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.
8:50 p.m.
Director, Balsillie School of International Affairs
I'll let my colleagues lead, as I've led the last couple of answers.
8:55 p.m.
Researcher, Montreal Centre for International Studies, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
Professor Horton, you didn't have a chance in the last one. Do you want to go ahead?
8:55 p.m.
Distinguished Fellow, Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, University of Toronto, As an Individual
There are many different ways to approach this problem. I don't know whether any of them are going to have the necessary effect or if we're too late on some of them.
What I'm concerned about is that China is still the second-largest economy in the world, and it has very impressive research capabilities. I'm hoping that we can find a way to steer our researchers in the right direction and protect ourselves at the same time.
8:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
I will add, by the way, that as a British Columbian and a former member of the transport committee, I'm acutely aware of the issues at the port of Vancouver. There have been some major leadership changes there within the last year. It would be worth our while in the fullness of time to bring in some of those leaders and see what they recognize and what they're prepared to do.
It's a good point.
Mr. Oliphant, it's over to you for five minutes.
8:55 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses for their work and for helping us today.
I want to start with Ms. Horton. Thank you for your testimony today.
You've written that Canada will have to leverage its limited impact by maximizing complementarity with its partners. Looking at the Indo-Pacific strategy, obviously we can't do everything. We do have to focus, and there is some focusing in it.
Earlier tonight in the first panel, one of our witnesses suggested that we should not be engaging as much—I wasn't exactly sure what he was talking about—with Vietnam because it didn't meet the standards of Canadian engagement and we should focus on other countries that are more vibrant democracies. I'd like your take on that. Is that the correct way to strategize or are there more pragmatic ways to do it?
8:55 p.m.
Distinguished Fellow, Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I'm speaking at an event in a couple of weeks in Toronto, because Minister Mary Ng is taking a delegation to Vietnam.
You can look at trading and investment patterns. Having worked in Vietnam, I know that, yes, it's a communist country, but in terms of the opportunities for Canada there, they are real. I think it's going to be difficult to find a perfect democracy. There's no such thing. People cite Singapore. Singapore is not a perfect democracy by any stretch of the imagination.
I think that we have to be careful about who we deal with, but on the other hand, we always have to recognize what the opportunities are. Vietnam signed on to the CPTPP. They made a lot of changes in order to do so, and Vietnam is much more open than China and is more interested in working with countries like Canada. They are an amazing people with a great entrepreneurial spirit, and I think we should be there. Also, because we have a Vietnamese diaspora, I think we have an advantage as opposed to other countries, and we should take advantage of that too.
8:55 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Thank you. I wanted a bit of a course correction there and you did that.
I think we need to be sensitive. I could give you a long story, which I won't get into, but it's interesting. Anyway, that's for another time.
To the other witnesses, this falls a bit on Mrs. Lalonde's comment about what you would like to summarize here. We can get a couple of summaries. If there's something around how to strategically maximize Canada's gifts and resources in the Indo-Pacific region, what do you think are the top two or three priorities?
8:55 p.m.
Liberal
9 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Let's start with Dr. Fitz-Gerald, who led us here.
Are there a couple of things you want us to know about how we would strategize—and be specific—to narrow our focus, because we can't do everything all the time?
9 p.m.
Director, Balsillie School of International Affairs
I think there's the scope for a secondary document that focuses on execution and prioritizes, perhaps with a temporal element included, what's going to happen in the short to medium term and what's going to then set things up for the medium- to longer-term aspirations.
I think there's tremendous potential in science diplomacy, and the issue of the research framework was raised for Canada. Instead of just pinpointing institutions, we could put a strategic framework around things like that and do a lot of grassroots upwardly, using our very good relationships between academic to academic organizations and civil society to civil society organizations.
Lastly, especially as I'm a professor of national security, I would say that defence and security diplomacy are key. I have studied carefully Canada's trends in the past and the influence we had that in my view, having worked with the British government for many years as a security adviser, went beyond the impact the British government had during the years when we kept military and security co-operation high.
9 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
Yes.
We will now have two and a half minutes for Mr. Bergeron and two and a half minutes for Ms. McPherson. I would then like to give the panellists, who have been great with their time, about a minute each to give us their final thoughts.
It's over to you, Mr. Bergeron, for two and a half minutes.
9 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Fitz-Gerald, I'd like to come back to the Arctic, since you didn't get a chance to answer my question. Would you like to answer it?
9 p.m.
Director, Balsillie School of International Affairs
If I remember correctly, it was about priorities in the Arctic.
My sense is based on the military industrial bases in the Far East and what we're seeing in icebreaking equipment. What I anticipate will come to countries like China through difficult negotiations with Europe over the extension of the middle corridor.... We will see China at our doorstep trying to negotiate access to the Arctic very quickly.
I think Canada is in a very strong position to lead on ocean governance. If we had an ocean governance framework at the very least—at best an Arctic strategy and, trickling down from that, an ocean governance framework—it would not only put us in a very ready position for those probably hard negotiations; it would give us influence within the Arctic Circle to get wider buy-in to that governance framework. I think that's where Canada can make a real difference.
The relationship with NORAD is a very strong and underestimated relationship. Even putting the sovereignty issues aside, I think if we can use technology IP around it to monitor every square mile of our Arctic region, it can provide a lot of future economic benefits to Canada, especially having gotten a wider agreement on an ocean governance framework.
9 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
You're just about out of time, Mr. Bergeron, but thank you.
We will go to Ms. McPherson now.
9 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
The two and a half minutes go very fast.
I had a question similar to that of the chair. We're one year into having the Indo-Pacific strategy. I would like to hear from all of the witnesses on how well it is working and how well it is achieving the goals it has articulated.
I'll start with you, Dr. Fitz-Gerald.
9 p.m.
Director, Balsillie School of International Affairs
As a professor of defence and security and national security, I'm waiting to see the defence policy rollout and for engagement to happen in a significant manner on that front.
I would like to see good organizations, like the Asia Pacific Foundation, be given the mandate and the means to be facilitators for interactions between the two regions, to launch their good wares and to facilitate interactions between the Canadian leading academic institutions and our counterparts in the region.
That is an easy and quick win, and we have a great organization there to do it.
9:05 p.m.
Distinguished Fellow, Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I would second Professor Fitz-Gerald's confidence in the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada.
It's too early to tell. There's been a lot of heightened engagement. However, judging from previous experience, the proof will be in the pudding. We don't know yet how long this is going to last and whether it will last into future administrations. We tend to lose interest, so let's hope this committee can help and keep pushing it forward.
9:05 p.m.
Researcher, Montreal Centre for International Studies, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
Viewed from the region, what happened with India has been a really big setback for Canada. You can't underestimate the influence of India across multilateral fora. Regardless of the incident and however nice the strategy is, what happened with India has been a real setback.
There's a definite lack of urgency on the part of Canada. It could be because Ottawa is nowhere near the Pacific. However, when you're out in the Pacific—and I think my co-panellist also spent time in the Pacific—you can feel something's coming. Nothing out there is preparing us for, for example, a Taiwan contingency, which you hope doesn't happen, but you at least have to have a plan.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
All right. To wrap up, you have a minute each to give us your thoughts, the pearls of wisdom you'd like to leave us with or things we should be thinking about. It's your choice.
We'll start with you, Ms. Paskal, and then move to Ms. Horton and Dr. Fitz-Gerald.
9:05 p.m.
Researcher, Montreal Centre for International Studies, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
First of all, obviously I must try to speak French a little more often.
Second, we have to work on the issue of corruption. Otherwise, we will have a hard time making progress on anything. If we work on that, it will change how Canada is perceived in the region. A lot of countries and organizations want to take on corruption but they don't have the resources. I don't know why but Australia for one isn't doing anything at all to fight corruption.
So if there's one central element that everything revolves around, it's corruption from China. That changes all the geopolitical and geo-economic dynamics in the region.