SINT Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, February 5, 2003

1530

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.)

Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific))

1535

1540

1545

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien)

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien)

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ)

1550

Mr. David Kilgour

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Mr. David Kilgour

Mr. Ken Sunquist (Director General, Trade Commissioner Service, Overseas Programs and Services, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade)

1555

Mr. David Mulroney (Assistant Deputy Minister, Portfolio Asia-Pacific, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade)

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay

Mr. David Kilgour

Mr. David Mulroney

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay

Mr. David Kilgour

Mr. Ken Sunquist

1600

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien)

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien)

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. David Kilgour

Mr. Rick Casson

Mr. David Kilgour

Mr. David Mulroney

1605

Mr. Ken Sunquist

Mr. Rick Casson

Mr. David Kilgour

Mr. Ken Sunquist

1610

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien)

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien)

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien)

1615

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien)

Mr. David Kilgour

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. David Kilgour

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. David Kilgour

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. David Kilgour

1620

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. David Kilgour

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. David Kilgour

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. David Kilgour

Mr. David Mulroney

Mr. David Kilgour

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien)

Mr. Bob Speller

Mr. David Kilgour

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien)

Mr. Bob Speller

1625

Mr. David Kilgour

Mr. Bob Speller

Mr. David Kilgour

Mr. Bob Speller

Mr. David Kilgour

Mr. Bob Speller

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien)

Mr. David Kilgour

Mr. Ken Sunquist

1630

Mr. David Mulroney

Mr. Bob Speller

Mr. David Kilgour

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien)

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.)

Mr. David Kilgour

Mr. Ken Sunquist

1635

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien)

Mr. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.)

Mr. David Kilgour

1640

Mr. David Mulroney

Mr. Mark Eyking

Mr. David Mulroney

Mr. Ken Sunquist

1645

Mr. Mark Eyking

Mr. David Kilgour

Mr. Mark Eyking

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien)

Mr. David Mulroney

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien)

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.)

1650

Mr. Ken Sunquist

1655

Mr. David Kilgour

Mr. Ken Sunquist

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien)

Mr. David Kilgour

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien)

Mr. David Kilgour

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien)

Mr. David Mulroney

Mr. Ken Sunquist

1700

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien)

Mr. David Kilgour

Mr. David Mulroney

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien)

1705

Mr. David Kilgour

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien)

Mr. David Mulroney

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien)

Mr. David Kilgour

1710

Mr. Ken Sunquist

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien)

Mr. David Kilgour

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien)

Mr. Rick Casson

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien)

The Clerk of the Committee

Mr. Rick Casson

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien)

Mr. Rick Casson

1715

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien)

Mr. Peter Berg (Committee Researcher)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien)

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien)

CANADA

Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

NUMBER 002

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, February 5, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1530)

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.)): I'd like to call to order the meeting of the Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes, and Investment, a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

First, I should indicate that I'm standing in today for the regular chair, Mac Harb, our colleague, who's just into a minor health problem and will be back, I'm sure, at the next meeting. He's getting a little treatment on a back injury, I think, so he's asked me to stand in today.

There will be two orders of business as time permits. First, of course, we'll be hearing from the Honourable David Kilgour, the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific; and following that, colleagues, if time permits, you should have in your possession a tentative witness list for our examination on economic relations between Canada and Asia. It's not meant to be a definitive list. Certainly the committee and the chair are open to any additions, or I suppose even deletions, if you want to put suggestions forward.

So following our discussion with Mr. Kilgour, we'll look at that, if time permits. If not, we'll do it at the next meeting.

Having said that, it's my pleasure to welcome Secretary of State Kilgour to the committee. We look forward to your remarks and to having a chance to ask you some questions.

Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific)): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

As you can see, on my right is David Mulroney, who is the assistant deputy minister for Asia-Pacific, and Ken Sunquist, the director general of the Trade Commissioner Service for Asia-Pacific.

I think you all have copies of my speech dans les deux langues officielles. I'll cut it to make my remarks shorter, so we'll have more time for questions and observations.

[Translation]

Mr. Chair and colleagues, I'm delighted with the subcommittee's interest in this complex topic. Knowing the quality of your previous studies, particularly the one on the WTO, I have no doubt that this process will result in a series of useful recommendations.

[English]

Let me get right to the point.

The Asia-Pacific region is incredibly important, not only to Canada but to the world's long-term prosperity and security. What happens in the Asia-Pacific region matters to Canada. It matters because Canada is home to millions of people who trace their ancestry to the region, because it holds enormous business opportunities, and because it is increasingly a source of investment in our country.

Canada's large and growing Asian communities have made indelible contributions to the Canadian mosaic, as you all know. There are over 1 million Chinese Canadians and similar numbers who trace their roots to Asia-Pacific. With over half our new immigrants coming from the Asia-Pacific region, our “asianification” will continue to have a growing impact. Many of us, Mr. Chair, see this in our constituencies.

If I may make a personal comment, the president of my riding association, for example, was born in Pakistan; two of the vice-presidents were born in India; and the treasurer was born in Vietnam.

We need only look to fellow members of Parliament, cabinet colleagues, our Governor General, celebrated writers and artists, and more to see Canada's increasingly Asian face. Our former colleague, Raymond Chan, who served as Secretary of State, Asia-Pacific, from 1993 to 2000, termed such people-to-people links “Canada's hidden advantage”. They build bridges from Canada to all over Asia-Pacific. They transport ideas, knowledge, culture, and value in both directions. We are all better as a result.

Canada is thriving in part because of these human bonds, and also because the Asia-Pacific region is vibrant economically. Opportunities for Canadians in Asia-Pacific are expanding rapidly. The Asian economic crisis is over. Current growth is unparalleled. Asia-Pacific remains our second-largest trading partner. Since 1970, our exports there have grown an average of 11% a year. For over a decade, our trans-Pacific trade has exceeded our transatlantic trade. Investment links in both directions have grown significantly.

[Translation]

Asia-Pacific's market is getting bigger and more prosperous all the time. Large middle income communities, with substantial purchasing power, are emerging—we are literally talking about hundreds of millions of new consumers.

¹ (1535)

[English]

While the opportunities are extraordinary, our economic relations are not without challenges. Our trade volumes have recovered since the Asian financial crisis, but there's vast room for improvement in export performance. We have lost market share to traditional rivals, and we were probably not prepared enough for the emergence of new competitive players within the region itself. Multilateral bodies like ASEAN are exploring free trade agreements with other major economies in Asia-Pacific. We need to make an effort to make sure Canada is not forgotten.

[Translation]

Part of the reason for Canada's current status is also systemic: falling commodity prices, reduced resource demand, and a slowdown in Japan are all important factors. In my year as secretary of State (Asia-Pacific) certain challenges have become apparent.

Foremost, it is my impression that the majority of Canadian business people are unaware of Asia's potential. Most of Asia-Pacific's opportunities remain relatively untapped by Canadians.

[English]

As one would expect, governments and business are focused on the North American markets, but recent trade disputes have certainly taught that diversification makes good business sense. The attractions of doing business in Asia-Pacific haven't reached enough Canadians. Some still feel burned by the Asian flu, others looked at the size of the markets such as China, expecting immediate returns on investment, unprepared to settle in for the long haul.

Canada's Asia-Pacific Foundation, as I'm sure you know, recently identified an information gap. Firms already in Asia with direct access to their own sources of information are confident enough with the business climate to increase their holdings. Those that rely on second-hand sources of information, such as the media or consultants based in Canada, show little interest. In other words, Canadian business needs more reliable information to identify new opportunities and be prepared to do business in unfamiliar markets.

On the other side, the knowledge of Canada in Asia is outdated, to put it mildly. We enjoy a generally positive image, but our brand is suffering. The roots of the problem lie in the widespread perception, I believe, that Canada is a travel destination as opposed to a trading partner. Business people in Asia-Pacific need to know that Canada encompasses both realties. Misconceptions about Canada, in my experience, are in part due to two factors.

First, many of our traditional business organizations that have focused on the Asia-Pacific region are underperforming. Canada's hidden advantage that I referred to earlier is, in my opinion, still too hidden.

The second factor is one we are all too aware of--resources. As it stands, we have an incredible group of men and women, Canadian and Asian nationals alike, promoting Canada's economic trade interests across Asia-Pacific. Our Trade Commission Service is the envy of foreign business people all over the region. There's hardly a country I've visited, Mr. Chairman, where Canadian business people haven't told me that their successes are in part due to focus on core value-added service, the innovative use of new technologies, and getting our officers out from behind the desk and promoting Canadian interests.

But there are not enough of these officers out there. I have just returned from India, where, for example, we don't have enough Canadian presence in Hyderabad, Bangalore, or Chennai, three of India's most important high-tech centres.

[Translation]

We know our resources are limited, and as such we have identified strategic partners in the region, and priority sectors.

[English]

You will notice that I've left out part of the talk on Japan, but in China our efforts are paying off in some areas. Total exports, for example, have risen 87% over the last decade. China is now our fourth largest export market, and third if we include Hong Kong. With China's recent accession to the WTO and the subsequent expectation of more transparent trade rules, we can expect more success.

While there's still much progress to be made in our relationship with India, we have seen a steady increase in exports; in investment flowing both ways; and important joint ventures in information technology, biotechnology, and the arts. Canadian companies are already aware that the world's largest film industry is Bollywood, not Hollywood. Cutting-edge Indian companies such as Satyam Computer Services, Infosys Technologies, and Kshema Technologies have already invested in Canada.

That said, these cases are still the exception rather than the rule. Our current trade figures with India point to enormous potential. India is the world's 11th largest economy, and Canada the 8th, and yet we're only each other's 25th largest trading partner. As liberalization in India continues, we hope better access will see trade rise quickly.

Besides focusing on the key markets of Japan, China, and India, we're also looking to new sectors. Note our increased trade in knowledge-based products and services. With the rapidly developing infrastructure in much of the region, Canadian expertise in engineering, project management, and environmental consulting is much in demand.

¹ (1540)

[Translation]

Opportunities have presented themselves in aviation products and aircraft. This market is slow in much of the world, yet Canada's aircraft exports to the region have grown almost 300% in five years.

Our insurance sector is also a major player. Along with other financial services, Canadian companies in these sectors are poised to take better advantage of Asia-Pacific's opportunities. Our biotechnology industry is also attracting increased attention. Cultural exports, including film, animation and literature are generating increased sales.

[English]

A vast need for new housing in much of the Asia-Pacific region lends itself not only to lumber exports but also to prefabricated units, using a wider range of Canadian material and skilled labour. Who better can respond to these needs than Canadians?

Our suppliers have found niches in telecommunications, infrastructure, energy development, and transportation services. Canadian involvement in development projects often translates into immediate business opportunities for Canadian enterprises, as well as into longer-term benefits for Canada's brand and market presence.

Our companies have consistently won 8% to 10% of Asian Development Bank contracts for infrastructure development. CIDA's industrial cooperation program has provided opportunities for companies to participate in projects in the region. They often perform joint ventures, multiplying the benefits both within Canada and the host country well beyond the scope of the initial project.

An often overlooked knowledge-based service we provide to Asia-Pacific nationals is education. Over half the foreign students currently studying in Canada are from the Asia-Pacific region and are estimated to bring in over $2 billion into our economy each year. Graduates of Canadian universities are leaders in business and government in their respective countries and often maintain the links they made while studying here. Marketing Canadian education will be a priority in the coming years.

We continue important institutional linkages. For example, our active participation in APEC promotes free and open trade in the region while helping less developed members to reach WTO goals. It also helps them take practical steps toward eliminating red tape and in enhancing security.

[Translation]

It must be remembered that investment flows both ways across the Pacific. Direct investment into Canada from the Asia-Pacific region has increased 80% over the last decade. Canadian investment into the region is important not only to Canadian investors but also in establishing long-term, mutually beneficial relationships.

[English]

Can we do better? Absolutely, we can. The Asia-Pacific region is large and complicated. We cannot do everything. We must focus our efforts without compromising our values.

How can we do better? We have identified some areas. We need to improve the Asia-Pacific brand in Canada and vice versa, reinvigorate our traditional business associations, and improve our official presence in Asia-Pacific's most important markets. We hope the subcommittee will be able to suggest others. I know that all of you will make a very important contribution in that regard.

You could imagine a cross-section of Canadians to more precisely define both the challenges and opportunities that we face in the regions. Travelling to Asia-Pacific's economic capitals will certainly help you to do this. More importantly, it will hopefully result in concrete recommendations that will help us to work together in a more focused manner. In particular, we look forward to specific recommendations regarding how we can find the ways and means to improve our performance in priority sectors and services.

How do you think we can better provide Canadian companies with market intelligence to attract the Asia-Pacific region? In what ways can Team Canada missions be made even more effective?

A free trade agreement is a viable option. Our approaches must go beyond traditional trade in investment promotion, because trade, as we know, is inexplicably linked to our economic stability and to the world's larger sense of security. We also have to visualize trade and investment as useful tools of development.

It's in everyone's interest for Canadians to be good corporate citizens, to see beyond the bottom line. Honest trade and honest investment empower the lives of people everywhere. Both are leaders for creating good jobs, strengthening the rule of law, promoting transparency, and fostering good governance.

Incidentally, a judge friend of mine from Alberta thinks that the rule of law should be our most cherished export. Consequently, our economic relationships in Asia-Pacific, like anywhere else in the world, must co-exist with our priority of promoting human security world wide.

¹ (1545)

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, we truly welcome the study that the subcommittee has launched and look forward to working closely with you over the coming months.

Thank you very much.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Thank you very much, Minister, for the excellent overview. As we take up what I think will be a very interesting and challenging study for this committee, your appearance helps to bring us a very good focus. Indeed, it's good to see you posing some questions that we can take up in our study. I know all of us are looking forward to it very much.

Before I go to questions, I want to take a moment and welcome one new member to our committee. The new Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade is our colleague Murray Calder.

Welcome, Murray, and congratulations on your appointment. I know you'll enjoy it. I did for the past two years. Prior to my two years, Bob Speller was in that job.

We're getting to be a committee with some experience on both sides of the table. Hopefully, we can take up this study with lots of enthusiasm. I think it's a very important part of the world, and we should have a good look at our trade relations with Asia.

Thank you very much, Minister.

Having said that, I'll remind colleagues that we've tended to go with people raising their hands, as the chair has seen them, with five minutes for questions. It has always worked quite well. We haven't, I think, had the need for, or ever agreed on, any sort of strict questioning pattern the way the standing committees have. At least that's my recollection over the past years. I'll take questions from people as I see your hands.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): My understanding has been that when we have ministers appear before the committee, there is a 10-minute round with ministers. It's pretty tough to develop any line of questioning otherwise.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien): That's fine, sure. Again, I was referring more to the order. Yes, we'll go with 10 minutes as members indicate an interest. All right?

We'll start with Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Tremblay, do you have any questions?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): I certainly have questions, but I think I am the least experienced in this field of those around the table. It is a bit awkward to start asking questions without knowing more about the issue, especially since I am replacing my colleague, Stéphane Bergeron, who is in Washington today. Maybe the weather is better there. Let us hope so.

Minister, thank you for your presentation. It was very interesting. I will not make your life too difficult, as I promised when we spoke, mainly because I have more questions than anything else for you.

Given the very tense relations with Iraq, what might the impact be of Canada's possible participation in a war with Iraq on our trade relations with Asia-Pacific?

¹ (1550)

Mr. David Kilgour: That is an absolutely fundamental question. I do not have a crystal ball, of course, but I think that Indonesia, which has a Muslim population in the millions, might naturally be a problem for us. We did raise this issue with Australia. Would it create problems for Australia and for other countries such as India, for example, which has 150 million Muslims? Could it create difficulties? It is well known that there are now 4 or 5 million Indian citizens working in the Middle East. If a war breaks out, will most foreigners be expelled, including those from India? Will the situation create other problems for Asia-Pacific?

As you probably know, many people were expelled during the war some years ago. For example, thousands and thousands of people were sent back to the Philippines for a certain period. In short—I'm sorry to have given you such a long answer—it can create problems in the region that we are talking about today.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I saw somewhere in a document that China and all the other countries in that area had started to create a kind of common market. In South America, there may be problems with Brazil in setting up the FTAA, since their priority is to consolidate their markets with one another. We want to develop markets in Asia. Is it possible that China and the dozen or so other countries in that region that want to create their common market may prevent us from moving forward with our trade initiatives in those countries?

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Did the minister want to say something?

[Translation]

Mr. David Kilgour: I hope that all the questions will not be as difficult as yours are.

In fact, I am going to give the floor to Mr. Sunquist.

[English]

Mr. Ken Sunquist (Director General, Trade Commissioner Service, Overseas Programs and Services, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): David Mulroney is here, the assistant deputy minister for Asia. I happen to be the director general of the Trade Commissioner Service. My most recent posting was as ambassador to Indonesia; before that, I was the senior trade commissioner in China and, before that, Korea.

I think there are clearly questions, as the minister has rightly pointed out, with Indonesia, which has 200 million Muslims. In fact, they've been the target of terrorism in Bali. If you look at China, they are equally concerned with instability and other issues. If you take the first question you asked, I think that many of us are in common cause against those problems.

The second question you ask, which is perhaps a good deal more difficult, is what is the impact of the fact that all of these countries are starting to foster a greater interregional relationship? In some cases we're part of that. As part of APEC, we are...no, the Pacific Ocean is not a division; it actually draws us together.

The second thing is that when you take a look at some of the countries in the region, the forum in Southeast Asia, ASEAN, in fact it has allowed greater stability. It has led to, if I may call it so, a globalization of rules, so in fact we haven't faced the same kind of discriminatory tactics country by country. The regions are opening up and are in fact better trading partners, better partners for investment both ways. It's easier for us to work in terms of CIDA, our aid agencies, democratization, and pulling together different issues. I'm not sure, David, if....

¹ (1555)

[Translation]

Mr. David Mulroney (Assistant Deputy Minister, Portfolio Asia-Pacific, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): I think that China plays a fairly constructive role in helping to open up the Chinese and Asian markets. For us, the fact that all the economies in the region are dynamic and growing is a good thing.

[English]

Everything we've seen from China to date in its role in the region has been constructive, has been in the spirit of its WTO accession.

What's also true is that countries such as Japan and South Korea are also playing a role in east Asian integration and the promotion of trade within east Asia, the late development of which probably retarded east Asia's and Asia's trade with the rest of the world.

That general growth is a good thing for us. As Ken has said, we have to be constructive, and the rules of the game are changing. We need to come up with new ways of ensuring that we're playing a constructive role and that we're participating in that growth.

[Translation]

It is a little different from the issues...

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Given the fact that our relations with the United States over softwood lumber are increasingly difficult and that the situation does not seem to be getting settled, is there any hope that we can open up markets for our lumber in Asia-Pacific, which would enable us to send our lumber elsewhere before our industry runs into trouble? Could we expect to make some progress there?

Mr. David Kilgour: When I went to China a few months ago, to Nankin, not far from Shanghai, I cut the ribbon for a house built out of wood from British Columbia. An Alberta company had built 15 or 20 houses out of wood. There was a problem with Shanghai regarding construction standards, but I think the problem was resolved.

Before asking Mr. Mulroney to comment, I would like to add that in Canton, for example, and in the other huge markets in China and probably also in India and other countries, we now have a 50-million-dollar fund to promote our markets.

Mr. David Mulroney: We have been in the Japanese market for 20 years and in South Korea, and now we are starting to make inroads in China. It is not simply a matter of promotion. We start with the architects and academics, and we also have to get regulations changed. Things are getting underway in India as well. But the American market is much bigger. So this is the first step.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: The antidumping tariffs that China imposed on newsprint in 1998 are set to expire in July 2003. Have you taken steps to ensure that the tariffs are not renewed and that newsprint imports will be allowed? Those tariffs hurt us. Can we hope they will not be renewed?

Mr. David Kilgour: Mr. Sunquist can answer that.

[English]

Mr. Ken Sunquist: I think there are a couple of points that need to be made here.

First of all, your point is well taken. As we look at these markets and as we work within the terms of the World Trade Organization and access, yes, in fact we are trying to develop new markets for traditional products that have gone elsewhere.

As for whether Asia can ever take over what the U.S. market is doing, that's just not realistic. However, much of our effort has been on the market access side to make sure Canadian producers can ship their products without fear, as you said, of some discriminatory tactics. It's not just about newsprint; there's a wide range, whether we're talking about lumber or newsprint.

In fact, I think that's one of the key points. For instance, in China, just to use an example, the minister had it in his remarks that since the WTO accession the workload in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Hong Kong has increased. I don't know if it's 50% to 100%, but it's going up very quickly. Canadian producers and Canadian organizations now look at a market that is not as discriminatory as it was even four or five years ago. That is our biggest issue; we have to be vigilant, not just on any one product but on many products. I think the relationship with the Chinese officials is based on those kinds of new rules that are in place.

So, yes, we spend a lot of time on market access, a lot of time protecting our interests, and a lot of time taking a look at the market strategy to stay in the market. I think your comments are well founded, and it was a huge issue for us a few years ago. We're trying to make sure that with new mechanisms we don't face it again.

º (1600)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Thank you. Merci, Madame Tremblay.

We'll have Mr. Robinson for ten minutes.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Casson is on the list as well.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien): I have Mr. Casson on the list.

We have some congeniality around here today, which is not unusual at this committee.

Mr. Casson, please.

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Kilgour, thanks for you presentation.

You mentioned a couple of things in your presentation. When we were in Europe, we had an opportunity to look at the Canada-Europe trade situation. They mentioned this travel destination image we have, the fact that Canada is seen as a big, wide-open wilderness and that this needed to be changed. In almost every Canadian facility we went into over there, one of the things we noticed was a big picture of a wilderness setting of Canada. It's hard to get people to realize there's more to this country than that, that there is the high-tech industry.

We now have a large trade deficit with the Asia-Pacific countries. They seem to have done a better job coming to us than we have done going to them. Are we on the wrong track trying to work through APEC and some of the large organizations? Should we be concentrating more on bilateral deals, one-to-one?

Another thing we've heard is that Canadian business people have to be present in the country. I know in China there was quite a large number of Canadian people there opening doors and working through the bureaucracy. But how important is that, and how good a job are we doing to promote it? Do we need to stand back more and encourage businesses to do that? Do we need to have a more meaningful presence as a country or government,?

Mr. David Kilgour: I definitely agree with you.

Is your first recommendation going to be that we take out all of these shots of Alberta from all the trade offices?

Mr. Rick Casson: And put all the high-tech pictures in.

Mr. David Kilgour: But no, I couldn't agree with you more. As I said, the worst thing is being a destination or a place to visit. It may be better to be a place to study, but even that is not enough.

As you know, we're trying to negotiate a free trade agreement with Singapore. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, it's the only one. We're making headway on it.

But I couldn't agree with you more on getting Canadian businesses to be more active in the Asia-Pacific region. I hope that will be one of your recommendations, too.

Why don't I turn it over to...I should say that Mr. Mulroney has worked with the Canada-China Business Council and has been our representative in Taiwan. Both witnesses have had an enormous amount of trade experience.

Mr. David Mulroney: The question on the Canadian brand is a good one. I guess the current take we have on it is that we don't want to discourage people. Tourism is a big component of what we do and a tremendous part of our services exports. It's really an important part of the way people see Canada, which we think is a good thing.

But we'd like to stretch those perceptions to include some other realities as well. Canada is not not only a beautiful place, but it's also urban and rural, a home to great universities, and a bilingual and multicultural society. We've increasingly been trying to reinforce those messages.

I spent some time in our trade office in Taiwan, where we tried to do everything from changing the look of our waiting room.... Our information on Canada was dispensed through computer terminals and touch screen, which was important. We used champions who were attractive in the media, people like the astronaut, Julie Payette, to talk about her experiences as a woman in studying sciences and in becoming an astronaut. We also used someone who is associated with Toronto's Sick Children's Hospital, Lap-Chee Tsui, the geneticist. We used him in the media to stretch the sense of who Canadians are, what they do, and what Canada is all about.

We're trying to apply this, and we are looking at a big public diplomacy strategy in China, where we'll be working with the media to capture some of this. We're doing the same thing in places like Japan and India.

So the idea is to stretch the associations. If you think of Canada as being not only beautiful and a tremendous resource producer but also a home to great universities, we think people will also make a connection to Canada as an investment destination. A lot of people who invest in Canada say, “I made the investment decision because in any major Canadian city I could tap into such a range of highly skilled people”.

So this question of how we present Canada and the embassies as a front door is really key.

º (1605)

Mr. Ken Sunquist: I think branding is something the committee might wish to look at: how is Canada branding itself globally, but in Asia-Pacific in particular?

Yes, the Canadian Tourism Commission spends funds to promote Canada, not only the wilderness side but also the nightlife and the high-technology side. Investment Partnerships Canada has a role to try to show us as a high-tech haven, a place that people can invest in. Agriculture Canada wants to have branding that promotes quality food products, and it has a different impact.

So in fact, there are a number of different ways of taking a look at branding, and they're all important. But it needs perhaps a little bit better coordination on that.

The question raised, which is an interesting one, on statistics is clearly that we do import more things that are the lower-value items from Asia, but in fact, I believe the figures--I don't have them in front of me right now--show that we actually get more investment from Asia and we are actually ahead on service exports. I know it's always difficult to find service export figures, but it seems that as Canada progresses more to a knowledge-based economy, that's what we're doing well; it's services.

In Asia, the insurance companies and others are doing very well. I think there are particular countries where we're doing very well on trade as well, but it has a changing nature.

When David and I were in Korea at different times, wheat to China used to be, if I can remember, the number two or three market in the world. Today it's far down because, with the help of CIDA and others, they're now producing most of the food products.

So you can't say trade by itself; we have to look at technology, investment, trade, and how it all fits together. In conjunction with that, we have to look at our aid packages and how we're doing things on the development side.

Mr. Rick Casson: When I was looking at the witness list, I phoned a number of organizations that weren't there that I thought might be interested. They all expressed an interest, and this is a target for them, for markets. Most of these are in the agricultural area. They are very keen on what develops here and some input they can have on that.

We seem to have done the easy part with dealing with our neighbours to the south--the same language, proximity, all of that. What we need to do now is a little more complex.

Getting back to the fact, do we need to just step aside and let companies act on their own? How much will their success in dealing with these countries depend on what Canada does as a country to lay the groundwork and the regulations and rules?

Mr. David Kilgour: There have been all kinds of efforts to do this. I recall going to China recently with a junior Team Canada and a number of companies. Some people can do it on their own. Big companies like Bombardier don't need a lot of help. It's a question, I think, of what you're getting at: how do we get the SMEs involved from Alberta or other provinces?

Our own province, as you probably know, has the most active trading relationship with China of any province. Why is that? Why is it that Alberta entrepreneurs--most of them are small companies--are able to get out and do so much business with China? I don't pretend to know the answers on that.

Do you want to say something, Ken or David?

Mr. Ken Sunquist: We do client surveys every second year. As you would expect for small and medium-sized enterprises, the first destination for most of them is the northern tier of the U.S., and traditionally Europe has been the number two destination.

What I think has been most surprising to us over the last series of, let's say, four years, is the growth for Asia. At a time when things are more difficult, with the Asian downturn in the economy, in fact SMEs in particular have looked more at Asia than ever before. Southeast Asia, for some reason, is drawing them in. In partnership with provincial governments, we've done a lot of things to try to help the entrepreneurs and get them out there, because that's the fastest growing area.

Sometimes, too, our best advice is to say not to come. For some markets, you have to have deep pockets and be there for a long time, and maybe the best advice is not to be in the market and not cause yourself problems. But that's only advice; the businesses do what they wish.

I think what we're finding more and more is that the SMEs are coming. I can actually provide figures later, if you'd care, but just in terms of the number of enterprises and where we're finding the growth, in which regions of Asia-Pacific, we have those figures for you.

º (1610)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien): I would appreciate that very much.

Mr. Speller, were you really deferring to Mr. Robinson?

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): I'm staying here. If he has to go, it doesn't matter.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Yes, Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you, Bob.

I'd like to thank the minister for his appearance and also let the committee know--and I know they'll be devastated to hear this--that I will no longer be serving as a member of the subcommittee. My colleague Bill Blaikie has just been appointed by the new leader as our spokesperson on trade and globalization. You have him back, and I will be continuing to work in the area of international human rights, and I've been asked to take on the health portfolio as well.

But I want to thank the minister for his appearance. I know the minister has a longstanding interest and concern in the area of human rights. I've worked with him on a number of issues over the years, on Burma and other issues. In the few minutes that I have available for questioning, it's in those areas that I wanted to put some questions to the minister.

I also want to welcome Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Sunquist.

The minister was asked a question in the House with respect to the possibility of execution of a Sikh professor, Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar. I asked the minister a question on this issue. I asked him to join with Amnesty International, with Sikh groups, with other organizations including leaders of the Muslim and Hindu community, in calling on the Indian government to commute the death sentence and to order a new fair trial for Professor Bhullar.

I know that the minister met with individuals, the same individuals I met with from the Lower Mainland, including Mr. Bhullar's wife. The minister, in his response, frankly, came up with an incomprehensible answer. He said, “We will do our best to do what is proper, to do the correct thing for the correct reasons”--Chrétien's finest response there. He went on to say, “to do the correct thing for the correct reasons for Mrs. Bhullar”.

With great respect, it's not Mrs. Bhullar who faces execution. It's not Mrs. Bhullar who was sent by Germany to India improperly, as the German authorities subsequently determined. It's not Mrs. Bhullar who was subjected to trial under the draconian TADA laws.

So the minister, with respect, didn't answer the question at all. I want to give him an opportunity now, because I know he'll want to take advantage of this opportunity, to correct that. I want to urge the minister to speak out on this and to ask him whether he is prepared to urge the Indian government to commute this death sentence and order a new, fair trail for Professor Bhullar.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Before the minister considers whether he wants to answer the question, I want to recall for colleagues that the minister is here appearing on the subject of enhancing Canada-Asia economic ties. Certainly no one questions the import of your question, Mr. Robinson, but it's well outside the scope of this particular meeting. I think in fairness to the minister, I recall that this was the understood scope of the meeting. Frankly, I'm tempted to rule it out of order, but I'm going to defer to the minister and see, since he's here, if he wishes to answer, even though it's clearly well outside the scope of this particular meeting and the material that was circulated, .

Minister, if you wish to answer, feel free, but if not, we'll certainly understand.

º (1615)

Mr. Svend Robinson: I have a point of order.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien): On a point of order, Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: On this suggestion, the question is entirely in order, because of course one of the concerns with respect to Canada's trade relationships with countries such as India and China in particular is that, frankly, we have been too silent on human rights issues. We're exploring the full implications of those trade relationships, and one of those implications is just how does that affect human rights.

So it's entirely in order, Mr. Chair.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien): I can see the tie-in, but again in my view, as one member of the committee, it's well outside the scope of what was intended for the meeting. But I'm going to defer to the minister, obviously, and see if he wants to speak to it.

Mr. David Kilgour: Mr. Chair, Mr. Robinson, Mr. Blaikie, and I are the three surviving members of the class of 1979. We've been reduced steadily over the years, and it's funny that the three of us have all survived. Mr. Robinson and I were on the justice committee for four years, so we know each other well--and from the natural resources committee--and I have the greatest respect for the member and his question.

The reason he got--what did you call it?--such an unsatisfactory answer the other day in the House was because I was trying not to say anything that would hurt the cause that he and I share very greatly. He knows as well as I do that India will soon pass China in population. It's one of the largest countries on earth. It is one of the most important countries on earth, with a very proud people and a very proud government. I've just come back from there, and I did not want to say anything in the House or here that would create the wrong impression for the cause that he and I fully share. There are times when behind-the-scenes diplomacy is better than making provocative statements that are going to offend somebody--in this case, the Government of India. That's why I said that in the House and why I basically repeat it today.

As Mr. Robinson knows, Mr. Chair, I met with Professor Bhullar's wife here--she and I went to the Prime Minister's Office together--and I also met with her in Calgary. I assure you that I'm going to do everything I can to do what he and I, and everybody in the room, I'm sure, hopes will be done, which is to have her husband's sentence commuted. But it's a question of doing it in a way that will be the most effective, not in the way that will be the most rhetorically sound or rhetorically satisfying.

Mr. Svend Robinson: No one is interested in rhetoric. What we're interested in is saving the life of this person, who was subjected to a death penalty after what many people view as a seriously flawed trial process. Indeed, it was a split verdict that led to the death penalty.

Mr. David Kilgour: [Inaudible—Editor] ...judgment, Mr. Robinson?

Mr. Svend Robinson: I believe I heard the secretary of state say that he would do what he can to urge the commutation of the death sentence. Is that correct?

Mr. David Kilgour: I've met with the high commissioner from India. We've discussed the matter at some length. That's certainly the object, obviously, of what all of us are doing, including my colleague.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I have another question on another issue. You mentioned that India is a big country, a big market, and we don't want to ruffle the feathers too much in terms of our trade relationship. And this is even more true, presumably, in terms of China. Canada's silence publicly with respect to human rights violations in China has been pretty deafening. I speak here particularly of some the issues such as freedom of religion, Falun Gong and so on, but I want to focus on another one.

China has over 350 missiles currently pointed at Taiwan. The European Parliament has spoken out strongly on this, urging China to back off, to end this kind of threatening posture with respect to Taiwan. I haven't heard a word out of the Canadian government, and I wonder if that's because of the trade relationship or what it is. Certainly, many Canadians are deeply concerned about this heightened threatening military posture with respect to Taiwan.

I'd like to ask the minister what Canada's position is on this. Do we have a position on this and on Taiwan? I know Mr. Mulroney represented us, and represented us well, in Taiwan.

And on Taiwan, when is Canada finally going to support Taiwan's participation in the World Health Organization?

Mr. David Kilgour: I'll let Mr. Mulroney, if I may, Mr. Chair, answer that part of the question, but Canada has consistently urged both Beijing and Taipei to lower the temperature. As you just indicated, it's not helpful to have this kind of friction, this tension between the two countries, in the region and we hope that they'll find a way to lower the temperature, just as we very much hope that North Korea and its neighbours can lower the temperature too.

But, as you said, Mr. Mulroney represented us in Taipei for three years.

º (1620)

Mr. Svend Robinson: The minister is a witness here. With great respect, I'd like to ask the minister to answer the question with respect to Taiwan's participation in the World Health Organization. We have a one China policy. We all know that, but why on earth can't the 23 million people of Taiwan participate in the World Health Organization, and why won't Canada support them at the very least in putting this on the agenda? Why do we vote against Taiwan at the World Health Assembly when it comes to even considering this issue, Mr. Minister?

Mr. David Kilgour: Taipei has full access to the World Health Organization without being a member, and if all of the members of the World Health Opposition would agree to have Taipei join and it can be done, Canada would certainly be in favour of that. But as my colleague knows, Mr. Chair, there is a problem there with the country that represents 1.3 billion people. We're persuaded that Taiwan is not being denied any benefits of membership in the WHO. It has access to everything that members do. Until everybody can agree on it, that won't happen.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I will be brief, Mr. Chairman. My last question again deals with a big market, Indonesia. Interestingly enough, Ken Sunquist used to be our representative in Indonesia. It deals with the issue of bringing to justice those who were allegedly responsible for some horrific crimes in East Timor, particularly in the days immediately after the referendum in 1999. The Indonesian government, in the eyes of many of us, has been shamefully lax in bringing those responsible to justice. In many cases there have been acquittals, and in other cases there have been minimal sentences. Mary Robinson, the former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, voiced her concern about this. What is Canada's position with regard to calling for much more vigorous prosecution of those who were allegedly responsible for these terrible crimes that took place?

Mr. David Kilgour: You and I were both members of the Parliamentarians for East Timor. Did you not go there for the events?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Yes, indeed.

Mr. David Kilgour: I feel terrible that I wasn't able to be there. Three of us were active in the Parliamentarians for East Timor for a decade.

As a lawyer, Mr. Chairman, my colleague knows very well that we can't interfere in the judicial system of another country. I did say earlier that the one thing Canada can export everywhere is the rule of law, and we can show by example. CIDA is spending a lot of money to try to increase the rule of law in countries where it perhaps isn't what it should be. But we can't force a country to do what perhaps you or I or my colleagues would like it to do on an issue such as this.

We may not be happy with it, but at least East Timor has its independence now. Do you know how much money we're spending in East Timor?

Mr. David Mulroney: I'd have to get back to you on that.

Mr. David Kilgour: We'll get back to you on that. We're trying to help the East Timorese establish a democratic country.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

Next is Mr. Speller and then Mr. Calder.

Mr. Bob Speller: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister, for appearing today.

I want to read some of the words you used in your speech in talking about the Asia-Pacific region: “incredibly important”, “enormous business opportunities”, and “opportunities are extraordinary”. You also said “Opportunities for Canadians in Asia-Pacific are expanding rapidly.” I think the speech could have been used for a number of different areas of the world, and another minister would probably use the exact same terminology.

Why, Minister, is Asia different?

Mr. David Kilgour: Let me give you some figures. Has the committee had access yet to the merchandise trade figures, investment figures, service figures, and so on?

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Yes.

Mr. Bob Speller: I wouldn't mind seeing figures on the resources within your department that in fact are being used in this area. You talk about resources further on.

You also about some of the problems. I'll use your words again: “We have lost market share to traditional rivals”, “opportunities remain relatively untapped”, there's an “information gap”, “Canada's brand is suffering”, and “traditional business organizations...are underperforming Canada's 'hidden advantage'”.

Then, of course, there's the whole issue of resources. Why aren't we putting more resources into this area?

º (1625)

Mr. David Kilgour: Trade commissioners and so on are everything--

Mr. Bob Speller: In your speech you talk about resources within the department to promote Canadian trade within the area. If, as you say, Asia-Pacific is incredibly important, where are the resources to back that up?

Mr. David Kilgour: I hope your first recommendation will be that we put more resources into it.

Let me give you the example of Guangzhou. We had six people in Guangzhou three or four years ago. We're now up to 38, mostly Chinese nationals working for the consul general there. Guangdong province has 195 million people. It's the Pearl River Delta, as you know, and there are enormous opportunities. I think I heard that they had 40,000 joint agreements in that province. Our governor general comes from there. Many Canadians come from that region. It seems to me that it's a natural place for us to do a lot more trade, just to pick one province in one country.

Mr. Bob Speller: Can I give you another number? I understand those numbers, but the number I'm giving is two; that is the number of people responsible for agriculture in all of China.

I notice here agriculture is not one of the priority areas you mention and yet I know the parliamentary secretary is from a farming community. In fact, there are many around this table. I would suggest that probably most people on this committee are. The honourable member from the Bloc is on the agriculture committee and would probably question why we wouldn't be using more resources in that area in such a big market in China.

Mr. David Kilgour: I absolutely agree. You'll be happy to know that I went out from Beijing to see a nearby farm-seed plant where we're trying to work more with the Chinese. We have a CIDA person working full-time with them. I was told we've brought over--was it 800 plus?--pigs to start the herd and that many, many of the pigs across China can trace their lineage back to Canadian pigs.

The same day I was told that the way they do milk distribution in China is they have individually owned cows; they bring the cows into a central milking area, and they then distribute the milk. It's working extremely well.

But it seems to me that there are enormous opportunities, as you know better than I do. You've done the definitive study on Canada's problem agricultural policy. We come from a province that, if I'm not mistaken, is the most agriculturally diverse in Canada, so believe me, I couldn't agree with you more.

What would you like to see us do in terms of agriculture, Bob?

Mr. Bob Speller: First of all, I'd argue that Ontario was, but that would be--

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien): No interprovincial fights here.

Mr. David Kilgour: I'm sorry. Forgive me, please.

Mr. Ken Sunquist: If I could just make one comment, I believe we have trade representatives in some 20 countries in the Asia-Pacific, and we can give you numbers on how many Canadians and how many local nationals are there. But in fact if you looked at the last decade, it's probably the only region of the world that has experienced that growth on the trade side vis-à-vis all other areas.

The second thing is just in terms of resources devoted to agricultural trade--or food trade, I guess, is a better way of putting it--and you are absolutely right that there were two Canada-based resources on agriculture in China.... In fact, under the agricultural policy framework that was introduced and agreed to by members, there will be more resources going into China between our Department of International Trade and the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. So we'll see additional resources both from locally engaged nationals and Canada this coming summer. We're in the process of selecting people now.

I think one of the real tricks here is we have to focus on what areas we can see to increase trade to the greatest extent. In China, in fact, the fastest-growing and the best sector is agriculture and seafood products. Our plans are that from about $900 million in trade this year, we could be at about $4 billion in Canadian agrifood exports to that market within three to four years. It's clearly the number one sector we have to work on.

But as always, it is a question of resources. To feed China we have to pull away from Europe or the United States or South America, so it's difficult, because we're not getting additional resources on the trade side.

º (1630)

Mr. David Mulroney: Just to add a last note, of our global resources on international business development, Asia-Pacific represents about 34%, which is not a bad allocation.

The other thing is that, on an issue like agriculture, you can look at the two Canadians we have there. You also have locally engaged staff. And on any major issue or any major promotion, you'll also see the head of the commercial section--what Ken used to do--and the ambassador involved. On any access issue--if it's pulses, if it's meat--the whole team gets involved.

So we could do more, but it is seen as a priority.

Mr. Bob Speller: And they're certainly doing a good job over there. But when you talk about resources, certainly I would think a lot of this committee would see a priority in that area.

Can I just go back again so I can get it clear in my mind as to why Asia-Pacific, Minister? Why is that so special?

Mr. David Kilgour: It's because it contains half the population of the world and its economies have recovered from the Asian flu. As I said earlier, we have Canadians from all over the Asia-Pacific, from Afghanistan to wherever else. There are communities here that should be helping us to reach out--investments and those sorts of things.

As you know better than I, our trade with the Atlantic has been less for a long time. Canada has three sides to it: the Pacific, the southern, and the Atlantic. It seems to me that for all kinds of reasons one of our best hopes is to look west.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Thank you, Mr. Speller.

Mr. Calder, please.

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Welcome, Minister, David, and Ken.

There are two things I'm kind of interested in, and they basically fall along the lines of what Bob Speller was talking about.

Mongolia, for instance, is a growing economy, and I see a lot of opportunity there. One thing I would like to push for here is to see a friendship group established as soon as possible. But I'm wondering what avenues of trade you are exploring with Mongolia.

Second, China itself has a huge construction project going on called the Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze. It will probably be completed around 2008--maybe a little later than that--and will have a generating capacity the same as the south-central states.

I see huge opportunities for Canadian technology while this is being constructed. I also see huge opportunities afterwards for infrastructure, because they'll obviously be changing their manufacturing to hydroelectric power, and we have the technology for that too.

Mr. David Kilgour: I'll leave the Three Gorges to the two experts.

On Mongolia, you probably met the trade minister for Mongolia when he was here. Your minister signed an agreement between the two countries four months ago.

Another delegation of about 15 people from Mongolia recently came to Saskatoon to meet people from the University of Saskatchewan. I'm sure you realize that the economies of the two countries complement each other rather extraordinarily.

There's also a great problem, I understand, in that something like one-third of the cow herd in Mongolia is either in difficulty or has perished because of the drought. So as you are getting at, there is a lot we can do together. I hope you'll make the other coldest capital in the world one of your stops on your first visit abroad.

Mr. Ken Sunquist: Mongolia is small country with great needs. In fact, I'm not sure if the statistics are still correct, but Canada has the largest number of junior mining companies active in Mongolia. This obviously provides employment for local people, so it's an investment inflow. With that investment also comes some trade opportunities for Canadian companies.

On the agriculture-agrifood side, we have been active in Mongolia in the past in a smaller way. I don't know the dollar values of CIDA and the aid packages but they do run hand in hand in trying to help the people of that country.

Just to clarify one thing, Mr. Minister, Ulaanbaatar is the coldest capital.

The Three Gorges Dam has been a long-running project. The environmental and social aspects of it were debated in China and around the world. Many studies looked at it, and the decision was made to proceed with it.

Canada has been active in some of the capabilities related to power generation: turbines, transmission, and other parts. We've also been active on the CIDA side in looking at some of the impacts on local population and different aspects there.

So you're right that it will fundamentally change the nature of the interior of China. It will allow sea-going vessels to use lock systems to get up there, so there are development aspects and many things. In fact, that has led to DFAIT opening an office in Chongqing, farther up the Yangtze, because we see that the push of modernization of the Yangtze leads to modernization in the interior of China as well.

º (1635)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Just before I go to Mr. Eyking, the clerk has brought to my attention--and just for the committee members' information, as some may already realize--that there are a number of ambassadors and diplomatic representatives of the various countries we hope to visit in this study in attendance with us today. We certainly want to welcome them and thank them for their interest.

We really feel this is an important study we're embarking on, and this is really kicking it off with the minister's appearance. We hope we'll have an opportunity to visit these countries as part of our study.

Thank you, Mr. Calder.

Mr. Eyking.

Mr. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have an article from Maclean's and it's about China. It says that five years ago China had 10% of the houseware appliance market in the North American market and now they have half. It says here that it's becoming the factory for the world, and it just keeps expanding.

Are they going through what Japan went through maybe 30 years ago, and will there be an end to it? Are they going to run into problems with electricity, the environment, and labour laws among themselves? Or is it just going to be a fact that our manufacturers here in North America should just kind of throw in the towel and say, look, the jig is up; these guys have it all over us, and we have to go into other industries and hang our hat on something else. Where do you see it going?

Mr. David Kilgour: I'm sure you'll get an answer from all three of us on that. I hope they're reasonably consistent.

Your point is a key one. For example, someone told me when I was in Japan that they estimate that the Chinese wages are 10% of what the wages are now in Japan. This idea that Guangdong province is becoming what Manchester was in the 19th century is one that terrifies a lot of people in the Asia-Pacific region.

There's no doubt you know, I'm sure, that something like $58 billion in FDI went into China this year. Every year they're getting about $50 billion U.S. in foreign direct investment, and that's an awful lot of new manufacturing facilities. Canadian companies have gone there and I've seen some of them in different parts of China.

But we have the car industry. One in seven jobs in Canada is created in the car industry, and we're not going to see jobs, I hope, going because cars are made in China. We have to keep our manufacturing base in Canada and elsewhere, and other countries in Asia-Pacific have to do the same thing.

There are problems. In fact, I gave a speech on that in India to a confederation of Indian industries at a conference on the advantages of China versus India as a place to invest, and there are problems with China. It's not what everyone thinks; it's a not a region without problems. I have a constituent who came to see me to tell me she lost her whole life savings by investing in a business in China, and she's not alone.

David, do you want to pick it up?

º (1640)

Mr. David Mulroney: I think the emergence of China in the last decade, particularly in the last five years, has been, if not the major story in Asia-Pacific...and China has emerged as a real engine for growth. What's happening is that China is certainly, within the region, one of the dominant players in terms of investment. Other parts of the region are seeing some of their manufacturing capability shift, whether Southeast Asia, north Asia to a certain extent, or Taiwan.

I think there are a couple of reasons for that. One is obviously the size of the base from which China is working. Two, China has embarked on a very, very dramatic and quite impressive series of economic reforms. There has been lots of experimentation with doing things in a new way. Once the experiment is tried in a city or a region, it's applied nationally. That has led China to take very seriously, for example, some of the disciplines it has to undertake with WTO accession. It doesn't have a perfect scorecard, but certainly China realizes that the way forward for them is through regulatory reform.

The other thing that's happening in China to a certain extent is that we're not seeing what we traditionally see in other places, the upward movement in wages. There seems to be this endless capacity right now to add to manufacturing capacity without seeing wages rise, and--

Mr. Mark Eyking: Is that because of the peasants leaving the farms? Two-thirds of the people live in an agrarian society, and it's just that they're coming out of...is it that kind of thing that's happening, a phenomenon where they just keep coming to these cities, and that's why...?

Mr. David Mulroney: There has been a tremendous change, and with social changes in China, allowing people to move freely.... Now when you take the new expressway...and one of the statistics I was reading, Mr. Calder, is that China's expressway building boom right now is equal to and perhaps a little greater than the construction boom in the U.S. in the fifties, when they built the interstate system. As you take the expressway out of Shanghai past some of the cities of the Yangtze delta, you just see factories all the way to Nanjing, which Mr. Kilgour was mentioning, and those factories are staffed largely by people who have come from other places.

I think for China environment is a big challenge, and environmental degradation is something citizens in China are concerned about, especially in the north, where they realize that there are real water problems, for example.

The continuing problem China is wrestling with is regional inequalities. You have pockets of China, such as the Yangtze delta region, and that would include Shanghai and the four surrounding provinces. In that slice of China, you have as many cities with a population of a million as you have in all of Europe. You have a total population of more than 200 million people. That little portion of China is like much more highly developed parts of east Asia.

The real challenges, as you go south and inland, are the major income inequalities. That's going to be the challenge for the Chinese government going forward. How do you take this prosperity and make it national, and how do you deal with some of the issues of people who aren't part of the economic miracle, people in the northeast, for example, in the old industrial areas? They have some challenges to face, but they're a dynamic competitor.

I don't know if Ken....

Mr. Ken Sunquist: Perhaps I could just add one thing. When you talk about urbanization in China, it's a huge issue. We just celebrated Chinese New Year, the lunar new year, last weekend. Some published reports had close to a billion people on the move, because the culture is that you go home at Chinese New Year, so there is a strain on the transportation network and everything else. But it shows you what degree of urbanization there has been over the last decade or so. It has brought workers from the rural areas to the urban areas, and as David said, the pressure for change in salaries has lessened.

It's also true that there's some employment already cascading from China. If you looked a few years ago, it moved from Japan to places such as Korea, and then it moved to Taiwan and to China. The biggest investor in China today, I believe, is Taiwan, so now you're starting to see some movement to other places such as Vietnam as that happens.

I don't think you should be particularly worried if, as I think you said, imports of tableware went from 10% to 50%, because that's not what Canada and Canadian companies are basically going to be doing for the future. It's a different type of activity, so I don't think we should be worried.

The other thing I'd say is that we shouldn't focus just on China. It may be the dominant player for the next few years in that region, but I know the committee is looking at other places. You're going to go, hopefully, to Japan, China, and different places, a little bit of Southeast Asia and India. I think that any strategy we as Canada, we as government, look at has to take into account that there are niches in every one of those markets our Canadian companies are really interested in.

So, yes, you may be interested in hydro power in China, maybe nuclear power if it's Korea and China, and if it's agriculture it's probably in half a dozen countries. We really have to look at the sectors and where they want to go, and that's what makes it interesting, makes it a lot of fun, and that's why we've transferred resources over the last little while. Minister Kilgour was saying that we don't have enough resources, but Asia-Pacific has been the recipient of most of the growth we've had.

º (1645)

Mr. Mark Eyking: I have two little questions left. One is, with all these people leaving the farms, does that leave us a big opening for Canadian agriculture, especially when these people are going to an urban setting where tastes would change and whatnot?

My next question is on North Korea. Is China still really connected with North Korea, and given the situation happening right now, would they be standing toe to toe with North Korea?

Mr. David Kilgour: Well, on your first question, I hope you'll go out to see this place near Beijing I mentioned if you go there. One of the things I learned on that trip was that there are something like 150 million or 200 million small farmers in China who are no longer needed. I guess that's the answer to--

Mr. Mark Eyking: They have become mechanized there; that's why.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Mr. Mulroney.

Mr. David Mulroney: There is a hope that China can play a good example and act as a role model for North Korea. North Korea had, prior to the crisis, shown some interest in doing some of the experimentation and economic reform that China has embraced. It's a very positive way forward.

The difficult message for North Korea is that China embraced this with the reforms of Dong Chow Ping more than 20 years ago. They started with the agricultural sector, then they began to work with the coastal cities. They really stayed the course.

There are elements of North Korean society that understand it and accept that there are some good models out there, but you need some pretty profound changes at the top and changes in ways of thinking to embrace that course.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Thank you, Mr. Eyking.

Next is Mr. Simard, and then I have a few questions myself. Then if there are any others, we'll see who has others.

Mr. Simard, s'il vous plaît.

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Mr. Minister. I'm sorry I missed your presentation initially. I may be touching on points that you've already made.

My question is in regard to firms in my riding. I have a lot of technology firms, for instance, that are prepared to expand. Normally, they go to the place of least resistance. When they expand, they'll go to the States, Europe, or even eastern Europe, for instance.

For a small firm, Asia seems to be a long way away. It's an inaccessible market. Even with all of this huge potential, they may decide that it's too much trouble to go out there.

I have a couple of questions.

Is this a fair statement, generally speaking, across Canada? Is there anything that we're doing as a government to make Asia a more attractive and more accessible market for our firms here? Our huge firms will have the wherewithal to adapt more easily, but smaller firms will have a difficult time even penetrating this market and adapting to all the difficulties that it presents.

Those are my questions.

º (1650)

Mr. Ken Sunquist: Perhaps I could start.

First of all, one of our biggest tasks is to make sure that companies can make the decision whether to go or not, so it is incumbent upon us to make sure the market information and intelligence gets disseminated to companies so they can figure out whether Indonesia, India, China, or Japan is a market for them.

So you're absolutely right, and I think a lot of our efforts in the last little while, within our department and within what I call the wider Team Canada Inc., which is 23 government departments all committed to helping exporters get abroad, have been toward an information flow to companies. Secondly, the programs we have in place are to assist particularly SMEs to get into these difficult markets, to open the doors.

Perhaps I could use one example, of the Trade Commissioner Service. Twenty years ago, our trade commissioners dealt with maybe 500 companies. We knew every one of those companies, they knew us, and they were the big companies.

Today we have 11,000 clients, companies from across Canada, that are active, continuing exporters, not just one-timers. Many of those 11,000 are SMEs. They don't have the vice-president of business development, the vice-president of marketing, the vice-president of finance, so they need more help from us, whether it's the provinces or the federal government, to provide that information flow. So, yes, we do that.

Mr. Kilgour referred to a mission that he led out there. Minister Pettigrew took a mission to India. Different provincial ministers have gone out to try to get companies to open the doors. The very first Team Canada, with the Canada-China Business Council, was into Beijing in 1994, opening doors.

So it's the use of ministers, it's the use of provinces, all designed to crack open those doors, particularly for SMEs, because the big companies can go anytime, and we can help the small ones that need a little bit extra. Still, it's expensive, and I mentioned earlier that sometimes the best advice is not to go. Don't waste your money if you don't have the money for long-term commitment to it.

I think those are important issues, and it's the use of technology in Canada, the use of new programs such as the virtual trade commissioners, the use of websites. I think something like 80% of the total number of companies in Canada now have Internet access, so how do we get information flow to them?

I have some global responsibilities, but if I look at the Asia-Pacific side, I'd have to say one of the fun things in dealing with Asia-Pacific is the sense of excitement and entrepreneurship that I find there, because Canadian companies are going there in large numbers, and the new areas they're getting into are not traditional markets; it is technology.

Lastly, one thing that is really unusual.... Yesterday I was speaking to the Prime Minister's Task Force on Women Entrepreneurs. It was a beautiful thing, because we did a survey of women entrepreneurs across Canada, and as you'd expect, following total Canadian companies, the U.S. is the number one market. But what surprised us is that we all expected that, for women entrepreneurs, Europe would be the number two destination. In fact, it was Asia-Pacific. I don't have a reason for that other than maybe it's family ties or whatever, but in fact, for women entrepreneurs Asia was the number two destination, above Europe, above South America, or anything else.

I think what you're finding now is that the SMEs particularly have found a place where it's primarily a cash market. There may be insurance issues, but it's not financing all the time. The stability, as David Mulroney mentioned earlier, is there. The Asian flu is finished. I think we're seeing widespread opportunities.

To be very honest, especially in the days, weeks, and year since September 11, I think Canadian companies have been larger risk-takers. They are taking advantage of opportunities, because some of our competitors are not into the marketplace as much as they were before, and so Canadian companies are active in Asia-Pacific.

I'm not sure if that helps.

º (1655)

Mr. David Kilgour: Could you send a letter, then, Ken or anybody, to see if these companies want to...?

Mr. Ken Sunquist: Anything we can do to help. Absolutely.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Thank you.

I'd like to ask a few short questions, and then see if there are other colleagues....

Minister, I had the opportunity--so far, just once--to go to Asia. It was in Shanghai, at APEC, a year ago in June. I stood in for Minister Pettigrew. It was a fascinating experience for me at APEC. There is a company from London, a couple of companies, doing business there, having great difficulty. I spoke to the mayor of Shanghai and to the MOFTECH, and so on, and tried to do the interventions that we all do as MPs.

My question is not so much about their particular situation. I think they're finally getting some progress. But they were talking about the tremendous frustration in the pace and the bureaucracy. The word “corruption” didn't come in, but I suspect there was some concern about that.

I wonder if any of you would speak to how real that problem is. Is it a bit of a barrier? Is it specific to China? Is it a Asian phenomenon generally? Is it overstated, or is it a real problem? How do we break that down?

Maybe your constituent, Minister, lost a bundle. Maybe the word gets around to other Canadians that this is not a place where you want to go and spend money lightly if you want to see some progress quickly. Could you speak to that with your experience?

Mr. David Kilgour: I don't know how much I should be saying about that on the record, Mr. Chairman. Could I send you a copy of the speech I gave on India? It deals with that issue reasonably diplomatically.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Okay. That would be good.

Mr. David Kilgour: These two know far more than I do.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien): I understand your point. If either of the officials wants to comment, that would be great.

Mr. David Mulroney: It is a problem. It's still a tough market to crack. Bureaucracy and various impediments still exist.

The positive thing is if we look back over 15 or 20 years, the situation is getting steadily better. Sector by sector, area by area, your ability to actually have recourse or redress and ensure market access is improving. There are means you can use. In some cases it's the Chinese system; in some cases it's law firms, accountants, and others. We also recommend people participate in things like business councils, where there's some strength in numbers. So it's a long and difficult road.

We also have to be conscious that others are succeeding. It's a long and tough haul, but it's going to be one of the most dynamic markets of the future. That's why, as Ken was saying, we're spending an increasing amount of time on export information and education in Canada to get people ready. Sometimes the message is that China itself is too tough a market, so why don't we try Hong Kong first or a more accessible stepping stone? But we're seeing some progress.

Ken, you were there in the commercial section. You may want to add to that.

Mr. Ken Sunquist: On your question about corruption in Asia-Pacific, it's probably been a little overdone by the media. However, there are organizations like Transparency International that rank 100 countries. There's great thrill in that country because they were 100th--the worst--two years ago and now they're only 98th. It's all relative improvement. It's something we watch and talk to our companies about quite often.

I won't mention the name of the company, but it gets to the issue that we in Canada should be proud of our values and ethics. I think along with the export of goods and services are those values. There was a large Canadian company that was active in China, and they had an instruction for their management staff. They said they could do anything they wanted in the market there provided they were willing to have it appear the next day on the front page of The Globe and Mail. It was a good test because it covered both the legal aspects and what the public in Canada would accept. That's the sense of what Canadian companies abroad are doing in investment, trading relations, and other things.

When we first got into Three Gorges, Mr. Robinson was quite actively involved in some of the questions around the issues there. I think Canadian companies listened and wanted to make sure what they were doing was the right thing.

Yes, there's corruption in Asia. I won't single out which country is worse or better, but there are clearly problems there. Canada has a reputation. Some might call us naive, some might call us exporting our values and our traditions, but I think it's important that we continue to do that.

» (1700)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien): I appreciate that.

I don't want to overstate it. Some of this was because they found the bureaucracy and the pace of doing business frustrating.

I want to ask a question about making use of our Canadian skills and our multicultural character, as your speech addressed, Minister. I don't think we do enough of that as a country. My many Canadian friends, both Asian and non-Asian, who were born in other parts of the world and live here tell me we need to make more use of our multicultural character.

Specifically, how are we doing that? Does the government need to be more proactive--or do you care to say--in recruiting Canadians? We're talking about Asia. Should we not be utilizing more effectively the skills and networking of Asian Canadian citizens in trying to do business in that part of the world? How do we do that?

Mr. David Kilgour: The short answer, of course, is yes. I know if you go to Beijing you'll meet a young woman from Toronto whose family originated in China. One of the trade officers is also from China.

My colleagues who have been in the department a lot longer than I will tell you it's getting better, but we still have a long way to go. If you can persuade the centre, as the people say, to let us hire more people, can we give them a guarantee that we'll hire more Canadians of Asian origin? We'd certainly like to.

Mr. David Mulroney: I think we are starting to see some changes too. If you look at some of the investment we're seeing from South Asia, for example, it's coming through people who are very familiar with Canada, who maybe studied or lived in Canada for a time and still have company affiliations here. We're seeing a lot of high-tech investment like that.

There are also a lot of people who might live in places like Hong Kong or Taiwan, and who have pretty international lifestyles. Increasingly, part of the time they may be managing a factory in China, and part of the time they may be in a place like Vancouver, Toronto, or Montreal. One of the things we found, for example, is that there are four or five associations of entrepreneurs and investors from Taiwan who have begun to set up new networks and are reaching out to like-minded people in Canada.

So we have to think more creatively about how we can tap into and work with those networks. As the minister remarked at the beginning, I think that advantage is beginning to pay some dividends for us.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Minister, I would love nothing better than to see more resources go to International Trade and your department, because the return is there. Anybody who looks at our employment situation knows that we're an export-driven country. Yet I don't think we have enough people. I don't know how you achieve those increasing resources in these times, but I think we have to keep making that point. Maybe we can look at that as part of our study.

I have several other questions, but maybe I'll just ask the final one and then see if colleagues have any additional questions. It's about the issue of trade barriers, opening our markets to such things as textiles, and so on.

Minister, you and I have heard colleagues of ours in our caucus...not to tell tales out of school, but it's been raised in the House. I think all parties have raised concerns about opening our markets. I think we have to do it; I agree with it personally. I think we've got to walk the talk. I don't think that for Canadians generally their support for global trade is contingent to a large extent, among my constituents anyway.... They don't want to see losers; they really want to see these poorer nations, if you want to call them that, benefit from a globalized, open trading system. Yet there are fears in Canada about job losses and so on, and I suppose they're very valid fears.

There's also a fear of China taking advantage. I hate to be picking on China, but it has been expressed to me that China, or some of the larger nations in Asia, may take advantage of a situation to actually get a bigger share than they should, thereby not allowing the less developed nations to really benefit.

If I haven't been too drawn out on this, I wonder if I could get a response.

» (1705)

Mr. David Kilgour: Well, if you really don't mind, I'm sure you could get three.

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

Mr. David Kilgour: I think some of you met Minister Sutton from New Zealand the other day. He pointed out that the so-called developed countries, or donor countries, are putting something like $50 billion a year now into ODA and spending about $250 million U.S. on promoting their exports. The one cancels out the other to a considerable degree in many countries, from Africa to Latin America and the Caribbean,

I don't know whether you're planning to go to Bangladesh. I hope you do, because if you go to Dhaka you'll see the 2 million women there who earn $2 or $3 a day. But at least they have something to eat and a room to share. If you walk down the streets at 4 o'clock and see all these ladies going home, it's enough to really shake you. As you know, Pat, if we hadn't lifted the tariffs and the quotas, I don't know how many of those ladies would be out of work. If I'm not mistaken, our garment trade with Bangladesh is something like $170 million a year, but isn't our garment or textile industry as a whole about $10 billion? So it's a pretty small part of the industry.

Everyone said our suit-makers would go out of business after NAFTA. If I understand correctly, sales by suit-makers in Montreal, Toronto, and Winnipeg have gone way, way up.

The one thing about trade is that it can lift people up and give them decent lives. Who has benefited more from that than Canada? We can help a lot of people live decent lives in the Asia-Pacific region by doing more trade with them and, if I might say, more ODA. I don't know whether the committee wants to recommend that we raise our ODA to 0.7%, but I wish you would.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien): We could speak in favour of that, that's right.

Mr. Mulroney, did you have a comment?

Mr. David Mulroney: The theme of this next round of trade negotiations is a developing round, and I know when the trade ministers met in Los Cabos at APEC they spent a lot of time thinking about what that means and how reducing trade barriers has such a dramatic impact on economic development.

The other thing we do at the same time is that we're very zealous in ensuring, whether it's within the WTO or in other trade agreements, that people are playing fairly, and the whole point is that we have fair, transparent rules that apply to everybody. On the one hand, I think we can bring more people into the global trading system, but on the other, we remain vigilant to ensure that people are playing by the rules. If some people are breaking the rules, then we deal with it. We have a number of issues in Asia-Pacific where we're dealing with it, some of them in the agricultural sector, some in other sectors, and we're working bilaterally or multilaterally to ensure Canadian interests are met.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Thank you.

Can I get a last quick question in, since I don't see any others?

I had a chance when I was in Shanghai to go out to...I can't pronounce the name of the village. It was about 45 minutes out. I went to see the CANDU reactor. It was the first one I had seen. It was fascinating. And I had a chance to see some of the Chinese countryside, not just the big city, which was fascinating.

How is the CANDU reactor perceived generally in Asia? What other opportunities are there for it? I think in China alone we could probably build another 30. What about other parts of Asia?

Mr. David Kilgour: I was in the same place you were. What was it called? Qinshan, that's it.

It's a $4 billion CANDU reactor. While I was there, the people from the CANDU reactor were trying to get another contract, and the director from China was saying if this facility does well, we'll maybe extend it or build another one.

My understanding, and I hope my two friends aren't going to contradict me, is that it has done extremely well. I think it's true that if you can carry the spent fuel from a nuclear reactor in a suitcase, I think the equivalent would be a huge amount of greenhouse gases, a huge amount of pollution.

But that said, everyone around the table knows there's a lot of controversy about nuclear facilities. Whether we'll have 36 more or not, maybe one of my two friends could tell me.

» (1710)

Mr. Ken Sunquist: I think it's been a success story for Canada, not only in terms of the AECL nuclear reactors, but for a number of the engineering firms in Montreal and Toronto, the sub-suppliers, and everybody else.

Earlier there was a question about branding. In a way, it's done in Korea, where we have four reactors. In fact, it is the way that people became aware of Canada as a high-tech country, because it was a big project and it was important.

The same is true in China. The big issue was not marketing a nuclear reactor; the big issue was trying to get them to accept that Canada had the technology to do that. It's an entry not only just for that, but for many other areas as well. So I think it does brand us as a high-tech nation.

The second thing is that, yes, the power supply requirements for a place like China--and all of Asia--is exponentially going up because of the demands. The joke around Singapore, for instance, is that it will be the first city that will be totally air conditioned. They'll put a cover over top of it.

The industrialization of all of these countries is going so fast. Twenty years ago air conditioning wasn't known in Thailand, and today Bangkok, a beautiful city....

So, yes, there's probably demand. I'm probably the wrong one to know what AECL's plans are and, more than that, what the realistic opportunities are. But there are huge projects that demand the total backing of the government in terms of Export Development Canada. The government is charged with it.

I know the Prime Minister has been involved with nuclear power for years. In fact, when he was the Minister of Energy, I think he started the first CANDU reactor in Korea some 20 years ago.

So it has been a real entry for Canada into Asia in several different sectors.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Well, thank you very much, Mr. Kilgour and your officials. On behalf of the committee, I thank you very much for appearing before us today and helping us to launch this study with some interesting discussion.

We will do our best to keep you informed. We're certainly open to ongoing participation, because we like to do a useful, meaningful piece of work.

Mr. David Kilgour: If there's anything we can do, please tell us, and we'll get it to you as fast as we can.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Thank you very much

Colleagues, the last bit of business, if you want to turn your minds to it for a minute or two, is the tentative witness list for the study. As I said at the start, it's not meant to be definitive. I'm certainly open to other suggestions. I know Mr. Casey has already made an observation to our research staff that maybe we could some add more people from the Atlantic Canada region. If you have any thoughts now, fine, we're open to hearing them, and if not now, you could send your suggestions to the clerk or the researchers directly.

Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Chairman, how much time, how many meetings, are we going to dedicate to this? What is the timeline?

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien): That's a good question. Do you have any idea, Gene?

The Clerk of the Committee: We have to travel. I think we're going to be doing round tables, so we'll try to get in as many as we can, maybe four or five at a time for maybe two or three hours. I know we won't be able to exhaust everything.

Mr. Rick Casson: So you don't have a firm deadline or anything we'll be working with?

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien): There's a possible schedule here I can share with our colleagues. The chairman is looking at meeting every week. You could lay on more meetings up to the trip if there's a desire to do that among the committee members. Then of course there's the trip itself.

Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of names here, and I've confirmed that these people are interested. I know that Mr. Duncan is away today, but he also might have some, so can we compile a complete list and get them in within a few days?

» (1715)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Sure, why don't you do that? It may be that when everybody has put their suggestions in, the committee will have to prioritize and say, here are the 20 we're going to hear, or something.

Mr. Berg.

Mr. Peter Berg (Committee Researcher): If I could just add to that, I've tried to group the different witnesses together. There are quite a few government witnesses who we could still hear from, including the officials, if you want the officials to come back at some point in the process. Export Development Corporation was raised, and I think that would be excellent. There's the Canadian International Development Agency, and we talked about ODA and the Canadian Tourism Commission, which would all be federal.

There is also a group called the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada in Vancouver, which is a very active think-tank, a sort of federal government think-tank. There are a number of Canadian business groups, umbrella groups as well as sectoral groups, and then there are a number of bilateral Canada-Asia business councils and groups we could also invite.

We have ambassadors. We could have lunches with ambassadors if you decided to, and we have a whole slew of companies we could bring in under the form of round tables, perhaps, to see what worked in Asia, what didn't work, why they are there, why they are not there, and what can be done better. It's a kind of practical study in opening our trade.

That's pretty well it.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Well, that's good. I guess it'll evolve too. If we find that it's a little more intensive than we thought, we may have to see how people's time is and work out some extra meetings. At this point I think it's going to be a good piece of work to get into.

Yes, Raymond.

Mr. Raymond Simard: Are the meetings scheduled for Wednesdays at 3:30, or are you going to be calling around?

The Acting Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Maybe what we can do is, I'll ask the clerk to help me remember to pass on to the chairman that we ought to look at the time, day, and frequency of meetings as an item of business to be discussed at the next meeting.

Thank you, colleagues.

This meeting is adjourned.