Evidence of meeting #35 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was china.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual
I'll be very quick.
I agree with my colleagues, and I would say that we need to stop talking in riddles as we do sometimes. An example of this is wishing that the status quo doesn't change. The reality is that the status quo has changed, and it is changing every minute, every hour, whether it's in the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea or the East China Sea.
On the point about clarity of language and consistency, the Chinese will always say “megaphone diplomacy”, but we can't say we're doing quiet diplomacy and not talk about these issues. I think we need to be clear and consistent in our policy. That doesn't mean that we're disruptive and that we don't have a bilateral relationship with China, but I think we need to be very clear about this. We cannot censor our views when we see activities that have been quite destabilizing, especially in the maritime domain.
Conservative
Ziad Aboultaif Conservative Edmonton Manning, AB
Security comes before economy. I guess there's no economy without security. We've seen examples in multiple places in the past decades and recently, and we know that security issues caused by China are not just outside Canada and in the Indo-Pacific region. They're also in Canada. We still have police stations that operate in Canada, and that really brings concern to the communities of Canadians of Chinese descent.
What do you say to the government on the police stations? We've asked about this before. I've questioned the minister myself on this, and I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
Vice-President, Research and Strategy, Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada
I'll start by noting that it would be important to make sure that the issue of foreign interference remains top of mind.
For 2023-24, because of the public inquiry into foreign interference, we had a lot of attention and understanding of what was happening. In the last year, because of everything else that's happening, this issue has gone on the back burner. We cannot afford that, because actors who are involved in foreign interference on Canadian soil—be they Russia, China, India, Iran or others—are not letting down their guard.
We cannot do that either. We need to move forward in implementing all the recommendations that exist. We have a good understanding of this issue, and we need to move forward on the implementation. We cannot afford to put it on the back burner because we now say that other issues are more important. We have to do multiple things at once, and that is one issue that fundamentally touches not just our democratic institutions but also the safety of Canadians on Canadian soil.
Liberal
Liberal
Braedon Clark Liberal Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you to our witnesses for your expertise and your testimony this afternoon.
Ms. Nadjibulla, something that stands out from all of your testimony today is the tension or the balance that needs to be struck between issues of economics and issues of security and geopolitics. Canada's problem as a middle power, if I can put it that way, is that we don't necessarily always have the economic or military might to dictate terms, especially in a region as large as the Indo-Pacific.
From the balance in 2022, what do we look at now? Are there areas in which we need to recalibrate, in your view, to strike that delicate balance?
Vice-President, Research and Strategy, Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada
Thank you very much for the question.
In my statement and in the recommendations that I've made, I point out that there's a lot that Canada can do, including when it comes to energy. We are a middle power, but we are actually much more than a middle power. We're the 10th largest economy. We can be doing more and punching way above our weight in the region.
Energy is one thing, and there are things like AI, quantum.... What I'm trying to say is that we're not as vulnerable as some of our partners. Japan, Australia and others trade much more with China and are much more integrated into the Chinese supply chain in the region, so they are much more open to coercion.
Only about 5% of our exports go to China. We're trying to deepen that, but we have to recognize that we are not as vulnerable to coercion as Japan, Australia and others in the region. Therefore, we need to be much more confident, show up with confidence, understand what our strengths are—energy, both conventional and clean energy, as well as niche technology.
Quantum is an area in which we can really be leading right now, and there's a lot of appetite in the region to engage with us, with AI, critical minerals.... My point is that, yes, it's a challenging moment in which we have to do multiple things at once, but we should also really lean into our strengths and make sure that our friends are with us.
The conversation shouldn't be just about China. China is an important actor, but we should be doing a lot more with Japan, a lot more with Australia. I'm delighted to say that, in the last year, there has been much more strategic engagement with Australia than ever before. We might be strategic cousins, but we're not yet strategic partners, and that's something that needs to change right away.
In short, I would say that the tension is there, but Canada is in a much better position than we give ourselves credit for.
Liberal
Braedon Clark Liberal Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS
Mr. Simon and Mr. Miller, if you want to touch on that briefly as well, you can.
Full Professor, School of Sociological and Anthropological Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, University Of Ottawa, As an Individual
I'll be very brief about that.
Japan is a very important partner because it is so close. It has so much trade with China, yet people are very much aware of the risks. We really need to deepen our relationship with Japan. With all the issues we just talked about, I think that it would be a good idea to see how much we can do with Japan.
We could even make it a formal alliance, as we had 100 years ago. There was the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. We need to go back to something like that, which could include the U.K., Australia and New Zealand.
Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual
I'll be very brief, too.
Japan, of course, is an important partner, but I'd point to the Philippines. One of the notable developments recently is Canada's signing on to the Luzon corridor with other like-minded partners. This is about creating and defining secure supply chains for critical minerals, etc.
There are a number of different partners that we could be working with. The idea is not that one partner or a couple of partners will replace the U.S. I think we have to get that notion out of our heads. There are ways that we can diversify with like-minded partners, but I think it's about having a couple of these partners that can help our supply chains.
Liberal
Braedon Clark Liberal Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS
Thank you. I wanted to touch on another nation that hasn't come up yet in the meeting, and that's India.
Ms. Nadjibulla, I'm not sure if this was from your submission, but you mentioned that there have been some clear achievements on India. I think that's a significant change, given where we were in 2022, without saying more than that.
Could all of you, in the time we have left—about a minute—give us your thoughts on where that relationship sits and how this figures into the broader picture of the region?
Vice-President, Research and Strategy, Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada
We are seeing a fundamental reset in the relationship, which is good news and will serve Canada's national interests. It's a relationship that will still need to have a lot of attention. The CEPA we're negotiating, the comprehensive economic partnership agreement, will be a really good framework for us to engage with India.
We have to be realistic about how much work we still need to do to raise our India competence. Basically, picture us where we were with China 15 years ago. That's where we are with India now in terms of our understanding of India's significance in the region, India's rise globally and our own capacity to engage. It's a relationship with a lot of complementarity from an economic perspective. It's underutilized. I think CEPA will give us the framework to engage. We have to do a lot more here at home in dealing with our India competence, as well as in addressing the difficult issues that are still there around foreign interference and law enforcement.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ahmed Hussen
Thank you very much.
We go next to MP Brunelle-Duceppe for two and a half minutes.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Dr. Simon, there's been a lot of talk about nation states, but not much about indigenous peoples. I'd like you to tell us whether it's possible for Canada to do more to address the challenges faced by indigenous peoples within the framework of this Indo-Pacific strategy.
Full Professor, School of Sociological and Anthropological Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, University Of Ottawa, As an Individual
I think you know that this is something I'm very interested in. Indigenous peoples already play an important role in the strategy, and I think it should stay that way. I'm very pleased to tell you that there are ongoing exchanges between the indigenous peoples of Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines and Canada, precisely because of this Indo-Pacific strategy. I contribute to that, because I'm involved in exchanges between indigenous peoples on both sides.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Today, I met with people representing the Rohingya. We're currently being told that there is a massive amount of human trafficking. Right now, people—specifically girls and women—are being sent straight to brothels. There are also girls, men and boys who are currently in the fishing industry.
In the Indo-Pacific strategy, to what extent do we recognize that in many places on this continent, products in supply chains are the result of forced labour? To what extent is Canada's current legislation insufficient with regard to forced labour?
Ms. Nadjibulla, perhaps you could start.
Vice-President, Research and Strategy, Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada
As part of the Indo-Pacific strategy, we are doing more in the region in collaboration with law enforcement, including on the issues that you raised, especially in Southeast Asia when it comes to Myanmar and other parts. It's part of the review of the strategy. There will need to be consideration about how the strategy will be organized—its various pillars—and where these issues will come in, because there are the law enforcement partnerships that various departments are engaged in, but there is also the developmental component in supporting those communities. The humanitarian relief component was also part of the strategy, and the government will need to decide what kinds of priorities will be allocated in the next phase.
I can say that in the first phase of IPS, there has been programming, including in Southeast Asia, around those issues.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Shouldn't Canada's Indo-Pacific strategy include much stronger legislation regarding the entry into Canada of products resulting from forced labour? Shouldn't national legislation be part of the Indo-Pacific strategy?
Vice-President, Research and Strategy, Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada
If I'm understanding correctly, you're asking what kinds of provisions we will have to prevent trafficking into Canada—law enforcement around trafficking. It would be up to the government. My advice would be not to bring that into the Indo-Pacific strategy but rather to have it as part of an overall understanding of how the strategy connects to foreign policy and domestic priorities.
Liberal
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON
We're talking about the Indo-Pacific and the government's approach to the Indo-Pacific. The PRC's foreign minister will be in town this week. What would be your advice to the government about what should be brought up in the bilateral meeting between Canada's foreign minister and the PRC's foreign minister?
I would like an answer from each of you, please.
Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual
Going back to my consistency point, think about some of the interests that we've outlined in the Indo-Pacific. We've talked about some of our support for like-minded democracies—our support, for example, for the arbitral ruling in the South China Sea—and some of our operations in the region, as my colleagues mentioned.
I'm not saying that we should throw those in the face of the Chinese foreign minister when he's here, but by no means do I think that we should backtrack on them. That's one important part. We can't be meek and let the agenda be framed by the Chinese side.
The second point that I would make—and I think a lot of us remember, famously or infamously, what happened the last time the Chinese foreign minister was visiting—is that we cannot allow such things to happen in our democracy. Perhaps he has learned his lesson, but that's an example of something I hope does not happen.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON
Are you referencing when he berated a Canadian journalist?
Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual
Yes, exactly.