THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 19, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met this day at 10:30 a.m. to study foreign relations and international trade generally.
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. We are under the authorization to examine such issues as may arise from time to time relating to foreign relations and international trade generally.
Under this mandate, the committee has invited the Canadian Ambassador to Germany and Special Envoy to the European Union and Europe, the Honourable Stéphane Dion, P.C., to discuss issues relating to his mandate.
His diplomatic appointment was announced last May by Prime Minister Trudeau. Ambassador Dion presented his credentials as Canada’s Ambassador to Germany on June 6,2017. Ambassador, can you hear me?
Hon. Stéphane Dion, P.C., Canadian Ambassador to Germany and Special Envoy to the European Union and Europe, Global Affairs Canada: Very well, senator. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you for accepting our invitation. We are pleased that we can at least get you by video conference.
With us in Ottawa, we have Gary Pringle, Deputy Director, European Union Relations from Global Affairs Canada.
I’m not sure, ambassador, if he’s here to assist you or to monitor you, as I used to say when I was an ambassador. There was always someone from headquarters looking over my shoulder. I wanted you to know that he is behind you on the screen that I’m looking at.
We are very interested in your role. This is not a capacity that we have heard of before in our foreign affairs to have a special envoy to the European Union and Europe, and while at the same time having a significant relationship with Germany and having yourself as an ambassador there.
We would certainly like to know about your capacities, your responsibilities, and how you see that will be assisting our foreign policy in these very interesting times in Europe.
Welcome to the committee, ambassador.
Mr. Dion: Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
[Translation]
I would like to thank the committee and the honourable senators very much for being here to listen to me.
[English]
I would like to thank the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade for inviting me to appear before you this morning. I would have been so pleased to be with you in Ottawa, but it was not possible. I understand that you are considering your next major topics for the committee to study, and I would suggest that if you choose Europe, it will not be a bad choice.
With you in Ottawa, as we have said, Senator Andreychuk, there is Gary Pringle, Deputy Director, European Union Relations at Global Affairs Canada, and no doubt he is there to assist me and not to monitor me because, let me tell you, the support I am receiving from Global Affairs and from our diplomats in Europe is tremendous.
As Canada’s Ambassador to Germany and Special Envoy to the European Union and Europe, I will naturally draw your attention to issues of common concern with our partners in Europe.
With the recent Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, and the Strategic Partnership Agreement, SPA, Europe is more than ever an indispensable strategic partner for Canada in advancing common goals and promoting our shared values.
This is why the Prime Minister appointed a senior diplomat, myself in this case, to one of the key European countries with the mandate to ensure a more synchronized diplomacy across the activities of all Canadian missions in Europe, and I was honoured to be named to this special role. It is in that capacity that I’m pleased to share with you my thoughts on Canada and Europe.
[Translation]
If you were to decide to focus your future parliamentary work on the opportunities and challenges facing Canada as a trading nation, for example, it might be a choice for you. Remember that the European Union is nothing less than the second largest market in the world, with more than 500 million consumers and a gross domestic product of $21 trillion. We are talking here about the world’s largest importer of aerospace products, fish and seafood, oil and gas products, telecommunications, and computer and intelligence services. It is the second-largest importer of automotive products, as well as medical devices and pharmaceuticals, and the second largest buyer of Canadian metals and minerals.
CETA is a golden opportunity for us to succeed in this huge market. With the interim application of this trade agreement on September 21, 98 per cent of the EU’s tariff lines have become duty-free for Canadian products. The European Union’s annual spending on infrastructure is estimated at $400 billion, more than the United States. Moreover, the European Union has already allocated hundreds of billions of euros to projects related to transport, energy and broadband infrastructure by 2020.
As a field of study for your committee, it seems to me that this would be a good choice. You could determine how to make CETA a reality on the ground by maximizing Canada’s jobs and investments. By having a paper agreement, we managed to remove the tariff barriers. Our companies now need to invest in this European market and take it head on. It may be a question of how to mobilize Canadian businesses and our economy as a whole to take full advantage of this vast, certainly rich, but also diverse, multilingual and complicated marketplace through diverse regulatory regimes, and different organizational and consumer cultures.
Honourable senators, you carefully studied Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union, before the summer break. You would be in a very good position to provide informed advice to the government.
Honourable senators, you may also wish to consider the implementation of this agreement beyond its economic dimension. Indeed, this trade agreement is an opportunity to show Canadians and the world that trade and societal progress can go hand in hand. There is no need to choose between trade and progress. We have to carry them out together. A well-crafted free-trade agreement can be balanced with social justice, environmental sustainability, labour rights, food safety, and so much more. The agreement we have with Europe is proof of that, and we have the opportunity to demonstrate it to the Canadian public, the people of Europe and the world.
Other aspects of our collaboration with the European Union in the strategic partnership agreement that Canada and the European Union signed on October 30, 2016, could be another topic for you, as this agreement provides a framework for the main elements of our bilateral and multilateral collaboration. These include the themes of peace and security, clean energy and climate change, the promotion of human rights, sustainable development, and science and innovation.
Our collaboration with Europe will help us to advance our mutual interests and enable us to respond more effectively to global challenges, which, as you know, have no boundaries. The fact is that Canada and Europe will better meet the challenges they face. What are these challenges? Our respective demographic weights are decreasing worldwide. Our populations are aging and diversifying. Let’s make our diversity a strength more than ever before. Gender equality hasn’t yet been achieved. Globalization of markets and automation leave entire categories of the labour force in disarray. Our planet can’t take the environmental pressures that our development imposes on it. The world is facing increasing threats to security. So, let’s work more closely with the Europeans. Let’s compare our best practices to better achieve gender parity and women’s empowerment. Let’s work together to find paths of inclusive growth and sustainable development. Let’s strengthen our common defence, while engaging in a frank and necessary dialogue with our shared neighbour, Russia.
[English]
Honourable senators, if you choose to focus your next study on some of these aspects that I have just described in French, about our cooperation with Europe, I offer my full assistance. I am working closely with our professional and talented diplomats in our missions, including our excellent ambassador in Brussels, Dan Costello; and our strong mission in Germany, to buttress and heighten Canada’s engagement with decision makers and private sector leaders in support of Canada’s primacy objectives. CETA implementation — SPA implementation as well — including the provisions on international security and peace; international development; democracy and human rights; environment and climate change; science, technology and innovation; Arctic cooperation; and to help address challenges to shared democratic shared and institutional norms in the broad European neighbourhood, including the west Balkans for example.
Honourable senators, I thank you again for having invited me to speak before you today. I hope that I have been helpful as you contemplate your next study of focus. If you choose a topic involving our relations with Europe, I reiterate my point: I’m confident you will produce a report that will benefit both sides of the Atlantic — a sober second thought in the tradition of our upper chamber.
I reiterate that I remain at your disposal should I be of any assistance to you in this regard. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, ambassador. Just one point of clarification: Your title is “Special Envoy to the European Union and Europe.” While we can define the European Union — and you said it was to coordinate European activities — does your mandate, when you define Europe, include countries that are not part of the European Union at the moment? If so, what countries would those be?
Mr. Dion: Indeed, senator, you are right, the title is “Ambassador of Canada in Germany and Prime Minister’s Special Envoy in the European Union and Europe.” There are two reasons why “and Europe” is in the title. First, even in the context of “European Union,” it’s clear that my mandate is not only linked to the European Union jurisdiction. It is for everything that is relevant for our interest in these member states of the European Union.
In addition to that, the Prime Minister also wants to strengthen the links with countries that are European but not part of the EU. It may be Norway, Switzerland or the Balkan countries. There is a dimension of Europe that is linked to the Arctic. He wants me to look at that carefully. I was at the Arctic summit last week. It’s Germany, European Union and Europe.
The Chair: I won’t pursue that further. It’s interesting that the way you define it is really what interests are European but it may be beyond. That is interesting geographically because Europe has interests around the world so I don’t know where your mandate will end. That’s why I took the geographical limitation. Would you be special envoy covering issues, say, in Moldova?
Mr. Dion: I will cover issues that have a European dimension and are linked to Canadian interests.
The Chair: Thank you, that’s helpful.
Senator Housakos: Welcome, ambassador. Congratulations on your appointment.
I’ll try to limit my preamble and roll out my questions into one and see where we go from there.
Clearly, the European Union has had challenges between the northern and southern members. With Brexit now in the picture, it will create fiscal pressures on that union.
Do you think that the future of the European Union is viable without an equalization formula similar to what we have in our federation? Do you think the European Union is viable without a fiscal union? Obviously they have a monetary union and a political union, but — and this is my view and I’d like your thoughts on it — if you don’t have a fiscal union I see it difficult for that model to be able to work. With Brexit do you see opportunities on a bilateral basis for Canada that otherwise might not have been there?
Mr. Dion: Can you repeat the second question? My mind was focusing on your first question when you asked it.
Senator Housakos: My last question is in regard to Brexit. Are there unique opportunities or new opportunities bilaterally for Canada that were not there before?
Mr. Dion: Regarding the viability of the EU and what Brexit means for Canada, we were numerous in thinking that the EU was a tremendous success but they made a mistake when they decided to be a monetary union without what we have in the United States, that is, a strong labour force and what we have in Canada, namely a strong fiscal solidarity ensured by a federal government that is responsible to a Parliament elected by all Canadians. You don’t have that in the EU. It is half a federation because they don’t have a federal executive representative of the whole people. That means their mobility is 10 times less than the U.S. for the workforce. They don’t have an equalization program like that of Canada or an employment insurance program like the one we have, which ensures that if different regions in the country are in difficulty, the rest of the country will rescue that part of our country. They don’t have the equivalent at the same level, that’s true.
Despite that, surprisingly maybe, it worked. It worked better than many of us thought. Even the European Central Bank did its job, by rescuing countries like Ireland, Spain and Portugal. You are correct. They will have to discuss how far they want to go toward integration, but I think it would be a mistake to think that if they don’t find a way to be better integrated, then they will disintegrate. I think the EU is stronger than what many of us had thought. Of course, they will have a lively debate between those who want more budgetary discipline and those who want more social solidarity. That’s a debate that we have in Canada. It’s a debate that we have in the House of Commons and a debate in the Senate that you have among yourselves.
I think the EU is able to find ways to solve these tensions. Perhaps they will succeed by looking at what we are doing in Canada and by learning from us — and us from them. That is part of my role and the role of diplomacy that we have in Europe, namely, to ensure that Canada’s interest in these debates in the EU are well considered.
There are three things about Brexit and Canada. The first one is we can be thankful that governments of Canada in the past have been able to negotiate CETA before Brexit started to be negotiated, so CETA is safe and we will make sure that it continues to be safe and is not involved in these negotiations. Our friends in the U.K. are a great help with that.
The second thing is, once these negotiations are concluded, we will know what Brexit means, which is not the case today. We will find a way, I’m sure, to negotiate a strong link with the U.K. because it is our history and our interest in the future. The negotiations cannot be started today because the U.K. is not in a situation to negotiate according to EU law and because we don’t know with whom we will negotiate as long as we don’t know what will be in Brexit because today the U.K. is fully part of CETA.
The third point I would make is if Brexit means that U.K. is out of the single market and out of the reality of this European Union, then we will need to find a way to convince our business community to be more directly involved in France, in Germany, in Italy, in the Netherlands and in Poland because today almost 40 per cent of our trade with the EU goes through the U.K. as a window to the EU because we have a lot of acquaintance with the U.K. This may not be possible in two years and at this moment we need to be ready to be winners directly in the member states of the EU market.
Senator Marwah: Ambassador, thank you for joining us this morning. It’s very good of you.
As you rightly said, CETA is clearly a positive step in terms of deepening our relationship with Europe and I think we all understand that. However, I would like your thoughts on what I would call flashpoints that may exist with Europe where our interests may diverge or where there is possible conflict or disagreement in terms of how to handle issues. Are there any areas where there will be a divergence in interests?
Mr. Dion: Do you mean about the economy?
Senator Marwah: No, in general, whether it be climate change or any issues whereby you feel that our interests diverge.
Mr. Dion: It would be difficult to find. Our European friends define Canada as the most European country outside Europe. It’s true that there are lively debates within the EU on many issues so Canada will be closer to some countries than others on different issues, but we are what we call like-minded countries. We believe in democracy. We believe in human rights that are universal human rights. We believe in free markets but in inclusive growth and not in growth that will create more inequalities.
There are different views among our European friends on how to find the way to have inclusive and sustainable growth. However, there are different views in Canada, there are different views at your table among yourselves and that’s good. We are a pluralist country and they are as well. However, the goals that we are looking for are the same and we are very European and in some ways they are very Canadian.
They have a lot of admiration for our country. They are willing to work with us, but they have a habit to forget us once in a while because they are focusing so much on their own debates. It’s a complex union of 28 members today. They have great difficulties with that and they also have difficulties with the United States and they are focusing a lot on their relationship with the United States.
Once in a while they will forget Canada and we cannot accept that anymore. We are a full partner for the EU and for other European countries. It must be said and it must be repeated, and it should not be taken for granted, that we should be at the table each time it is needed for our own interests and for the EU. We need to develop a way to work shoulder to shoulder with them in Asia, Africa and elsewhere in the world, and at the United Nations as well.
[Translation]
Senator Ngo: Good morning and welcome, Mr. Ambassador. I would like to ask you a question about refugees. Refugees are a big issue in Europe. Do you think that the outcome of the elections will reverse Germany’s overall position on the European integration of refugees? Germany is known to have hosted more than one million refugees.
Mr. Dion: What you have just mentioned is the second most popular topic that Europeans talk to me about. The first is President Trump. The second topic is what Canada is doing to be a well-functioning, multicultural society and what it will have to do to keep it working, because we should never take that for granted. They have this concern. Europe is very different from this point of view. Some countries have a tradition of immigration, while others do not. In Eastern Europe, countries became democratic in the 1990s after years of totalitarianism. These countries have no experience with immigration, especially non-Christian and non-European immigration. They are very worried when it happens.
The other thing is that Canada is surrounded by three oceans and is neighbour to the richest country in the world, a huge country, the United States. This allows us to limit irregular immigration, to choose it and to develop immigration policies. It is much more difficult in Europe, where there is enormous pressure when it comes to irregular immigration. More than a million immigrants have arrived at the German border. What is worrying is not just the number, it’s the feeling that the German government is unable to control what appears to be an avalanche. When the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Trudeau, told Canadians that Canada was going to welcome 25,000 Syrian refugees, Canadians welcomed them with great generosity. It does us credit, but we know that it won’t be 250,000 refugees. We know that we will be able to control the situation. However, there is no such guarantee in Europe and, in many cases, this makes people more worried and vulnerable to populist and sometimes xenophobic appeals. This is their situation.
As Canadians, let’s not lecture them and pretend we’re better than them because our situation is better. However, we must tell them that we recognize that their situation is different from ours, but that the policies we’ve put in place may have merit. They may be of some value, and we must be willing to share our experience with them, particularly with respect to our sponsorship system, our multicultural approach and the efforts of senators and all elected parliamentarians in their constituencies to ensure that immigrants are welcomed and that their communities participate in the national effort.
I believe that we can have very fruitful exchanges with our European friends and learn from them at the same time, while allowing them to be more confident in considering the possibility of living in increasingly diverse societies. They have no choice, in my opinion, because the populations are aging, and the average age in Europe will exceed 50 years in a few decades. Without the contribution of immigration, the number of workers will decrease sharply in relation to the number of retirees. Well-designed immigration is necessary for Europe, and Canada has proven that it is possible. We must continue in this direction and never take anything for granted. That is why very intense exchanges with Europeans could be useful to us too.
[English]
Senator Woo: Good afternoon, ambassador. In recent weeks our committee has been thinking very big strategic thoughts. You have mentioned that Canada is seen as the most European country outside of Europe.
Arguably, Canada and Europe — particularly the EU, I should say — are not the last bastions but the biggest champions today of a liberal internationalist order. The biggest challenges to the liberal internationalist order, which many of us subscribe to, on the one hand is the United States because of some nativist pressures, and on the other hand, China. These are, of course, the two superpowers in the world today, with no likely challenge to them in the foreseeable future. I deliberately leave out Russia, which is in a special category but not in the same group as the U.S. and China.
My question to you, in the context of your suggestion that Canada and the EU work together on global issues, is whether you see a way in which we work together not just piecemeal — and you’ve given us many good suggestions on peacekeeping, demographics, immigration and so on — but what can we do to uphold the liberal internationalist order that has benefited both sides of the Atlantic for so many years? What longer-term initiatives can we put in place to support this framework?
Mr. Dion: Thank you very much. In my answer I will include Russia, China and the United States. It’s completely unfair to put the United States in this group in some ways because the point I am always making to our European friends is that whatever concern they may have about the current White House, there is no other way for us to consider the United States than as a like-minded country. To work with them very closely and to work with the President that the Americans have chosen is what our Prime Minister is doing.
It’s not because we have these arguments with certain orientations that are too protectionist or not environmental enough that we should put distance between ourselves and the United States. On the contrary, we should work in a stronger way with the United States, more than ever. It’s the point I’m always making and saying to our European friends: Look what we are doing. We are trying. It’s not easy, but we are trying. Try with us. Don’t think that you will be isolated from the United States. This is not possible. We may have disagreements with what the executive branch is saying, but we need to work with them. They are a like-minded country.
China and Russia are different, of course. The political regimes are not the same and between themselves, as you say, there’s a big difference between Russia and China, but engagement is necessary as well. In both cases, we need to be strong about the protection of our interests. We need to be aware that we are competitors. Canada is a competitor with the United States and with European countries, and European countries are in competition among themselves. China is very good to use this competition to make their interests strong.
I was in the Arctic recently and it’s clear that we need to work with the Arctic countries because China is coming big time in the Arctic, and what would be our strategy to protect this ecosystem and to work with the Chinese scientists, who are very good, to be sure that China will be an asset for the Arctic and not be contrary? That’s not possible if Canada doesn’t work with its allies.
So to me that’s an additional reason to be closer together. The same with Russia. The NATO official policy is deterrence and dialogue. Some of these European countries have a strong tradition of dealing with Russia. It’s a reality they have for centuries, so it’s very good to stay in close touch with them to develop our own capacity to see what to do with our neighbour Russia and to participate in NATO about deterrence.
What I’m saying to our European friends is there’s no way we can work without NATO. The fact that the President of the United States has said that they may pull out of NATO is an additional reason to work hard because NATO is more needed than ever. NATO is a way to have a collective decision and to protect us against a unilateral decision that may be detrimental to all the members of NATO. It’s not the moment for the EU to think they may have their own defence in their corner. They need to develop better cooperation among themselves but in accordance with NATO.
Today, the EU without Turkey, the U.S. and Canada, NATO EU spent four times more on defence than Russia. Their coordination is so poor that they are not really able to make it clear that they are investing so much money.
So I understand the pressure of President Trump that all of us should reach 2 per cent of GDP in defence, but the point is very clear that it’s not only about money; it’s also about the capacity to work together and to develop more cooperation, including military cooperation. That’s a short answer to your very ambitious question.
The Chair: Could I ask a supplementary question on that?
You’ve mentioned NATO, and of course part of the problem is the Americans say they pay 70 per cent of the cost of NATO and the target for other countries is to be 2 per cent of GDP.
Recently, Europe has said that they are not only going to continue in NATO, they’re going to develop their own European defence strategy. That could be worrisome for Canada because money that might go into NATO will be going elsewhere. Or is it another symptom of what was WEU, where Europe said, “We’re going to defend ourselves”? Much talk, many structures, but in the end NATO was the defence group that actually helped Europe.
What do you know about this new strategy of Europe defending itself? How will that affect Canada and NATO?
Mr. Dion: I think it’s well overdue that our EU allies are trying to integrate their efforts more and to have a policy of their own that will be more effective. I just mention that if it was only about numbers and money, with four times more spending than Russia, that should give more military capacity than what they have.
When the time came to solve the problem in Libya, France was pushing for this intervention. It’s very close to Europe, as you know, but the Europeans were unable to do it alone. They needed the United States and they needed Canada for Libya. So you see that for all the money they invest in it, their capacity is not at the same level of capacity with the investments you have in North America through NORAD. It would be very good for them to look at that and to be more effective.
I don’t think it will be done parallel to NATO; it will be within our legal capacity. That’s what Canada is arguing each time this debate comes to the NATO table. Yes, for European coordination, but in accordance with our NATO capacity or NATO goals, our interests are the same. In Canada, we may dispute the fact that we are far off the 2 per cent of GDP, but the fact is that we have always been at each of the NATO missions. We’ve never missed one of them. And these NATO missions are about the Mediterranean, about Europe, it is part of Europe, so it’s not our geography. We are there because our interests are the same as those of our allies. I’m sure our European allies, we are developing a better coordination with them, and this will be beneficial to Canada.
Senator Ataullahjan: Good afternoon, ambassador. Are we engaging with Germany and the EU countries about issues such as the conflict in Iraq and Syria and the rising threat of terrorism? They’re closer to the conflict, so it would be interesting to know how they feel about that.
Mr. Dion: Of course. Thank you very much for the question.
Yes, that’s something very big for them. A lot of the difficulties they have are the consequences of the turmoil you have in this part of the world and the hope that Canada will always be there as well to try to find the path to peace in this part of the world.
About Iraq, you have seen that we have worked with Americans and Europeans for years and now we see in Iraq and Syria, the terrorist group, the Islamic State, is vanishing as a territorial power. As an ideology, they will continue to be a threat for Europe, Canada and the United States, for everyone. No one is immune from this terrible, bloody ideology. But as a territorial power, we have worked together to make sure they disappear. It will be in the coming weeks or months or days in some parts of Iraq and Syria.
What will we do after that? Iraq is in danger of having an additional war among their communities in the same country, and we don’t want that. So the diplomatic effort of Canada, Europe and the United States is pointing in the same direction. Please find a way to build peace among yourselves. We have invested in your country so much because we believe in the capacity of Iraq to be a functional country one day.
About Syria, we are not there yet, as you know, because the regime is a very detrimental one for the population of Syria. So the effort will continue, and I’m sure that the EU and other European countries will be on the same side as Canada and the United States, looking for a way to have peace and security.
About Iran, there is an agreement that has been negotiated. Canada believes in this agreement. The current President of the United States has a different view, and Canada, Europe and others in the United States are looking for a way to be sure that the assets that have been developed through this agreement — this agreement will continue to play well for the world. Prime Minister Trudeau and Ms. Freeland, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, are working hard on that.
Senator Oh: Good afternoon, ambassador. I have a question for you. As the former Minister of the Environment, what are your strategies in cooperation on environmental issues with Germany and the EU when the U.S. pulls out of the Paris Agreement?
Mr. Dion: Thank you, senator. I understand your question is more focused on the environment; it’s climate change. On the environment, there’s lots to do. I was in the Arctic. The Arctic is one of the most fragile ecosystems of the world. It will become worse because of climate change, but as such, it’s a system that we need to take care of. I think the freshwater crisis around the world may be the worst threat for humanity over this century, something we need to work on with the EU.
On climate change, this morning I was with the Minister of the Environment of Germany because the next meeting of the United Nations on climate change will be in Bonn, so I reviewed with her what Minister McKenna, our Minister of the Environment, may do to support what Germany and the Fiji Islands are trying to develop as a strategy for COP23. That’s key. Of course, that’s an example where our interest is so close to the EU, which is that we want the United States to come back into the Paris Agreement. We are insisting on that and we are working shoulder-to-shoulder with Europe on this. The Paris Agreement may not be perfect, but it’s the one we have and it’s very needed for the world.
Senator Oh: Thank you.
Senator Ngo: I want to talk about the political situation in Germany right now. We know that Chancellor Merkel just secured her fourth term in 2017, but she doesn’t have the majority. She has to have a coalition with other groups. Do you think she can work with extreme right, and how stable is that?
Mr. Dion: Thank you, senator.
Many European countries have seen populist parties of the extreme right or the extreme left developing in the last year. That’s a concern for Canada. Our interest is to have like-minded countries with us, not countries that become extremist. So it’s good to see that in France President Macron has been chosen. We did not interfere in this election, but we have made it known, I think, as a country that we have a preference. The same thing happened in the Netherlands. And in Germany, the three parties that are considering becoming the coalition government — the conservatives, the liberals and the greens — are completely acceptable for Canada, and that’s good news.
Ms. Merkel has made clear that she respects the vote of everyone in Germany, but the extreme left and the extreme right, should not be invited into the coalition government. So she’s not negotiating with them, which is good news. She is focusing on the capacity to have a functional government shaped by liberals, greens and conservatives, something we Canadians one day might consider, but it has never happened in our history.
Germany is looking for this capacity. I must say that in their länder, the equivalent of our provinces, it has been done, and sometimes it’s socialists, liberals and conservatives. These kinds of combinations have been done at the länder level, so we’ll see. It will take weeks. Maybe they will not have a government in time for the end of the year. They will come with a coalition document of 90 pages, the way I understand their system, reiterating the details of each policy and after they will have to convince the membership of each of their parties that this package is acceptable. So it’s possible that Germany will not have a government before next year. That’s a different system than ours, but it’s quite interesting.
Senator Ngo: It is. Thank you very much, ambassador.
The Chair: It’s a very different system, but it has worked for them, so we’ll see if it continues.
I have a question. Senator Housakos asked you about where the European Union might go and the difference between the north and the south. More subtle are the distinctions occurring now within the European Union of some of the newer members of the union vis-à-vis the older positioned members. So there are tensions and expectations now that are different between France and Germany — would have been the U.K. but for Brexit — and some of the countries, for example, like Poland. There are now differences of opinion about strength and weight. Some people are thinking that that might lead to a two-tier European Union. Others are working against that happening.
So what is the state of play or discussion on that issue in Germany and with your Special Envoy capacity?
Mr. Dion: Madam Chair, these are very lively discussions and debates. It’s not like in Canada where it’s always blue sky and there are never tensions between the east and the west part of the country or between the anglophone and francophone part of the country. The heaven we have in Canada does not exist in Europe. We have lively debates about these issues.
I’m just saying to them, “Avoid dramatizing your lively debates.” It’s normal that you have these kinds of tensions, tensions between the ones that say, “I want more budget discipline. If countries are in deficit, we should not rescue them. It is for them to fix that problem,” and countries that are saying, “Look, I don’t have my local currency anymore, so I need your support because I share the same currency with you.” This debate exists. President Macron has made some proposals to find a solution. The leader of the liberal party of Germany today just reacted to President Macron. You will see this debate developing.
About the speed at which solutions will be found, today some countries are part of the monetary union; others are not. There are countries like Switzerland, which is in the single market without being in the European Union. The capacity to invent solutions is quite high.
The situation on the east part of the continent, especially Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Poland, yes you see tensions. They are new democracies. They need to adapt. They don’t have any experience with non-Christian integration, so you see resistance about that. There are tensions about the necessity to protect the freedom of the press, to protect the independence of the judiciary and so on, but the EU is playing a positive role in these debates. That’s the point I will always make. Brussels is not always very popular, but at the end of the day the influence that Brussels is able to make in these countries is positive.
Each time Canadians have an opportunity to engage these countries in the eastern part of the continent, that’s a great help. As long as we don’t lecture and pretend to be better than them. We are the oldest democracy in the world in some ways. We have had responsible government since 1848. We have never been occupied by another country. We have experience with immigration since the 19th century. Canada cannot be defined otherwise than by immigration.
Before we lecture other countries, we need to understand where they are and from that we should try to understand where they have a positive influence because it is our interest that all of these countries will become strong democracies and strong economies. I am impressed by the fact that in the east part of Europe today, the standard of living is closing the gap with some countries at least of the West. If you were to compare the standard of living of the Czech Republic and Portugal, you will see quite an improvement in the capacity to have a standard of living that is comparable among all these countries.
The Chair: I would have asked you another question — but for another day — about the fact that the rise of the extreme right came from East Germany, not West Germany, as I understand. That is causing some difficulties because of the catch-up when the two Germanys were put together. Recent readings of mine indicate that the country still needs to come together. It hasn’t. From the west we paid so much for the east and the east saying we are not where you are. So the migration went west, but what was left is a country that still needs in the east to be melded with the west.
Is there discussion in Germany now, after the election, about new initiatives to strengthen a united Germany?
Mr. Dion: Yes, but again, I think we need to help them to have confidence in themselves. I said the EU is one of the biggest successes of human kind. It is the same for the reunification of Germany. What an incredible success. If you go to some of these cities, including where I am today, Berlin, and you compare what they were at the moment of reunification and what they became since then, it’s an incredible improvement.
Yes, the tensions still exist in the east and the west. You are completely right to say that the AFG, the Alternative for Germany, the extreme right party is more popular in the east part than in the west part, but it’s a bit the same everywhere. By that I mean that the strength of the xenophobic wave is stronger in the areas where people have two anxieties. First, there is economic anxiety, where they feel that the youth are not staying, the jobs are not the best ones, the future is insecure and the growth is not for us, it’s for others. That’s one part.
The second part is cultural anxiety regarding identity. That is, regions where they don’t have immigration but they are afraid of what they see on television about it. They identify it to radical Islamism and to terrorism and they are afraid about that. Politicians who are skillful and able to tackle these two anxieties, the economy and cultural identity, may gain a lot against the mainstream parties. It’s something we have not seen in Canada. Thank God our national parties are not of this kind, but it may happen. We need to be very aware of what’s happening in Europe and in other parts of the world to see how we may support the values of liberal democracies, human rights and tolerance, gender equality, religious tolerance, and so on.
[Translation]
Senator Gold: At the start, you talked about the values we share with Europe and the European Union, and my colleague asked the question about democracy. We have a lot in common with Europe, as a diverse, pluralistic society. What is the cultural diplomacy role that Canada can play or must play to ensure that its interests and those of Europe develop further?
[English]
What are your thoughts and intentions with regard to cultural diplomacy to advance Canadian interests in Europe?
[Translation]
Mr. Dion: Thank you very much, senator. I am very happy that we aren’t spending an entire hour without talking about culture. Already, my first reaction is how much we forget about it. You can’t forget about it when you’re in Berlin, one of the most vibrant cities in the world from a cultural standpoint. It’s extraordinary! As Canadians, we certainly have a lot to learn from the cultural policies of the Germans.
Their situation is different from ours. They don’t feel threatened by American culture. They don’t need to create quotas to ensure that a German opera or Mozart will be sung. They don’t feel the need to defend themselves against other types of music. They are very confident and develop very strong policies. We have a lot to learn from that. They are very interested in our cultural policies and, at the same time, they won’t easily raise the subject. You’re absolutely right that we have to do it upstream. We have common interests, whether in multilateral fora or in our own debates.
I read the Canadian news, and I saw that there are some very interesting debates on taxation and defending copyright. The same debate is being held in Europe, especially by France. President Macron makes it a very important cause. How can this be done while protecting both artists and creators and consumers in their free choice, and taxpayers who don’t want to pay unnecessarily for things they don’t necessarily like? How can all this be done? It’s a European, Canadian and global debate. Doing it in a vacuum without ever trying to look at what’s happening elsewhere would be a mistake.
It’s a bit complicated in Europe. It isn’t done by the European Union, but each government develops its own policy. However, there is pressure to standardize their approaches, with the feeling that if a country acts alone in its corner, it won’t be effective in our current digital world.
You are quite right. Thank you for raising this point. If the Senate ever wants to look at a Canadian cultural policy based on the European experience, it would be very interesting.
[English]
The Chair: Ambassador, we have come to the end of our time. We’ve covered at least a start to a lot of issues that affect Canada and the European Union.
On behalf of the committee, I thank you for being available today. We wish you well in your capacities in Europe, on your own personal behalf and on behalf of Canada’s interests. Thank you for being with us.
(The committee adjourned.)