Evidence of meeting #32 for Canada-China Relations in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was trade.
A video is available from Parliament.
7:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
Thank you, Mr. Chong.
We'll now go to Ms. Yip for five minutes or less.
7:20 p.m.
Liberal
Jean Yip Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Thank you both for coming tonight.
Professor Lilly, you mentioned in your opening statement that, unlike the U.S., which has taken steps to de-risk supply chains, Canada has been reactive. What steps could Canada take to be more proactive in this area?
7:25 p.m.
Associate Professor, Simon Reisman Chair in International Economic Policy, Carleton University, As an Individual
I think we could be doing a number of things. One is that we have to be looking for problems, and that takes resources and money. Canada tends to adopt a reactive approach in that we rely on the reporting in voluntary attestations of what's in shipments. We take people's word for it that what they say is in the box is in the box. What we have to do is much more proactive investigations of imports.
Certainly on the forced labour side of things, that is something we have to do. There was a story last year—and I have not been able to investigate the veracity of it—in The Globe and Mail that the United States had intervened against 1,300 shipments due to forced labour compared to Canada's one. It's just not possible that there isn't a more comparable.... If we had a 10:1 ratio, we should have at least 130 cases in Canada. If we're not looking, we're not going to see things. We can't just rely on attestations and company reports when we're looking at these things.
There are a number of other things. I should say that Canada and the U.S. do have a supply chain investigation group, a co-operative group. It has an interesting work plan. I have not yet seen the results of that, but we are looking at some integrated supply chain aspects, and I look forward to seeing the reporting out of that.
7:25 p.m.
Associate Professor, Simon Reisman Chair in International Economic Policy, Carleton University, As an Individual
Absolutely. If we care about these things we should implement them well, but if we don't care about these things we should stop talking about them. That's my honest view.
7:25 p.m.
Liberal
Jean Yip Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Professor Nagy, you suggested that Canada pursue minilateral partnerships to deal with particular issues, including disinformation. I believe you mentioned Taiwan and Australia as potential partners in this area. How might Canada work with these countries and other Indo-Pacific nations to counter disinformation?
7:25 p.m.
Professor, International Christian University, MacDonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual
Thank you very much, Ms. Yip, for your question.
First, I think we have to recognize Taiwan for what it is. It's a political entity, according to our one China policy. We need to be very clear about that. They are at the forefront of disinformation from China. As a result, they have the experience and institutions to be the central nexus to help Canada deal with some of the disinformation challenges we face within our own relationship with China.
I also mentioned South Korea. South Korea faces disinformation challenges with regard to the north.
Again, I think collectively using the different kinds of experiences these countries on the forefront of disinformation have is critical for identifying disinformation, finding ways to combat disinformation and pushing back on disinformation. I include Australia because Australia's experience over the past several years with China has been very difficult. It also has experience in managing disinformation. This is why I've advocated for Taiwan, South Korea, perhaps Japan, Australia and the United States to collectively work with Canada to share the patterns of disinformation they've identified, the processes with which they push back and, importantly, how they educate citizens to be more critical of the kind of information they read online so they can pre-empt the challenges associated with disinformation.
This is how I am envisaging a minilateral partnership with these countries and political entities.
7:25 p.m.
Liberal
7:25 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Mr. Nagy, I don't know if you remember my last question, but you may now answer it.
7:25 p.m.
Professor, International Christian University, MacDonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual
I do.
Honestly, I think a Canadian brand is very important. A Canadian brand is going to include focusing on comparative advantages. Currently, the Asia Pacific Foundation is doing quite an interesting job focusing on agriculture-related technologies and spearheading those initiatives in Southeast Asia. Other areas we could focus on include education, energy and critical minerals. These are the comparative advantages Canada has. We need to develop a distinct brand: a good and stable supplier of services within the region. These are important because we can have a position distinct from that of the United States. At the same time, this doesn't mean we're in an antagonistic relationship with the United States.
Again, education, critical minerals, agriculture-related technology and climate-related technology are some key advantages we can use, I think, to build a brand to engage with in the region.
7:30 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
What would you say to the claim that Canada has twice failed to land a seat on the United Nations Security Council because, more and more, developing countries are seeing Canada as an arm of the United States when it comes to a number of global issues, particularly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
7:30 p.m.
Professor, International Christian University, MacDonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual
I think Canada has an increasingly challenged relationship in not having a principled approach to many issues. This is not so much related to the United States as it is a track record over the past 15 years.
You mentioned the conflict in Gaza. That is an example. What is our principled position on Gaza? This creates challenges in how developing countries see Canada as an independent thinker on issues. We've moved away from a position where we are an honest broker between the United States and other countries. We need to move back to that principled approach, one where we chart out a Canadian path, not a path that is necessarily always aligned with the United States.
However, let's be clear. We are aligned with the United States on many issues because we share an economy. We have many shared cultural issues. We have respect for the rule of law. As a result, I think we will naturally be aligned with the United States on more issues than not.
7:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.
We'll go now to Ms. McPherson for two and a half minutes or less.
7:30 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Nagy, I'm going to start with you.
You talked about the fact that forced labour is a moral issue. I have to push back on that a bit. The reason is that I believe there are economic impacts when we are seen by the rest of the world as not having, as you say, a principled position.
Dr. Lilly, you talked about the global fabric and the role Canada has to play. If we abdicate our responsibilities with regard to forced labour, are not seen as having principled positions on a number of different fronts and apply human rights and these principles inequitably in different situations, I think it's very problematic. With the way we're seeing China interact in sub-Saharan Africa and South America right now, spaces we are increasingly absent from, that's an economic danger to us, not just an ethical or moral issue.
I'd like to give the floor to Dr. Lilly for her comment first, then, if we have time, to Dr. Nagy.
7:30 p.m.
Associate Professor, Simon Reisman Chair in International Economic Policy, Carleton University, As an Individual
I think it is obviously a moral issue but also an economic issue, and some of that is due to all the reasons we know. Modern-day slavery and forced labour are awful. For the countries that practise it, it also means that goods are cheaper in those places.
For instance, in the world of critical minerals, much of the world's cobalt is harvested by enslaved children in Congo and other places in sub-Saharan Africa. All of that is awful, and we should fight it for all of the right reasons. It also reduces the global price of cobalt to a level below what the market should be paying, and that is bad for us, frankly. I don't like to put it in those self-interested terms, but it is all related.
It's essential that we address those issues. It does make trade more expensive and does make commodities more expensive, but that is part of the point.
7:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
Thank you, Ms. McPherson.
We have time for two more slots, and we'll start with Mr. Chong for five minutes or less.
7:30 p.m.
Conservative
7:30 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
It's so hard to decide what questions to raise.
Dr. Lilly, between the CPTPP and pursuing one-off free trade deals in the Indo-Pacific, what would you say? Should we bring people into the CPTPP or pursue one-off trade deals?
7:35 p.m.
Associate Professor, Simon Reisman Chair in International Economic Policy, Carleton University, As an Individual
You'll have lots of time, because it's straightforward for me. It's the CPTPP. I think one-off trade deals are a bad idea. I think that CPTPP is a first-gen agreement, meaning that it's a top agreement with high standards. We should want to trade with economies that can play at that level, and if they can't, I don't know why we want to pursue free trade agreements with them.
7:35 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Thank you.
When you look at trade with China, what do you think the course forward is for Canada? I know we're not going to get a deal like the U.S. got on their phase one, but would pursuing some...? Because we have so many trade irritants and China has a unilateral ability to impose all kinds of things on Canadian trade, what would be the right course for trying to pursue a better trade arrangement, for lack of a better term, with China, or is there one?
7:35 p.m.
Associate Professor, Simon Reisman Chair in International Economic Policy, Carleton University, As an Individual
I'm not sure we'll win that game, and I truly think that China will continue to import from Canada when it serves China's interest.
At the moment, we're under the WTO's MFN tariffs. They're already quite low in most things. We could pursue some narrow sectoral trade arrangements. They're technically supposed to be illegal under the WTO, but this is the direction the United States has gone. They've said, “Just watch me”, and it seems to be working for them.
If we wanted to pursue some narrow sectoral arrangements in agriculture, meat, minerals and those kinds of things, we could if they wanted to do so as well, but without that, the status quo might be the best we can do.
7:35 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Quickly switching back to forced labour, under the CUSMA or the USMCA, there are provisions that prohibit the importation of goods made with slave labour. The United States has put together an entities list. They have also set the standard lower. If they suspect that a business engaged in their supply chain is using forced labour, they have to prove they're not, and until they do, they can't come in.
Canada won't copy the entities list. Canada has set the standard that CBSA has to prove something has been made with forced labour.
Should the government smarten up, for lack of a better term, and change the system to be like the United States' to ensure we don't have forced labour in our supply chains?
February 5th, 2024 / 7:35 p.m.
Associate Professor, Simon Reisman Chair in International Economic Policy, Carleton University, As an Individual
If there's evidence in certain specific regions where we know that forced labour is ubiquitous, then yes, I would say that adopting the negative list approach would be smart. It doesn't surprise me—and I think I'm familiar with the position of the Canadian government—that they don't want to do that, but I would agree with you that I think we need to grow up a bit.
