Evidence of meeting #38 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was region.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
Braedon Clark Liberal Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS
Thank you for your fairness on the matter.
I appreciate those comments very much. I think that sometimes when we talk about these issues, we gravitate toward issues of hard power, whether that might be military, geopolitics, security or energy. Soft power, obviously, should never be underestimated. I think those are excellent points there.
Professor Martel, you mentioned in your opening statement an area of opportunity, which is the work related to the agenda of women, peace and security. In the minute or so we have remaining, I wonder if you could give us your thoughts on that. Why do you see that as an area of potential?
Associate Professor, Department of Political Studies, Queen's University, As an Individual
I would start by saying that it's an area of demonstrated potential, in the sense that Canada has been an active player in that space as part of the Indo-Pacific strategy. Canada has been very active, in particular, in supporting ASEAN's efforts to develop its own regional action plan on women, peace and security. ASEAN was late to the party when it comes to women, peace and security, but it has now caught up.
This is an ongoing trend we're seeing and one that offers a number of very interesting entry points for Canada across issue areas where we already provide contributions not specific to having that kind of gender lens. All the issues I mentioned, from dark vessel detection to disaster relief and countering violent extremism, can use a women, peace and security entry point. Despite what we're seeing, with our southern neighbour the United States pulling out of that space and deeming that kind of policy agenda to be controversial, the U.S. is still an outlier, and—
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Thank you.
Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe, you have the floor for seven and a half minutes.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, very much, Mr. Chair.
I thank the witnesses for being with us for this important study.
Mr. Caouette, as a professor of political science and Asian studies, I imagine you're aware of what's going on in places like Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Taiwan. I imagine you know what's happening there. In your speech, you said that we need to reinvent our relationship with China.
How can Canada defend international human rights—that is, the international rules-based order—while building closer diplomatic and economic ties with China? It doesn't add up.
Full professor of Political Science and Asian Studies, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
That's an excellent question. It applies not only to China, but also to Myanmar and other countries where significant human rights violations occur.
The idea is to facilitate a dialogue on these issues. For years, Canada was perceived as preachy, and that got in the way. Meanwhile, China constantly brought up the Canadian government's relations with its Indigenous communities.
We could use examples of reconciliation approaches or diplomatic approaches centred on dialogue and alignment. By that, I mean that we must also acknowledge our inconsistencies, and I think China is sensitive to that. There is no quick, ready-made solution. However, it is important to be consistent. Canada must create spaces for dialogue while upholding and repeatedly reaffirming its commitments. I think there's a feasible way to do this, but it may not be the same approach we've taken in the past.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
You mentioned China's criticism of Canada's relationship with first nations. What happened in residential schools was horrific, of course, and now a process of truth and reconciliation is in motion.
Right now, China is subjecting Tibetans and Uyghurs to the same treatment that Canada inflicted on first nations many years ago. It's happening right now. To invoke the same argument is to walk into a trap, so to speak.
I don't mean to be harsh, Mr. Caouette, but we're in no position to lecture others about what's currently happening on Chinese territory. For its part, Canada has at least established truth and reconciliation mechanisms. We mustn't fall for that line of reasoning.
Full professor of Political Science and Asian Studies, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
That's exactly it. What I'm saying is that, instead of lecturing others, we should draw on our own experiences and show what we've done and how we've addressed these issues through truth and reconciliation commissions and investigative processes. That's when we can take a credible position. I think that's what we should focus on.
Full professor of Political Science and Asian Studies, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
Another aspect we haven't discussed much is the expertise of civil society organizations in those regions and in Canada. They can get to the most difficult regions, such as China, to conduct investigations.
I think it's important to listen to human rights groups, to raise awareness about their reports and findings, and to draw on their expertise. Often, embassy staff cannot travel to regions in conflict. They lack direct connections there.
Why not also tap into the expertise of the diaspora here in Canada?
There are nine million Canadians of Asian descent who are familiar with the region, but we don't actively engage them very much. I think constructive engagement is a good idea, but it needs to take place in forums, among other things.
Another effective approach we advocate for is building consensus through in-depth dialogue behind closed doors rather than in public, which allows the parties to address issues directly.
I believe this kind of diplomacy must be subtle and carefully calibrated, but we must stand firm. I completely agree with what you're saying. We have to stand firm on basic principles of human rights. However, in terms of how we go about things, we need to be creative and find ways to move forward that also align with these countries' foreign policy approaches.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
The problem I see is that, since diplomatic relations with China have somewhat thawed, we have seen that an agreement on electric cars has been signed in exchange for lower tariffs on canola. What we have seen since then is that Mr. Carney called back Liberal MPs who had shown up in Taiwan. A Chinese envoy came here to Canada. He told everyone not to send Canadian MPs to Taiwan. In fact, our chair here, Mr. Chong, whom I thank and congratulate, didn't listen to that directive.
It's as if the Chinese Communist Party were dictating things to us here on Canadian soil. I, too, believe in dialogue, but since this diplomatic thaw, there has been nothing in history to show that we have gotten closer to China diplomatically and that there have been any positive results in terms of human rights.
The situation in Tibet dates back to 1949. The Uyghur situation has already been going on for a while. However, people continue to say that if we get closer diplomatically, if we get closer to China economically, its attitude will change.
You mentioned Myanmar earlier. Myanmar and China are worlds apart. We're talking about a global power, almost tied with the United States, when Myanmar isn't a player at all.
I'm wondering and trying to understand how we can really get closer to a regime that, as we all know, is currently using forced labour in supply chains producing goods that will be available here in Canada, all while we tell ourselves that if we get closer to China, it will change its attitude. I have yet to see any results. I don't understand how we can rely on that assertion to think that this will change anything at all.
Conservative
Full professor of Political Science and Asian Studies, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
I think that argument is valid. However, I think it's important to maintain a firm position. What harms Canada the most is when Canada seems to compromise on its principles, particularly when it has a position and then changes it. For example, following Mr. Carney's visit to China, there seems to be a desire to distance ourselves from Taiwan.
I experienced a situation where, when a conference was being organized, a Taiwanese representative was invited to speak. China reacted vehemently by saying that the person should not come. A point was made about the independence of academia.
I think that Canada must take firm positions while being aware that this is not an orthodox position that will eventually lead to changes. That's where I think it's important to develop expertise.
Conservative
Conservative
Harb Gill Conservative Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I have a question for Dr. Martel.
India clearly is a very important player in the Indo-Pacific and an important country for Canada's future and economic interests. What many Canadians are struggling to understand, though, is how the government reconciles the reality of various concerns that have been raised by parliamentary committees here, CSIS, the RCMP, former ministers, and even members of the government's own caucus regarding foreign interference.
We have seen diplomatic visits, ministerial meetings, partnership announcements and MOUs in an effort to normalize relationships. Those efforts are clearly worthwhile and necessary, but beyond the optics and beyond the diplomacy, what problem has actually been solved? Academically speaking, what concern identified by CSIS, the RCMP, Parliament or the government members themselves is less serious today than it was a year ago?
Associate Professor, Department of Political Studies, Queen's University, As an Individual
To be perfectly frank with you, this is far outside the scope of my expertise, so I will not be able to provide a direct answer.
What I will say, to go back to the previous line of questioning, is that there is a need to grasp the reality of the interconnectedness of the global economy with those of China and India in ways that mean that any attempts to decouple because of legitimate concerns about foreign interference and human rights are not realistic.
We need to find other ways to apply pressure, and those ways are oftentimes best handled away, as my colleague mentioned, from the megaphone diplomacy and moral outrage that make us feel good but actually achieve very few results. I would defer to the expertise of the agencies in question to do the work that needs to be done and build the safeguards where we can build them and make objective calculations of risk here, and I think we have the capacity to do that.
Unfortunately, there is a whole lot of noise that is also crowding our ability to distinguish facts from speculation and fear of what might happen. Here, what is absolutely crucial is to also be able—and thank you for bringing up the case of India, because that's allowing me to make the point about China as well—to contextualize the kind of behaviour that we don't necessarily approve of against the backdrop of other relationships that we have that are also problematic in those ways but that we don't talk about and that don't lead to the same kind of outrage.
I find that kind of distinction telling, and it's something that also opens up or gives additional fodder to states like China to use that kind of tactical whataboutism to undermine our attempts to build those safeguards.
I think if we're able to accommodate the fact that, yes, reality is complex and two things can be true at the same time, and if we can ward ourselves against confirmation bias, that's the right way to go.
Conservative
Harb Gill Conservative Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Dr. Martel.
I think what I heard there was, “Do not stand in Parliament like the previous prime minister and make wild statements that cannot be backed up.”
Dr. Caouette, the original Indo-Pacific strategy described China as an increasingly disruptive global power, and the Prime Minister called China a threat while visiting my home city of Windsor in April 2025. Now he has changed his tune and called them a “strategic” and “reliable” partner, possibly more reliable than the U.S.
We also heard from the Liberal government and the RCMP in the past that Beijing-sanctioned police stations are operating in major Canadian cities.
How does the government balance these competing realities, and what safeguards are there to ensure that today's re-engagement does not become tomorrow's problem for Canadian citizens?
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Thank you, Mr. Gill. Unfortunately, we're out of time for that round, so the witnesses, if they wish, could answer that as part of subsequent rounds.
We'll now go to Madame Fortier.
Liberal
Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier—Gloucester, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for joining our study.
With your expertise, we're trying to look at how we can strengthen and improve Canada's Indo-Pacific strategy. I'm going to give you the opportunity to expand on any concrete actions you may have in mind and would like to tell us about.
Canada has submitted its bid to host the ASEAN summit, which will take place in 2029.
First, I would like to hear your opinion on that. Is it worth it? Is it justified?
How could we take this opportunity to continue working on our strategy?
I'll start with Dr. Martel. I'll then turn to Mr. Caouette.
Associate Professor, Department of Political Studies, Queen's University, As an Individual
Are you talking about the ASEAN Regional Forum?
Liberal
Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier—Gloucester, ON
I'm talking about the one that Canada will host in 2029. Minister Anand is trying to show that Canada really wants to play a concrete role in the Indo-Pacific. This is an opportunity for ASEAN partners to contribute.
This is also an opportunity for you to tell us how we can improve Canada's Indo-Pacific strategy leading up to this forum, which will take place in 2029.
Associate Professor, Department of Political Studies, Queen's University, As an Individual
For Canada, any opportunity is a good one to offer reciprocity, to show that we're present, as well as to serve as a platform to host high-level discussions on a variety of topics.
I think there's one aspect of these exchanges that hasn't been mentioned but that is relevant if we want to hold this kind of event, this kind of high-level meeting. It's about leveraging more informal diplomacy channels or experts in diplomacy, for example, and better supporting them. Canada has access to these experts, but their participation has eroded over time, for all kinds of reasons. Fortunately, Canada's Indo-Pacific strategy has helped somewhat revive this kind of initiative. The Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada is making a very important contribution to this effort.
I think this is something that has to continue and that deserves to be taken a bit more seriously by Ottawa. I have attended a number of these meetings, and I know that these connections go a long way to demonstrating Canada's seriousness and its ability to contribute to discussions on key topics in a constructive way. However, many of these efforts are due to the goodwill of individual researchers and experts who are giving their time and research funding to—
Liberal
Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier—Gloucester, ON
Thank you, Dr. Martel.
I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I'd like to give Professor Caouette the opportunity to add something.
Associate Professor, Department of Political Studies, Queen's University, As an Individual
Of course.
Thank you.