Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Issue 12 - Evidence - Meeting of May 28, 2014
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 28, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met this day at 4:15 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 (topic: OECD Southeast Asia Regional Program).
Senator Percy E. Downe (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Today the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade will continue its study on security conditions and economic development in the Asia-Pacific region, the implications for Canadian policy, and interests in the region and other related matters.
On May 7, 2014, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development announced the launch of its Southeast Asia Regional Program. To provide us with a briefing on this new program, we are pleased to welcome officials from Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada.
I would ask officials to introduce themselves. I understand they have opening statements. If you've been here before, you know that senators will have many questions afterwards.
[Translation]
Richard Arbeiter, Director and G8/G20 Sherpa Assistant, International Economic Relations and Summits Division, Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada: Honourable senators, I would like to thank you for inviting me to speak with you today. My name is Richard Arbeiter and I am the Director of the International Economic Relations and Summits Division at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada. In that capacity, I am responsible for Canada's overall engagement at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the OECD.
I understand that you are particularly interested in the South East Asian Regional Program launched by the OECD earlier this month. I will turn to that initiative shortly. But before doing so, I would like to start with a brief overview of the OECD's mandate, objectives and approach, so us to better situate this new regional program in the context of the OECD's growing efforts to engage countries beyond its current membership.
[English]
As you will be aware, the OECD originated in 1961 and has evolved significantly since its inception. It is now one of the world's largest and most reliable sources of economic and social data. Its core mandate is to promote public policies that will improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world.
The OECD undertakes peer reviews and makes recommendations. In so doing, it provides the means for members to compare their performance and to learn from one another. OECD members, including Canada, also use the organization to develop international norms and guidelines, which help to guide commercial and economic activity. Some of the more widely known elements include the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention and the Declaration on Automatic Exchange of Information in Tax Matters.
Over 40,000 representatives of 34 OECD member countries meet in specialized committees to advance ideas and review progress in specific policy areas, including economics, trade, science and employment. There are approximately 250 committees, working groups and expert groups who meet every year to request, review and contribute to the work undertaken by the OECD secretariat. The Government of Canada is highly engaged in that work. Indeed, over 600 Canadian delegates participate in OECD working groups and committee meetings on an annual basis.
The OECD currently has 34 members, 21 of which are also members of the European Union. The organization is, however, becoming more diversified, with recent accession of new members, such as Chile, Israel, Korea and Mexico. Most recently, Colombia began a process towards eventual accession, with Costa Rica likely to follow shortly.
Greater geographic diversity within the OECD is in both the organization's as well as Canada's strategic interests. With its current membership, the OECD represents approximately 65 per cent of the world economy, but this share is expected to decline over time as major emerging economies continue to assume a greater role in the global economy.
Against this backdrop, Canada has been a strong proponent of the OECD broadening its scope. In particular, Canada has been a strong supporter of enhanced engagement with regions of growing economic importance, including Asia and Latin America.
Ultimately, our objective is to ensure that the norms established by the OECD remain the standard-setters for participation in the global economy. In this vein, our efforts are premised on a desire to reach out and engage non- members in a way which does not dilute what the OECD has accomplished to date.
The OECD maintains cooperative relations with more than 70 non-member economies around the world. While many non-member countries actively participate with the OECD on an issue-by-issue basis, few are prepared to undertake the breadth and depth of policy reforms required for eventual membership. In this context, the OECD has launched more concerted efforts to expand its region's emerging markets.
Since 2007, the OECD has been pursuing enhanced relations with five major emerging economies: Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and South Africa. Regional initiatives are also under way in Eastern Europe; the Caucasus and Central Asia; Latin America and the Caribbean; and the Middle East and North Africa.
OECD cooperation with countries from Southeast Asia has been ongoing for many years. The OECD produces an annual economic outlook for Southeast Asia, jointly with the ASEAN secretariat. This report analyzes Asia's economic growth, development, regional integration and policy challenges. The most recent addition was issued late last year.
The OECD has also cooperated with individual Southeast Asian countries on sectoral issues. Several have, for example, undergone investment policy reviews and, on education, several now participate in the OECD PISA study, which evaluates the knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds worldwide. More recently, the OECD-WTO Trade in Value- added database included several Southeast Asian countries.
These efforts were worthwhile in and of themselves and were well established. While they would have likely continued as separate stand-alone elements, they did not come together as a cohesive whole. As such, they did not provide a platform for expanding OECD engagement in this dynamic and fast-growing region. For this reason, Canada, alongside other OECD members, called for the development of a more targeted, dedicated and coordinated Southeast Asia Regional Program.
We were very pleased that OECD ministers agreed to pursue this proposal in 2013 and that the program was launched, as you know, in 2014. The countries identified for inclusion are the ASEAN member states: Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Burma/Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.
The stated objectives of the program are, first, to scale up and broaden existing OECD engagement to support regional integration efforts and national reform priorities; second, to foster the exchange of good practices and mutual learning among policy-makers; and, third, to bring participating countries closer to OECD standards and practices, facilitate access to OECD expertise and, ultimately, adherence to its instruments.
In developing the program, extensive consultations took place among OECD committees, governments from ASEAN member states and regional stakeholders to ensure that the new program is demand-driven, that is to say it reflects the needs and interests of the countries in the region.
As agreed with our regional partners, the initial phase of the program will focus on the following four clusters: connectivity, enhancing the business climate, inclusive growth, and some cross-cutting work on statistics.
The substance of the program will be developed by thematic regional policy networks, which will be composed of policy experts from Southeast Asian and OECD countries. Each will be led by two co-chairs, one from the region and one from an OECD member, and will develop a work program taking into account and building upon existing OECD and Southeast Asian bodies and processes.
Six regional networks will be developed. They will focus on tax, investment, education and skills, small and medium enterprises, regulatory reform, connectivity and public-private partnerships. Other areas for future cooperation include trade, innovation and gender.
Following the formal launch of the program at the OECD ministerial council meeting in Paris earlier this month, at which Minister Fast and Parliamentary Secretary for Finance Andrew Saxton participated, the focus will now shift towards implementation.
[Translation]
As you will have gathered, we are at the very first stages of this process. While the general parameters have been established, the details remain to be determined. Within the next year, each of the six Regional Policy Networks will hold at least one meeting in the region. Co-chairs will be selected, work programs defined, and funding requirements established and secured. We will remain actively engaged and follow this program as it develops.
Thank you for your interest and attention.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much for that presentation.
Before we turn to the list of questioners, I would like to follow up on one of your comments so as to have a better understanding of the OECD. You mentioned 600 Canadians are involved. Are they mostly public servants, full time, and they have files assigned to them? How does it work?
Mr. Arbeiter: They are from all levels of government, federal and provincial. The ones we keep track of are the public servants, but there are lots of OECD fora that involve members of civil society organizations and the private sector from different OECD countries and in fact countries that are non-members of the OECD. In terms of delegates to meetings, we were referring to public servants.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Welcome to the committee. I am very pleased to see you again. We always learn a great deal when you come see us.
My first question is the following: in March, the committee heard from Lex Reiffel, a researcher at the Brookings Institute. He wrote that, in the past, some principles of the Paris Declaration and Buzan Partnership were not respected by all international aid donors.
I would like to ask you mostly about Burma. Would you qualify the financial assistance provided to Burma by the international community as appropriate? Do you believe the international assistance is effective, or does it fail to reach its objectives?
Mr. Arbeiter: I am not in a position to assess the assistance provided to Burma. My responsibilities are really to the OECD in terms of its operations. My colleagues from the department will be able to answer this question, but it goes beyond my responsibilities.
[English]
Senator D. Smith: I'm sure you're aware of the fact we will be visiting some of these countries in the next six months or so. One thing that I want to raise and get your response to is that there are statistics in some of the research that's been done as to how various countries were ranked in terms of the easiest country in the world to do business, and Singapore is number 1. Burma is number 182. On Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index, Singapore is 5 and Burma is 157.
I've done some work with the World Bank in the last while. They have a parliamentary committee that they get advice from and that sort of thing. One of the messages they like some people to convey — and I was recently at one in Tanzania — when we're going through the various challenges that they have is to bring up corruption. In other words, you have to do it delicately. The line I use is "progress has been made," but we can't stop talking about it because if you stop talking about it, you almost take it as a given and as a norm. I'm curious in terms of Burma ranking 157 in terms of corruption.
Going to Singapore is a no-brainer. In terms of which countries we go to, do you have any thoughts? Do you almost reward countries that are very corrupt by visiting them, as opposed to going to the ones that have the better track record in both those categories, easiest to do business and corruption perceptions? Can you tastefully bring it up? We're having this agreement, but you have to start making progress, not that anything will be fixed overnight, but at least making some progress. When we go on this trip, what are your views about conversations on that delicate subject?
Mr. Arbeiter: Thank you very much for that question.
I would point out that part of the OECD's objective by having rankings and peer reviews and engaging countries that are at different levels of governance and regulatory reform is to create an opportunity for bringing those levels up. It is to have the kind of peer review and provide the kind of information and expertise that can resonate in an apolitical setting with those countries that are interested in pursuing reform efforts.
My colleague can speak more to countries in that particular region, but I just point out that that's why we value some of the work of the OECD so much. They can engage from a policy perspective as opposed to a political perspective on these kinds of measures that are important to moving up the global ranking and the kinds of norms and standards that businesses will look to in order to invest confidently in different countries around the world.
Evelyn Puxley, Director, Southeast Asia and Oceania Relations Division, Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada: I should have introduced myself. I am the Director for Southeast Asia and Oceania, and I manage bilateral relations with the countries of AEAN that Mr. Arbeiter enumerated, as well as Australia, New Zealand and all the Pacific Islands.
In response to Senator Smith's, I think it's a very relevant question. I would encourage you to raise these issues in a diplomatic but firm manner when you travel to Southeast Asia. I would also encourage you to suggest that there might be some practices that we in Canada have put in place, particularly on corruption, that might be of interest to some of the countries in Southeast Asia. In many instances, there are federal bodies that have been mandated to fight corruption.
A good example is the one in Thailand, the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which has been very much in the news recently because it actually convicted members of the previous Thai government of corruption and was therefore responsible for the removal of half of the elected government in Thailand. I'm not citing this necessarily as an example to be emulated, but I think there has been considerable comment to the effect that the committee might not have been impartial and independent as we would expect similar accountability committees in Canada to be. I mention it because certainly the Canadian embassy in Thailand has had many questions as to how Canada manages these issues at the federal, provincial and city level, and I'm sure they would be interested in some of the institutions that we have put in place to manage them.
You mentioned Singapore, which indeed is known for its very good record on corruption.
Burma, I think you said, was number 182 on Transparency International's list. I would say with regard to Burma that that probably reflects the previous decades of military rule. As I think has been said possibly to this committee in the recent past, Canada is very pleased by the many changes that are under way in Burma at the moment, essentially since 2011. Corruption is another issue that they are tackling. We are trying to provide technical expertise that will assist the current Burmese government to move to a system of greater transparency and representative government and accountability. They're still very much at the beginning of that road, but they are very interested in the experience of other countries, including Canada. If and when you go to Burma, I would encourage you to raise those issues.
Indonesia is also on your agenda. Indonesia certainly is a country in which there are substantial concerns about corruption. They are going to elect a new president and a new government later this summer. That presents new opportunities to empower the institutions they do have that fight corruption.
That was a very long answer. The short answer would have been that I would encourage you to raise these questions in a diplomatic manner, because of course most of the countries in Southeast Asia are very sensitive about outsiders appearing to, as they put it, interfere in their affairs. That doesn't mean that they are resistant to advice offered professionally and in a respectful manner.
Senator Johnson: It's nice to see you today.
I have two questions. The first is regarding your Southeast Asia Regional Program. This was just launched this month. You mentioned you were discussing it. What are the short- and long-term expectations of the program and its potential benefits to sustained economic growth in the region? What are your challenges to the implementation of the program at the organizational, national and regional levels? How is this program perceived by countries in Southeast Asia?
Mr. Arbeiter: Those are excellent questions.
As you said at the outset, this is a brand new program. It's three weeks old in terms of the date of its launch. I'll take it in reverse order because that will help to situate it. The final part of your question is about how it is perceived. You also asked about challenges and expectations.
The way we have gone about trying to establish this program is to ensure that it does contribute to long-term growth by consulting the regional partners themselves and by developing the program in partnership with them. Our view — and this is how the OECD operates with others as well, and it's a good follow-up to the previous question — is that the greatest chance for success lies in programs that are owned and developed and where the priorities are shared by the partners themselves. At this point, we've held a number of regional fora to try to establish the parameters for the program, and the four clusters that I identified earlier are the result of those initial consultations. The decision to move forward with the establishment of the six policy networks to develop the work programs is the next step.
To use a poor analogy, we have a skeleton with very little meat on the bones at the moment. The objective over the next year is to figure out what that meat will be and to do so in a way that the regional partners themselves see some real benefit to them but that also reflects, from an OECD perspective, the kinds of work, whether it's on investment, SMEs, education or tax, where we see some potential for ultimately increasing growth rates and ultimately ensuring that the norms and standards set by the OECD have broader applicability into this region.
Our expectations: In the short term, we're looking ahead. We're positive about it; we're bullish. There was a good representation from the region itself at the ministerial meeting that launched this. We do feel that we have in the region the important political sign-off and desire to move forward. We'll see over the next year, as the programs of work gets developed and the networks come together, how we can ensure that there are very clear and focused objectives in each of the areas so that the work can proceed.
As I said, from a Canadian perspective, we will continue to participate in each of these areas with our partners because they will be a little bit different depending on the country in the region itself.
Senator Johnson: I'd like to turn to the tensions Vietnam and China that, as you all know, have reached a level not seen in decades. There have been demonstrations and the torching of Chinese factories in Ho Chi Minh City. China declared that its oil rig, accompanied by a flotilla of ships and armed vessels, will remain there until mid-August. I was doing more reading on it yesterday because it seems to be moving forward all the time.
As Vietnam has no defence treaty with the U.S., is it completely alone against Chinese aggression? Would Vietnam go to war with China over this area in the South China Sea? It's an incredibly interesting thing that's going on; and it's also very worrisome.
Mr. Arbeiter: That is clearly outside the OECD ambit. I will turn to my colleague if she has anything to add.
Ms. Puxley: If you will permit me, this is, indeed, a bit beyond the OECD mandate, but I am happy to try to answer the question.
Senator Johnson: Okay.
Ms. Puxley: It is fair to say that the Government of Canada is very worried by the rising tensions in the South China Sea occasioned by the territorial dispute between Vietnam and China being played out off the coast of Vietnam. I don't have it with me today, but the Minister of Foreign Affairs issued a statement shortly afterwards expressing grave concerns and hoping that both parties would find a way to negotiate a solution to this challenge and expressing concern about the effect of the less-than-peaceful demonstrations throughout Vietnam, not just in Ho Chi Minh City.
The incidents have been quite widespread and have targeted firms that were believed to be or known to be Chinese owned and also those owned by Taiwanese and Singapore interests. There has been some loss of life and considerable damage. The more important issue, as you alluded to, is how the escalation of tensions can be defused. There certainly has been an escalation since the initial movement of the Chinese oil rig into this area.
Southeast Asia as a whole is concerned to learn that a Vietnamese fishing boat had been sunk and there was loss of life. That was the first time a boat had been sunk. It seems that there are more and more vessels, both military and civilian, from China in this area. As well, Vietnam is trying to find out what's going on by having some of its coast guard vessels in the area.
You asked whether Vietnam and China would go to war over this and whether Vietnam is alone in that it does not have an alliance relationship with the United States. Of course, I can't predict.
Senator Johnson: No one can answer that.
Ms. Puxley: No one can predict.
Senator Johnson: I don't expect you to predict, but what role is ASEAN playing in this? Are they playing any role in terms of de-escalating the tension between these two regimes, or can they do anything?
Ms. Puxley: The rise in tensions began just prior to an ASEAN summit in Burma following a meeting of foreign ministers. ASEAN foreign ministers released a statement, which is significant. It didn't assign blame or indicate what ASEAN would do, but it was endorsed the following day by leaders.
ASEAN does not have any national institutions. As an organization unlike NATO, it doesn't have forces that can come to the aid of Vietnam. It's fair to say there are differences in views among the 10 ASEAN states. It's also fair to say that quietly and behind the scenes there are a number of key leaders within ASEAN that are trying to work with both Vietnam and China to get the negotiations back on track to defuse the immediate tensions. In the immediate future, they are trying to move forward more quickly to develop a protocol to manage these sorts of incidents, a code of conduct. Actually, that would make it less likely that such an incident of hostilities might truly break out.
The underlying issue of course is how to manage the competing territorial claims. On that issue, there have been a number of avenues. The Philippines, as you may know, is taking China to court. Vietnam has shown increasing interest in the legal avenue, given that I think they would much prefer a peaceful solution. Malaysia, which also has competing claims with China, it is fair to say, is seeking more information from the Philippines and Vietnam. It is a very fluid situation with no obvious means at the moment to make sure that the tensions, which are on the rise, actually are de- escalated.
Senator Johnson: We'll not go to either of those places on the next trip, but I really appreciate the update.
Senator Dawson: I was there last year on vacation and have been promoting it as a place to visit. However, I've stopped that over the last few weeks. Even at the time they didn't call it the South China Sea as they've had conflicts with China forever. It is not something new.
To get back to the ASEAN group of 10 member states, is there progress toward a more structured organization like they have in Europe so that in cases of territorial disputes they'll have an arbitrary system that goes beyond the fact that they meet on a regular basis but don't have a joint body of exchange?
Mr. Arbeiter: Again, this is outside the OECD, so I will turn to my colleague.
Senator Dawson: Feel comfortable not answering.
Ms. Puxley: No, I am happy to answer.
It is fair to say that ASEAN and its 10 member states are in the process of building an ASEAN community across the three ASEAN pillars: socio-cultural, political and economic. That is supposed to be completed by the end of this year. In particular, given the events in Thailand, they may fall short of that, but they have deliberately chosen "community" rather than the sort of approach that you have seen evolve in Europe, where they have common foreign and security policy with a high representative, a commission and an elaborate structure of institutions that is bigger, with 28 or so European member states.
ASEAN is not looking at the moment to have those sorts of super-national institutions. However, an ASEAN centred organization called the ASEAN Regional Forum, of which Canada is a founding member, meets on a regular basis and on an intercessional basis for some decades to try to develop, for the entire region of the 10 member ASEAN states and the broader Asian region, the means to defuse these sorts of crises and prevent them. Preventive diplomacy in Asia is a challenging concept, given their colonial past and negative experience of outside powers interfering in, if not running, the government. It has been a great challenge. Some countries in Asia more broadly are not very enamoured of this concept, so I think it will take a long time.
In the meantime, as your colleague mentioned, we have an incident that could easily become far more serious. At the moment, there isn't anything within ASEAN, any mechanism or any high representative, that can step in and speak on behalf of all 10 ASEAN states and resolve this sort of crisis.
Senator Dawson: On a more traditional ACD-driven question of comparative states, you do the analysis of the growth and you can compare them and the transparency, but what about the shared growth? In some of these countries, growth is very fast. We use the 1 per cent, obviously, as we do in the U.S. Do you measure how that growth is shared between the middle classes, the poor and the people running the regimes? Do you have objective analysis of that shared growth?
Mr. Arbeiter: That is an excellent question. The OECD is increasingly focusing on what they refer to as inclusive growth, and that is looking across the different socio-economic classes at how economic growth is shared.
I am not certain whether that kind of analysis has been done for this region of the world, but it is increasingly a major element of the OECD's analysis for OECD members. I am not confident that they have necessarily done so for Southeast Asia. Certainly, as we look at the program being implemented over the next year or years and as Southeast Asian states begin to participate more actively in a whole series of OECD instruments and reports and publications, that will no doubt be an element of the work that is undertaken.
All of these reports and all of this analysis are on a voluntary basis. The countries in which the OECD is active have invited them to do this kind of analysis, so some of it is country specific. However, the trend line is certainly to greater participation rather than less participation, and that trend line also includes looking at issues of inclusivity.
Senator Dawson: If you had the opportunity when you go back to look at the inclusive growth, if you had any documentation that you could share through the clerk, I would appreciate it. You don't have to do it right away.
Mr. Arbeiter: In my presentation, I referred to the economic outlook for Southeast Asia that was released this year. It is a 400-page document.
Senator Dawson: The executive resumé?
Mr. Arbeiter: Exactly. This document is available publicly on the OECD website. This will be the most comprehensive and the most recent document that the OECD has produced looking at all of the economic factors in Southeast Asian countries.
Senator Dawson: And it has inclusive growth?
Mr. Arbeiter: That I am not sure of.
Senator Dawson: If you find one that does, we would appreciate it.
Senator Johnson: You are including sustainable development, right? That would be part of what you are asking about?
Senator Dawson: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I would first like to make an observation. I hope you will not attach too much importance to it. The OECD includes 250 committees that meet once a year. I have difficulty understanding how it could be effective.
In your presentation, you stated that the OECD cooperated individually with some countries. For example, there was a study to evaluate the knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds throughout the world. How does this region compare with others, and what are the highlights, if you are aware of them?
Mr. Arbeiter: I would like to clarify the fact that not every countrsy in that region took part in the PISA study. The study is done every two years and is given to 15-year-olds. Canada also participates in that study. It is one of the most well-known OECD tools in the world, and many countries take part in it. I do not have the comparative analysis of the young people who participated in last year's PISA study. However, we could get that information. I do not have with me the comparative analysis for each country.
Senator Robichaud: Do you know which countries participated?
Mr. Arbeiter: I believe I have that information. Just give me a moment. When an organization has 400,000 members who sit on various committees, it is difficult to know what the highlights are for each of them. That is even more true because these committees produce analyses and reports every day.
Senator Robichaud: You can send us the answer later through the clerk.
[English]
Senator Oh: I just want to clarify one thing on page 5, the Southeast Asia Regional Program. Under "Next Steps," you refer to the OECD ministerial council meeting in Paris, May 2014 — that means this month — with Minister Ed Fast. I was with him this morning, and he told me he was in Manila. Here you say Paris. Did you mean Paris or Manila?
Mr. Arbeiter: The OECD ministerial meeting took place earlier this month, on May 6 and 7 in Paris, and Minister Fast was there.
If I may just come back, I was provided the five countries that participated in the PISA study, the education study.
[Translation]
The five countries which took part this year in the most recent PISA study were Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: On page 3 of your presentation, you referred to the OECD's Southeast Asia Regional Program. You indicate that you were very pleased to learn that OECD ministers had agreed to follow the proposal in 2013 and that this program was launched earlier this year.
On the next page you list the program's objectives. I will skip over the first one. I would rather ask you a question on the second objective, which is to foster the exchange of good practices and mutual learning among policy makers.
I am not targeting a country in particular. My question is more general. According to the Asian Development Bank, in several large sectors, the population has not benefited from the quick economic expansion in the region, and in some cases, socio-economic inequalities have worsened. To what extent have economic growth and the reduction of poverty brought about other socio-economic improvements, such as better access to health care, education, potable water and sanitary services in the Asia Pacific region, since you have combined the exchange of good practices and mutual learning among policy makers?
It is a fact that there are inequalities. A little earlier, Senator Dawson mentioned that a very small number of people are extremely wealthy, and that the situation is getting worse, and that others are not benefiting from the situation. I would like to know what you think about that.
Mr. Arbeiter: Thank you for the question. The purpose of the OECD is to have this conversation with policy makers in those countries. One of the issues which were raised was precisely education. How can we ensure that the quality of life and access to education for people will improve in various countries? What are the lessons which we, in Canada, have already learned and what lessons do we still need to learn, as well as other OECD member countries? What lessons can we share with policy makers in those countries to help them bring about political reforms which will improve access to education, for example, and how can we get people to understand that this access is absolutely key to spreading the economic benefits more evenly throughout a given country?
The same hypothesis, as it applies to investment and investment in infrastructure, is also very important. In that region, there are huge infrastructure requirements. One of the greatest challenges for economic growth and for inclusive growth in that region is to ensure that there is better infrastructure which can better connect people in various parts of the country or throughout the greater region. I think that there are evaluations which show that the amount to be invested is about $750 billion per year, which is essential for Southeast Asia, and that is only for infrastructure.
Therefore, for us, when we look at these opportunities, we realize that they also concern the Canadian private sector, which might be interested in investing in this region's infrastructure. But the infrastructure is also important to create connections between people, between countries and between regions, which, as a result, will once again ensure that the benefits of growth will be spread more evenly throughout the population and throughout the world.
We are, as you know, living in an extremely integrated economy, and we can only share the economic benefits more equally by improving the policies in these countries.
We will see how that will work, but it is particularly important to raise this type of issue with our colleagues. We are very pleased to have a well-structured program, which has received political support in those countries, and to be able to continue to speak to those issues.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I would like to know, in all of that, what specific role Canada is playing. Because, in your case, this is your area. I would like to know what specifically you are doing. What exactly is Canada doing?
Mr. Arbeiter: I hope that my answer does not focus too much on process. As we said previously, the OECD has 250 committees. On each of these committees, there is a Canadian expert who has an in-depth knowledge of the education system or, for instance, of the taxation system. When this Canadian sits on a committee with members from that region, it is to share not only our knowledge and experience, but also to see what opportunities there might be for Canada to engage in that work and to see what national reforms will be launched in those countries.
For each member-country in that group, there are different issues. There will be access to investment, to education, to taxation or to SMEs. We do not know. We are now determining the work agenda for each of those subjects. Only after we have studied a given work program do we decide which of those programs we will support. After that, we will be able to answer your question a little more specifically.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: When can we get an answer?
Mr. Arbeiter: This year, we are establishing the work programs.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: So, next year?
Senator Robichaud: I would like to ask a question which follows the one put by the honourable senator. With regard to the 600 Canadian delegates who are participating, what kind of permanent presence is there? Do we send new delegates every year, or do the people already there stay put and follow the work being carried out, or are they replaced every year or two?
Mr. Arbeiter: That is a very good question. It is a reality which affects us here, in Canada, as well, in departments. Most Canadian delegates who sit on those committees represent their department at the provincial and federal level. Their expertise lies there. It is clear that once in a while somebody will have to be replaced. Some people will stay put for two or three years, and they might change jobs, which means that somebody else will have to replace them. But under our information and relationship management system, at the level of our multilateral interests, we put particular emphasis on the tools which help us not only to retain knowledge, but also experience. What have we already achieved? What should we strive for? What were our successes and failures, how can we ensure that we do not start at square one again every year? It is a perpetual challenge. But it is something we are trying to build in our approach to the OECD and in other multilateral institutions.
Senator Robichaud: Thank you.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Colleagues, that concludes our meeting. I'd like to thank the witnesses for not only their presentations and their answers, but also for taking the time to share their expertise with the members of the committee. We very much appreciate that.
(The committee adjourned.)