Foreign Affairs Committee on March 4th, 2009

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Actually, if you wouldn't mind sharing that with the committee, I would appreciate it. I'm sure we would.

The other issue you mentioned was sharing data and I just want some clarification on that. Are you saying that when we do joint ventures on research with the Americans we aren't releasing our data at all, or we aren't releasing our data to the Americans? Explain that, please.

[Prof. Michael Byers]

When the United States does its seabed mapping, it almost immediately puts all of its data up on the Internet for everyone to see. They believe in transparency and that international cooperation, not just with Canada but with countries like Russia, is actually furthered by being totally open about the scientific character of the seabed. For some bizarre reason that I cannot understand, Canada has not done likewise.

We're in a situation where, when we are jointly mapping the ocean floor in the Beaufort Sea, we have to enter into a complex arrangement with the United States whereby the data that's collected from the Louis S. St-Laurent, the Canadian icebreaker, is classified and the data that's collected from the Healy, the American icebreaker, is put up on the Internet. Yet we're supposed to be operating in this system together, jointly.

This comes back to a point I made earlier, that today the dominant paradigm in the Arctic, at a diplomatic and scientific level, is cooperation. There is more cooperation in the Arctic than almost anywhere else on earth, despite what journalists like to write about, which is the threat of conflict and a rush for Arctic resources. It's cooperation, and the United States understands that. To their enormous credit, through the publication of this data, they are furthering that cooperation and trust.

I don't think Canada has anything to hide by keeping the data classified. We're not changing the nature of the seabed. We're not changing the geological reality. What we're simply doing is creating a lack of trust and the kinds of assertions that Canadian diplomats and politicians might make on the basis of secret data in the future.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Dewar.

Madam Brown.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Byers, I'm going to change the topic a bit and get away from the Arctic. You were talking earlier about changes in regulations for international institutions. The one comment you made was that every crisis creates an opportunity.

Canada has been recognized during this financial crisis that the world is experiencing right now as a place that has done some really good things over the last few years. We have a better-regulated banking system. We have taken measures to ensure that those things are strong. Do you think that at this juncture Canada has an opportunity right now, as far as leadership in those areas is concerned, to contribute to those international institutions and be recognized on the world stage for that?

[Prof. Michael Byers]

Yes, although we have to be careful not to rest on our laurels. Just because we got it right in the past doesn't mean we should stop there. We do have credibility on the financial regulation dimension, but we're losing credibility on other issues, like, for instance, on security regulations, where we don't have a national security regulator, which is fairly unusual for an OECD country, or on the economic issue of climate change. Let me stress again that climate change is an economic issue, not just an environmental issue. Our capacity to show leadership on issues like banking regulation is compromised when we are at the back of the pack in terms of international cooperation on other issues like climate change. We need to think of this as a cross-issue movement to lever Canada's positive reputation and its diplomatic capacity into a leadership role on the world stage.

Let me say in relationship to this that I believe there's nothing that would make Barack Obama happier than to see Canada stepping up to the diplomatic plate. He and his administration have an awful lot on their table. They can't deal with it all in a truly effective way. To have a trusted partner like Canada, which has serious diplomatic capability, taking on some of that load and showing leadership, and working together while exercising leadership, would be enormously appreciated. We talk about the fact that we're important to the United States in terms of energy. Yes, we are. We're also potentially important to the United States as a diplomatic leader, doing things that they simply don't have the time or the capacity to do.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Okay, and if I could just back up to your earlier comment, in your opinion, would Canada be in a far more favourable position to speak to these international monetary institutions if we did have a national securities regulator? Do you think that would put us in a much stronger position, in a leadership position for those things?

[Prof. Michael Byers]

I think that's one of a number of different things that would contribute to strengthening our profile as an international actor. I know there are complexities involved in creating a national securities regulator and I know we haven't had any disasters because of the lack of one, but in terms of our international perception that would be an important thing.

But let me make another point. One of the things Barack Obama has done that most people outside the United States haven't noticed is that he has invested quite substantially in the State Department. He's appointed Hillary Clinton, his principal rival, his principal contender for the Democratic nomination, as the Secretary of State and he has increased the budget for that department quite substantially.

We're moving into a world where this concept of smart power and the role of diplomacy is going to become ever more important. With all respect, successive Canadian governments over the course of the last couple of decades have substantially reduced the amount of financial support going to the Department of Foreign Affairs.

One of the things your committee might do is say that in conjunction with what's happening in Washington, we should be making a very strong case in Ottawa to step up the financial support for the Department of Foreign Affairs so we can play that partnership role in a truly effective way. That doesn't mean we should necessarily take money away from another department like the Department of National Defence, but we've been under-supporting Foreign Affairs and it will cost us severely as our chief partner moves into the smart power framework in the years ahead.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Byers.

Very quickly to Mr. Rae.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Byers, do you have any views on whether or not CIDA and DFAIT should be merged? Is that something you've ever thought about?

[Prof. Michael Byers]

I have thought about it, and I can see arguments in favour of the status quo and arguments in favour of a merger.

My own view, having watched past efforts to divide Foreign Affairs from International Trade and then put them back together, is that you create a lot of work for public servants simply by reorganizing the chairs. I happen to think that in this time of international crisis--and we are in multiple international crises--a reorganization focusing on the management dimension is a bit of a wasted effort given the opportunity costs this would create. It's not a question of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, it's a question of avoiding the icebreaker ahead, and I think we can do that with the current configuration, provided there is leadership and an understanding of the changing international paradigm, which includes most centrally Mr. Obama's move into a much more multi-faceted conception of international affairs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Byers.

Very quickly, Mr. Crête.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you.

In your opinion are there a couple of issues respecting the Asia-Pacific region that Canada and the U.S. could work on together?

[Prof. Michael Byers]

I think we could contribute quite significantly with regard to relations with China. We're certainly seeing that Secretary of State Clinton has made that a big priority for herself.

We have experience, we have an enormous expatriate community, and we have quite significant linguistic and trade connections. I would encourage the government and the opposition parties to step up our focus on the Chinese relationship, which, with all respect, has suffered the last three years.

But let me add one more thing on this that is very important. It's related to your question. The American President had a father who was African and he clearly cares deeply about that continent, yet in the last three years Canada has shifted its attention away from Africa and toward Latin America. I would urge that just because of that personal character of the American President we might want to re-evaluate just how much of a shift we want to make.

This new administration is going to focus quite seriously on Africa. Canada has historic and policy connections there. I would hate to see us compromise our ability to help in Africa by rushing too quickly to shift our attention to another continent.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

We want to thank you, Mr. Byers, for your presence today and for your comments. We look forward to having you appear before our committee again.

All the best to you out there in sunny British Columbia.

[Prof. Michael Byers]

Thank you. Merci beaucoup.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Ladies and gentlemen, seeing the clock at 5:30, we are now adjourned.