Evidence of meeting #6 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:40 p.m.
Director General, North Asia, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
I might suggest that we turn to Jordan Reeves, who follows this closely.
I'm not sure, Jordan, whether you can add to that.
12:40 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Trade Office in Taipei, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
I can't give you the exact answer but I can tell you that Taiwan does have FIPAs with a number of its trading partners. Those include many of its diplomatic allies, but I don't think all of the 14. Also, I think, there are more recent FIPA-style agreements. They're not exactly the same as ours. Some of these don't have full dispute settlement mechanisms as part of the agreements, but two recent examples of investment-related agreements that Taiwan has completed are with India and Vietnam.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
Excellent. Thank you so much for that.
At this preliminary stage, I'm not quite sure who this should go to. Which sectors in our country can expect better prospects as we move forward in the event that we negotiate a FIPA? Which sectors in Canada stand to gain?
12:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Trade Policy and Negotiations, Asia, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Mr. Chair, I just want to note that should we proceed with FIPA negotiations, doing that would be largely about establishing investment protection. It's based on protections for our investors abroad against any potential discriminatory treatment and expropriation. It is about reaffirming our commitment to a predictable framework, so it's not specific to—
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
Ms. Speirs, I'm not asking about the substance; I'm talking about what sectors appear to be most promising for us in Canada, should we negotiate an agreement.
12:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Trade Policy and Negotiations, Asia, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
It's not linked to any particular sectors; it's designed to foster—
12:45 p.m.
Director General, North Asia, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Mr. Chair, if I might, I would say we've seen very positive two-way investment, including in the health sector and in environment and clean energy. We see increased interest in biotech, and of course we're all very interested in seeing further investments in co-operation in the IT sector, not least of all for chips.
As my colleague mentioned, the arrangement would be about building broader confidence across sectors, but those are all very promising sectors that, with our CTO team in Taipei, we work hard at growing.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Thank you very much, Mr. Ehsassi. We will have to leave it there in the interest of time.
I'll now give the floor to Mr. Bergeron for two and a half minutes.
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to come back to the subject that Mr. Epp had started to raise: China's reaction to the opening of Taiwan's representative office in Vilnius, Lithuania.
How do you explain this knee‑jerk reaction by the PRC, when many countries, including Canada, maintain unofficial relations with Taiwan? Is it a sign of the PRC cracking down on any new relations being established with Taiwan?
12:45 p.m.
Director General, North Asia, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Mr. Chair, the questions are perceptive. We will continue to take note of, be concerned with and work with partners to push back on the “moving of the goal posts” approach that we have seen. That's with respect to Taiwan's international space, both in terms of bilateral arrangements it may have unofficially with other partners—the case in point being Lithuania—and also with respect to Taiwan's participation in organizations of which it is already a member, be it APEC or the WTO.
Time doesn't permit it now, but there are examples of activity by one side that would seek to downgrade its long-standing role in access.
Those, again, are some of the examples I was giving earlier. We're alive both to military exercises and to threats, but also to other ways in which pressure is being put on Taiwan around the world.
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Mr. Chair, I know that my time is almost up, but I would like to come back to the response that Mr. Hamilton gave to Mr. Genuis concerning the AUKUS pact. I understand Canada's reservations about joining the Indo‑Pacific alliance, given that the countries in question have nuclear submarines.
How can this position be reconciled with the fact that Canada is a member, for example, of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, several members of which also have nuclear submarines?
12:45 p.m.
Director General, International Security Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Mr. Chair, of course different countries will assess their defence and security needs in different ways. I can say that right now our assessment is that Canada is not in need of nuclear submarines at this time, but to the extent that Australia is arguably our closest partner and ally in the Indo-Pacific, they determined that they needed that resource.
From our perspective, that can only be a good thing. It increases our opportunities for interoperability with the Australians. It enhances their security and defence situation, so to the extent that we're close partners and allies with the Australians, we believe it enhances our security and defence as well.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Thank you very much, Mr. Bergeron.
Madam McPherson is next, for two and a half minutes, please.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Really quickly, this isn't a question, but I wanted to clarify that the feminist foreign policy is not the same as the FIAP, the feminist international assistance policy, and it is so important that the feminist foreign policy include all aspects of Canada's role in the world, including defence, diplomacy and trade—so not wanting to focus on that development side when we look at the feminist foreign policy.
Unfortunately, I don't have questions for our guests right now because I would like to take the remainder of my time to move a motion that I brought forward previously. I really do thank the witnesses for being here, and I look forward to having the opportunity to study Taiwan in further detail going forward, but knowing where we are in Canada, knowing that I have now asked the U.S. ambassador to Canada to come to this committee to answer questions on foreign money being used to fuel these projects, I think it's really important to recognize that yesterday the GiveSendGo website was hacked. It was redirected to an illegal leak of who the donors are.
The document indicates that 56% of the donors are from the U.S. and that foreign donors account for nearly half of the dollar amount, that work emails were tied to these donations, including from the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and that, while there was a recent provincial order to freeze the funds, the convoy organizers as well as GiveSendGo have been looking for ways around this order.
This is a national emergency. Clearly, it has dragged on much longer than it should have due to a lack of leadership and a lack of action, and it needs to be addressed swiftly. This committee is a perfect place for us to be looking at this concern of foreign interference in relation to the convoy, and to elevate this issue, particularly since the organizers, who have a say in managing the funds, have expressed hate, white supremacy and a stated goal to appoint themselves into an unelected position of government and dissolve the current government.
I would like to move that motion, and I ask the committee to consider it and vote for it, please, Mr. Chair.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Thank you very much, Ms. McPherson. The motion has been moved. It's in order. It was communicated to members within the notice period and is now formally moved. That means members now have the opportunity to debate that motion.
Because we are in a hybrid format, in the sense that we have at least two members in the room in person and the rest of us online, I would like to ask the clerk and colleagues to re-establish a speaking order.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
Mr. Chair, I just have a point of clarification. I just want to clarify that this is the motion on the U.S. ambassador and not the—
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
Okay. I'm asking because there were two motions, I think, that Ms. McPherson tabled.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I'm happy to read the motion if that would provide clarity, Mr. Chair.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Why don't we ask you to do that, just to be absolutely sure? Please go ahead.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
It is as follows:
That the Committee request the appearance of David L. Cohen, Ambassador of the United States to Canada, to appear for a period of one hour to entertain questions from the Committee in regard to concerns American influence supporting a group in Canada who has a stated goal to dissolve the Government of Canada, including concerns of funding and being collected and distributed by American companies towards this goal, and concerns regarding American in positions of authority encouraging Americans to support the call to dissolve the Canadian government with funding that is foreign to Canada.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Thank you very much, Ms. McPherson.
I'm going back to my earlier point with respect to the establishment of a speakers list. I know we have members in the room as well as online. Online it's easy. I would ask you to use the “raise hand” feature and, once you've spoken, to lower it to go back in the queue.
I will ask the clerk if there are interventions that are being sought from the floor and to let me know so that I can develop an integrated speakers list.
Right now I have Mr. Oliphant, who has his hand raised virtually.
Mr. Oliphant, you have the floor.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms. McPherson, for the motion.
However, I would not be in favour of it, for two principal reasons: one on process and one on content. The process is we took quite a while getting our committee going. We have an ambitious agenda. Today's meeting is just the start of the Taiwan study. We're still continuing with Ukraine, which is one of the most pressing issues for most Canadians beyond our borders. Taiwan is extremely important. I'm already getting some ideas now, thanks to Monsieur Bergeron's idea that we delay our witnesses for a while. I am getting more questions, which I think are going to be helpful as we move ahead. Then we also have the important study on vaccine equity. We'll be having a briefing on that. The principal reason would be that I believe we have done some good work in getting an agenda.
The second reason is I don't think that issue trumps our important agenda, mainly because the issue that is being raised and the content of the motion is really not about a state-to-state issue that would be appropriately addressed by the ambassador of the United States to Canada. I think he would not be the best witness for us to do that.
For those reasons I will not be supporting it.