Foreign Affairs Committee on April 24th, 2018

[The Chair (Hon. Robert Nault (Kenora, Lib.)), Liberal, Bob Nault]

Colleagues, we'll bring this meeting to order. It's 3:30 p.m. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are undertaking a study of Canada's engagement in Asia.

I want to welcome Charles Burton, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, from Brock University; and Pitman Potter, Professor of Law at the Peter A. Allard School of Law at the University of British Columbia—he's on video conference—and as well, Paul Evans, Professor, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, Director Emeritus and Interim Director at the Institute of Asian Research, UBC.

Colleagues, as you know, we have an hour for the first three witnesses. We'll start with Mr. Pitman Potter to make his opening comments. Then we'll go to Mr. Evans, and we'll wrap up with Mr. Burton. Then we'll go to Q and A.

On behalf of the committee, welcome, all of you.

We'll turn the floor over to Mr. Potter.

[Dr. Pitman Potter, Professor of Law, Peter A. Allard School of Law, University of British Columbia, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

I'd first like to thank the committee for offering me this opportunity to share a few thoughts with you on various issues of Canada's engagement in Asia. Today I will focus particularly on the absence of the rule of law in China and its declining attention in China.

When we look at the rule of law in China, I think we should first think about the indicators of how any fealty to the rule of law has declined significantly over the past few years. The place we want to start is to remember that when we as Canadians hear the term “the rule of law”, we conjure in our minds particular expectations about protection of citizens' rights, limitations on government action, and so on.

I would just remind everyone that this is absolutely not the rule of law that is established in China, where the regime is quite careful to use the term “the socialist rule of law”. Indeed, what is described in China as the rule of law is more likely or more in fact to be the rule by law; in other words, the use of formal rules, statutes, institutions, and so on to carry out policy. I think it's important to have a bit of that interpretive correction at the very beginning.

What I'd like to now do is focus on two examples, the first being the supremacy of party dominance by the Communist Party of China, an example of which is the repression of lawyers in China; and finally I will just comment on the recent constitutional amendment. Then I'll move on to implications for Canada and what to do.

Party dominance over the legal system in China has been well entrenched for the entirety of the PRC's existence, but in the post-1978, post-Mao period, it was entrenched in the constitution under the rubric of the so-called “four basic principles”, the most important of which was submission to party leadership.

We might think that something that was incorporated in the state constitution in 1982 would have somehow become diluted with age, but that is most assuredly not the case. Whenever there is discussion of the constitution in China, the four basic principles are brought out once again to remind all that the constitution and the legal system are subject to a governing principle of submission to party authority.

More recently we have seen a number of examples that have entrenched this perspective. In 2013, we saw the issuance by the party of what was called “document number 9”. Document number 9 attacked various activities considered unhealthy in China, including promoting western-style constitutional democracy, promoting civil society, promoting a free press. Document number 9 called for ideological leadership to resist western values and western ideas and incorporated the so-called “seven not-to-be-spoken-ofs”, the seven issues that were not to be talked about. They included freedom of the press, civil society, civil rights, and so on. Judicial independence is another.

As recently as 2013, then, there was an effort to make this ideological rigour clear. Then in 2014 came the fourth plenum of the 18th central committee of the Communist Party. It was called the “rule of law plenum”, but indeed, it just reaffirmed that law in China must adhere to the directives of the Chinese Communist Party.

We saw examples of this in 2015 when the politburo received reports on the work of party cells or party leadership groups within the courts, within the legislature, within the prosecutorial departments, and we saw an edict in May 2015 on establishing so-called “dang zu”—the party unit—in all non-governmental units. We thus see an expansion of party dominance and party control.

In 2016, China issued a white paper on judicial reform, and that white paper included a re-emphasis on the dominance of the party and the principle of submission to party rule, and it explicitly rejected the notion of judicial independence, preferring instead the term “impartiality”. Then most recently, this year—and there are probably many other examples, these being just the ones I'm sharing with you—there was the establishment of a national supervisory commission to oversee government and state-owned sectors.

This was essentially an extension of the Central commission for Discipline Inspection, which is a party discipline and anti-corruption mechanism, further across the government, including into judicial institutions. It was referred to as “turning the party's will into law”.

These are many examples of how law in China, despite the term “rule of law” and the deliberate attraction of expectations about what the rule of law means, is something quite different altogether. It really is submission to party rule.

A point in example of this is the repression of lawyers in China that has been going on vigorously since 2015. This is consistent with both the rules of the All China Lawyers Association that purportedly governs the behaviour of lawyers, which requires that lawyers support party leadership, and the PRC lawyer law, which also requires lawyers to uphold party leadership.

The criminal law and the criminal procedure law were recently amended to prohibit and provide punishments for provision of so-called false evidence. This was intended to discourage use by lawyers of exculpatory evidence, again under the direction of the party.

Then, what they call the “709” crackdown—so labelled for July 9, 2015—which has been going on since, is active repression, detention, and punishment of lawyers for taking positions that local party officials didn't like. Hundreds have been detained. There have been reports of torture, of forced medication, denial of access to family and legal counsel, the imposition of residential surveillance over homes and families, persecution of family members, and so on. This has been going on vigorously for the past several years. Most of these lawyers are not taking on particularly sensitive national government corruption or malfeasance issues, but rather pursing the rights of marginalized people, such as labour rights, environment, women's rights, pensions, and so on. This is yet another example of how law and legal institutions in China are being bent to the will of the party.

Perhaps the most recent example and the one that most people are very familiar with is the amendment of the constitution to remove term limits on Xi Jinping's rule. Here was another example of the party's use of a legal form to further its own goals. The result is that the constitution provides no meaningful restraint on party behaviour. This rather epitomizes the absence of the rule of law in China.

When I think about the implications of this for Canada, it's important to note that this is not simply a domestic matter. It affects China's treaty compliance. China's respect for its own law covers over to its respect for international treaties on such matters as human rights, ethnic minorities, and trade. The absence of the rule of law in China, then, affects all aspects of Canada's relations with China.

Global governance, wherever we pursue collaboration on climate matters, conflict resolution, or development, still depends on China's commitment to the rule of law in treaty compliance. Canada-China legal co-operation on things such as enforcement of arbitral awards, extradition, and so on still depend on China's commitments with regard to its own legal behaviour, whether on death penalty procedures or other criminal procedures. Here again, the absence of the rule of law impinges upon that.

Another example is cultural and educational exchanges. University links, for example, or cultural links and performances and so on, depend similarly on adherence to the rule of law, which we have not seen in China, seeing rather adherence to party fealty—party whim, if you will.

Finally, trade relations are absolutely affected. We've seen in the last eight months or so refusal to accept notions of progressive trade policy; that was last December. We've seen more recently, in April, the absolute rejection of labour provisions in a free trade agreement. We see these further examples in the international realm of China's approach to law as being nothing more than an instrument for carrying out party purposes. This tells you how the regime will consider legal standards with regard to institutions and personnel in its relations with Canada. It's not simply a domestic issue.

I'd like to take half a minute to ask what we do about this. It's a difficult situation. I think what I presented this morning is by no means parochial or one-sided; I think it's pretty well established and documented by me and by many other people.

Non-engagement is just not an option. China is China. China is important; its economy is huge; its reach is significant.

I would counsel what I counsel clients who are working in China, which is first, patience: patience on concluding transactions and treaties. Consider whose interest is being served and why the rush. Be patient to allow for situations in China to evolve and perhaps improve.

Then, preparation: know the rules. For example, when Xi Jingping, at the Boao conference not long ago, talked about protecting the legal rights of foreign investors, we may be comforted by that reference to legal rights but it's incumbent on us to understand what it actually means in a Chinese context, and it means something very different from what it means in ours. It means whatever the party wants it to mean.

Then finally is perseverance. Things change, things develop, things can get better, things can get worse, and so on, and so it's to persevere with our commitment to engagement with China but subject it to what I would call consistent and polite firmness in our engagement—purposeful ambiguity, finessing of issues, and so on.

I would say, then, that engaging with China, which has largely abandoned a rule of law as that concept is understood by us in the West, requires patience, preparation, and perseverance, and I hope that those will allow us to engage with this very difficult party on the other side of the Pacific.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Professor Potter.

We'll now go to Professor Evans, please.

[Prof. Paul Evans, Professor, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, Director Emeritus and Interim Director, Institute of Asian Research, UBC, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee as you continue your deliberations and as you get ready for a trip to Korea, Japan, and the Philippines.

I'm going to take a slightly different cut into the matter of Canada's engagement, by moving it from some of our bilateral issues alone into the context of the changing geostrategic context. I think we're in a moment where this is not business as usual in Asia and Asia-Pacific. It is a moment of power shift. It's a moment of strategic turbulence, uncertainties about some of the premises of a regional order that have largely been in place for two or three generations.

Let me talk about two disturbing factors, or two factors that are shaking the situation up, a little bit about Asian reactions, and prescriptions then for Canada. The key point, and I agree with Professor Potter, is that we are now dealing with Xi Jinping's China, which is on a somewhat different trajectory than the People's Republic as we saw it in the Deng Xiaoping era.

This is a new era with new characteristics, not just in terms of the scale, size, and ambition of many of the economic projects, the growth figures—that's something I'm sure the committee is very familiar with—but I think there are a couple of other things in play in Xi Jinping's era. One of those is domestic repression. China is not moving forward on political and human rights. There is every sign that in fact it is tightening. This represents the party strengthening its control, not only over Chinese citizens but also over the state apparatus itself, the government.

Related is that we have a more assertive China internationally, in its region, but also globally. Chinese diplomacy is more self-confident and moving in forceful ways. I don't mean militarily forceful, but in some new ways to define and defend its core interests. I think a phrase we can accurately now use is that China, in many ways, is behaving like a great power. It might have some distinctive characteristics to what a great power is, but its intentions, its role, are changing.

At the same time, China is also becoming a key global player. In the issues we are all facing— climate change, peacekeeping, from a Canadian side, counterterrorism—the new era of Xi Jinping's China involves a bigger global role. I think we have to, as a result, see areas within that where we have common interests and concerns.

I take a little more positive view of Xi Jinping's China on its compliance with treaties and activities that it has already agreed to. It is not perfect, but superpowers rarely are.

We're dealing with a new China, but we all have to see that we're also dealing with a new United States. Asians certainly realize that. The unpredictability of Donald Trump's “America first” is shaking the region. While the United States continues strong and visible support for its alliances and its military role, it is inconsistent on trade policy; it is inconsistent on what it is promoting in terms of human rights and democratic governance principles. It has negative and very little support for multilateral institutions in the region.

I think, more importantly, there is deep doubt about the future of American leadership in the region. America isn't disappearing from Asia, but it seems to be positioned in a spot that is now contested for primacy—contested by China—and is deeply disturbing and shaking its friends, allies, and opponents in the region, not just because of Donald Trump, but because of a feeling that America may be stepping back irreversibly from the kinds of roles it has played in the past.

America isn't disappearing, but America is not going to play the primary role going forward.

The reactions to those twin forces are much bigger than Asia, but in Asia—as you'll be seeing—there is an arms buildup under way. Most countries are increasing their defence spending considerably. There is a repositioning—not the abandonment of alliances, but a reshaping of those alliances and a starting to hedge on different futures in which China is going to be more important.

Also, there is deeper economic integration and connectivity. It's been fascinating how Asian countries—most of them—have been pushing very hard in recent months for new kinds of multilateral trade agreements. Japan's interest in the trans-Pacific partnership is just one indicator of that, as is the intensification in the intra-Asian projects.

I would say that in general terms the Asian reactions to this changing geostrategic setting are a fear of further deterioration in U.S.-China relations. Those countries don't want to have to make a China choice any more than Australia or Canada does. However, in general there is a view that history is tilting against the United States and toward China in power terms, at least in this chapter, and that is causing a lot of rethinking.

On perceptions of Canada, I'd suggest that we are mainly seen by almost all of the key players in Asia as reactive, on the sidelines, playing on the margins. We garner very little attention, except in occasional negativity. In east Asia and Southeast Asia, I am asked over and over again what Canada thinks, what its interests are, and what its strategy is in this new “business not as normal” environment.

Let me conclude with three suggestions for how we start answering some of those questions, and your investigations can be a part of this.

First, we need an Asia strategy, and China has to be the central component of that Asia strategy. We need to work with ASEAN and fellow middle powers in trying to reassert and strengthen, wherever we can, multilateralism and the elements of rule of law, as we see them, taking into account what “rule of law” means—as Professor Potter mentions—but also how we're going to have to make some adjustments and accommodation to a new balance of forces. In terms of our bilateral relationship with China, our government is going to have to create a new narrative of living with China, rather than expecting to change China or thinking that economic openness will produce political liberalization. China, for the moment—and likely into the future—is on a different path.

With China we have to find out how to co-operate where we can and must on common global issues. On peacekeeping, climate change, and a range of other things, we have no option except to try to work with China, and on balance they can be a constructive force.

Part of an Asia strategy is deeper commercial relations along the lines we have been discussing with other witnesses.

I want to add another element, and that is providing new assurances to Canada and Canadians about the protection of our values, institutions, and strategic industries at home. China is a global player. It is on our doorsteps in ways that are positive in many respects, but we're facing some new threats. Public opinion polling we've been doing recently sees these concerns about Canadian values and institutions being challenged by elements of Chinese power. It's something Canadians know. When we look at takeovers of Canadian companies, acquisitions, and investments, I think we have to be able to give new assurances to Canadians that these things are in our interests.

A second general prescription is to double down on bilateral and multilateral FTAs. We do it not only because there will be an immediate commercial value to the country but also because we have to be part of the new intra-Asian game that is unfolding. That is going to involve the trans-Pacific partnership and, I think, framing our progressive agenda with a little bit more precision than we have so far, and in attractive ways, on matters including labour and gender.

Finally, let me speak about opening North Korea. You're going at an extraordinary moment. For the first time in a generation there may be an open window for Canada to reintroduce itself into northeast Asian questions, and not just around maximization of pressure on North Korea, or diplomacy. We may have an opening to deepen humanitarian assistance, educational exchanges, and capacity building in North Korea.

We're not there yet; the moment is not right for us to introduce specific actions. Your committee, however, could in Korea come up with some very useful ideas, when that sun shines a little bit brighter, on what we can do, and start preparing for it now.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Professor Evans.

Now we'll go to Professor Burton, please.

[Dr. Charles Burton, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Brock University, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for inviting me today as you prepare the second half of your fact-finding mission in support of your study of Canada's engagement in Asia.

My main area of focus in political science is Canada-China relations. I've also published studies on the domestic and foreign policies of China and North Korea, and I served twice at the Canadian embassy in Beijing.

With so much going on between China and the United States and North Korea in recent weeks, the timing of your mission comes on the cusp of what could be game-changing transformation of the geostrategic dynamic of the North Asia region. This potentially has very far-reaching consequences for the domestic and international politics of our allies Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines.

I have two points.

The first point is that the ongoing successive imposition of tariffs and other restrictive measures on China by the Government of the United States is eliciting accelerating reciprocal responses by the Government of the People's Republic of China that will likely prove disruptive to the global economy and to us. This trade dispute, I would say, has at its source much more fundamental concerns about the incompatibility of China's political economy and global ambitions with those of Canada and like-minded nations, including today's Japan and South Korea. That's to say that Canada adheres to the principles of liberal democracy, principles that we as Canadians maintain have universal meaning as the rights entitled to all people everywhere. These liberal democratic principles inform the domestic and international institutions that shape Canada's politics and foreign policy.

Unfortunately, as the two previous speakers alluded to, in recent years the current Government of China has explicitly rejected liberal democratic ideals as unsuited to China. China maintains that these are not universal values, but rather that liberal democracy is at odds with its interpretation of Chinese history and culture, and that the west uses liberal democratic discourse and the institutions that we've developed to support a liberal global order to challenge China's rise to power.

China is confident that the U.S.-led alliance that is so central to Canada, Japan, and South Korea's international identity is heading to collapse and that China will eventually emerge as the new global hegemon. Indeed, China proposes a new global order under China's own rubric called “a community of common destiny for mankind”. China's president has put forward that this “community of common destiny for mankind” is a new type of international relations. The Chinese Communist Party's newspaper, the People's Daily, says that the “community of common destiny for mankind” framework is superior to western mainstream international relations theory, pushing China to become the world's unassailable economic and cultural leader by the year 2050.

As you pointed out, human rights and multilateral co-operation have no part in the Chinese president's plans for world dominance. The incompatibility of China's political economy and global ambitions with those of Canada and like-minded nations, including Japan and South Korea, expresses itself in China's relations with Canada, South Korea, and Japan today. Certainly, there are a lot of things about China that we're unhappy about. There are the Chinese state firms purloining Canadian intellectual property through cyber-espionage and the transfer of Canadian-developed technologies by theft or coercion. There is the Chinese lack of respect for the fair play trade reciprocity of the WTO by its imposition of tariff and non-tariff barriers, including arbitrary imposition of restrictive regulations and taxes to inhibit foreign competition in the Chinese market. These are all concerns that are shared by Canada, South Korea, the Philippines, and Japan.

The Chinese government's attempts to influence foreign policy-makers through covert, coercive, or corrupt means are also an increasing concern of these four governments.

The question is, to what extent can China be expected to respond to the U.S.'s successive application of economic pressure and end its unfair trade and investment practices and the use of Chinese state firms to achieve China's larger longer-term foreign policy ambitions?

For your upcoming mission to Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the Philippines, an issue to explore would be, if the trade war between China and the United States intensifies, can Canada coordinate our policy response with Korea, Japan, and the Philippines? If there is consensus on a coordinated and effective response by us and our like-minded allies, what form should this response take?

My second point is shorter. The governments of the United States and South Korea are now simultaneously diplomatically engaging the Government of North Korea with a renewed vigour that holds forth the prospect of a formal end to the Korean War, of which Canada is a party, as you know, and the possibility of normalization of diplomatic relations between North Korea and the United States.

Where this will lead is uncertain. If Mr. Trump were to meet with Kim Jong-un, the Korean dictator, and the negotiations fail, what is the next diplomatic option if the top guys have already decided it's not working?

If this process leads to a rapprochement of some kind, it opens the question of how Canada should respond. We already have diplomatic relations with North Korea, but presently we have no embassy in that country, or programming in North Korea. Our interests are represented by the Swedish embassy in Pyongyang. Under what conditions would Canada send an ambassador to North Korea? What sort of developmental aid program would we initiate in that impoverished regime if the United States becomes active in North Korea, the war ends, and Canada feels that we should fulfill our Canadian foreign policy objectives there?

The reconstruction of North Korea, which today is largely a devastated country, has enormous potential for Canadian trade and investment and business. As Canadians, we would also hope to engage in good governance, human rights, and democratic development programming there, identifying potential agents of democratic political change, assisting to strengthen the rule of law, and so on.

Here again, strong coordination between Canada, South Korea, and Japan on how we should respond to and support the current initiatives to engage with North Korea, now and for future political and economic engagement of North Korea, would be something important to explore in the course of your mission to Korea, Japan, and the Philippines.

Bon voyage. I very much look forward to reading the report of your findings after you return to Canada.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you very much, Professor Burton.

Colleagues, we have half an hour, so we will try to keep it as tight as we can.

Will will go right to Mr. O'Toole.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would also like to thank all of our witnesses.

Certainly our engagement with Asia is the study, and it's more than just China. However, for the purposes of my questions today, and your testimony, I'm going to focus on a couple of issues that are germane to the debate about our important but evolving economic relationship with China.

Professor Potter, your overview of supremacy of party dominance and the submission to party, as you said, and in recent years with those cells and units expanding into non-state enterprises.... Has that expansion—including with language coming out of the 19th people congress—extended the party's control into state-owned enterprises? Do you see that as a continued growth for the party's influence within those enterprises?

[Dr. Pitman Potter]

The short answer is yes. It's a bit more complicated, in the sense that the presence of a party's cell, the so-called party unit, within an enterprise, doesn't necessarily mean that the enterprise is directed to follow party edicts in every single thing it does. In other words, many enterprises are driven by some sensitivity to market conditions, for example, and whatnot.

That party cell, first of all, enables the party, when it chooses, to direct the activity of that firm. This is, to my mind, one of the examples of where the lack of rule of law is so important to Canada. Other people may have different views, but in my view what the legal system is all about is lending predictability to a whole range of economic, social, political activities.

If you don't have a reliable set of standards, i.e., legal standards or the rule of law, then that predictability is absent. So with respect to the role of party cells in companies, the absence of transparency, accountability, and predictability, i.e., the absence of law, makes it very difficult for us to plan how these firms will behave. That's because of the likelihood, in light of past history, that the party at some point will intervene and say to a firm we need you to do this, whether it's a hiring decision, a business expansion decision, an investment decision. With all of those, we have difficulty predicting and therefore difficulty preparing for them, because of the very absence of a legal framework.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Recently, the Chinese ambassador suggested that some people in Canada think that Chinese state-owned enterprises are “monsters”. That's his quote. I certainly don't think they're monsters, but I think a lot of Canadians have questions like this. It would be absolutely foreign for us to suggest that the Canadian government or the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party would have a presence within some of our large enterprises. We have a transaction right now under consideration where one unit of CCCI, or China Communications Construction, is looking to acquire a controlling interest in Aecon, a large and successful Canadian construction company, but another subsidiary of that same SOE is constructing in the South China Sea islands, disrupting trade routes and stability in the region.

I'd like all of you to comment on how we try to recognize that China will have an increasingly important role in the world, in our trade relationships, but its unwillingness to reform and treat these as true, independent multinational corporations will cause pause for countries like Canada when security considerations are at issue.

I would like all three of you to comment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Mr. Potter, please.

[Dr. Pitman Potter]

I'll say that I agree with what Professor Evans said, that we're not going to change how China behaves, but we can control how we react.

When China wants us to drink the Kool-Aid and pretend that these firms are completely unrelated to the government and completely independent, I would think that would be a betrayal of our own common sense and our own interests.

We should be a little more hesitant, I think, to subscribe to the Chinese version of things, but at the same time we should be at all times looking after what is in Canada's interests. If an acquisition is in Canada's interest, that should be the dominant feature of it, taking into account the possibility or even the likelihood of there being connections between that firm and the party.

I would say that many people involved in Chinese businesses abroad are either existing party members or party members who have been granted a temporary leave, with the expectation that they will at some point return and recall that all party members are required under the Chinese party constitution to put the interest of the party above all. I think we have to expect that as a matter of realism.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Professor Burton.

[Dr. Charles Burton]

I think when we look at the state-owned enterprises, we see they are able to draw on all of the resources of the state in terms of fulfilling their competitive goals, and they also are required to implement the purposes of the state in their behaviour. For example, CSE does not help BlackBerry find a competitive bid with Samsung or something like that. We don't provide that sort of service as the government to our Canadian champion firms, but China does because there's no difference between the state enterprise and the state.

I think, with regard to Aecon, recently the African Union has been upset that a building, their headquarters that was donated to them by the Chinese government, was found to have bugs in the walls and the computer server was apparently every night sending the data to Shanghai, so we hear. One could wonder if a Chinese construction firm has information about critical infrastructure, such as the Aecon bid on the Gordie Howe bridge between Windsor and Detroit and the contract to maintain that bridge. One would naturally expect that information such as they're able to derive about this critical infrastructure—whether directly in the course of their work or as a result of their having persons in Aecon who do not deal with concrete but deal with cyber-espionage or these kinds of things—will serve the interests of the Chinese state, because that's what a Chinese state firm does.

The career pattern is—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Professor Burton, you'll have to leave it there, so we can stay on time.

I'll go to Mr. Levitt. I'm sure you can build that into your answer in a few other questions.

Mr. Levitt.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Burton, I wanted to start with you because you got me interested with your comments about opportunities for Canada in North Korea, should things proceed down a path of there being an opening in relations. I'm wondering if you can talk a little bit about what you think those opportunities might look like for Canada and where you see this situation going in terms of the American engagement, South Korea's role, and how that plays with China too, because obviously it's got a large vested interest in what's going to happen in any negotiation between the South Koreans, Americans, and North Korea.

[Dr. Charles Burton]

I think in the past, you know—

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Sorry, I actually meant Mr. Potter, because he raised it, and then we'll come to you.

Mr. Potter.

[Dr. Pitman Potter]

I'm sorry, I don't recall talking about Korea. I think Paul Evans and—

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

We'll try that one more time. I can't be wrong this time. It was Mr. Evans.

[Prof. Paul Evans]

I think you're right. All UBC professors essentially look alike.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

I got two wrong, my goodness.

[Prof. Paul Evans]

I had the opportunity to organize 29 meetings with North Koreans between 1990 and 2002, and I visited North Korea many times. I think where Professor Burton and I do agree is that we may be on the cusp of a moment when we can do some things.

I think that we have some humanitarian kinds of projects. We're pretty good at teaching languages and having educational exchanges. We have an exchange program at the University of British Columbia now. Those little windows that we have can be opened, but the more important question to consider, as we did in Canada in 2005 at an earlier moment, is to look at what kinds of development programs and what kind of assistance and capacity building to North Korea would be right as we try to open its economy.

Our purpose is not to prop up that regime but to open up that regime. We had some experience in that, but we have not been in the game for 13 years. Previously, we organized international meetings, including representatives from the IMF and World Bank, about how to structure the coordination among aid agencies as the scramble for North Korea occurs, if it does occur.

I think that in a middle power role, what we can do in a constructive way in northeast Asia.... Maybe we have a moment where we can do something again, in part based on instruments that we had in place 15 years ago.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

Would either of the other two gentlemen like to comment on that?