Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Issue 7 - Evidence - Meeting of March 5, 2014
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 5, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met this day at 4:45 p.m. to study security conditions and economic developments in the Asia-Pacific region, the implications for Canadian policy and interests in the region, and other related matters.
Senator Percy E. Downe (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Colleagues, today the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade is continuing its study on security conditions and economic developments in the Asia-Pacific region, the implications for Canadian policy and interest in the region, and other related the matters.
By video conference, we have two witnesses: Professor Manuel Litalien and, from the Saskatchewan Trade and Export Partnership, Mr. Lionel LaBelle, President and CEO.
Professor Litalien, would you like to start with a brief presentation, and then we'll turn to Mr. LaBelle. The senators normally have questions afterwards.
Manuel Litalien, Assistant Professor, Department of Social Welfare and Social Development, Nipissing University, as an individual: Thank you very much for this invitation. It's a pleasure to be in front of you, and I welcome this opportunity to share some observations and reflections on the topic of economy and security in Southeast Asia. I would like to underline that Southeast Asia, as an object of study, presents a challenge in itself no matter what the topic involved. Modesty is required, and I will have plenty on trying to cover these complex questions.
First, let me underline that I'm speaking in my private capacity as an assistant professor from Nipissing University in North Bay. Second, I will be providing my testimony in English and will be glad to accommodate your question in English or in French to the best of my capacity.
My presentation will start by looking broadly at the security conditions and the economic development in the Asia- Pacific region. Despite the committee's straightforward questions, I'm afraid the topics on the agenda today are delicate matters, and the answers encompass serious issues related to wealth redistribution, the question of social inequality, the impact of social policies, the role of the military, respect of human rights, justice system and rule of law, modes of governance, process of democratization, transparency issues and level of economic freedom and development. The list is not exhaustive.
Security and economic development can be here related to various topics, each with its own extensive literature. Some of these underline the population factor in general, while other studies focus on external military threat, regional economic tensions, access to national resources, territorial sovereignty — and again, the list is pretty long. All of these perspectives can be found in Southeast Asia to a certain extent. I will mainly emphasize demographic and population factors in trying to understand security and economic development in the region.
I would like to emphasize here that class and ethnicity are critical forces that shape and penetrate structure and policies of Southeast Asian states and affect their economic development. This is despite the fact that it's been categorized very often as one of the most state-centric regions in the world. Diversity does matter in Southeast Asia.
I'll be looking at data from the World Bank, APEC, the ASEAN, and the World Development Bank as well all throughout my presentation. According to the World Bank, they don't specify Southeast Asia. They actually cover the East Asia and Pacific region. To the World Bank, this region has been growing as an economy as much as 7.5 per cent and contributes to 40 per cent of global growth in 2012. The number of people living in poverty, $1.25 a day, has been declining in the region, but I would like to underline that the income inequality gap has been rising, suggesting possible social and political instability as society becomes more polarized.
Parallel to this, East Asia and the Pacific has the second highest number of fragile and conflict-affected states in the world. The World Bank reports that it is also the most disaster-stricken region in the world, sustaining 61 per cent of global losses from disasters in the past 20 years. It's therefore likely that economic and security issues will play a primary role and will cause concern for the political authorities. In this environment, Canada will have to adjust and measure its policies and interaction accordingly in order to play a crucial role and to benefit from involvement in Southeast Asia.
In trying to understand further the region and its economic realities, an important characteristic of the region must be underlined: More than 50 per cent of the population is urban. Future challenges to stability are not only in the area of farming and proper land management in rural areas but also in proper urbanization planning. When one considers that more than 40 per cent of the GDP in Thailand comes from Bangkok, questions remain on the Southeast Asian government's capacity for income redistribution and labour access.
I would like to underline that Southeast Asia is not an easy topic to discuss and presents a challenge on so many levels: first, the diversity present in the region; second, the political dynamism; and third, the economic vitality of the region, which Mr. LaBelle's presentation will underline as well. Overall, Southeast Asia is heterogeneous and sometimes quoted as being disunited, despite the fact that I will talk about the upcoming 2015 ASEAN community. Southeast Asia is also hard to delimit. I've seen in previous interventions, for example, the idea that Indonesia or Singapore is quoted as being South Asia, which is a little controversial.
For example, when the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN, was established in 1967, it was mainly to cooperate in such fields as population control precisely because of diversity. It was created also for the prevention of drug abuse. As well, it wanted to promote scientific research in the region. Politics have evolved, but any predications are futile in a region that is populated by more than 600 million people. The population has doubled since 1972, mainly because of declining mortality rates in the region, which points to another emerging concern: a decline in fertility rates. The Philippines might be tossed aside here as its population is on the increase, but generally in some countries in Southeast Asia, people are aging. Countries with high population density are listed as being the Philippines, Vietnam and Indonesia, where migration policies have been enacted for security reasons.
Another characteristic of the region is that it has no major interstate war and is not expected to have in the near future. For the past few decades, the region has focused on creating an economic block to compete with other international economic entities, such as the European Union. The upcoming establishment of the ASEAN as a political, economic and security community by 2015 is a good example of these economic initiatives. I would suggest that government legitimacies in Southeast Asia have usually been intertwined with economic development. I would say this but for a few exceptions like Myanmar or Burma. Mainly I will be using the word Myanmar for Burma in my presentation as just a matter of personal usage — no political ideas behind this usage.
The income inequality gap has been growing in the region, and, as a result, democratization processes have been questioned and disputed. An example of an unequal distribution of wealth can be illustrated by the fact that in East Asia and the Pacific, a larger area than Southeast Asia, about 660 million people do not have access to sanitation services out of a population that is nearly 2 billion. The question of sanitation is indicative of social development challenges that are key issues if governments want to preserve their legitimacy and stability.
Southeast Asia can be defined as an ever-changing region economically, socially and politically. No one could have predicted, and I'm trying to illustrate here, that Indonesia would be an example of a striving democracy in the region since 1999 and that Thailand would be faced with ongoing political unrest since 2006. Who could have foreseen Myanmar's recent political reforms and the liberation of Aung San Suu Kyi in 2010 after a 15-year house arrest or that Myanmar would become the chair of the ASEAN in 2014? Myanmar took the rotating chair of the ASEAN for the first time after joining the ASEAN in 17 years. Economic development has been somewhat maintained, despite these changes and the world economic crises.
Diversity and geography is another theme that I'm going to be looking at. Another feature of the structure of the economic profile of the region is its geographical location and access to rich natural resources by land and sea routes. The Indonesian archipelago, for example, has roughly more than 17,000 islands, of which 6,000 are inhabited. It is one of the most culturally diverse nations in the world. The country contains one of most active volcanos in the world as well. Whether in 2010 or 2014, eruptions leave an economic impact locally or regionally. The archipelago contrasts with Myanmar's location, which stands between Bangladesh, India, China, Laos and Thailand. The question of diversity in Myanmar is definitely not the same as the one in Indonesia, although both come with their own sets of challenges.
What I'm getting at is that a one-size-fits-all policy approach to economic collaboration in the region would be impossible because of the important political and geographical variations. With the diversity in geographic locations also come specific economic needs and products. When Canada invests in the region, it must remember that floods, severe droughts, tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanos, forest fires and typhoons are possible. Again, we can think of the Philippines and the devastating impact of Typhoon Haiyan in 2013, which killed more than 6,000 people and is still creating a humanitarian crisis. Canada actually sent $40 million in aid, I believe.
We can also think of the important flood in Burma in 2013 or the flood that affected Thailand's economy in 2011, which cost the country more than US$45 billion in damage. The Thai manufacturing industry and seven major industrial estates were inundated by as much as three metres of water during the floods. This had an impact not only in Thailand but also on the factory production of Toyota and Honda parts in Canada and the U.S. The manufacturing plants were in areas affected by the flood.
Environmental issues are numerous: deforestation, water pollution from industrial waste, sewage, air pollution in urban areas, smoke and haze from forest fires, et cetera. As you are well aware, deforestation is an important part since it's directly related to flooding issues. As of 2010, 53 per cent of the region's land area is covered by forest. This is 5 percentage points lower than the proportion registered in 1990.
Despite the overall decline in the proportion of land covered by forest, some countries in the region have started to post increases in the proportion. This was taken from the ASEAN documents. The Philippines, for example, has the lowest proportion of land covered by forest, followed by Thailand and Vietnam. Recently, Thailand and Vietnam have achieved some progress in reversing the loss of forest resources as manifested by an increasing trend in the proportion of forest cover, particularly in the last decade.
Defining Southeast Asia can be quite puzzling, considering that diversity in the region adopts multiple forms: economic, social and political. Southeast Asia's other element of diversity is the multiple ethnic groups found in the region. The impacts of the modern nation state and its economic development on ethnic groups have been devastating in some cases. Of the three types of minorities that exist in Southeast Asia, the first one is ethnic and linguistic minorities, the second is religious minorities, and the third is the indigenous peoples.
The political recognition of indigenous people has been at best a work-in-progress in the region or at worst non- existent. Again, Indonesia will be used as an example since the archipelago is home to more than 300 ethnic groups that speak roughly 240 diverse languages. Myanmar has a similar diversity since it has borders with China, Bangladesh, India, Thailand and Laos, and the region has historically acted as a cultural crossroads. I'm getting at the fact that many of these minority groups in Southeast Asia have been left out of the developing free market economy.
The contrast between the social development and the economic inclusion of minority groups is important and is currently the concern of Southeast Asian governments. The Muslim minorities can serve as an example of this marginalization. I know the committee has heard of the case of the Rohingya in Myanmar, but little has been said about the Thai ethnic Malay population in Thailand or the Moros in the Philippines, who just signed a peace agreement in 2012. But they have been fighting for the past 40 years, so it's an ongoing, recurrent issue.
Why is the emphasis on diversity so important to our topic today — that of economic development and security in Southeast Asia? It is precisely because state cohesion, the very idea of national unity or national belonging, has proven to be a challenge for the Southeast Asian political authorities. National unity and national identity are serious business in the region where separatist groups are perceived as a threat to the integrity of the modern nation. Despite recent peace talks and signed treaties with minority groups, whether in Thailand or the Philippines, history has demonstrated that the situation with minority groups in the region can easily backtrack. In some cases, it's not so much minority issues, but disputed territorial demarcation associated with transnational issues and past colonial history.
The region has a few examples of unsettled transnational disputes that can trigger social unrest and diplomatic tensions. An example of such a case is that of Cambodia and Thailand regarding the Preah Vihear temple. It is still an ongoing diplomatic tension between the two countries. Another illustration would be the 2012 disagreement on wording related to a communiqué on the South China Sea by the ASEAN community members.
I'll talk briefly about the ASEAN and diversity and what a challenge that is. Then I will conclude.
Myanmar has now just started as chair of the ASEAN, and they have come up with the idea of a catchy sentence to describe what they want their agenda to look like. It is "moving forward in unity to a peaceful and prosperous community.''
Because diversity is such a sensitive issue, it's possible to conceive why becoming a full political, economic and security community by 2015 by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the ASEAN, is posing a challenge. In other words, it is asking Canadian decision makers to follow this regional development closely. In that I will also actually support Mr. LaBelle's presentation that will come after this.
The Canadian decision makers have to follow this regional development closely if they want to play a role in the region. The concerns are real, and Southeast Asian governments are actively trying to engage in a dialogue with their minorities and their neighbours to become an international economic force in 2015.
I'm going to close my presentation by saying that some of Southeast Asia's high growth was maintained despite global economic crises. A major challenge in the mid-term is ensuring sustainable and inclusive growth. Climate change and disaster risk, rapid urbanization, improving governance and institutions, and encouraging private-sector-led growth to create jobs are critical to produce political stability, reduce poverty and build a shared prosperity in the region.
Any bilateral or multilateral ententes taking place in the region — I would urge you to look at diversity and also look at working closely with civil society organizations that are already in place there.
I'm going to leave it at that. I don't know what the usual format is, whether it's questions now or afterwards.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you for that presentation. We'll hear from Mr. LaBelle, and then we have a list of senators who will want to ask questions.
Mr. LaBelle, if you could go ahead, please.
Lionel LaBelle, President and CEO, Saskatchewan Trade and Export Partnership (STEP): Thank you for this opportunity. I apologize that I can't be there in person, but I am very pleased to be here today.
First, a personal thank you to Adam Thompson for some of the work he's done with us; I appreciate that very much. Like you, I have a busy schedule and travel a great deal, so I was keen to be a presenter at this particular forum.
I don't know if my friend Senator Andreychuk is in the room; I don't see her, so I apologize if she is. I want to say a personal hello to her and thank her for her work in Ukraine. We just returned from Ukraine the week of February 10. We were there with a mission. We have a decade-long relationship with Ukraine, and I wanted to personally and publicly thank her for her support and work in that area.
I arranged to get a PowerPoint presentation to you. I have been part of presentations where they almost turn into a situation of paralysis for the listener, and I will do my very best to ensure that doesn't happen. I will go through it quickly with the objective of giving you some depth about Saskatchewan's footprint in the Asia-Pacific region. Then I look forward to the questions that will come from senators. My last event was three years ago, and I really enjoyed the questions that came.
There are three pieces I'll speak to. First is a short little commercial on STEP and what we do. Second is a global perspective on where we are in Asia-Pacific in regards to our exports in that market. Finally, I'll talk about Canada's role in that market and what we're doing well and where we need to get more aggressive.
I looked at some of the presentations from the CME and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, so I will try not to duplicate some of the things they focused on.
I would ask that those who have the PowerPoint to move to page 3. Page 3 is really a commercial for STEP.
We are an anomaly in Canada. Most trade promotion is done by provincial governments and/or the federal government. In the Saskatchewan model, 17 years ago, STEP was carved out as a stand-alone corporation. We are run by the exporters; we are not run by government but we partner with government. We have approximately 470 companies that we work with, and we help them sell their goods and services around the world.
We have a simple life. We walk the aisles of STEP asking a basic question: What did Saskatchewan sell today? And that's what we focus on. I won't bore you with some of the details other than to say that our fiscal year-end is March 31, which is only a few days away. We will have delivered 41 missions around the world in this particular fiscal year. Next year we are planning 49. We are very aggressive in terms of where we want to be and how we want to move forward.
As I said, page 4 really is commercial, but the reality of that document is that there are four things we focus on. It's about teaching our STEP members about currency, culture, logistics and how to get paid. If you don't get paid, all the rest doesn't really matter.
Page 5 talks about STEP membership. We have two kinds of members, those who are exporters and those who support the export community.
Last but not least, page 6 talks about STEP's — particularly Saskatchewan's — export growth over the last 15 years. I show 1998. We are at $9 billion that year. We hit a record of $33 billion in 2013. I will tell you that that is exciting for many but it's actually a disappointment for me. I expected us to hit $35 billion. If you want, we can have a conversation about logistics later on and I will tell you why we didn't hit the mark. By the way, we are the only jurisdiction in all of Canada where politically our leadership has talked about doubling our exports over the next eight years, and we are focused very hard on that.
Page 7 speaks to what we export, and I've defined it in five specific areas. Energy is number one, at $12 billion and change. We export more oil and gas to the United States than does Kuwait. We're a major player. When you think about oil and gas in Canada, everybody talks about Alberta, but Saskatchewan does pretty well along the way.
Our food exports are remarkable, at $11 billion and change. I think that's something of substance. Potash is well talked about in many parts of this country. They do very well for us at $5.6 billion. It was a slower year this year, but a lot of that is about pricing; nonetheless, the overall volumes have actually stayed fairly level.
I know our colleagues in Eastern Canada have a lot of discussion about manufacturing, but if you look at the growth from 2010 to 2013, we doubled our manufacturing exports from $573 million to over $1 billion. We're very focused on the export of manufacturing goods and services and we focus on two areas: agricultural equipment and the ancillary industry that supports the mining sector. We are very aggressive on that.
Last but not least is uranium; $597 million may or may not sound like a big number but we got a raw deal here. The raw deal is that if you look at Canada data you will see, on trade or exports, Ontario exports $1.2 billion in uranium. The reality is that 100 per cent of that uranium is all Saskatchewan uranium. It happens to go to Ontario and then is reshipped to other parts of the world, whether it's reprocessed or how it may be handled. Nonetheless, that's the reality. By the way, all of the 19 nuclear reactors in Canada are fired by Saskatchewan uranium.
That's a quick snapshot. The last page is how we rank Saskatchewan, page 8, and I show Saskatchewan in the number five slot at $33 billion, just below British Columbia. We're running neck and neck with British Columbia. We should have passed them entirely this year. Again, I look for a question and I will explain to you why we did not.
Depending on where British Columbia goes with their natural gas shipments, we will pass British Columbia in 2014 by a large amount, and we will continue to grow that amount until they get quite aggressive in their natural gas shipments, and then the ranking will change. On the outside of that, on a per capita basis, Saskatchewan leads the country on exports around the world.
Now I'm on page 9 and drilling down to our Saskatchewan footprint in export. There I've given you a map of the Asia-Pacific region; I've cheated a bit, I've included India as a part of that. The map is colour-coded into four different sections. Number one is the Indian-Pakistan-Bangladesh area, number two is the ASEAN area that Mr. Litalien spoke about in detail, number three is the Japan-Korea-Mongolia piece, and the last is the China piece. I want to give you a sense of growth and where Saskatchewan has gone over the last 10 years.
The next page, number 10, is the India region. If you look at the left-hand side of the spreadsheet, the bottom left- hand corner, you will see $270 there. It's $270 million. That was Saskatchewan's exports to those four countries in 2004, and if you extend all the way to the right-hand side of the page you can see our numbers are $1.4 billion. For all intents and purposes that represents about a seven-fold increase, so this particular part of the world is very important to us.
If you look at the central far right-hand side of that page, you will see our exports are mostly in food and fertilizer, which are pulse crops. That's peas and lentils specifically; potash of course; grains, which is wheat; and then canola. Canola has nominal growth in India and that region, but we see some big upside.
In the red part, which is outgoing missions and incoming missions, that represents the last five years. We've been in that market eight times in the last five years, and we have had 23 incoming buyers' missions to Saskatchewan over the same period. We were just in India last week, to give you a sense of that.
When I was talking about our mission calendar, February 1 to March 31 of this year, we have 15 missions that we are in the middle of managing in 10 separate countries. We're quite aggressive.
Next is page 11, which speaks to the ASEAN region. Our growth there has not been as prolific as it has been in the India-Pakistan-Bangladesh piece, but it's quite significant. Again, the bottom line, in 2004 we did $484 million in that region; in 2013 we did $1.314 billion. Again, there is very aggressive growth. Quite frankly, our friends and colleagues in sister provinces don't have those same numbers to consider, and I think that's important when we think about Canada's role in the Asia-Pacific region.
On the right-hand side of the page, centre part, potash is number one in this region. This is an interesting irony of Saskatchewan. We sell potash around the world to help people grow their crops. The number one purpose for potash in the Asian region is to grow palm oil. That is the number one product. Palm oil directly competes with canola oil. It's an interesting irony that we create competition with other crops by what we do. That's the nature of our world, but I'm not complaining, I'm just articulating.
The next slide I want to talk about is number 12, which is the Japan-Korea-Mongolia area. Japan has been a long- term customer of Canada. In this particular example from 2003 we did $600 million and in 2013 about $1 billion. It's important on this particular diagram to note that you don't see any Saskatchewan exports to Japan for uranium, yet Saskatchewan uranium powers about 35 per cent of the nuclear facilities in Japan. That product tends to flow through to the United States and/or through Ontario or other enhancing facilities around the world.
Again, canola is number one in Japan, but I can tell you small little snippets. We're having some remarkable growth in products like honey, for example, in that marketplace, where five years ago that didn't exist.
The next page talks a little more about China and what we do in that market. That's page 13. I'm moving to page 14. I want to give you a sense of a particular map of China. I've circled 18 cities there, but I did a quick calculation with my colleagues at STEP. Over the last 30 months we've been in 32 separate cities in China. I am always frustrated when people come to Canada and they go to Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver and they go home and tell everybody they know everything about Canada. I would argue that our objective in China is to understand their market, and so we've been in extensive areas of China and have had remarkable growth in China.
I'm going to page 15 now. You can see the growth curve: 2004, $700 million; 2013, $2.6 billion. That's remarkable growth. We are doubling our business in China every three years. We see lots of upside. One of them is the uranium story. We sold our first shipment of yellowcake to China in September. It arrived at the Port of Shanghai. That is a 27- million pound agreement that Cameco, one of our companies here, has done with the Chinese nuclear agency. That in real terms is about $5-billion worth of business. The growth potential is remarkable.
Again, at the centre of the page, the number one export to China is canola. I have a line below that, grains. The one that I'm most excited about is second over. It says $228 million with a "P'' around it. Those are yellow peas. If you're ever in Beijing and you're having Chinese vermicelli noodles, you need to know that is a Saskatchewan product. These are 2012 numbers. I can tell you in 2013 the number was $450 million. We will double that again over the next 24 months. In that part of the world our yellow peas for vermicelli noodles are very popular and have been very successful.
I have a comment about grain as a snapshot. You hear a lot about grain and grain transportation. When you think about wheat that's perhaps an Eastern Canadian view of what is happening in Saskatchewan. In terms of exports, canola is the number one export in agriculture at $4.1 billion. It's exported as a commodity, it's exported as a meal and it is also exported as an oil. Today in Saskatchewan we are crushing approximately 60 per cent of our canola and selling it as a crude oil.
By the way, canola is $4 billion; wheat is at $2 billion. If you look at the debate between the Canadian Wheat Board and what we have today, about 70 per cent of the product that we grow in Saskatchewan was never part of the Canadian Wheat Board., again, we have had remarkable growth in a number of crops within the paradigm of Saskatchewan.
I'm now moving to page 16, where I want to talk about the Government of Canada and some of the things they are doing and some of the things where I think they need to take a step back and understand what they can and cannot do.
First of all, we are huge, huge proponents of free trade agreements. I can't articulate a stronger view than that. We live and die by our trade capabilities on a global perspective, and what the Government of Canada has been able to do with its free trade strategy, whether they are of a bilateral or multi-country nature, they are very important to us.
I just wrote a note on the bottom of my page, if you look at Chile, Colombia and Peru as an example, 10 years ago we did about $100 million of business in that marketplace before free trade agreements. This year we are just below $400 million. We have very specifically followed the federal government's strategy on free trade agreements and have had remarkable success in markets because of it.
We are strong proponents of being first on the ground. The Trans-Pacific Partnership we think is really an important story, and I'm hoping that there will be questions about where Saskatchewan anticipates getting its growth, because we have some specific things. We are hoping that some of the partners in the Trans-Pacific, particularly New Zealand, make some strong demands of Canada, because we think there is an array of opportunities for us there.
The next piece I have is page 17. This is very cluttered, and I don't want to bore you with it, but these are some of the issues we have.
In China, for instance, we have no market access for things like bison, seed potatoes, Saskatoon berries, lentils, camelina oil or colostrum. It's just a problem that they are not on the Government of Canada's priority list, and so consequently we haven't been able to negotiate a deal. But bison is a prime example where we just can't get enough of it; we sell it all over the world.
Seed potatoes, again this is a Canadian perspective that most people don't know, but Saskatchewan is a major provider of seed potatoes to Prince Edward Island, and the American state of Idaho is deemed to be a parallel to Prince Edward Island. They get their seed potatoes from Saskatchewan as well. We have a unique niche market. It's about our cold weather, and believe me, it's been a cold winter; but we have a series of potato products that are defined as Northern Vigor, and they have certain characteristics that make them global products, which has been very positive to us.
Non-tariff barriers, we have had great growth in organic products, but countries like China and South Korea are in the middle of redefining their organics, and all of the doors in both of those countries have been shut down from Canadian organics today, which is a problem for us.
Even little things, permits and quotas, we are always fighting with permits and quotas. We have quotas of wheat in China and Japan and South Korea. And even a small, little product that many of you may have tried called "wild rice,'' we sell it around the world, but we cannot sell it to Asian countries simply because they have protectionist positions on rice. Just so you know, wild rice is not really rice; it is actually a grass product, but it is defined by the scientists as rice. Consequently, that's part of the issue.
The next is honey. You can see some of the tariffs in India. It is surprising to me, but we also sell breeding stock in bees. Again, our weather helps us develop genetics that, quite frankly, are very bold, and we have had great success.
Last but not least, issues of inspection and quarantine always create regulatory challenges for us. As an example, canola is a GMO product. We sell canola all over the world. We have issues in Europe, of course, with canola, but everywhere else we sell it and sell it well. But in Japan, when it comes to flax seed, they have a zero tolerance for GMO flax. The reality is there is no GMO flax, but any scientist with a microscope, when you have zero tolerance, can find something. So it is problematic for us. Those are some of the things we are trying to get around. I would argue that collectively, Canada needs to take a more aggressive stand on GMO.
Page 18, I want to talk about the Global Markets Action Plan. Mr. Chairman, I think you mentioned a bit about that. Frankly, I'm quite familiar with it. I have got some challenges: 22 sectors, 79 countries, and transitioning the Canadian Trade Commissioner Service from interacting with 11,000 companies to 21,000 companies.
Respectfully, there is quite a bit of difference between promotion and facilitation. At STEP, our life is focused on facilitation. What is it that we can transcribe to ensure a deal happens? I will tell you that we are missing the mark here. The idea of moving from 11,000 to 21,000 companies to interact with them, respectfully, I see that as activity-based, and that is not very specific. I think we need to be more specific in what we want to accomplish.
I'm going to page 19, and I am giving you some examples as to why I think Canada should take a stronger view, and I'm using President Obama as an example, a state of the union address, January 27, 2010, where he clearly said the United States was going to double its exports in the next five years. That's a pretty aggressive piece; I like it. Our premier in our province has also done the same, only we have set it in an eight-year time period. Senators, I believe that we will exceed that particular demand.
But, again, if you look at the U.S., on January 1, 2010, their global exports were $1.575 trillion, and by the end of December, this year, they are at $2.272 trillion. That represents a 44 per cent increase over a four-year period.
At the same time, Canada went from $359 billion to $471 billion; that's 30 per cent. So we're trailing our American friends by a dramatic amount. And then Saskatchewan, in the same time period, went from $21 billion to $33 billion. That represents a 57 per cent increase over that four-year window.
My message to the Canadian Trade Commissioner Service is that we need to set targets for exports, not for activities — targets for exports, where we can focus on that and on what we want to do.
The last is page 20. I won't read it to you, but we participated with Premier Wall in Singapore in October at a global ASEAN conference, and I think that it's important to understand our messaging from Saskatchewan, and collectively our messaging about the ASEAN region. These four blocs of countries are regions that I spoke to that have 3.7 billion people representing, I think, 53 percent of the population of the world. The ASEAN is a major player in that part of the world in terms of population.
We feel strongly that we have not paid attention, as a country, to the ASEAN region. We need to develop a free trade agreement or some mechanism in order to open up the opportunities. As an example, we do a fair amount of business in Malaysia and Indonesia, and not as much in the Philippines; but I was recently in that market and I also sent some of my colleagues there. We are seriously looking at Myanmar and some of the unique things that are happening there.
I don't want to sound disparaging. We look at Myanmar kind of like cowboy country; we think there are lots of unique opportunities, but there are risks. We are more than prepared to take the risks, but the reality for Saskatchewan is that we think our growth will come in the Asia-Pacific. We are excited about the European free trade agreement, but we believe our growth in Europe will be incremental. But our growth in the Asia-Pacific region will be exponential.
Mr. Chair, with that, I will pass the microphone back to you. I thank you for your attention.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you for your presentation.
Colleagues, we have had two excellent presentations today, and I note you have all joined the list for questions.
Senator Johnson: Thank you, Mr. LaBelle. Unfortunately, Senator Andreychuk is not here. I will give her your regards; she had to do another event in Toronto.
You are a tremendous ambassador for Saskatchewan, and I noticed your premier has said we need to make a free trade agreement with ASEAN a priority. In Canada, our agri-food exports increased from $400 million in 2003 to $1.2 billion in 2011. Who are our main agricultural competitors in the region? What is the mood in terms of a free trade agreement in your part of the world and how that would be accomplished?
Mr. LaBelle: In the agricultural sector, which is very broad — that's commodities, ingredients and shelf-ready food — that's a biotechnical piece. Our main competitors are Australia and the U.S. In the dairy region, New Zealand is a remarkable competitor. Respectfully, Canada is not even in the global dairy business, so we believe that's a great opportunity for Saskatchewan and for Canada going forward.
Senator Johnson: How do we get more aggressive on —
Mr. LaBelle: When you were giving me your numbers, were you giving the numbers from my spreadsheet?
Senator Johnson: This is my people's research on spreadsheets.
Mr. LaBelle: My numbers are clearly just Saskatchewan's numbers.
Senator Johnson: These are Canadian numbers. I was intrigued that you talked about how we have to take a more aggressive stance on GMOs. How do we do that?
Mr. LaBelle: We have had great success around the world using science as our marketing tool. I argue that the world needs GMO. Look at basic crops like canola, corn, soybeans and rice and consider that global population is predicted to go from 7 billion to 9 billion. You're not going to get there unless you use science and technology to your best opportunity. The amount of arable land in the world is not growing, so you have to use technology.
We have proved it here in Saskatchewan with canola and some of the great things that have happened there. The fertility of our land is dramatically better than it was 20 or 30 years ago because of our farming practices.
We are doing a lot of work in inner China on the farming practices they use. Frankly, their soils are ruined because of their excessive use of pesticides and fertilizers. We believe we can help them, but in the broader scheme, we've always fought the Europeans on GMOs and they, in turn, have influenced Africans and others to the negative on GMO. We need to take an aggressive stand that's science-based.
Senator Johnson: Professor Litalien, I have an important question on the annual conference ASEAN has on social welfare and development. They had one in Cambodia recently. The government and representatives from the NGO communities participated. They addressed the issues that were in common, yet they addressed them in different ways. The most recent form focused on the need to expand social safety nets and the establishment of a social protection floor within all states.
Can you tell us two things: How effective is this branch of ASEAN at fostering better social development? Are they taken seriously by member states?
Mr. Litalien: The last time I visited the area was last summer, and they're very serious. The ASEAN are examining a different model of social welfare precisely because the World Bank promoted that in order to get the people secure during the economic and regional crisis, social safety nets are definitely the way to go. That's mainly what I was referring to earlier.
Governments are concerned with their stability and legitimacy, so they're taking that social welfare issue seriously. They're trying to look within the region for now as to what's available and what works. One model that was looked at is currently used in Thailand, for example, and its health care system. It's an ongoing project, but it's definitely taken seriously. They're looking at the progressive role of the government in the promotion of social welfare in the region and possible partners with the private sector. Currently, they're trying to look at how government can pick up the bill, basically.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you to both of you for your presentations. My question is addressed to Mr. Litalien. I believe you understand French?
Mr. Litalien: Yes indeed.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: As you know, the committee is studying security conditions and economic developments in the Asia-Pacific region and the implications for Canada. From the beginning of our mandate, we have heard several witnesses who enlightened us greatly on economic and trade aspects in the region. We broached the human and social aspects somewhat, and that is why I am happy that you are here before the committee today.
Given your expertise in religious, political and identity matters and in the governance in southeast Asia, I would like to know your opinion on the current controversy raised by the census in Myanmar and the inclusion of questions on ethnicity and tribal identification, which is causing people to fear a resurgence of inter-ethnic tensions. What do you think about that?
I will explain why I am asking that question. Before the genocide took place in Rwanda, a census was taken wherein Tutsis and Hutus were identified, and as we saw subsequently, this allowed for the identification of ethnic groups, one of which as almost entirely disappeared as a result.
I will repeat my question: does the inclusion of questions on ethnicity and tribal identification raise fears of inter- ethnic tensions? What is your opinion?
[English]
Mr. Litalien: The last time I spoke with Myanmar's high official was last summer. He was adamant about the reform that needs to occur. I'll try to answer this in two ways. It's a serious question and a delicate one for me to answer.
The idea of ethnic conflict resurgence is real, according to my sources, because of various economic projects in the region. The problem with Myanmar is that everything is happening at once, and they lack the human capital to make it all happen. I understand that there's a lot of will, but political and economic cultures are involved. They are actively opening up. Meanwhile, they have a lot of projects to construct dams for hydroelectricity in the region.
Some of the hydroelectric dams are located in the Salween River, along specific areas of ethnic groups. Some of them are armed and some are still negotiating peace talks with the authorities; so it's kind of difficult. On one hand you have government officials, who are accommodating and want to help, while on the other hand, despite the possibility of economic development in the region, the minority groups are not always present for the consultations.
Culture, a strategic approach to economic development and respect for the notion of diversity are not always up front, as I underlined in my talk. There is not always the proper channel for these minority groups to voice their concerns about development. There have been almost 40 years of military rule, so the region is still a little sensitive. Despite the goodwill, not everyone in the political sphere is aware of the agenda or sensitive to what's happening on the reform side. It's a little bit of a work-in-progress with the minority groups. You're going to hear me say that phrase often.
The resurgence — the last report I read is that there is a growing concern from the minority groups that the government will be acting without their consultation. Forced delocalization happens and has happened in the past. It has been happening. Will the government stand up to its democratic commitment and open up a proper forum of discussion for them to hear their concern? Would there be a possibility for them to actually stop some of those developments from happening, or will it be a sort of a totalitarian decision where they'll be relocating without proper compensation?
I have heard of groups that are taking up arms again but who are also willing to discuss. I've also heard the same discussion from the government — that they are willing to discuss with minority groups. It's in the making.
I don't know if that would answer your question properly.
Senator Ataullahjan: Professor Litalien, am I understanding you correctly that what you're saying is that the issues we're seeing with the Rohingya Muslims — are those cultural differences? Can you just clarify for me what you said?
Mr. Litalien: I just said that the Rohingya Muslims are spreading out now — but the problem with them is a different problem. The problem is touching on a very historical and sensitive issue in the region. It's not so much economic development, per se.
Along the Salween region, the issues of groups taking up arms are much more related to economic development issues.
In terms of Rohingyas, it's a very complex issue. I was attending a few talks in Bangkok last summer, and there are a lot of NGOs in Myanmar right now trying to make sure that there's no escalation of violence between the ruling minorities and the government. We're hearing very mixed messages on what the intentions of the governments are. On one hand, I met with Myanmar officials who said they were really trying to help. On the other hand, there's a lack of communication and command happening from the authorities down to the implementation of these actions with the commitment of proper engaging of discussion between the Rohingyas themselves.
So there is a lot happening with the Rohingya on multiple fronts. They have been on the run for many years. They've been denied national recognition — this is from different reports. I have heard that you had a report from Amnesty International previously, so I'm not sure if you want me to actually elaborate a lot on what's happening with them.
I see this as two different issues: one, the Rohingyas; and, two, the hydroelectric dam construction along with the armed conflict among minority groups and the government.
Senator Ataullahjan: No, thank you. I just wanted clarification of what you were saying. We're not talking about the Rohingyas, because that's a different issue.
Mr. Litalien: Two different issues.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I have a second question for you, Mr. Litalien. Do you think Canada can provide support, or play some kind of role in diminishing inter-group tensions in Myanmar?
[English]
Mr. Litalien: That's a good question. Yes, I'm sure we could provide some support. We could provide an active role. The idea is always to act as — I would recommend that Canada be very careful on the way to approach the current government on how it wants to provide some support on that front, mainly because it's such a sensitive issue. Traditionally, Myanmar's government has been keen on dealing with the situation themselves and not so much having outsiders involved on those specific issues.
So I would say that, yes, we could provide a role, provided that there is an opening on the side of the Myanmar government. That would remain to be confirmed.
I didn't see that opening when I last visited, but as I said in my presentation, this is Southeast Asia; things change rapidly. We would have to go fishing to see if they would be open for that kind of diplomatic help.
Senator Housakos: Very interesting presentations from both of you. I've got a series of questions. My first one is for Mr. Litalien. I guess I'm going to try to bundle up three questions into one.
We all agree that Southeast Asia has experienced great economic growth and economic development over the past number of decades. I think, though, that we will all agree that, by and large, they haven't had a lot of success in dealing with the problem of poverty.
Would you be able to identify what countries in Southeast Asia have had more success than others in dealing with poverty?
In that same question, I'd like to look at the issue of human trafficking and the exploitation of women in their societies. What I'm trying to get at is that economic development, social development and political development don't always coexist in that part of the world in a neat way.
Would you be able to identify for us examples of countries that have taken their economic development and taken advantage of it in order to also speed up their social and political development to the point that would be acceptable for Western democratic countries like Canada? And if there are countries that haven't had that much success, which would they be?
Mr. Litalien: That's a lot of questions. It's very complex. I feel like my answer is going to be somehow biased. Some of the data we have that has looked at poverty reduction in the region has been mainly coming out from the ASEAN community, and they have been very adamant about the fact that every country has been very successful in reducing the amount of absolute poverty.
The question in my presentation was not so much "Okay, we've reduced absolute poverty, but we have a long way to go.'' Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia have a long way to go. The middle class has been growing in Thailand and Malaysia, although the problem is ethnicity and diversity. There is a growing concern from the Indian minority in Malaysia that has been left out of some political reforms lately — ones that have been advancing the Malay majority, which is about 60 per cent of the population there. So the Chinese and the Indians feel a little left out from the political and economic reforms being made in Malaysia. Their poverty is a concern — so much so that some of these minority groups have been emigrating from the country.
Despite the fact that Malaysia is considered to be an upper-income country, it is not as high as Singapore. I won't speak of Singapore, because the country has become more developed and is very capable of dealing with poverty issues. Brunei, also.
But if you're looking at areas where there is a lot of room for progress, Canadian norm included, those would be Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, Vietnam and the Philippines, but the Philippines is progressing a lot. The Philippines has come a long way.
The statistics are all showing a lot of progress in terms of fighting poverty, but there are a lot of areas of concern in terms of inequality gaps, and there is still absolute poverty in a lot of these countries, particularly Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar and Vietnam, regions that I talked about. Usually they are grouped together.
On the ASEAN website, these countries are usually considered independently because their economic development is coming along but not the same as Thailand, Singapore, Brunei, Malaysia and, to a certain extent, Indonesia. Indonesia has been making a lot of progress in terms of absolute poverty. I don't know if I'm answering your question somehow on the idea of poverty level.
Senator Housakos: Yes.
Mr. Litalien: What was your second question again?
Senator Housakos: My second question was with regard to human trafficking and exploitation of women in these countries. Is there a list of countries that have dealt with this issue in a better fashion than others? The ones that have, who are they? And the ones that haven't, who are they, in your opinion?
Mr. Litalien: In my opinion, Thailand has been very good at trying to engage in human trafficking issues. We can't put Canadian standards on this and push them on Southeast Asia. I would say that Thailand has been doing a good job. Malaysia somehow has been doing a good job as well, as has Singapore in terms of human trafficking. In the less performing ones, you're going to see the recurrent issue. Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, Philippines and Indonesia would be somewhere in the middle. That's my opinion, which can be biased. I could provide you with some numbers on that if you would like, but gender and human trafficking are really connected.
For human trafficking it is hard to come up with hard-core, reliable statistics precisely because of its nature. In human trafficking, it's hard to point out where the victims are and what they're doing. That's the difficulty we have in terms of statistics. I know that Canada has been involved in funding certain NGOs in Southeast Asia to fight human trafficking.
Again I come back to Thailand. UNIFEN is located in Bangkok and has been strong in promoting the status of women and fighting human trafficking across the region. There are places for improvement everywhere you look in Southeast Asia. That's the easiest answer.
Senator Housakos: My next question is directed towards Mr. LaBelle. I appreciated your presentation. I love all these numbers because numbers tell all kinds of stories. I'm looking at Saskatchewan's success in exporting, in particular. I see you've quantified the amount exported to Central Asia, Southeast Asia, Northeast Asia and China. If I do a quick calculation, and correct me if I am wrong, it comes to $6.5 billion in total trade that Saskatchewan does with this whole Asian area. Is that correct?
Mr. LaBelle: Yes, you are correct, give or take a couple billion.
Senator Housakos: About 20 per cent of Saskatchewan's exports go to that part of the world. Your other chart breaks down the actual areas where Saskatchewan is exporting energy, food, potash, manufacturing and uranium. It always strikes me when it comes to manufacturing and the service sectors that Canada doesn't seem to penetrate those areas as well as we do in Europe, the U.S. and other parts of the world, including South America. Energy, food and potash are commodities and resources, which are more about what we have rather than what we make or manufacture. As long as you have an economy that's able to absorb all these resources, you'll be able to sell them.
If we're going to take our relationship to the next level in that part of the world, we have to see what and compare. I'd like to know your opinion. You might have this answer and you might not. What are the Americans, the Europeans and the Australians trading in Southeast Asia and Northeast Asia above and beyond resources and commodities? Like I said, every part of the world that has some sort of commodity will sell it where there's a need for it and the market has a demand for it. What do the Americans sell in order to get their numbers so much astronomically higher than ours? They must be selling above and beyond energy, food, and potash, I assume, to get the numbers they have.
Mr. LaBelle: I guess it's a broad question, but if I could, I'll just drill down Saskatchewan numbers. The numbers for food are $11 billion, and canola was $4 billion of that. Of that $4 billion, half of it was crude canola oil that we crushed here and sent out as a product. That's an example of value-added that we never had 20 years ago, when we had only one canola crush plant. Today we have six plants in the province and all of them are in expansion mode. In the next five to six years, we'll probably crush 80 per cent of our canola. We won't be shipping canola as a commodity but rather as a finished product. From crude, of course, come all the other variables, such as salad dressing or margarine. That's part and parcel of the process.
We have lots of examples. Red lentils are another example. We peel them, bag them and ship them around the world. So we do a lot of processing here. You can't look at $11 billion for food and assume that's 100 per cent commodity-based because it's not.
In terms of what our American friends do, in fairness, when Boeing sells a fleet of aircraft to one of the airlines in Malaysia, it's a $7-billion deal. Some of these numbers are astronomical, and we're just not in that game.
Where we compete with Americans, we do very well. Again, I mentioned the manufacturing side in Saskatchewan. We're very strong in agricultural manufactured products and we're very strong in the mining sector of the industry that we call the "ancillary industry'' that supports mining. For instance, I gave you some numbers for Chile and Peru. Almost all of that is in the mining sector and the ancillary manufactured product that we put into that marketplace.
Out of respect for Australia, they are very aggressive in the marketplace in this part of the world almost entirely in the commodity business, whether grains or mineral products, for example, iron ore, which is one of the major exports of Australia. I would argue that we're quite ahead of a number of those countries in those markets. On the food side, the one that is quite remarkable is New Zealand. In New Zealand, 30 years ago their entire agricultural community was bankrupt. The government of the day had no choices so they eliminated completely the support systems.
I'll give you a small example that most Canadians aren't aware of. We're very proud of our potash. We export $5.8 billion in potash around the world. We're the world's leading exporter of potash.
In 2013, New Zealand exported $13.7 billion in dairy product. That's C$12.7 billion. This isn't milk, per se. These are multiple products related to dairy. I'll tell you one of the things we do at STEP. When we're in any market anywhere in the world, the first thing we do is go to the local grocery store to see what's on the shelf and to see what people's buying habits are.
If we're in China looking at the shelf, it's usually UV treated milk from New Zealand or France. For all the dairy products collectively, whether it's product for ice cream and so on, New Zealand is the most influential country in that part of the world. In that example, you're right: Those would be defined as value-added products as opposed to commodity-based products.
Senator Ataullahjan: My question is for Professor Litalien. With regard to different religions and ethnicity, Singapore could be considered a model of tolerance. What is Singapore doing that's different? Could other countries in the region learn from Singapore's example?
Mr. Litalien: My easy answer to that is the history. What Singapore is doing that the other ones are not doing is related to their history. It hasn't been marked as much by colonialism and colonial institutions as other countries in Southeast Asia have been. It's just the way that it has been dealing with it. On the one hand, in the literature you have the idea that it was more homogeneous, as there was a high percentage of Chinese people. Traditionally, the Chinese in the region had an amalgamation of various faiths. This is what I mean by history, that idea that came along. They've been very successful. The legacy in Singapore has not been as bad as in Malaysia, where the British had a lot of Indian and Chinese come in. Sixty per cent of the population in Malaysia were left out of key administrative roles and key business positions. When the Brits left, they left an ethnic divide there that prioritized business in Malaysia in terms of the Chinese and Indians. Once they got independence, the Malaysian government reversed that tendency and had policies that advantaged the Malaysians rather than the Chinese and the Indians.
In Singapore that kind of policy was not needed because they didn't have the same legacy in Singapore as in Malaysia. I think that, as a model, it would be very difficult to export because I want to say that Singapore is unique in terms of, first of all, you can look at the economic development. It's more developed than in Canada, to a certain extent. The wealth has been spread, I would say, to groups equally, to a certain extent, in Singapore; whereas in Malaysia, the ethnic divide, in terms of wealth redistribution, has been growing, and so it's difficult to take that model and export it.
It's like saying, well, the peace talks happening with the Moros in the Philippines in 2012, that model of autonomy that is given to them now could be exported to the southern three provinces in Thailand, where there's been ongoing unrest. My answer to that is it's not that easy. It's the same thing with economic investment in the region. It needs to be case by case. It needs to respect the history, colonial heritage, and it needs to respect the idea that economic developments are not happening across the board the same way.
That's why it's a very complex issue. Southeast Asia will not be solved by this one-model-fits-all approach. It will definitely be a team of consultation firms or experts going there and working with local people and coming up with a possible solution.
My answer is I don't think it would work, in short.
Senator Ataullahjan: Mr. LaBelle, what has been your experience with regard to red tape, delays and corruption with your economic partners in the region? Do you find that there are a lot of delays, red tape and corruption? We keep hearing about how in some of these countries there is a lot of corruption.
Mr. LaBelle: It's an ongoing question. If you remember, I mentioned about teaching our clients about currency and culture. When we talk about the culture, we talk about the culture of negotiation. I would argue that Southeast Asia is quite tame compared to a number of different parts of the world we deal in, particularly a lot of the CIS countries; we have some interesting challenges there. We have some very specific challenges in India, as an example, but I would argue that collectively in Southeast Asia we do quite well there.
Senator D. Smith: I've enjoyed both presentations, but I think I'm going to direct my question to Mr. LaBelle. I confess I'm a Toronto guy — I even live on Bay Street — but my mother-in-law came from North Battleford, so I have been listening to Saskatchewan stories for many years.
My question is priorities. These numbers you gave us are really quite awesome in terms of the growth rate of your exports to Asia. They are incredible. What I'm wondering is to what extent there are two or three things that Ottawa can do that can really help increase these numbers even further. You have talked about a number of suggestions. What would be the top two or three things that Ottawa could do to help further increase these numbers?
Mr. LaBelle: I appreciate that. The first question is the issue we are having with logistics. I don't think people in Eastern Canada understand the issue, how grave it is. It is our Achilles heel. Our ability to get product to port and to ship it globally is a huge issue for us.
To give you an example, to put red lentils in a 20-foot container and ship it from Regina to Chittagong in Bangladesh is a science to be able to do that. Now do it 25,000 times, and you can get a sense of how large the problem is.
We have a system where our railways are not serving us well. We have to figure out how to do it, and quite frankly we may need some bold reaction from the federal government of Canada to understand that this is big.
Because again, senator, our potash companies — forget about new greenfield start-ups — our existing potash companies have spent in the order of $8 billion or $10 billion to triple their capacity; so we have all types of global capacity. We know how to find the customers globally. Our Achilles heel will be logistics, and number two, as I mentioned in my presentation, is the Global Markets Action Plan. We absolutely are a huge fan of Minister Fast and his global travels; we support that because we do that as well. But I would argue that the Canadian Trade Commissioner Service needs to stop talking about activities. They need to start talking about facilitating transactions, finding buyers, working with us to qualify them and to work with the opportunity.
Those are the two areas where I think we need to have some aggressive federal influence.
Senator D. Smith: Thank you for emphasizing that. I think we should make note of that in our report.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Litalien, if I understood correctly, you said that there were places where the daily wage was $1.25. Did I understand that correctly?
[English]
Mr. Litalien: No, no, I just pointed out the $1.25 poverty line as a measure for the ASEAN. For example, how do they measure who is above that and who is below that poverty line in order to come up with their statistics? I was simply acknowledging the fact they were using similar methodology that we would be using here in Canada, for example. That's all.
Senator Robichaud: What is the figure they are using? Is it $1.25 a day?
Mr. Litalien: It's $1.25 a day, correct.
Senator Robichaud: There is a long way to go there, isn't there?
Mr. Litalien: Oh, yes, definitely. In Myanmar, you can find people living on as low as, I'd say — depending on the country you're visiting, people are living and sometimes they can't make ends meet — the equivalent of C$10 a week, but then the cost of living is very low in Myanmar.
It would be country by country. Again, it's very difficult to come up with an overall figure. I can say overall there is a decline in poverty all across the region. All Southeast Asian countries are trying to aim to realize the Millennium Development Goal.
They are saying they are on a good track. They are saying they're progressing, but financially on the ground there is a huge discrepancy between Myanmar, for example, and Singapore; and this is in comparison, right? On the one hand, you might have, for example, a country where there is the equivalent of C$2,000 a year; and on the other hand, you might have C$40,000 a year.
Welcome to the region of contrast. Again, pointing out to diversity. To have a different team for every area you will be going into, that's again underlining what I was saying in my presentation.
The Deputy Chair: I would like to thank the witnesses on behalf of the senators here on the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. We know how busy you are, and we appreciate your expert testimony. I am sure it will show up in our report when we publish it.
Thank you again on behalf of everyone here.
(The committee adjourned.)