Colby Cosh: Canada’s secret meeting with the Chinese military

National Post · collected 2026-09-10 · by Colby Cosh analysis
Read the original at National Post ↗

Summary

Columnist Colby Cosh reports that Canada held secret talks with China's military in Ottawa on September 4, as part of the Fifth China-Canada Defence Coordination Dialogue. According to Cosh, about 10 Canadian officers and diplomats were present at the meeting. The Canadian government has not officially announced the talks, but a defence department spokesman confirmed them after being asked by reporters from the Globe and Mail and Canadian Press. The article criticizes Canada's lack of transparency in handling this information, contrasting it with the U.S. military's more open approach to such meetings.
Written by the local model on 2026-09-10, using this article's own text rather than the other coverage of the same event (that is the story summary below).

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
27
claim-shaped sentences
Uncertain
4%
1 of 27 hedged
Leaning
withheld
no quote in the article backed the model's score
Publisher trust
95.6
red-flag proxy, not a credibility rating
Outlets on this story
2
Politics
Narrative spread
1
articles carrying this framing
Analyzed 2026-09-10 · how these are computed

AI analysis (generated at analysis time, not now)

Story summary

The militaries of Canada and China held their first round of talks in eight years on Friday, as part of a broader effort by Ottawa to improve relations with Beijing. The talks, which took place through a channel known as the Defence Coordination Dialogue, covered international and regional issues of common concern, and both sides expressed a willingness to strengthen practical exchanges and cooperation between their militaries. This was the fifth meeting of its kind since 2013, but the first since April 2018. The Canadian government has been working to reset relations with China after years of tension, and these talks are seen as part of that effort. The talks took place in Ottawa, which is a significant development given the current tensions between Canada and the US. The Chinese defense ministry released a statement about the meeting, but the Canadian government has not yet made an official announcement about it.

Written for “Canada-China Diplomatic Relations” on 2026-09-10, grounded in this article and the 1 other(s) covering the same event.
Why this leaning score
The model judged this article politically coded and scored it -0.35, but none of the 1 quote(s) it offered could be found in the article text, so the score is not published.
Written under an earlier scoring contract, which gave a paragraph rather than checkable quotes. Re-analysing this article replaces it.
Leaning score withheld for article 7487: no verified evidence · logged 2026-09-10

Story

📰 Canada-China Diplomatic Relations
Politics · 2 article(s) covering the same event. This is the one the site leads with.

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Compared with similar articles

This article reads unscored and hedges 4% of its claims. Each row says how that neighbour differs.
South China Morning Post
⚖️ leaning not scored 🔴 0% hedged 0 of 8 📰 publisher trust 94
“Both articles describe the Fifth China-Canada Defence Coordination Dialogue, which took place in Ottawa on Friday of last week (implied to be September 9th), with no apparent differences in date or details”
National Post
⚖️ Leans left 🔴 19% hedged 6 of 32 📰 publisher trust 96
“Article A discusses a disagreement over trade policy and a possible escalatory move by President Trump, while Article B describes a secret meeting between Canada's defense coordination with China”
Al Jazeera
⚖️ Leans right 🔴 13% hedged 2 of 15 📰 publisher trust 96
“Article A mentions US-South Korea drill cuts and potential Chinese reassertion, while Article B refers to a separate meeting between Canada and China's military”
The Sydney Morning Herald
⚖️ leaning not scored 🔴 9% hedged 3 of 33 📰 publisher trust 97
“The events described in the two articles are unrelated, one is about a treaty between Australia and Solomon Islands, while the other is about a defense coordination dialogue between Canada and China”
South China Morning Post
⚖️ Leans left 🔴 22% hedged 2 of 9 📰 publisher trust 94
“The events take place in different countries (America and Ottawa) with different attendees, making them likely related but distinct incidents”
South China Morning Post
⚖️ Leans right 🔴 44% hedged 4 of 9 📰 publisher trust 94
“The articles mention different countries and events, with Taiwan setting up a US-backed cyber unit and Canada participating in a defence dialogue with China”
National Post
⚖️ Leans left 🔴 8% hedged 2 of 24 📰 publisher trust 96
“Article B mentions a meeting with China's military, while Article A refers to government records and freedom-of-information requests in Ontario”
South China Morning Post
⚖️ leaning not scored 🔴 0% hedged 0 of 12 📰 publisher trust 94
“The articles mention two different countries and meetings, suggesting they refer to distinct events”

Publisher

National Post · 156 article(s) · 0 correction(s) detected
No corrections detected for this publisher. That may mean careful reporting, or simply that nothing has been checked.

Who wrote this

Colby Cosh
5 article(s) here · 1 carrying a prediction
🔮 Some of you will have noticed a new and slightly shocking example of Canada’s longstanding case of information constipation: namely, the occurrence of Fifth China-Canada Defence Coordination Dialogue, which took place in Ottawa on Friday of last week.
🔮 I would say that’s a pretty decent number for the separatists, a base from which they might hope to work towards getting a third of the vote in the actual referendum.
🔮 I couldn’t help ruminating on yesterday’s news of a renewed push to find a more suitable name for Trump Avenue in Ottawa’s Central Park neighbourhood.
🔮 NDP Leader Nenshi never wanted to have a referendum in the first place, so one supposes any excuse for such a demand will do; maybe next week he’ll want the vote called off because of a comet or other celestial portent.
🔮 Cycling advocates sued on Charter of Rights grounds, claiming that the removal of the lanes would expose them arbitrarily to “grossly disproportionate” risk of injury and death.
Also by Colby Cosh
Nothing else under this byline is closely related to this article, so these are simply their most recent.

Topics

Canada Canadian China Chinese Ottawa

Subjects

Canadian NORP · 8× Chinese NORP · 7× Canada GPE · 4× China GPE · 4× American NORP · 3× Ottawa GPE · 2× U.S. GPE · 2× communist NORP · 1× the Globe and Mail’s ORG · 1× the People’s Republic of China GPE · 1×

Narrative

Apparently representatives of the two countries “had a candid and in-depth exchange of views on international and regional issues of mutual interest, expressed willingness to strengthen practical exchanges and cooperation between the two militaries, and enhanced mutual understanding and trust.” Recommended Videos To be sure, this paragraph of verbiage tells the Chinese and Canadian publics nothing, but at least the Chinese Ministry of National Defence went to the trouble.
framing: assertive · carried by 1 article(s) · first seen 2026-09-10
🔮 Some of you will have noticed a new and slightly shocking example of Canada’s longstanding case of information constipation: namely, the occurrence of Fifth China-Canada Defence Coordination Dialogue, which took place in Ottawa on Friday of last week.
2026-09-10 · National Post
Colby Cosh: Canada’s secret meeting with the Chinese military · assertive framing

Claims (27 extracted, 1 hedged)

Some of you will have noticed a new and slightly shocking example of Canada’s longstanding case of information constipation: namely, the occurrence of Fifth China-Canada Defence Coordination Dialogue, which took place in Ottawa on Friday of last week. asserted
which → notice → week
If you are hearing about this for the first time, you may have all kinds of questions. uncertain
you → hear → questions
Such as “Canada is coordinating its national defence with China’s?” Or “Why are we doing that?” Or “What would this involve asserted
this → coordinate → What
And perhaps the biggest question of all: why hasn’t Canada officially announced that this happened? asserted
this → announce → all
Because the People’s Republic of China, for its part, managed to put out a press release the day after the conference took place. asserted
conference → manage → place
Apparently representatives of the two countries “had a candid and in-depth exchange of views on international and regional issues of mutual interest, expressed willingness to strengthen practical exchanges and cooperation between the two militaries, and enhanced mutual understanding and trust.” Recommended Videos To be sure, this paragraph of verbiage tells the Chinese and Canadian publics nothing, but at least the Chinese Ministry of National Defence went to the trouble. asserted
Ministry → have → trouble
One notices how much a literally communist press circular resembles the press releases our own government authorities and corporations routinely emit, when they get around to it … asserted
they → notice → it
There has been no corresponding public explanation of the talks from the Canadian side, but the Globe and Mail’s star Steve Chase and Canadian Press’s Dylan Robertson, chasing down the Chinese clue, were fed a statement by a spokesman for our defence department. asserted
Chase → correspond → department
The spokesman was able to confirm that the meeting took place, and that it happened in Ottawa. asserted
it → confirm → Ottawa
“As part of ongoing working-level dialogue,” the statement read, “Canadian and Chinese defence officials met on September 4, in support of ongoing military-to-military communications at the functional level.” asserted
officials → work → level
Which doesn’t add much to what the Chinese said (proactively, without having to be hassled by reporters). asserted
Chinese → add → reporters
It added that “As a matter of longstanding practice, the Government of Canada does not publicize working-level meetings by officials.” asserted
Government → add → officials
Chase was able to find a background source who told him that about 10 Canadian officers and diplomats were present. asserted
officers → find → him
It is certainly the longstanding practice of Canadian officials to sit on information until it dies of buttock suffocation, but I wonder if this is justifiable or healthy. asserted
this → sit → suffocation
Actually, scratch that: I don’t wonder. asserted
I → scratch → that
It’s not. asserted
It → ’ → ?
No doubt some people will be tempted to make trouble with the Americans about a low-level side chat between the Canadian and Chinese militaries, but look at how the U.S. military handles this stuff. asserted
military → tempt → stuff
The senior American military commander in the Pacific, Adm. Samuel Paparo, met personally with his People’s Liberation Army counterpart on Canadian soil the day before the China-Canada talks. asserted
commander → meet → talks
We know this because U.S. Pacific Command put out a public press release about the meeting. asserted
Command → know → meeting
And this American statement, unlike Canada’s privately circulated one, actually explains the purpose of the meeting in plain English words. asserted
statement → circulate → words
“The two leaders [Paparo and PLA Gen. Yang Zhibin] discussed the importance of maintaining open lines of communication between senior U.S. and Chinese military leaders to reduce the risk of miscalculation and promote safe and professional conduct between forces.” asserted
leaders → discuss → forces
A sensible American citizen will read those words and think “Well, sure, that makes sense. asserted
that → read → sense
Perhaps we’re adversaries of China, and they have territorial interests that overlap with ours and those of our key regional allies, but we’ve got to be able to talk to one another and maybe establish basic ground rules in order to prevent unintended conflict and escalatory incidents.” asserted
we → ’re → conflict
Probably the same kind of thing is true about the China-Canada conference, but why didn’t somebody say so before Canadian were reading about the talks in the South Korean press? asserted
Canadian → say → press
Isn’t it more important for Canada to be forthright about this stuff, given that Canada-haters in the U.S. are bound to squawk about it? asserted
haters → give → it
We have left those people largely free to say whatever crazy nonsense they like without contradiction, haven’t we? asserted
we → leave → contradiction
And God forbid I mention it, but our Liberal governments have an intermittent 60-year history of smooching up to communist China, and such a government arguably has a special duty to account for a “Defence Coordination Dialogue.” asserted
government → forbid → Dialogue
💬 Give feedback
🕘 History 🎫 Support