National Defence Committee on Feb. 2nd, 2022

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

Thank you very much.

I'd like to thank the two witnesses for their presentation. It was particularly interesting.

I would like to start my round of questions with Mr. Mulroney.

Mr. Mulroney, you talked about some of the problems of understanding that we had in the past regarding China. China was seen more as a source of opportunity and certain risks were perhaps overlooked.

Recently, with the crisis in Ukraine, a number of people have commented on the state of diplomacy in the world and its shortcomings. Some people have mentioned that we have seen a revolving door phenomenon. There is a lot of staff turnover. There have been five different ministers in six years.

I'd like to hear what you have to say about that, as well as about the request from a number of people who want Canada's foreign policy to be thoroughly reviewed. We need a fully study and a new white paper.

Would that be relevant?

[David Mulroney]

On understanding China, it goes deeper even than diplomacy. If you look at any newspaper in the last 10 years, you'll see a glowing story about some new technology in China or some incredible app that Chinese consumers use. Maybe somewhere else, in the political section, you'll read about Chinese aggression or what China is doing to meddle in some other part of the world. We've tended to have this bifocal approach to China.

When I would come back to Ottawa as ambassador, I would try to get as many of the deputy ministers together as possible. Otherwise, the economic deputy ministers would see China as an opportunity, but the security and defence ones [Technical difficulty—Editor]. It's changing slowly, but it is beginning to change. I don't think it's too late, but it's happening.

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

I would like to ask you another question, which Mr. Perry can also answer if he'd like.

China is known for its espionage capabilities. We know that it is very active in this area. However, we know that Chinese soldiers have come to Canada for training.

Do you think it was a mistake to train Chinese soldiers here?

[David Mulroney]

In my view, it was an error. I have long argued that there needs to be some level of communication between the Canadian Forces and the People's Liberation Army simply to understand their doctrine, their tactics and their thinking. You can't separate yourself. There came a time, though, and this was clearly past that time, as China's aggression increased, and particularly once they took our Canadian hostages, that other forms of co-operation were completely inappropriate.

What alarms me is that there's no mechanism in Ottawa, no warning light that goes on, in any department, saying this is a China issue and think about it carefully. It's just not happening.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Perry, do you want to respond?

[David Perry]

I would largely echo and agree with what Mr. Mulroney said.

In having that kind of engagement, they develop a better understanding that's very useful, but particularly in dealing with that country and that part of the world, we need to be thinking about the message that any one of our individual lines of engagement sends as part of a wider package of our involvement in that world.

We should try to aim for more consistency and alignment between what we're doing and how that might be looked upon by other people as sort of a sign of goodwill at the same time that we're trying to take a different and tougher message on a different area of focus. Certainly, though, engagement is positive if it's done the right way.

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

Okay.

My next question is first for Mr. Perry, and then Mr. Mulroney can answer.

My question is about military training. We know that psychological tactics are being used more and more against the military and that officers are being sent to the field to obtain information.

Do you think the Canadian Armed Forces are currently adequately trained psychologically for this type of more recent intervention? There's no trench warfare anymore; we're really engaging in more psychological jousting at times.

[David Perry]

Getting our heads around [Technical difficulty—Editor] conflict that has less clear lines of the actual physical fighting, much more involvement of intelligence aspects, of cyber-activity, as well as the softer...what is referred to variously as “hybrid” or “grey zone” conflict. Understanding the different manifestations of that is something that collectively—not just in the military but across the foreign service and other parts of government—we need to better understand and have the wider country understand. For the military in particular, understanding how different countries are trying to leverage misinformation/disinformation and what potential impacts that might have on our individual forces members would be important.

[David Mulroney]

I couldn't agree more. In fact, I would advocate that we create a China school for senior public servants and for members and rising stars in the Canadian Forces, with a longer-term track focusing on language and culture and a shorter-term track for a variety of people, where we bring in the best thinkers, writers and professors on China and bring them up to speed, because I think the knowledge gap in Ottawa—across the board—is significant.

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

Could that comment also apply to other officials, Mr. Perry, including members of the diplomatic corps? Do you see any gaps there?

[David Perry]

Yes, absolutely. It's important to keep in mind that China, Russia and some other players don't engage only in a defence context. They do so across economic realms and in engagements on a personal basis. You really require an effort on the part of the entire Government of Canada to adequately provide for our defence and security. Focusing only on our soldiers would be a mistake. It requires a much broader effort than that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Madame Normandin.

Madam Mathyssen, you have six minutes, please.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Mulroney, you were talking a lot about China pushing as hard as they wanted to and really working on that ability to make those around the world fall into that defeatist sort of category, defeating them before they even put their minds to working against that Chinese objective.

There is the recent example of Lithuania, where they tried to ally themselves with Taiwan and were entirely cut off. Canada is showing support, of course, of Taiwan, in some ways, but I don't believe we are doing so in all the ways we could. The HMCS Winnipeg, for example, is going through the Taiwan Strait.

What do acts like that show China? We've called for greater supports for those trying to flee Taiwan, for activists as well as those from Hong Kong. What type of reaction would we get to a further push on China? Do you think they would do something to Canada as exacting as they did to Lithuania?

That's for both witnesses, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Mulroney, do you want to lead off?

[David Mulroney]

First I would say that having the Canadian navy participating in these operations in the Taiwan Strait, in the region, is tremendous because you're sending a message to China that this isn't just a sign of American rivalry. A lot of serious countries are concerned and willing to be present, and it does get attention. Xi Jinping has his critics, and they're beginning to say they're beginning to see more and more people doing this. I had the privilege of being the defacto head of mission in Taiwan before I served in China. That's where I met Mr. McKay for the first time. He visited often with Canadian parliamentarians, which was very useful in itself.

I remain convinced that we're not using all of the policy space we have to support Taiwan and to support its dynamic leader, Tsai Ing-wen. If we even did what we were allowed to do, what we could do, there are real red lines. There were things that we could do, that others could do, that could endanger Taiwan, because China would become even more bellicose and possibly even attack. There are a lot of things we could be doing, though, if we put our minds to it to support this vibrant democracy.

As to Lithuania, one thing that's coming out is that they haven't been totally brought to their knees by Chinese sanctions. Chinese citizens buy and sell often according to what they want to buy and where the price is best. We are too easily cowed by this. They've hit us on canola; we push back on canola. We're willing to take enormous steps on climate change. We should also think about our autonomy and sovereignty and put a price on saving that too.

[David Perry]

To start, we need to be very cognizant of the likely reaction. With certain countries, when we do things that we know they don't like, they're going to react forcefully, and we need to be able to accept that and make a calculated decision that if things are in our interest, we will do them and accept some potential downside.

In specific reference to Taiwan and Hong Kong, it would be beneficial for Canada to be clearer and more consistent about identifying things like international waterways. If we think there are parts of the water space over there that are international and navigable, and that Canada and any other country have a right to transit, we shouldn't be as cautious about doing so as a way of indicating that despite what China says, it doesn't actually own certain pieces of real estate on the ocean. In doing that, we can help reinforce international safe usage for other people in concert with some of our key allies. I worry that at times we've been overcautious. What some people have been concerned about is provoking China, but looked at a different way, that would simply be reasserting our rights on the open seaways.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

You spoke about those policy spaces that Canada could occupy, Mr. Mulroney, without stepping over the red line. Could you expand on that, please?

[David Mulroney]

Well, one, obviously, is trade and economic development. Taiwan is a tough negotiator, but there are lots of opportunities. When I was there we had a very vibrant cultural program. We had artists coming from across Canada sharing Canadian ideas with a very big program on indigenous co-operation. The new government in Taiwan was rediscovering the fact that there's a very vibrant indigenous culture in Taiwan that had been ignored, and we brought groups from Canada and Taiwan together. Also, people to people, there are a lot of people of Taiwanese origin. There are all kinds of things we should be doing with Taiwan, and we would do with Taiwan, if it were seen as any other place. It's just that we have self-censored, and this is the effect that I spoke of earlier. China so intimidates you that it gets you to stop well before any red lines it might have.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Ms. Mathyssen. Of course the father of modern Taiwan is a gentleman named Mackay.

We'll go on to our second round, with Mr. Paul-Hus and Mr. Gaheer, for five minutes each. Colleagues, if we're going to run this whole round it's going to take us to 5:42. I hope that's acceptable. I see that it is.

With that, Mr. Paul-Hus, welcome to the committee again.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, gentlemen. I'm pleased to be a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence.

Mr. Mulroney, I absolutely agree with what you said in your presentation about our current relationship with China. We also fully understand that Canada has two problems in this area, one relating to foreign affairs and the other, the decrepit Canadian Armed Forces, which are understaffed and under‑equipped.

On equipment requirements, I want to touch on two things. I want to get your thoughts on the navy. I liked Mr. Perry's comment that China did not own the seas.

Are the Canadian Forces' current plans for the design of new ships adequate?

Is there other equipment, such as submarines, for example, that should be considered? Are we on the right track in terms of naval equipment?

What do you think about the air force? Is the upcoming fleet of jets the best thing for the air force?

I'd like to hear from Mr. Perry first.

[David Perry]

I'll start with the jets. We're hopefully down to the end game of the most recent round of trying to get new fighter aircraft. We're down to two choices that have very different types of capabilities. We'll have to see how that plays out and what the government ultimately wants to do with them.

One thing I would say, building on what Mr. Mulroney offered, is that I'd like us much more involved in that region of the world on a more consistent basis. It's a place that we tend to visit episodically. I don't know that we have spent enough time staying in the region and learning how to really operate and understand what's happening there.

With respect to the navy, the ships we are designing, our new surface combatants, are ships that are going to be very capable and very suited to that part of the world. If we're going to buy 15 of them, as is the current plan, that would see Canada effectively holding our weight class, if you will, for our navy in a way that a lot of our allies haven't. That's something to look forward to once those ships are delivered. It's the delivery time frame that I have more concern about.

On submarines, it's important for Canada to keep that particular capability. It's vital to being part of a modern naval force. Certainly, the Indo-Pacific region, with the proliferation of submarines over there, would be one area in particular that is leading to that demand for us to have a modern submarine program.

I'm happy to see that we're now looking into whether or not we're going to keep that. I hope that particular project goes ahead.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Perry.

Mr. Mulroney, what position do you think Canada should take with respect to China? It's clear right now that we have no power. However, we can take a firm stance. Can we take a firmer stance and still be realistic?

What would be the best approach to take with the Chinese communist government?

[David Mulroney]

One obvious thing we should do is to adopt a policy where our initial approach doesn't necessarily involve flattery. I watched with dismay as Canadian officials were speaking about China's pandemic response in the early days and flattering China at a time when we didn't even have all the facts in, and in fact, there were a lot of things in China's response that weren't deserving of flattery. When in doubt, don't flatter; just stick to the facts. Stick to what you know. When we are obsequious in our behaviour with China, we encourage China to be even more abrupt and short with us.

China is no longer a foreign policy issue. It's increasingly a domestic policy issue, and we should do—and I have advocated this—what Australia has done and take a very firm stance on interference in Canadian affairs. They have set up a registry of people who are acting on behalf of China. You certainly can act on behalf of China, or any other country, in Australia if you wish, but you have to be transparent about it, and there are criminal sanctions if you aren't. That means people who are reading Chinese talking points or using student associations or other groups to harass Canadians. We need to shine a light on that and there need to be repercussions.

Dealing with the domestic issue, the safety of Canadians, people in this country, is a fundamental responsibility of any government, and I think we're failing it.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have about 30 seconds.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Okay.

I have one last question for you.

Do you think Canada has the capacity through the RCMP to monitor Canadian territory? Should National Defence play a greater role?