Foreign Affairs Committee on April 16th, 2026

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, witnesses, and thank you for joining us.

As my friend Michael Chong so aptly put it, Canada's Indo-Pacific strategy that the government launched in 2022 specifically provided for the continued development of economic and personal ties with Taiwan, which is referenced several times.

Mr. Epp, in your opening remarks, you named many countries, but not once did you mention Taiwan. Your department has clearly changed direction regarding Taiwan.

We talked about the agreement reached in 2025, which just needs to be signed. That agreement covered important economic sectors for Quebec, such as AI and green energy. On top of that, last February, Radio-Canada revealed Taipei suspected Ottawa was delaying signing this agreement to preserve its relationship with China.

Has the government given your department any explanation as to why this agreement still hasn't been signed?

[Weldon Epp]

Thank you for the question.

The answer is no. We're waiting for more details regarding next steps. To date, we haven't received any instructions—

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

You're saying the government has yet to give you any explanation on this. Therefore, it didn't consult departmental experts on its reasons for signing or not signing this agreement.

[Weldon Epp]

I can say that on a number of occasions, we've had discussions on a range of opportunities and tools with respect to our engagement with Taiwan. However, to date, we haven't received any specific direction on that.

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

Has your department assessed the economic impact for Quebec of signing or not signing this agreement, for example?

[Weldon Epp]

Yes. I'll let my colleague Darren Smith answer. He was a negotiator on that.

[Darren Smith, Executive Director, Indo-Pacific Trade Policy Division, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Thank you, Mr. Epp.

Honourable member, the quick answer to your question is no.

It's necessary to understand what this trade co-operation framework arrangement is. First and foremost, it's effectively a modalities document. For easy comparison, you can take a look at what the U.K. and Taiwan accomplished. It's a very similar kind of structure. It basically sets out process, architecture, contact points and those kinds of elements. The arrangement, similar to what the U.K. did, sets out to articulate a vision for basically the commencement of supplementary arrangements that could move forward.

In that regard, some of the interest you expressed with respect to l'économie verte, digital and issues like that—I think you specifically mentioned artificial intelligence—could very much be captured in our work with Taiwan, and it has been a part of our work anyway. Weldon could probably articulate more in terms of the CTEC process. It's a long-standing arrangement we have with Taiwan to look at these types of issues.

I would say our work with Taiwan has continued all throughout 2025 and 2026. We've been talking to them about issues pertaining to the global trading environment. We ourselves are very much cognizant of some of the issues related to supply chain resiliency and their agreement with the U.S., which was just concluded in February. All of these issues are part of the same mix.

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

Thank you.

I hear what you're saying, but this is a risk-free agreement. There are no tariffs at stake. It's a framework, as they say. Great Britain already has a similar agreement. There's no good reason not to sign this negotiated agreement. Both parties agreed to all the details. The only thing missing is the signature. Unfortunately, looking at this very objectively, the only valid reason not to sign this agreement is that we don't want to offend Beijing. I think any international expert would tell us that. There's no other valid reason, unless you can give me one.

Your silence tells me I am absolutely right. Through its department, the Canadian government is telling us that we're not signing a risk-free agreement with Taiwan, because we don't want to offend Beijing.

Regarding Beijing, you talked about resilient supply chains and human rights. A study by the University of Sheffield very clearly shows that forced labour is used in the production of Chinese electric cars, particularly in Xinjiang, where there are a lot of mining and aluminum industries. We have those studies. We have a number of studies showing forced labour is used in the Chinese electric car production supply chains, yet the government signed an agreement to lower tariffs on canola in exchange for 49,000 Chinese electric cars.

You said we need to pay attention to supply chains. Here, you have proof that forced labour is involved in these supply chains. It's been shown. Isn't that a bit contradictory?

[Weldon Epp]

I think you'll agree supply chains are quite complex in any sector. There's a lot of complexity, even in China itself. There are several global brands, such as Chery or BYD. It's very important to look at each case and each project specifically.

We use a series or a range of tools that allow us to keep track of products made from forced labour. They've been around for a few years. The Prime Minister recently strengthened our internal vigilance capabilities by investing in the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency.

Also, we'll continue to share the responsibility with Canadian companies. In fact, we require Canadian companies themselves participate in an oversight process, especially when it comes to Xinjiang. We have a statement we ask our companies with investments on the ground to adhere to. All of these tools will evolve when necessary so we can have strategic partnerships that make sense for Canada's interests. At the same time, we won't ignore the possibility that there are goods or supply chains linked to forced labour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you very much.

[Weldon Epp]

I don't think it's a contradiction, but it's quite complex.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you very much.

We go next to MP Rood.

You have five minutes.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Middlesex—London, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, witnesses, for being here today.

Back in October 2025, the Liberals promised an updated Indo-Pacific strategy as soon as possible, and here we are in April 2026 still waiting. I'm curious. Do you have any idea why the government missed yet another self-imposed deadline while Canadian families continue to pay the price for delayed economic security?

[Weldon Epp]

Sitting where I am, as an official responsible for the Indo-Pacific, I would say that I have a lot of sympathy for colleagues who have been working on Europe and who have been working on the Middle East. It's been a busy year. I know that our minister is on the road almost constantly, with a very heavy list of objectives but also reacting to the world as it is.

I think it's very clear that she has not self-imposed any kind of deadline, but she has made it very clear that she would like to come back with an update. We've been active in providing advice. She has been active in consulting stakeholders, organizations and foreign governments. There's a lot of work under way, but there's also a lot happening in the world.

In the meantime, I think what should be understood—I hope—by the members of this committee or the public is that this is a five-year funded strategy. The funding is across 17 departments. That funding, those tools and those initiatives continue until they don't. There's a lot of work that will continue. I think it's reasonable to expect that the original objectives of the strategy—like diversification—will continue, and the government is doubling down on those.

I would just caution the members of the committee on seeing some kind of major before-and-after moment. This is an evolution of a strategy that the government, in its own activity today, continues to double down on, be it in trade diversification or economic security partnerships.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Middlesex—London, ON]

Thank you.

The 2022 strategy labelled China as “an increasingly disruptive global power” that seeks to “shape the international order”, yet Canada remains dangerously dependent on Beijing while our oil and gas sit idle. Why hasn't the department used Canadian LNG and crude exports to give our Indo-Pacific allies a reliable, ethical alternative to adversarial suppliers?

[Weldon Epp]

I can agree with the member on the premise of the question, in the sense that Canada has a lot on offer for partners in the Indo-Pacific. We are very much in demand. The question came up earlier with respect to recent events in the Middle East putting pressure on a lot of economies for energy supply.

Some of the investments that began under the Indo-Pacific strategy now need to continue at pace, linked to the current government's major projects strategy. I would point to things like engagement across the region to encourage more investment in LNG. LNG Canada phase two is coming to decision points very soon. Across the previous government and the current government, a lot of work has gone into trying to engage the private sector in the region to invest in those opportunities.

Lastly, these countries, whatever we think about their governance, have economies that are some of the biggest in the world and have an impact on climate change and pollution, the pollution we breathe. The possibility, then, of pivoting towards cleaner energy for countries like China is of interest to Canadians and something that we're going to continue to promote.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Middlesex—London, ON]

On that same point, nearly four years and $2.3 billion later, the first LNG cargo left Kitimat for Asia only in 2025, after years of lots of what I would call Liberal red tape. The goalposts keep changing.

I'm curious. Do you know if the goalposts will keep changing for the government before Canadian energy finally becomes the cornerstone of our Indo-Pacific strategy?

[Weldon Epp]

I can say that I've travelled a lot, in my own role and with various ministers, to the region. Energy is one of the inescapable and key talking points for our partners in the region. They are responding very positively to decisions taken by the government to work at reducing permitting times to put more predictability into new projects. Those priorities of the government have landed with an incredible welcome in audiences across the region.

Also welcomed has been the mark of trust building or confidence in having LNG Canada phase one come online. I take the point that this was recent, but having the proof point of LNG shipments to the region from the west coast of Canada has been a major confidence boost, as has been the offtake for oil coming through Trans Mountain. I take the confident view that we have something the region wants. We have a bit more confidence that Canada can deliver, and the government has made it very clear that it wants to move even faster.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Middlesex—London, ON]

The Prime Minister has called Canada an energy superpower, yet the Indo-Pacific strategy barely mentions our oil and gas potential. Why has the department failed to prioritize Pacific LNG and crude infrastructure when Asia's allies are desperate to secure non-Russian, non-Middle Eastern supply?

[Weldon Epp]

I think that points to the value of the update, and the minister has spoken about that.

Regarding the legitimate questions about what was or was not in the original strategy, I would say that, since the strategy was launched, a lot has changed in the world, and some things remain the same. What has changed is that energy has become an even more critical issue for national sovereignty and supply chain security. I expect the update to be—as the government's actions have been—very focused on that, among other areas where we're refocusing our efforts under the strategy.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Middlesex—London, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you very much

We'll go next to MP Mona Fortier.

You have five minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

I especially want to thank the witnesses for joining us in the first meeting of this review we've just begun. I also thank them for their hard work. We don't tell them often enough. They put a lot of effort in their work, and we know they support us in this task.

The first thing I'd like to do is invite committee members to participate actively. We have a forum to participate in this review, and we must seize this opportunity.

If I understand correctly, the minister referenced this when she said: The world has changed since the Indo-Pacific strategy was published, and we have to make sure our foreign policy now meets the needs of Canada.

I think this forum gives us a perfect opportunity to ask the witnesses questions and perhaps contribute to how this review and update of Canada's Indo-Pacific strategy are perceived. I therefore invite my colleagues on the other side of the House to do this exercise with us.

Mr. Epp, you said the minister is also undertaking consultations with stakeholders. Could you tell us, and those watching our proceedings today, how we can participate in this review as Canadians or as parliamentarians?

[Weldon Epp]

Thank you for the question.

I completely agree with you. We'll take into account the comments made during today's meeting and at future meetings on the committee's current study when we advise the minister on the next steps and the renewal of our strategy. Also, MPs have a role to play, because they have contacts and ties and are part of parliamentary groups, such as the Canada‑Indonesia group.

Global Affairs Canada encourages you to take advantage of these ties, contacts and platforms to strengthen our relations in the Indo-Pacific region. One of the first objectives of the strategy was to increase our presence and be more reliable in the region. This is an objective not only for the government, but also for Canadians, whether we're talking about businesses, organizations, or members of Parliament.

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

In your frame of reference or in the exercise that you're carrying out and that we can take part in, are there any results that we need to achieve? How can we achieve them? Can we take any winning conditions into account in order to carry out this review properly?