Foreign Affairs Committee on June 4th, 2026

[Dominique Caouette]

I personally think there are various opportunities. Just this year, the Sommet de la Francophonie will be held in Cambodia. It's important for Canada to be there. I think it's a way for Canada to demonstrate its commitment.

I want to go back to the previous comment. A few decades ago, Canada came up with the idea of forming coalitions. For example, there was a treaty on anti-personnel mines. Peacekeepers can be traced back even further. Canada had the ability to form unions with middle powers, with like-minded countries or coalitions.

Strengthening trade and relations with Southeast Asia, for example, can help create a balance of power with China. On a larger scale, Canada has to develop other partnerships so as not to depend solely on China for supply chains. This is important.

Beyond forming coalitions or alliances with groups of countries, it would be important to create alliances with countries that share a common discourse. With enough repeats, I think that could become a norm. Civil society initiatives, such as human rights groups, are one way we can advocate for human rights and exert pressure. It creates a context, or a space, in which the issue of human rights can be raised.

The next challenge is the issue of critical minerals. The development of the next strategy will have to include serious consideration of critical minerals. Critical minerals are being presented as part of the green transition, but there are also a number of upstream effects, such as pollution and the displacement of populations. This is a challenge that affects both Canada and the Indo-Pacific. That would be one way to show that we have common challenges.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is a very interesting discussion. I want to congratulate and thank the witnesses who are here today.

Dr. Martel, the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development published a report, in 2020, concluding that a genocide was being committed against Uyghurs. It also stated that the regime in power in China was responsible. In 2021, my honourable colleague Mr. Chong, who is vice-chair of this committee, got the House of Commons to vote on a motion, and that vote recognized the Uyghur genocide by the Chinese communist regime. Members of Parliament, including Mr. Chong, Ms. Vandenbeld and me, are still being sanctioned by China. I can't wrap my head around that.

Even with all the information we have right now, it's as if we're trying to have it both ways, when there are still unacceptable things happening in terms of international law under the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, for example, or the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

I understand that the issue is complicated and that we must continue to have diplomatic relations with this country, but the fact remains that it was awarded the Olympic Games and that nothing has ever changed. We were told that if China were to host the Olympic Games, we would be able to have discussions with the country.

Dr. Martel, how do we manage this relationship?

You don't have to give me the answer, because I don't think it exists, but I'll let you comment on that.

[Stéphanie Martel]

That's an easy question, but I would flip it back to you. How would you envision an approach to foreign policy or trade policy that prioritizes—if I understand you correctly—a form of decoupling or non-relationship with a regime, maybe not specifically China?

It's possible to think of many regimes that we maintain trade and diplomatic relations with, among other things, but that have been found to be responsible for gross violations of human rights. Since Canada is not securing a commitment, I think we also have to be realistic about the weight and influence that Canada can have on these issues, compared with China, as a self-proclaimed middle power.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay.

[Stéphanie Martel]

Does that mean that we can't exert pressure more effectively in co‑operation with other countries? I think it raises the question. Unless we truly intend to approach our foreign policy in general by putting human rights first and deciding that we won't engage in relations with countries that commit human rights violations, we're going to have a number of problems.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Dr. Martel.

Next, we have Ms. Rood.

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

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

The Asia Pacific Foundation has stated that Canada needs to update its China policy with real guardrails on foreign interference, supply chains and economic coercion instead of just “selective engagement”.

Do you believe the current Liberal approach is actually protecting Canadian jobs, farmers and national security, or is it still being too soft on Beijing?

[Stéphanie Martel]

Is that question for me or Dr. Caouette?

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

It's for both of you.

[Stéphanie Martel]

Again, situating the narrow scope of my expertise, which is not on trade and not on China, I will say that I don't think the current approach is too soft on China. That wouldn't be the kind of language that I would personally use. There is room for building granular, country-specific knowledge and distinguishing the facts and legitimate causes for concern from the noise in how we approach our relationship moving forward without losing track of realistic expectations for what kind of influence Canada can exert on China and of how, technically, we can build the safeguards we need while understanding the reality of China's centrality in the global economy.

There is a way to approach things with cooler heads when it comes to our relationship.

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

Thank you so much.

I'm going to move on to the next question, because time is very short here.

Taiwan is a vibrant democracy and a critical partner for semiconductors, cybersecurity and supply chain resilience. Other witnesses have stated that we should deepen ties with Taiwan and not treat it as a bargaining chip with China.

Do you agree that Canada should sign the trade facilitation deal, keep doing strait transits with allies, and expand tech and defence co-operation right now, regardless of what Beijing thinks?

[Dominique Caouette]

I think this is one of the key points. Canada has to show that it has an independent foreign policy. The tendency, sometimes, is.... We were saying that China is a disruptive country, and now we're saying that it can be a strategic partner. We don't gain anything by creating these polarizing narratives.

One way to demonstrate our independence is to maintain links with Taiwan, as I said before. It's also important that these links be part of a regional approach, and there are countries in Southeast Asia, such as Japan and Korea, that also value this relationship.

It's important to show China, for that matter, that Canada can build alliances and maintain an independent foreign policy. What has to be outlined is that one way of doing it is through trade. Often we forget that there are 23 flights every day from Taiwan to China, and there's a lot of investment by Taiwanese businesses in China.

It's important to have a complex understanding. The reality is complex, but I think Canada gains by having a foreign policy, a new revived or revised Indo-Pacific strategy, that maintains some consistency in the way it characterizes its relationship through that approach and uses language that does not place Canada in a rhetorical trap, so that afterwards people can't say, “Oh, but Canada said such a thing.”

This is what I was saying earlier in terms of the next strategy having more nuance but also a more specialized and better knowledge of the region. The Asia Pacific Foundation is doing great work—

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

Thank you so much.

I'm going to move on to my next question. We're just about out of time. I'm so sorry.

Canada has LNG, uranium, critical minerals and clean-tech resources that Indo-Pacific countries desperately need for their energy security; many call energy a strategic asset, not just a commercial one. Should the next phase of the Indo-Pacific strategy make exporting reliable Canadian oil and gas and minerals the top priority to strengthen our economy at home and our influence abroad?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Madam Rood, who would you like to have answer that question?

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

He can continue.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Okay.

Mr. Caouette, please give a brief answer.

[Dominique Caouette]

I will let Stéphanie go ahead.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Okay.

Dr. Martel, please give a brief answer.

[Stéphanie Martel]

Beyond short-term, trade-focused priorities and exports, Canada has other ways to contribute that should not be downgraded or sidelined.

[Dominique Caouette]

Very quickly, on the way we frame the issues, “either-or” is not productive, because it forces Canada to put itself in contradictory policies. We want to fight climate change and we want to have environmental policies, yet we want to increase fossil-fuel energy, and then people say these cannot be reconciled.

Avoiding these binary concepts or ideas would benefit Canada, because in many ways—and Stéphanie Martel is the specialist—ASEAN functions in this non-confrontational way, and it has kept the organization going.

It's key to learn from the region as well.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Thank you.

The last round goes to Mr. Oliphant.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to both the witnesses.

Just before we continue, Ms. Fortier asked me to correct the record. She mentioned that we are looking at hosting the ASEAN summit in 2029, but it's the APEC summit.

I think it's important for us to remember that ASEAN is 11 countries, whereas APEC is 21 economies. That's a really important group that brings together the economies of the Pacific, including Taiwan. That's why it's referred to as economies.

There are a couple of things I want to dig down on.

Professor Martel, you're giving us a high challenge, because it's always easier to be generalists than to be specific.

The Indo-Pacific strategy, which involves 17 departments and agencies, was high level, and it does end up leading, when we don't get specific, to some in-and-out thinking. You've asked us to be more specific about where we do our work, not just sectorally but digging down within sectors very strategically. I agree. I think it's really important. Dealing with 40 countries in that Indo-Pacific region is hard to do. Then you get into hundreds of sectors. How do we do that? How do we get the intelligence, the work, done?

What I want you to say, without putting words in your mouth, is that we need a larger foreign service that is able to be on the ground and out there gathering the information to be very specific about where we should be. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'm trying to get that out.

[Stéphanie Martel]

We have a significantly highly competent foreign service deployed across this region that operates with very limited resources. The Indo-Pacific strategy has, to an extent, contributed to additional support and new positions in some aspects. This is absolutely crucial if we are serious in the long term to have those ears on the ground, absolutely.

Ears on the ground can also be a whole-of-society effort and one that goes beyond trade missions. This speaks to my initial suggestion of leveraging people-to-people ties in the higher education sector, and leveraging the expert capacity we have in Canada in ways that are more effective is also a very cost-effective way of showing the flag in various areas, keeping ears on the ground and getting a sense of where the wind is blowing at particular moments.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I would add to that that we are in a number of clubs that can engage in a way. The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership has 12 partners. People forget that, of the 40 countries in the Indo-Pacific region, 21 are members of the Commonwealth. That's over half. Three are members of la Francophonie.

You start to put these groups together, and you realize that we have other multilateral vehicles with which to engage diplomatically as well as culturally, and we have people-to-people ties through a variety of funds. I think we often forget that we're able to do that.

I want to talk about India. It may not be the expertise of either of you. Recently, the President of Finland was in India. He said that, together, Finland and India make up 1.5 billion people. It was a bit of a joke. Together, Canada and India make up 1.5 billion people as well. India is absolutely critical as the most populous country in the world.

Do you have any thoughts on our new engagement with India, about opportunities, cautions, guardrails or anything that comes into the minds of either of you?

Perhaps we could go with Professor Caouette first, if he has anything.