Foreign Affairs Committee on April 16th, 2026

[Weldon Epp]

I'll give you a two‑part answer. The first part is a bit more technocratic and it relates to the work of our officials. We're embarking once again on a whole horizontal evaluation process for all the initiatives, funds and tools involved in our work in the Indo‑Pacific region. We need to assess, in a slightly more technical manner, the results directly tied to Canadians' investments. This plays a key role in informing the government's next steps, especially if it decides to renew the strategy for another five years with additional resources.

Regarding the other part of the question, we already have a good idea of the diplomatic responses to our strategy. We have a good idea based on feedback from our heads of mission in the region, in particular through meetings with the minister, Ms. Anand. This feedback gives us a good idea of what works and of what topics and engagements matter and affect our interests in the region.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier—Gloucester, ON]

I don't have much time left.

I see that we've already opened new diplomatic and trade offices in Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Vietnam and Fiji. We also have the Indo‑Pacific Agriculture and Agri‑Food Office in the Philippines. Are there any plans to open other offices? If so, how will we assess the need for them? Do you have any comments to make in this area?

You probably won't have time to answer right away, but maybe you can do so later in the meeting.

[Weldon Epp]

That's exactly right. We're actually preparing an opinion that includes some aspects that you pointed out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you very much.

MP Brunelle-Duceppe, you have two and a half minutes.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Epp, I would like to pick up on Ms. Fortier's comments. I want to highlight the work that you do. You obviously carry it out with the utmost professionalism.

By the way, Mr. Smith, I gather that you took part in the negotiations on the much‑touted agreement with Taiwan that I referred to. Can you tell the committee how long it took to reach the agreement in principle in March 2025? Did the negotiations take hours, days or weeks of work? Can you give the committee a timeline?

[Darren Smith]

In terms of our work with Taiwan, it's difficult for me to put a specific number on it. As I've said, we've been working with Taiwan since I took over my position in about 2024-25. We haven't actually had a break in that work. It's just been a continual engagement with Taiwan. As I said before, we did have an opportunity to do some work where we had a sense of modalities that we wanted to utilize once this process continued and where we could get into more of a substantive discussion on these matters.

With respect to the work that was referenced in terms of last spring, it's a milestone. It's important to understand, as well, that there's been a lot of dynamic activities in the international trading system over the course of 2025-26. As trade negotiators, we're trying to figure out ways in which we can take into account all these changes that have taken place in the global trading environment, especially on supply chains with Taiwan, which play, of course, a very important role with respect to the semiconductor space, etc.

In that regard, it's also a reality that there have been activities between Taiwan and its trading partners, including the U.S., that we have to take into account as we look forward to how we operationalize the TCFA.

This is information that we provide to the minister's office on an ongoing basis. That will be part of the decision-making construct. This is an evolving space. As I said, the deal with the U.S. just came on board a couple of weeks ago. You have to understand that the work from last spring is just simply on the modalities function and not really on substance.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

I understand. However, when Taiwan's deputy minister of foreign affairs and Taiwan's representative in Canada are asking us to sign, I assume that the agreement is in place and that no further work is needed. It's done and settled.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Please give a very brief response, because we're out of time.

[Darren Smith]

I very much respect the head of the Taiwan office here in Canada, but there is actually a lot more work in front of us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to MP Ziad Aboultaif for five minutes.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Thank you all for doing what you're doing for Canada. I know that it takes a high level of professionalism and knowledge to do what you're doing.

Mr. Epp, during the negotiations with the Chinese government, there were things that we definitely hold against China, for example, some human rights values, child labour and interference in our electoral systems.

Were these items on the table when you were talking to the Chinese?

[Weldon Epp]

As the question was framed in terms of the negotiations, let me try to get to a straight-up answer to the question.

We have raised, and we will continue to raise in the future, a range of issues of concern with respect to China and our relations with China. It includes human rights issues, foreign interference and transnational repression. During the visit of the Prime Minister of Canada, if that's the specific window you're focused on, the Prime Minister himself, Minister Anand and others have spoken to a wide range of concerns, including human rights concerns. They were raised at all levels.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Were they on the table?

[Weldon Epp]

Mr. Chair, I will—

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Just a yes or no, if you can, because I have another question after that.

[Weldon Epp]

As I've said, and as the Prime Minister has said, a wide range of concerns, including human rights, were raised in multiple meetings at all levels during the visit of the Prime Minister to China.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Were they on the menu?

[Weldon Epp]

I'm not going to use euphemisms. I'll say it directly. The Prime Minister and Minister Anand, during that visit, raised a variety of issues, including human rights issues, during their series of meetings.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Was there any preconditioning? What were the negotiation preconditions for both sides, our side and the Chinese side, as highlighted for this committee?

[Weldon Epp]

I'm not comfortable saying categorically what the answer to that question would be, because I would just remind the members of the committee that the update to our approach, our recalibration of relations with China, actually had a number of different tracks. To be very specific, there were resolutions to trade issues, access for canola, etc. There were discussions on those tracks. There were discussions about how we move forward. The moving forward was about taking what had been an existing strategic partnership that was broad and ambitious and dated to a different era, and saying, “What can we do to make it fit for purpose and focused in 2026?”

There were no preconditions in the sense that you are asking. There were interests. It was in our interest to say that our ability to move forward in a relationship with China needs to have a security table. It needs to have an opportunity for us to talk about issues of human rights.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

In order to come up with an agreement, you're sitting at the negotiation table. I know that negotiation is a two-way street. It's not just one way or the other. It's both ways. Both parties have to agree. Sometimes you have to leave things off the table. Sometimes you need to take it out.

What have we compromised in order to get that understanding you're talking about with regard to China?

[Weldon Epp]

I understand. I think the way that I would best answer that is to say that the strategic partnership, the outcome documents, from the Prime Minister's visit are actually quite unusual. They're quite explicit. They're quite long. It's not for every visit that the Prime Minister makes or every engagement we have with China that we're that explicit.

Those documents speak to a number of.... I wouldn't frame them as “conditions” but as a number of interests Canada had. One of them I would highlight is—as we are discussing with them the modalities of implementing, of re-implementing, what had previously existed but had been broken—a regular table to raise issues of security and law enforcement. That's important, because if we're going to advance a relationship between Canada and China, be it economic, be it people to people, we also have to have regular access at the most senior levels to talk about some of the challenges you've just raised.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

A quick example are the Chinese police stations in Canada. Was that a condition, from our side on the table, to move forward?

[Weldon Epp]

To move forward, the intention is for exactly those sorts of issues to be a regular part of our agenda. The concerns we have about foreign interference, concerns we may have about the applicability of Chinese law—long-arm jurisdiction, transnational repression—those sorts of issues are issues that are appropriate for discussing in our law enforcement and rule-of-law dialogue, and that is one of the objectives coming out of the updated strategic partnership.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Thank you.