Canada-China Relations Committee on Feb. 26th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Thank you very much, Mr. Fragiskatos.

We'll now go to Mr. Bergeron for two and a half minutes.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to come back to you, Mr. Caouette.

In an article that you co‑wrote with colleagues in La Presse that was published in November 2023, you mention the Indo‑Pacific strategy, launched by Quebec in 2021.

How do you see this as complementary to Canada's?

[Dominique Caouette]

We sometimes forget this, but Quebec was the first to launch an Indo‑Pacific strategy, a year before Canada.

I also think that Quebec isn't the only one to have done so. There are currently over a dozen Indo‑Pacific strategies, including the strategies of Quebec, Canada and Japan. The Université de Montréal will be holding a summer school solely on this topic.

Quebec's Indo‑Pacific strategy showed that Quebec intends to take its rightful place. Quebec is already involved in “paradiplomacy” at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, or UNESCO, and at the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie.

This strategy has made it possible to take a step forward because it focuses on diversity in partners. This reduces dependence on China, which gives Quebec greater leverage in negotiations with China.

If China knows that it's the only one that can offer certain goods, it will obviously take advantage of this. If other partners can offer them, the situation won't be the same. We often forget that the Southeast and South Asian region and India, for example, offer similar products and belong to the same value chains.

Strategies for the Indo‑Pacific show that the global economy has shifted to Asia. The 21st century will be the Asia‑Pacific or Indo‑Pacific century.

They also show the need to develop expertise. It's vital to strengthen the Quebec, Canadian and western expertise needed to do business with the Indo‑Pacific region.

It's necessary to have a presence in this region and to focus on the development of this expertise. We often forget that Southeast Asia has long‑standing intellectual traditions. There are also Asian philosophers whose works are rarely read. This may seem far removed from what we're talking about. However, it helps us to understand the region that we'll be doing business with.

It's also important to connect diasporas with non‑governmental and civil society organizations.

That said, the Indo‑Pacific strategy is a step forward. I welcome this initiative. I think that other strategies are needed too.

The Canadian strategy must remain constant over time. These strategies can't just be launched and then forgotten. A follow‑up is crucial.

Pragmatism is a core value in Asian countries.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

We'll now go to Mr. Boulerice for our final two and a half minutes.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll turn to you, Mr. Vaillancourt.

In 2016, you spoke to the Standing Committee on International Trade about the Trans‑Pacific Partnership. You raised concerns about investor‑state dispute settlement mechanisms.

At the time, we could see that these mechanisms gave unbelievable rights to private companies over local will and democracies.

A few years later, do you still see these mechanisms as an issue, a threat, a challenge?

How have things changed in this area?

[Claude Vaillancourt]

Still today, we see them as a threat, because they give far too much power to companies.

There has been a good development. This mechanism has been excluded from the free trade agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico. This means that free trade agreements can be entered into without the addition of these mechanisms. At the international level, these mechanisms are widely criticized. They give companies the opportunity to take legal action against governments with no reciprocity. As a result, the legal action is one‑sided and has a chilling effect. Given the existence of this process, companies can threaten governments with legal action and successfully change or limit draft regulations. We've seen it happen many times. For all these reasons, and given the utter uselessness of these mechanisms when it comes to preserving democracy, we maintain that they should always be excluded from all free trade agreements signed by Canada.

I spoke earlier about a similar agreement, the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement between Canada and China. We protested strongly against this agreement. China has very little respect for rights. In a way, the agreement gave China a say over regulations. This agreement is non‑reciprocal. The Canadian government has very limited capacity to deal with China under this agreement. For all these reasons, it remains a serious problem.

Remember that many Quebec groups share our position. These groups include the Action citoyenne pour la justice fiscale, sociale et écologique and the Réseau québécois pour une mondialisation inclusive. We want this type of investor‑state dispute settlement removed from all agreements signed by Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Thank you very much, Mr. Vaillancourt.

I'd like to thank our witnesses for being here.

I think, just judging by the body language down at the end of the table, you wish it would go on a little longer, sir.

[Carlo Dade]

Well, I'm thinking Madam Freeland was unable to join us. I'm more than happy to take the extra time to so that we can.... We'll let her off the hook for this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

I think we set the record for excoriating tonight.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Anyway, listen, I want to thank the witnesses and Mr. Boulerice, Mr. Fast and Mr. Zuberi, our guests. I'd also like to thank the clerk and the analysts, translators and staff.

With that, we'll call it a night. The meeting is adjourned.