Foreign Affairs Committee on April 17th, 2018

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

It's interesting what you say, to me at least, and I'll close with this. You say these state-owned companies that may have been involved in unsavoury activities in other places are less of a concern here because of our regulatory environment.

Of course, the DNA of the company doesn't change, especially if you're dealing with a company like Aecon with access to sensitive security information. It may not be so much what they do here in Canada, because they may be constrained here. It's a question of the information they gather, what they do with that information, and what lines they're prepared to push.

Do you agree or disagree with that?

[Hugh Stephens]

I think there are pros and cons on the Aecon side, and the government will be looking at whether there are, in fact, legitimate security concerns to block this. I personally feel that some of the opposition has been raised by companies that don't want to see the increased competition from an Aecon with a very deep-pocketed international partner.

I think at the end of the day, if there is strategic information that is given away, and we give it away, that's our problem. We need to ensure that what is regulated is appropriately regulated. If there are Canadian companies acting abroad, there are still some constraints placed on them in terms of their corporate social responsibilities and so forth.

Again, I think a strong regulatory framework on the part of Canada and close attention to what are legitimate bright lines on security should be adequate to preserve our interests.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

But in fairness to—

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thanks, Garnett.

Mr. Sidhu, please.

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all three of you for coming in front of the committee today.

I got to hear China, China, China. I understand that in the economic realm, Canada has focused on the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa for the last century. In the meantime, Australia has elevated its presence in the Asian region.

Is there anything we could do together with Australia to penetrate our presence in Asia, or have we lost the opportunity already.

I'll start with Sarah, if you don't mind my calling you by your first name.

[Sarah Kutulakos]

Not at all.

In working with Australia, I think there are a few things to think about. Australia is, for many, a model of long-term engagement with China, so looking at how it has dealt with that is useful. One of the areas where I think Australia, as well as some other countries, can be helpful is in deciding what we want as foreign companies in China, and how we can access the huge growing middle class there. Australia has come upon one means of doing that, which is their own free trade agreement. But in general there are other aspects of opening up, which, if we work together, we can help to push on.

With regard to the question raised by the last questioner about things like party committees, I think that Australia, which has a strong relationship with China, could be a partner with us in showing a joint face about the unacceptability of things like that.

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Stephens, would you have a comment?

[Hugh Stephens]

Yes, clearly we share a lot of values and a common heritage with Australia, so I think there are clearly areas we can work on in terms of governance.

On the business side, we tend to forget that we are direct competitors with Australia, that bilateral Australian-Canadian trade certainly has room to grow, but that in terms of markets in Asia we tend to compete with Australia. We need to be on a level playing field. That was one of the advantages of the new TPP; it gets us into the Japanese market on a more level playing field with Australia, for example.

So I think on the values side, yes, there is a lot that could be done. When it comes to business, I think we have to sharpen our elbows and pencils and look after Canadian interests first.

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Do you think the TPP could put pressure on China, given they're not part of the TPP and need to get in with Canada when it comes to a free trade agreement?

Mr. de Kerckhove, do you want to comment?

[Ferry de Kerckhove]

I've been bold enough to author a paper that was published in the magazine, Forces, saying that the missing member in TPP is China. At some stage we will have to accommodate China within it because it is the key player in the region. To me it's pretty obvious, but it's going to take a very long time before we get there, because we still have to get the Americans back into the fray. Trump has alluded to it, but I don't know exactly what Mr. Trump thinks today, as opposed to two minutes ago, so I won't go beyond that.

I think that Hugh is absolutely right when it comes to the competitive dimension. I remember that when we were fostering, for instance, education in Egypt or Pakistan, helping to further educate people from Pakistan and other countries in Canada, or developing our own education field in those countries, the Australians were one of our prime competitors.

The fact that there was a bit of a kerfuffle between the Prime Minister and his Australian counterpart on the TPP also shows that there are some asperities in the relationship that need to be fixed.

I think that over time, if we have a full-fledged, strong TPP, of course there will be a levelling of some of the difficulties, but the competition between the two countries, not just in mining resources but also in agriculture, will remain. So I think that my colleague, Hugh, is absolutely right to underline those.

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Since you have touched on the education part of it, of the 450,000 students in our country, I think one-third are from China. Going forward, do you think that we have a chance for our students to go to China so we have an equal, level playing field?

I hear complaints from the local students that they're having a hard time getting into our own universities and they complain about foreign students coming to our country. What is your take on that?

[Ferry de Kerckhove]

I would defer to one of the two experts.

I do consider the level playing field to be a constant objective, and it takes more time to achieve with China, and I fully sympathize with their concern. I think Hugh and Sarah would be able to go deeper into that same question.

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Okay. Take your pick.

[Sarah Kutulakos]

I can start.

Certainly, the opportunity for Canadian students to go to China is there, and I think it's a very important element of developing competency toward China. The fact is that take-up on study abroad, outside of places like England and fairly familiar countries, is quite low. I know the Asia Pacific Foundation has done some very good work on this. It isn't so much that China doesn't want these students. It would love to have more, and there are many scholarships that go unused, I'm told. It's a matter of encouraging young people to see that as an opportunity that can benefit their careers.

[Hugh Stephens]

May I add briefly?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Hold that thought, Mr. Stephens, for a minute. We'll get back to that.

We want to go to our next colleague.

Madame Laverdière has the floor.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank you all for your testimony today.

First, I must say that I completely agree that we need a foreign policy review and that it is our foreign policy that should serve as the basis for our defence policy, and not the other way around.

That said, with regard to security, Mr. de Kerckhove, you pointed out that there is no multilateral security infrastructure in the Asia Pacific. As a former ambassador to Pakistan, and based on your knowledge of relations between Pakistan and India, I imagine you see a lot of difficulties in putting something together.

Would it even be possible to have a more integrated collaboration and cooperation security architecture?

[Ferry de Kerckhove]

As to the relationship between India and Pakistan, I would say that it is practically impossible to have a security architecture in this region. Looking at the relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan alone, which goes back to the creation of Afghanistan and Pakistan, it is a deleterious relationship. Even with regard to the border, there is no agreement because of the Durand line. Further, Afghanistan was the only country that did not recognize Pakistan when it was founded in 1947. Since then, there have been three successive wars between India and Pakistan.

Then there is the very concept of collective security. I still disagree with those who denounce NATO. While it is true that NATO has some problems, it is literally the only stable security architecture in the world that provides some balance. NATO's problem is that, after focusing so much on defending its own perimeter, it is now playing a role outside its perimeter, which has led to the catastrophes in Libya and even Afghanistan and Iraq, although NATO did not take action in Iraq.

The ASEAN architecture, on the other hand, has a completely different dimension. There will be no security architecture. In any case, China by far prefers bilateral agreements over restrictive multilateral agreements, which limit its range of action.

The NATO model is therefore unique and it will certainly not impact the Asia Pacific, where it will in any event be managed bilaterally by China and its partners.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I would like to ask you all a rather strange question. This will not be a first for me.

We have talked a lot about the institutions that Canada can play a more active role in, and specific members were mentioned where possible.

Is the Commonwealth still a tool for Canada in the region?

[Ferry de Kerckhove]

I will answer the honourable member because that is provocation.

[Voices]

Ha, ha!

[Ferry de Kerckhove]

The fact is that we have worked together on these issues a great deal in the past, which we publicly acknowledge.

I am in fact in the process of organizing a conference at the University of Ottawa on the political Francophonie, and I would be very pleased for you to take part. To the extent that both the Commonwealth and the Francophonie are functional geographic institutions that do not really have the means to achieve their ambitions, nor the resonance at the United Nations, which is the main authority, the enthusiasm for these institutions has waned.

Further, as to the Francophonie, it is blindly forging ahead and to date, I think there are close to 92 countries that are more or less members, some are observer members, others are alternate members, and so forth. In short, it is expanding but without any consideration. The Commonwealth, on the other hand, is much more stable because, if you look at the Francophonie, there is France and Canada and the other countries, whereas the Commonwealth has more stable countries such as India, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and South Africa. So it is an institution that should in principle be much more promising and that the committee might wish to consider again. I think, however, that both of these organizations suffer from a degree of institutional weakness, as well as a significant lack of resources. With regard to our topic today, I think that the role and influence of the Commonwealth and the Francophonie, both of which have members in Asia, are therefore not very important.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

We're going to Mr. Levitt, please.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

I'm going to pass my time to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.