Canada’s Public Safety Minister said during a recent interview the government’s decision to ban Huawei from 5G networks was delayed due to the political and technological implications of the move–and not because of China’s previous detainment of Canadian journalists Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig (via CTV News).
Spavor and Kovrig were detained by Chinese authorities after Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou was arrested at the Vancouver International Airport in December 2018 pending extradition to the U.S.
The journalists remained incarcerated for more than 1,000 days. The two men were released in September 2021 after Meng struck a deal with the U.S. to drop the bank fraud charges against her.
When asked if the negotiations to free the two Michaels contributed to the delay, the minister Marco Mendicino said simply, “no.”
“This is sophisticated technology and it is a very complex geopolitical environment in which we live… We had to get it right. We were anxious, we were eager to make sure that we could communicate what that statement of intent was,” he said.
Mendicino and Innovation, Science and Industry Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne last week announced a ban on Huawei and ZTE gear in Canada’s 5G network.
Ottawa dragged its feet on a definitive decision for about three years, falling well behind its Five Eyes allies in restricting the Chinese equipment manufacturer’s access to its wireless networks.
The federal government’s “policy statement” outlines national security concerns associated with network gear from Chinese manufacturers.
“The Government of Canada has conducted an extensive examination of 5G wireless technology and the various technical, economic and national security aspects of 5G implementation. The examination made clear that while this technology will bring significant benefits and economic opportunities, the technology will also introduce new security concerns that malicious actors could exploit,” it reads.
Canadian telecommunications companies are now barred from purchasing new 4G or 5G network equipment from Huawei and ZTE beyond September 2022.
Telcos have until June 2024 to decommission and remove gear from either manufacturer from their 5G networks, which according to Ottawa there isn’t a lot of. Canadian operators have until December 2027 to pull Huawei/ZTE equipment out of their 4G infrastructure.
Telus and Bell have Huawei 4G hardware installed and have reportedly asked for taxpayer compensation for the equipment removal. However, the minister said last week that won’t happen.
Mendicino added that while the government has issued deadlines, the work “can be done more quickly.”
China blasted the federal government’s decision in a series of tweets on Friday, saying it “fragrantly” overstretches the concept of national security.
“China will evaluate this development in a comprehensive and serious manner and take all necessary measures to protect the legitimate and legal rights and interests of Chinese enterprises,” reads one of the tweets.
On the threat of Chinese retaliation, the public safety minister said the government is always on “high alert.”
Want to see more of our stories on Google?
P.S. Want to keep this site truly independent? Support us by buying us a beer, treating us to a coffee, or shopping through Amazon here. Links in this post are affiliate links, so we earn a tiny commission at no charge to you. Thanks for supporting independent Canadian media!
Of course it wasn’t related to the michaels. Much more likely to be related to Justin trying to figure out how not to negatively impact his personal income.
We discussed this issue over the years. I thought you would be happy with the finality of this decision. I certainly am.
Of course. There is still the issue of how could have possibly taken this long to make the glaringly obvious, ethically and morally right thing? If it’s because our PM is compromised, personally or ethically, that’s a problem.
It’s pretty obvious the decision was taken a long time ago given the big 3 providers had already excluded Huawei from 5G when building out their networks. We discussed this previously. The gov. intentionally maintained plausible deniability so as not to give China an opening. Now that it is a fait accompli there is no reason to hold back. That is called smart geopolitics. Don’t be a reactionary just because. There are plenty of other things to be upset with Trudeau about. LOL!
Maybe. I don’t know that it’s so obvious the decision was made a long time ago. The carriers aren’t entirely dumb. If there was a chance this was to be the decision, they’d be well advised to avoid Huawei. But that’s not the same as knowing the decision was made.
Prior to the Meng issue, Trudeau was very much trying to move Canada closer to China economically and was proudly sharing how much he admired their dictatorship. He also stood to benefit when the CPC agreed to republish his father’s book, though not one thought any would actually sell.
No telecom is going to invest against their long term network hardware investment cost interests (i.e. Huawei vs Ericsson, Nokia, QC etc.) on assumption. They would need assurances from the gov. before doing so. They sought it, got it and proceeded accordingly.
‘Moving closer’ and ‘admiring dictatorship’ is just charged rhetoric. Both Cons and Libs have acted to maintain Canada’s economic interests vis a vis China given market size. This was a good decision and handled well.
Personally, I prefer not to go down the US path for this kind of debate. Poor decisions are made as a result. Realism is a good enough basis to engage in policy criticism in Canada without the underhanded animosity. Sometimes it’s ok to agree without seeking out a tangential vector of criticism just because one can.
Realty is not “charged rhetoric”…it is a fact that Canada was REALLY avoiding anything that would scratch the hiper-sensitive Chinese thin skin.
Remember NOT stopping flights from China in February 2020, sending PPE equipment before we realized our stocks were expired, etc?
Trump’s America tried the cozy approach as well, but same as with us, there was no reciprocating. Can’t make concessions to a bully…
Either way, it took TOO long to arrive to this decision and the delay was certainly not because of “careful consideration”. Others in similar positions reacted swiftly.
And NO, no compensation for the cartel…at the time of their decision to put Chinese gear in our cellular networks, there was a small Canadian competitor – you might remember them…Nortel. Probably didn’t grease the right hands to get the contract.
Realty is not “charged rhetoric”…it is a fact that Canada was REALLY avoiding anything that would scratch the hiper-sensitive Chinese thin skin.
Remember NOT stopping flights from China in February 2020, sending PPE equipment before we realized our stocks were expired, etc?
Trump’s America tried the cozy approach as well, but same as with us, there was no reciprocating. Can’t make concessions to a bully…
Either way, it took TOO long to arrive to this decision and the delay was certainly not because of “careful consideration”. Others in similar positions reacted swiftly.
And NO, no compensation for the cartel…at the time of their decision to put Chinese gear in our cellular networks, there was a small Canadian competitor – you might remember them…Nortel. Probably didn’t grease the right hands to get the contract.
1) the telcos had to make a decision. Doing nothing/status quo would be as much a decision and opting not to use Huawei. There’s nothing there that implies they knew any more about the final decision than anyone else. They had to make a choice. They chose to ditch Huawei. Common sense would suggest that this was the likely eventual decision, but common sense never applies with Justin.
2) it isn’t charged rhetoric. The cons moved to increase sales of resources to China. Justin was unique, both from conservatives and from most of the Liberal party, in actively encouraging direct investment from CCP into Canadian companies and supporting their acquisition of Canadian companies and huge parts of the oil patch. Pushing to sell into chinas huge market is very different than encouraging them to take over parts of our economy. That’s where Justin’s stands alone.
Trudeau was an outlier in the entire western world, where everyone else eyed the CCP Belt&Road initiative with rightful suspicion, Trudeau bizarrely opted in invest $1B into it. The TTP agreement was meant to stand against China, Justin pushed to invite China to join.
There is a long history of Justin trying to push to tie our economy to chinas at a much deeper and dangerous level than anyone else ever even suggested. People have short memories. People forget or didn’t realize how much Justin was pushing us into bed with China. He’s has very much a China puppet until the Meng scandal and he tried very hard not to take a stand against China during and afterwards.
Your 2nd point has nothing to do with the topic under discussion. You are free to have your opinion on general China policy. Some issues I would agree some I would not.
However, your point 1 is thoroughly incorrect and based on false assumptions. The Big 3 were up in arms as the cost to purchase Huawei for 5G was significantly lower than western based competitors. Moreover, the LTE equipment they already had installed was Huawei. Now they have been forced to rip out the older Huawei LTE equipment as well.
The status quo was not a possibility. These kind of long term investment decisions are not built on assumptions about what the government ‘might do’, given the significant cost implications. Corporations need clear guidance from government regarding regulations. In 2020 Bell, Rogers & Telus decided to begin 5G roll out with Ericsson and Nokia. Purchase orders & infrastructure planning occurred prior to 2020.
Those decisions were made after consultations with the government regarding the outcome of the Huawei decision. The reason the official government decision was not made public years ago was geopolitical. If you wish to remain obstinate and not acknowledge that the issue was handled well given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, no one is going to force you to. My view is that it’s ok to give credit when its due on an issue by issue basis.
Your entire position is premised on the assumption that the carriers would only have taken steps if they were given confidential information. That’s is a very bad assumption and has no supporting evidence. Everyone would like to have all the info, no one ever does. In the real world, we have risk and we make decision based on info and risk.
They made a decision based on the info they had. We agree on that. Where we disagree is that you assume that must have had full information. My position is that they had to make a choice. If they had no inside info, they still had to make a choice. Huawei or no Huawei. Binary.
Let’s pretend you were running a carrier and the gov gave you no insider info but you knew every major ally was banning Huawei. Would you choose to go with Huawei because it’s cheaper or look for expensive alternatives? It’s a binary choice, whether you had insider knowledge or not. Do something or do nothing. You make decisions, even very expensive ones, with the info you have. That’s the very definition of risk. All decisions mean weighing risk.
And the 2nd point was relevant, insofar as the unusual and inexplicable delay in making a decision could be easily be explained by Justin being personally conflicted or compromised. It’s not like he doesn’t have a long history of poor decision making, ethical violations and acting in personal conflict and for personal benefit.
It sounds like your argument is made solely to justify your last paragraph. What you call delay in publicizing the decision is in fact bogus given when these investments were made.
As I stated, the government maintained plausible deniability on the issue for very specific geopolitical reasons. I explained this in a response to someone else above. It is not an assumption based on unknowable facts. No Telecom would act on such issues without clear guidance from Government well in advance for one very simple reason. Telecom infrastructure and policy are key components of national security policy and operations for obvious reasons. As such, the government has the option to disclose information to telecoms on a classified basis. There are security related interactions between government and telecom on an ongoing basis. What we interact with and see is the consumer side of the business but there is a secured interaction with government that we don’t see. This occurs in all countries especially in highly developed and integrated ones like ours. It also occurs in China, hence the Huawei decision.
Your argument is coloured too much by political bias and not objective analysis given the available information over the last several years.
Again, your position is an assumption they wouldn’t have made this decision unless they were given confidential info.
What do you think they would have done if they were in the dark, but saw what the rest of the western world was doing for years? Should be a simple enough question to answer.
When the issue initially arose several years ago. The telecoms were very vocal as being against banning Huawei from Canadian infrastructure for 5G because of the significant cost implications. They had a long standing relationship with Huawei who had provided the 4G network infrastructure for them. So no it is not an assumption.
All the Five Eyes countries had to make this decision but only Canada is the most tightly intwined with the US. While we benefit from this we also have to deal with some idiotic US foreign policy decisions from time to time that impact our trade relationships with other countries like China. A country which many like you and I are not fans of but at the same time cannot be ignored.
What do you think they would have done if they were in the dark, but saw what the rest of the western world was doing for years? Should be a simple enough question to answer.
The entire Western word didn’t ban Huawei. And no one was in the dark given the debate had a public dimension.
What do you think they would have done if they were not given confidential info by the Canadian government regarding their unannounced Huawei decision, but saw what the rest of the western world was doing for years? Should be a simple enough question to answer.
Again the the entire Western world didn’t ban Huawei. As you know, corporations act in their financial interest first and foremost in order to best serve their shareholders. They would have stuck with Huawei had it not been for the national security issues raised by the government.
What do you think they would have done if they were not given confidential info by the Canadian government regarding their unannounced Huawei decision? Should be a simple enough question to answer.
As I informed you before, they were very vocal about not banning Huawei given their 4G network hardware was Huawei and the cost implications. Their plan was to stick with Huawei if it had not been for the national security issues raised by governments that make up the Five Eyes.
Why are you going in circles?
So, status quo was an option. You mentioned previously that it wasn’t.
Another option would have been to ditch Huawei, based only on seeing what other five eyes were doing.
Clearly. And changing plans didn’t require any confidential info from the Canadian government about what their eventual decision would be.
The status quo was Huawei. After the national security issues were examined it was no longer an option.
Changing plans absolutely required clarity from from the government for the reasons I mentioned before. And that clarity was provided prior to the decision being made public a few days ago precisely so the government could maintain plausible deniability for various geopolitical considerations.
There is an article in the Sydney Morning Herald called, ‘Huawei? No way! Why Australia banned the world’s biggest telecoms firm’ which is an interesting read from Australia’s perspective.
Feel free to die on this hill if you wish. As I stated earlier to you no one is forcing you to give credit to the current government. My point is simply, it is good to examine the issues outside politically coloured glasses. Fundamentally, the right decisions were made that benefit all Canadians regardless of your political inclinations.
So, you’re saying that status quo was staying with Huawei but status quo was not possible.
That’s sound reasoning. Doesn’t require any assumption that the carriers were given a heads up at all.
Although they might have wanted to stay with Huawei, the writing was on the wall, even without knowing what Trudeau would finally decide ahead of time.
The “hill I’m dying on” is that you are making an assumption that the carriers had to have had advanced knowledge. That is simply not factually supported. If it was, you would have presented even a little evidence. But you can’t, because there is no evidence for an assumption.
The writing was not on the wall until the issue became a national security one. That is the reason the Huawei status quo could not be maintained. Unfortunately, your tautological argument is a conclusion that seeks to find a justification not rooted in logic but rooted in partisan political emotion. You can draw conclusions based on faulty assumptions due to lack of factual data or conclusions based on assumptions that draw on a wealth of factual data. What you are doing is ignoring the facts and resting your argument on the word ‘assumption’.
I’ve already explained to you the exactly how and why the carriers had advance knowledge. Procurement for network infrastructure requires clear guidance from government prior to infrastructure roll out. The infrastructure rollout for 5G began in 2020. The timeline gives you direct evidence as to when guidance would have been given.
You still wish to believe the evidence isn’t overwhelming and you want explicit evidence despite fully knowing the national security nature of the issue. I think that’s naive but technically you have a right to maintain your weltanschauung until David Vigneault sits down with you face to face and explicitly states otherwise. One can only take a horse to water one cannot make it drink.
Again, you’re stating what you think happened with no evidence other than “well, they must have known”. That’s not evidence.
That literally says it all. Not sure why you feel the need to make up additional facts that aren’t supported by any actual evidence.
Not at all. I’ve laid out the public facing evidence. What you seem to want is ironclad government confirmation that in fact the telecoms received guidance prior to 5G rollout in 2020.
On one hand you agree that the Big 3 planned to stick with Huawei, on the other you insist that they changed their minds of their own accord without any government consultation or guidance. Yet, you agree they changed their minds because of national security concerns which by its very definition is the domain of the government.
I don’t think you realize the contradictions in these positions you have taken. I feel you are experiencing what is known as cognitive dissonance.
What I’d is like if for you to support your claim that the carriers would not and could not have made a decision to ditch Huawei without first having foreknowledge of the Trudeau government decision.
You assume they must have. You speculate they must have. But then, you admit that the decisions of the other 5 eyes was enough to make the decision, but you then back track again and say “they must have known because they must have known”. That’s the worst kind of circular logic, making an assumption and then stating that assumption as support for the assumption itself.
What I’d like is even a little evidence that they received guidance from the Trudeau government about a decision that was delayed for years, instead of “I think they must have known so they must have known”.
I never argued that the decisions of the other 5 eye countries was ‘enough’ for our telecoms to make the decision independent of our own government. You argued that. That is an absurd argument. What I stated was that we are part of the five eyes. Being part of the five eyes doesn’t mean our telecom companies make their decisions based on other government’s national security decisions. That’s ridiculous. Don’t cherry pick out of context to justify incoherent arguments. You’re setting up straw men only to knock them down yourself.
It’s not evidence that you are looking for, it’s confirmation. The evidence is abundant. You would rather believe that the Big 3 would take decisions based on what other countries were doing rather than acknowledge the obvious that they would consult with our own government. And for what? So you can maintain your criticism of Trudeau. That’s really sad. I hope you realize there are a lot of good people that make up our government that have our best interests in mind.
Pointing out your lack of any evidence for your position has nothing to do with Justin or my feelings for him. It is entirely related to people making claims and not being able to support them. That never makes for a good discussion.
Saying “i think it is so, therefore it must be so” is not evidence.
For something so abundant, you’re sure struggling to present even a little bit.
The discussion has been perfectly fine. However, given how you had initially immediately pivoted to use this as a vector of criticism against Trudeau, and his administration by association, I’m not sure I am convinced of your bipartisan objectivity on this issue.
As for evidence, this is now just semantics. I cannot give you evidence that is not public facing which is what you desire. I can only present all the public facing evidence that allows one to draw a reasoned conclusion. Fundamentally, the evidence I presented are all public facts. I have also presented a timeline that allows one to use deductive logic. There is not a single counterfactual that you have presented to support your argument. As I said before one can only take a horse to water. One cannot make it drink.
Not a single counterfactual?
CEO of Sasktel, just this week said they asked the feds for guidance on a possible decision and never received anything definitive and made their decision without that info.
I know, you know better than the carriers. You have assumptions to support your position.
Sasktel is a crown corporation, not privately owned and Morgan is not it’s CEO. This is a political statement based on being upset at having to rip out Huawei 4G and Sask is asking for federal compensation. I would take this with large grain of salt given the motivation.
Fine, minister responsible for. Were they left out of the confidential info meetings? Did they make decisions without full knowledge of the government’s decision?
Apparently, they were not alone in the dark.
2 years ago:
That was in 2020, when the “review” of Huawei by the feds had already been going on for years.
As recently as a few months ago, the telcos were demanding compensation for having to remove Huawei equipment that they installed while waiting for a decision.
So, they continued to buy Huawei while knowing the governments decision to ban already? Really?
Clearly you are not understanding the technical scope of the articles you are quoting from.
All the carriers are seeking compensation to replace the 4G Huawei antennas that were purchased to replace existing 4G Huawei antennas. These antennas are replaced every 5-7 years. They are a sunk cost.
The new 5G network hardware (not Huawei) is compatible compatible with the existing 4G Huawei antennas. The gov. wants the Huawei antennas replaced with non Huawei 4G antennas in addition to the new 5G antennas being installed.
Given they have until 2028 to do this i.e. the antennas can live out their useful life, this is just an attempt to extract money to cover sunk costs. I’m sure there will be a negotiation on this.
This is clarified in Doug French article your refer to.
“…the plan right now is to use Huawei gear in the radio access network (RAN) — basically, the antennas that send wireless signals to the phones — but it will not be the backbone of the Telus 5G network… He said that since 5G and 4G components are interoperable, it’s natural that the 5G system will use gear from the 4G network”. i.e. equipment already installed for 4G.
The Global article your quote also refers to RAN equipment (i.e antennas), not the core 5G network hardware.
If you read the articles carefully you will see that consultations with the government were ongoing in 2020. Something you explicitly deny but is clearly mentioned.
Kindly understand what you are reading and quoting before using it to claim something that is not supported by it.
Of course consultations were still ongoing in 2020, because the decision still had not been made.
You’re ignoring the carriers saying they were not informed before the decision and the fact that they were still buying Huawei equipment years the fed’s review started.
Where in your time line do you think the carriers were briefed on confidential national security decisions?
The consultations are in regards to the legacy 4G antenna issue not the core 5G network hardware that was already rolling out in 2020. The 5G decision had obviously been taken prior to 2020 with deep consultations and the articles you pulled from bare this out.
In the entire supply chain the only aspect that had not been decided was the issue regarding the legacy 4G antennas. i.e. whether it was necessary to replace them with non Huawei ones. While the antennas themselves don’t represent a security threat it seems the gov doesn’t want to take any chances. Probably the right decision.
The government has given the telco’s leeway until 2028 (announced a few days ago) to replace the 4G antennas obviously assuming they will be replaced with non Huawei antennas in the course of their natural replacement cycle. Hence minimizing the cost impact. The telcos want compensation for this but the gov is resisting. As I said there will probably be a negotiation on this point as each carrier will have made procurement decisions on the 4G antennas at different times that might not have lined up with the 5G decision.
Yup, more price hikes imminent.
Be real, price hikes would’ve happened even if they got compensation.
It’s BS request. They’re essentially asking for a subsidy. They have until 2028 to rip out the old Huawei 4G hardware. By then everyone will be on 5G regardless and the newer 5G network hardware from Ericsson and Nokia supports the older 4G standard.
It’s BS request. They’re essentially asking for a subsidy. They have until 2028 to rip out the old Huawei 4G hardware. By then everyone will be on 5G regardless and the newer 5G network hardware from Ericsson and Nokia supports the older 4G standard.
China blasted the federal government’s decision in a series of tweets on Friday
——
A correct response to a tweet like this would be one with the middle finger raised erectly with a Canadian flag flying off of it.
The arrogance of the Chinese gov to have the audacity to believe we would open up our internet to their flagrant spying.
The Chinese are upset because the Canadian gov. implemented policy and forced the telcos to invest accordingly years ago but maintained plausible deniability therefore denying the Chinese the ability propagandize off of it, make threats or influence pedal through lobbying. Being a member of the Five Eyes it should have been obvious to the Chinese that Canada would act accordingly.