-regional organizations, such as the AUKUS alliance and the Quad group, I can offer a couple of observations.

In its long-term strategy, Canada had no choice but to look to the Indo-Pacific and the Far North. I think we have to do whatever it takes to set our priorities. With respect to this strategy, what we want to do is clear, but we have to set ourselves up to add value to the regions. Our lack of resources makes that harder to do right now.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Fadden, you said that talking about military operations could increase tensions, particularly in China, yet there are frigates sailing through the Taiwan Strait.

Could that be considered without necessarily offending China? Could this type of operation exist in a grey area? Operation Unifier comes to mind. There could be joint training operations with military personnel in Taiwan.

Should Canada be looking at that?

[Richard Fadden]

Politically, I would say yes. However, that wouldn't necessarily mean that members of a Canadian regiment would wear the uniform. Many of our allies have deployed military personnel to Taiwan, but they don't generally wear a uniform.

What you are talking about is certainly possible, but I believe we have to think about it a bit and be careful about how such an operation is carried out. I'm not talking about the principle; I'm talking about how it would be done.

Having said that, I think there are certainly opportunities.

[LGen (Ret'd) Guy Thibault]

We also need to be more creative with things like military skills development. There's no reason we can't invite officers and NCOs to take part in our professional development programs or military training at the Canadian Forces College, for example. We need to get to know them better and invite them to forge a relationship with the Taiwanese forces.