Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs

Issue 25 - Evidence

OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 18, 1997

The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs met this day at 4:09 p.m. to examine and report on the growing importance of the Asia Pacific region for Canada, with emphasis on the upcoming Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) conference to be held in Vancouver in the fall of 1997, Canada's year of the Asia Pacific.

Senator John B. Stewart (Chairman) in the Chair.


The Chairman: Honourable senators, we have permission to hold our hearing even though the Senate is still sitting. I know that there is at least one more senator who intends to attend as soon as the Senate rises.

We are continuing our work on relations between Canada and the Asia Pacific region. We have with us today Mr. Len Edwards, Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade and Economic Policy, and Mr. John Klassen, Director General, APEC Bureau. They are both from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

We have asked these two gentlemen to deal with APEC matters, first the achievements of the Manila conference of APEC, and second the preparations for the APEC conference to be held in Vancouver. I ask Mr. Edwards to begin.

Mr. Len Edwards, Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade and Economic Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here today with Mr. Klassen to take these few moments to tell you a bit about APEC, our favourite subject these days, particularly since we are hosting it this year. It is a subject we live and breathe, and we are almost sleeping it these days, in terms of the amount of effort that we are putting into making this year an important year for Canada as chair of the APEC process.

You had indicated that you would like to hear a few comments about the outcome of the Manila meeting prior to my setting the stage for this year. I propose to keep those comments fairly short and concentrate, if you agree, largely on the work that we will be doing this year, looking ahead to November in particular.

The Manila meeting of APEC economic leaders, preceded by the Trade and Foreign Ministers' meeting within APEC, resulted in a number of steps forward in terms of the evolution of APEC and the maturation of the work programs within APEC.

APEC's work is divided largely into two parts. The first is something we call trade and investment liberalization and facilitation. In "APECese," we call it TILF.

The TILF agenda was advanced considerably through the tabling by all 18 APEC economies of individual action plans summarizing the liberalization efforts each economy has taken to date as well as an indication of the liberalization activities they plan to take in the future as part of their plan to achieve free and open trade in the region by 2010 for developing economies and 2020 for developed economies. These action plans came into effect on the 1st of January. They are highly transparent efforts and represent the state-of-the-art trade regimes of all APEC economies.

The other area of activity is economic and technical cooperation, or "ecotech." A significant achievement this year was a declaration on economic cooperation and development. Under the leadership principally of President Ramos of the Philippines, the result this year is a direction toward taking all of the 320 or more specific projects now underway within APEC under ecotech and bringing more priority focus and result-oriented outcomes to that work.

We were asked to group all of the activities under six priority headings. They are human resource development, safe capital markets, economic infrastructure, technologies for the future, small- to medium-sized enterprises, and sustainable growth. This work was launched this year and will go forward as part of our work program. I will come back to that shortly.

Discussion was also held on the future membership of APEC. As you may be aware, as many as 11 countries wish to become APEC economies within APEC. Discussion proceeded on whether to lift the moratorium on new membership which had been in place for three years. The decision among ministers was that this moratorium should be lifted, that there should be a discussion of criteria for new membership during the course of this year, and that next year the 11 applications would be reviewed in the light of those criteria. In 1998, at the leaders' meeting in Kuala Lumpur, a decision would be made on admitting a limited number of new members into APEC. They would formally take their seats in 1999 when the leaders' meeting is held in New Zealand.

A subsequent discussion at the leaders' sessions in Manila indicated a preference by some economies to advance that timetable and, if possible, to even agree in Subic Bay to the admission of Vietnam and Peru. The decision, however, of leaders was that this should not happen, and senior officials have begun to work on the criteria, fully expecting that ministers and leaders will come back to that issue in Vancouver.

That, Mr. Chairman, is a quick summary of the three major outcomes of the Manila meeting. If you agree, I will go on to talk a bit about the coming year. My presentation has been made available to you, and I will take you through it quickly, but I would also recommend a more leisurely browse a little later.

Canada's interest in being a member of APEC and what we want to achieve in the way of opportunities are summarized on pages 2 and 3. Let me turn to page 3 since it deals with the reasons we are in APEC.

This is an opportunity for Canada to contribute to Asia Pacific growth and development. Being part of that process over the course of the last eight years, and contributing particularly this year, underlines the fact that we are an Asia Pacific nation and that we want to be closely involved with our Asia Pacific partners in building the future. An important strategic advantage of APEC is that it ties the growth area of western Asia to the western hemisphere.

APEC is therefore a trans-Pacific growth engine, and, in hosting it this year, we have a chance to reinforce the trans-Pacific nature and the importance of this inter-hemisphere linkage across that huge ocean.

More specifically, we will use this year to strengthen business linkages and to enhance commercial and business opportunities for Canadians. At a more fundamental level, we will build people-to-people ties in order to ensure that the future is safe in the hands of our young people and safe in the hands of individuals who have a shared view of the Asia Pacific region and are ready to make the long-term investment in those linkages.

We will also be able to welcome all of our APEC friends to Canada. Between the ministerial meetings and the leaders' meetings, we anticipate that over 100 ministers will be attending, as well as the leaders, and probably thousands of APEC business persons who attend the business events around the various APEC ministerials.

Turning to page 4, as we go into the year, it is important to realize that APEC is at a juncture. It is moving from a period of vision, from the Bogor declaration and the Osaka action agenda, to a period of getting things done. This will be an important value for Canada's chairmanship this year.

In approaching the work, we are driven by two specific elements: first, the built-in agenda -- I covered some of that in my opening comments about Manila -- that is, the directions we have been given; and second, our priorities as chair. There also remains the question of what others will want to achieve this year.

The built-in agenda for APEC 1997, as indicated on page 5, unfolds into five separate issues: the TILF agenda; the ecotech agenda; the membership issue; management and priority setting, which is an important objective for us since APEC has tended to be rather diffuse and spread out, and we need to bring more priority setting work and result-oriented work to it; and a response to the first report of the APEC Business Advisory Council -- a group of business leaders, three per economy, established in 1995 in Osaka, which presented their first report in Manila.

The important Canadian emphases for 1997 are listed on page 6: to aggressively pursue our trade and investment agenda with respect to further liberalization and better access to markets, as well as business facilitation. I will later make the distinction between the two, if it is not evident. In the area of ecotech, we want to pursue infrastructure development as a theme and as a product, particularly the financing issue and more generally sustainable growth and development. Within a strong emphasis on business participation, we will put a particular focus on the needs of small- and medium-sized enterprises. Finally, we want to engage youth and women and broaden APEC to embrace civil society.

On page 7 you will see the list of meetings we are hosting this year. I expect that, in the course of your work, you have already been well briefed on these individual meetings. Five of them are taking place in Canada in addition to the foreign trade ministers meeting prior to the leaders meeting in November.

Turning now to the work for the year, I have already mentioned under the trade and investment agenda, which is set out on pages 8 and 9, that we have individual action plans now in place from each member economy. Leaders and ministers gave us some very specific instructions for this year.

First, these individual plans should be approved and updated.

Second, they should be put under the microscope of comparability to determine if there are lacunae where one action plan perhaps does not measure up to other action plans in specific areas and to bring peer pressure to bear on individual economies to improve their plans.

Third, we must report on the implementation of these plans in Vancouver. So far, our work this year has concentrated on the first two of these tasks. We have had one senior officials' meeting in Victoria in January. At a trade ministers' meeting in Montreal in May, we will seek the additional authority from trade ministers to push these different tasks harder. As you can expect, there is a range of view within APEC on how far and how fast we should move on these issues. Canada will be doing its best to push the agenda forward as quickly as we can.

Under the area of collective action plans, these are undertakings which all economies make to agree to multilateral instruments already in place, particularly under the WTO, but also other instruments.

A more important objective set out on the last line of page 8 is that leaders specifically asked us to try to identify sectors for early voluntary liberalizations. Under liberalization, one of the outcomes of Manila was an agreement among APEC economies to pursue an information technology agreement within the WTO. That agreement was secured at the Singapore meeting of the WTO in December. We have been asked to see if there are other sectors which could lend themselves to similar approaches.

On page 9, we refer to various items under the heading of "Facilitation." This includes investment, but also areas such as customs cooperation and improving customs procedures and regulations, making court procedures simpler and less costly, as well as mutual recognition of standards, adopting international standards, and conformance for type approvals when selling foreign goods in a domestic environment. These important ways in which particularly small- and medium-sized enterprises can save costs of doing business abroad have been important, if unsung, areas of activity within APEC. Trade and liberalization have tended to capture more attention.

Under the economic and technical cooperation work on page 10, I would draw your attention to the six listed areas. We are now working on these six priority areas and focusing all of the ecotech activities in APEC on these areas and to further the priority-setting process. Some of the areas of cooperation could become of lesser importance and may be phased out or dropped as we focus on these six high priority areas of activity.

On page 11, I draw your attention to one specific job we must do this year as part of the built-in agenda, and that is to prepare the first report, which will be a very interim report, on the mix of these factors of food, energy, environment, economic development, and population, or FEEEP. This arose from an important approach to global issues, as highlighted in other fora, that the future of the world depends upon high population growth, limited food production and the need to increase that production, energy supplies and demand, and the whole problem of economic development. I need only point to issues such as environment in the high-growth economy of China to bring home the importance of these issues and the need to address them. An interim report will be presented to leaders.

Our own emphasis under economic cooperation will highlight infrastructure, being flagged by the prime minister as a theme for Vancouver in Subic Bay and endorsed by leaders and ministers. One of the areas singled out particularly is that of trying to develop strong private sector/public sector financing instruments to bring cooperation to bear on the mobilization of scarce resources. Within a number of ministerials in Canada, transportation and energy in particular, infrastructure issues will be addressed. There is also ongoing work on public/private sector round-tables. The third session will be held in Mexico this year.

Sustainable growth generally is another area of emphasis under ecotech. This theme is part of all of APEC's activity. I mentioned the FEEEP project, but an environment ministers' meeting will also deal with sustainable cities, which is a particular Canadian interest, clean production of technology, and marine environment protection.

I have already touched on membership. I will not cover that again except to say that this will continue to be a difficult political issue within APEC and one that we will need to manage during the course of our chairing year.

I should like to refer to the Canadian emphasis on business participation since it is an important aspect of our approach. We want to take the lead from previous chairs and enhance the involvement of the business community in the work of APEC, particularly at the working group level. There are ten working groups, and already we have significant private sector representation through individual company participation in delegations of APEC economies in the telecommunications and transportation working groups. We want to see that practice expanded.

All of the ministerial meetings held in Canada this year will also feature strong business participation through business fora, trade shows, and showcase events and, more important, will provide an opportunity to speak to ministers in order to bring to their attention areas of concern and to contribute solutions to the problems identified. Within the business participation, I have mentioned the importance of small- and medium-sized enterprises. One of the ministerials in Ottawa in September will be on the challenges facing small- and medium-sized businesses.

The key, blue-ribbon business involvement will be through the APEC Business Advisory Council I mentioned earlier. Its report to leaders will be considered during the course of the year by all the APEC subsidiary groups. They have made a number of recommendations, and we will be glad to discuss them with you if you are interested in them.

We have also asked ABAC this year to do a number of things for us: to look at this whole issue of comparability among the action plans; to provide their views on new sectors for liberalization; and to reflect how they want their own dialogue with APEC to evolve. Last year they concentrated on one report for the leaders. We have encouraged them, and they now have taken the approach of feeding into the individual ministerials and providing advice throughout the year.

The youth involvement we have in mind for this year should not be underemphasized. It is part of the broad emphasis we are bringing to bear. It is not an area where all APEC economies feel comfortable, given that youth are sometimes critical of government. However, we are trying to engage them in our preparations, and we have invited other APEC economies to do the same and to consider ways in which youth can form part of government delegations to the individual APEC events. We are still waiting to see how that will play itself out.

There is no question that the broad acceptability of APEC will depend over time on building strong roots within society generally. In a day and age when globalization is increasing the importance and role of non-state actors, no international institution, particularly one that is growing quickly in such an important region as the Asia Pacific region, can avoid recognizing the importance of the NGO committee in civil society. We have taken the lead in this respect by engaging NGOs in our own preparations, even those that are not necessarily of the same view as ourselves. This important process of engagement is important to the future of APEC. Again, this is not something with which other APEC economies are entirely comfortable, but we are encouraging them to approach APEC in the same way.

Finally, it is important to note that, as part of our whole approach in APEC, as you know from your various consultations with the Canadian public and with the officials of my department and other departments, APEC is simply part of a larger Year of Asia Pacific, and we are trying to engage Canadians in all walks of life in the importance of Asia to our future.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me perhaps too long to provide some background on what we are planning this year.

The Chairman: I confess that I find it difficult to understand what is happening in the Asia-Pacific area, and, as well, in APEC. I think the explanation for my difficulty, aside from things honourable senators might want to say, is that the Asian area is very diverse and I have not detected any specific institutional arrangements peculiar to the area. I am not talking about the World Trade Organization, obviously, but something peculiar to the area with which we could engage or grapple or dialogue. I listened carefully to your statement, Mr. Edwards, and I confess that I am not much farther ahead than I was.

Is the meeting intended to enable the leaders and ministers from these several countries to get to know each other and to inform and educate each other? Is it intended also to let the various participants know about the thinking and planning within individual countries?

I will stop there and have you say "yes", but perhaps you could go on and tell me more specifically what the purposes are.

Mr. Edwards: At the outset, one needs to say a few things about the maturity of the Asia Pacific world in terms of institutions which exist in the region. You are absolutely right. There has not been, up until quite recently, institutions in the Asia Pacific world with which Canada or anyone else could engage apart from some small regional institutions such as ASEAN, which is formidable and quite an achievement in its own right, and of course bilateral ties that have existed among Asia Pacific nations.

The key bilateral links have always been between the United States and individual Asian countries, which have usually been of a defence nature. As well, relations between Australia and New Zealand have always been strong. Our own ties to the region have tended to focus on our traditional ties to the commonwealth, and they have taken us into a number of areas we would not otherwise have been.

The basic institutional structures, the fabric of institutionalization, has been extremely weak because of distance, culture, and economic development. Our own involvement in Asia Pacific has tended to lag behind our involvement in Europe, which is far more advanced and goes back to our very roots as a nation, and, of course, because of the maturity of institutions which have existed there for centuries.

In a way, we are working in virgin territory. APEC represents the first attempt in a diverse and geographically spread-out region to bring some coalescence and institutional format to trade and economic relationships. It started out as a way for ministers of trade and foreign affairs to do as you have said, to network, to get to know each other better, and to begin to build a spirit of community. You will find those phrases again and again in what APEC produces by way of declarations and statements.

In 1993, it moved beyond trade and economic ministers to include the involvement of leaders. President Clinton took the initiative of calling together leaders time. That fundamentally changed the nature of APEC from a trade and foreign ministers institution to one driven by leaders and by vision that leaders can bring to the process.

The product itself is, in part, a measure of the youth of the institution and the early stages of economic and technical and trade cooperation. It has had to proceed slowly -- it must walk before it runs -- by networking, by working on areas of cooperation, by sharing of experiences, and by educating each other about what they are doing individually. The more advanced economies bring their own experiences to bear on economic development. APEC has brought forward these important, if rather low-key and low-profile, advances.

APEC's trade liberalization agenda was added in 1993 by the leaders and has tended to be a focus of APEC activity; however, it is important to realize that APEC is not a trade area, although it has provided a vision for free and open trade in the region. It is not like the NAFTA, and it is not like the AFTA. It is not what we are seeking through free-trade agreements in the Americas, which is a WTO-consistent, free-trade area. It is rather a softer form of trade liberalization effort driven by peer pressure and by common commitment to a goal. The instruments through which the liberalization are being delivered are multilateral instruments such as the WTO and regional institutions such as the NAFTA and AFTA.

I am giving you a rather complex answer to a simple question. Considering the stage of development of APEC, you should realize that the economies concerned in APEC itself do not even refer to it as an institution yet; they call it a process. One expression you hear often is that it is four adjectives in search of a noun. It is at that stage of development where it is still quite difficult to define the hard edges to it. At this time of institution-building in the Asia Pacific region, it is important that Canada be there at the ground level and participate if we want to be there for the future.

Senator Stollery: My question is in the same vein as yours, Mr. Chairman. I also have difficulty getting my mind around this amorphous grouping of countries whose common denominator seems to be the Pacific Ocean, which is pretty big, and Asia, which is pretty big. The only other amorphous organizations where you have a mixture of countries which have absolutely nothing in common with each other would be the OAS, which has been pretty much of a failure, and the UN, which is having all kinds of problems, though some of the organizations associated with it appear to be successful.

Could such a large number of countries, rich and poor, with no cultural common characteristics, with almost no common characteristics of any kind, change into something a little more manageable?

Mr. Edwards: Part of my answer would be to draw your attention to what has been achieved so far. I will ask Mr. Klassen to give you a list of some of the achievements in terms of the economic and technical cooperation aspects to illustrate the point. In 1989, there was nothing. Eight years later, we have some extraordinary advances of the sense of community building and networking.

Once a year, leaders get together and exchange views, not just on trade and economic issues, although that is what they do, but also on a range of bilateral and other issues. A new drive has been provided to the multilateral trading system through such steps as the call for an ITA last year, but more particularly back in Seattle. The conclusion of the Uruguay round is regarded as having been promoted by that Seattle meeting and a call for conclusion of that round and some visionary work on trade investment liberalization.

You mention that it is a diverse area, and it is. They do have some things in common. They have growth rates which would make any of us extremely envious.

Senator Stollery: Some of them do. What about the Peruvian growth rate?

Mr. Edwards: Peru is not a member.

Senator Stollery: I am sorry, I was referring to Chile. Peru is trying to become a member.

Mr. Edwards: You have the ups and downs. Canada and the United States, and to some extent Mexico, have the lowest growth rates. Malaysia is rocketing along at 8 per cent in the last 10 years, and the growth rates in certain parts of China are quite good.

Senator Stollery: Is the thing they have in common a high growth rate?

Mr. Edwards: That is right. It affects the mood, the optimism, and the way they want to do business. They are anxious to work with each other in interregional trade. Proportional overall trade has increased enormously. There are also common cultural characteristics throughout the region. The presence of the Chinese and the overseas Chinese is a common factor throughout south-east Asia linking it together with China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong.

Senator Stollery: That is what we used to call the Far East. This organization seems to take in part of South America.

Mr. Edwards: Yes, it does. It is an organization which is evolving and taking shape. It started from nothing. Many of the participants, Canada included, are creating a bit of an artificial construct here in order to ensure that we are part of that high-growth region. It could have been left to the high-growth economies of the eastern side of Asia to create what they were calling Westpac, which was to be a Pacific community from Australia up to Korea, with no attention at all to the Western Hemisphere. It is through efforts such as those of Canada and the United States, and also a rather enlightened approach to this organization by Japan and to some extent by Korea, who realized the importance of the trans-Pacific nature, that APEC even exists.

It has a long way to go. I do not know where it will go in the future, but its structures are quite extensive. It has ten working groups, three subsidiary expert bodies, the senior officials mechanism, a committee on trade and investment, an economic committee subsidiary to the senior officials, in additional to over half a dozen ministerials each year, plus the leaders meetings. An enormous growth is taking place institutionally, and, for a product starting from zero, it has been quite extraordinary.

Perhaps Mr. Klassen could cite a few examples of the products, with an emphasis on the economic and technical cooperation side of it which tends to be not well publicized.

Mr. John Klassen, Director General, APEC Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade: Before I mention some of the projects or the products that we have achieved, I should like to return to some of the things that we have in common in APEC. One commonality is a commitment to trade and investment liberalization and facilitation. That is one of the cornerstones, what we call the Osaka action agenda, and the individual action plans that we developed last year help to focus, to give a structure, and to show a direction towards trade liberalization.

You mentioned various examples of economies which have slipped in terms of their commitment to trade liberalization over the last several years. There is always that kind of slippage. One of the great benefits of APEC is that it helps to maintain that momentum in a certain direction, and that direction is towards the liberalization and the facilitation of trade and investment. We are all committed to that and are working towards it, despite the vast differences which exist when you have a group ranging from Papua, New Guinea, up to the United States of America.

Another common commitment is to the idea of economic and technical cooperation in support of sustained economic growth. It is important to recognize that, despite these huge differences in economies, we come to the table as equals. We do not have a donor-recipient relationship as would be seen in an aid structure, and we have been quite assiduous in avoiding that kind of an approach.

In trying to understand the confusion of the Osaka action agenda and the way it is structured, think of economic and technical cooperation as programs, processes, and activities designed to foster economic growth. Through the TILF agenda, the Trade Investment Liberalization and Facilitation, we try to ensure that, through liberalization of access, we all benefit from that growth through trade and through the ability to take advantage of export opportunities. The two work together. We see trade and investment and economic cooperation as two parts of a larger whole.

We are engaged in a multi-year process. There is the pressure of the ministerial meetings to which Mr. Edwards referred, but our commitment under the Bogor declaration is 20-10 for developed countries and 20-20 for developing countries. We are engaged in a longer-term process which does require a certain amount of ongoing, longer-term work which is not always exciting and does not always grab the headlines. However, it can have a substantial impact on how trade and investment is structured in the region, how economic development has progressed in the region, and how we can work together in that area.

I will give you some examples. In the telecommunications working group, they are doing substantial work in terms of developing neutral recognition agreements in defining new standards for new telecommunications products. As you may know, this is a difficult area in international trade because products evolve so quickly and you can quickly end up with different standards in different countries, at which point you have trade barriers.

Between eight and ten Canadian companies go to the telecommunications working groups. They are members of the Canadian delegation, and they pay their own way. We do not pay a penny for them to attend. They are prepared to make this commitment in terms of resources because they see the value of what this working group is doing for their longer-term trade interest.

The transportation working group is another good example of Canadian companies having bought in in the sense that they participate actively at their own expense, again because they see the issues being dealt with in terms of transportation blockages and problems in the ports or the road systems. They are trying to learn from each other and see it as something that is in their longer-term commercial interest and something from which they can benefit.

A range of things have come out of the work on the trade investment side. An investment guide book, for instance, has been quite a good seller for the APEC secretariat, and Fed Ex has now taken on a tariff data base, at their own expense, and will put it up on the Internet in May. Anyone on the net will have access to all the tariff rates of all the APEC members at any given time. This is a considerable advantage and benefit to exporters generally, but we think in terms of Canadian exporters.

As well, much work has been done in the area of customs procedures in order to lower the costs of doing business in the region.

All of these things have a great impact on small- and medium-sized enterprises. Big companies can absorb many of these problems; the small- to medium-sized companies cannot. For them, it is not a problem but a block to exporting and doing trade in the region. We see a considerable tie-in there.

Much of what we do has an educational value. We work with our APEC partners to raise the general level of comfort, of knowledge, and of information-sharing. In many of these complex issues such as intellectual property or competition policy or transportation policy, we are much more advanced than many of our APEC partners. However, through the APEC process, you start to spread that knowledge and to build of a common base of understanding and a common direction towards the liberalization I mentioned earlier.

Senator Grafstein: We share the chairman's frustration in trying to grapple with a tighter priority list. This is a wonderful summary of the global agenda. However, in my experience, the more general you become, the less effective you are. I say that as a general comment because I know your terms of reference are so global in nature that it is difficult to be more strategically specific.

What is happening in Asia is not unlike what happened after the Second World War. There was a tremendous change in economic value systems, the international trading order was changed, and there was a desire to move forward in some graceful and positive way. That is not unlike what is happening to the Asian rim countries in terms of moving from command economies and the overlay of the Vietnam war and the Cold War. Things have melted in some respects. There is almost a clear slate to do some interesting and new things.

I get the sense that we are back to new world order theories, great world order theories, not unlike, as my colleague said, how we felt about the United Nations immediately after the Second World War. We learned that we waste time and experience a diversion of resources in pursuing this sort of Utopian goal, and very quickly we came to the realization that, as it applied to Europe, we had to be more site-specific and more strategic, hence NATO. We moved from the security council to NATO -- something tighter, something more coherent, something useful and effective. We are the effective leaders to move ourselves from the wider scope to a harder internal agenda in terms of structure and pursuing our strategic objectives.

Let me give you some examples. Our trade in Asia in the last decade has declined as a percentage of our total trade. Perhaps that is because of our relationship with the United States, but we see less in investment and less in trade. Obviously that is a strategic interest.

First, we have a strategic interest of increasing rapidly our trade involvement in the investment golden arrow. Second, we have terrible non-tariff barriers with Japan, and that is a strategic objective. I do not know what the movement is on that front. Third, we have an agenda when it comes to the WTO in terms of trade liberalization. These are narrow, specific, Canadian-coded, interest bullets.

In this global picture using phrases like "infrastructure" and "FEEEP", how are we moving from this great general blue sky to much harder bullets so that, at the end of the day, we will be able to say to ourselves, "We have made strategic progress on issues that have a closer concern to Canadians"? I think you are sensing a frustration of the committee that we are moving too broadly and not as narrowly and as targeted as we could.

Mr. Edwards: All your points are well taken, and we share a good degree of that frustration in terms of meeting with the region and trying to bring more focus and result-oriented, targeted work to what we do in APEC. One of the difficulties we face is in coming to terms with what APEC does, what it can do, and what it cannot do. As I have tried to point out, because we are working with 18 diverse economies with a wide range of interests and development and so forth, institutional development and arriving at a specific product tends to be extremely difficult.

However, that having been said, what we are trying to do in the trade liberalization area relates directly to your point about the WTO. For us, the ultimate objective remains a rules-based trading system. We are trying to use the APEC institution as a means of promoting new rules in the multilateral sphere. I drew your attention to the ITA, which was a distinct value-added that APEC brought to bear. It has real benefit for companies and trading systems. If, in the course of this year, we can find other areas for voluntary liberalization which can be pushed into the WTO sphere, particularly since it is likely that in the next two years we will be moving into some new negotiations and, by the end of the century, will be resuming agriculture and services negotiations, then that will be something that APEC can do.

In terms of the ecotech work that APEC is doing, much of it tends to be educational. We are trying to use APEC to bring levels of education about competition policy -- some economies do not have any competition policy in place at all -- to help them understand the importance of lowered walls to investment and of having rules that do not change with government or from day to day so that foreign investment can be attracted, kept, and have a decent rate of return for foreign capital. We do this through APEC seminars. The investment experts group is involved holding seminars between business and government, and they are trying to educate certain governments that they must have good investment climates and good rules to attract investment. That is in our interest.

We should, at the end of this, circulate to you a list of the things that have been done in APEC which are at the heart of it, the kernel of it -- important steps forward for our business community.

You mentioned the FEEEP. That is an example of something which is very broad, as you said, and it is coming together as a global issue being tackled in a number of fora, including the G-7 and the United Nations. It is also being considered within the OECD.

The major economic growth is occurring in those countries with the highest rates of growth of population, of pollution, and of consumption of food and energy. APEC and the leaders would not be fulfilling their obligations and responsibilities if they did not try to tackle it in the Asian environment, so they are doing that. I admit that the product is a long way down the line, but it is a strategic project.

In hosting this year, we are doing our best to bring Canadian companies into play. By having ministerials in Canada and building business events around them, we will be engaging Canadian companies directly with their partners, their potential partners, and a broad range of sectors. This is not an institutional product; this is hosting and chairing product. We hope there will be business opportunities identified, new partnerships created, and jobs and growth created in Canada as a result of this.

The Chairman: I am interested in the symposium on food, energy, environment, economic development and population, the symposium which is to take place in Saskatoon in September. First, why Saskatoon? I am not suggesting that that is not a good place. Anyone who thinks I am obviously feels that Saskatoon has some defects. I am not suggesting that. I am sure there are good reasons for Saskatoon being the locus for that symposium. How many people will be there? What will be the structure of the symposium? Will learned, and perhaps dull, papers be delivered? How will it operate?

Mr. Edwards: Saskatchewan was chosen particularly for this event at the outset of our planning for the year because we wanted to ensure that there was an opportunity for all parts of Canada to experience APEC. Since there is a large food element in this, and a large energy element, Western Canada was an obvious spot for it, and Saskatchewan was selected as the place.

There is an energy ministerial in Alberta, and Minister Axworthy will be hosting a major youth event in Winnipeg. I cite those as illustrations of how we have tried to bring APEC and Euro-Asia Pacific to all Canadians in all parts of Canada.

As for this particular event, as I said, this is an interim report. This work was only commissioned a year or so ago, so there has had to be a fair bit of preparatory work to prepare this interim report. There is a task force on food. There is the working group on energy, followed by ministers' meeting on energy. Environment officials and ministers of the environment will be meeting this year. They will all be considering their particular element of this intermix of activities and factors prior to the meeting in Saskatoon. They will then send their representatives to that meeting to begin the process of discussing how food and energy and environment and population fit together and to create a particular set interrelated issues which need to be developed.

I expect the interim report -- and this will depend, of course, on the views of 17 other members of APEC -- will be a first cut at the analysis and will probably be going back to ministers in Vancouver for some additional advice and direction. The real product in terms of a sophisticated, analytical approach to the interrelationship among these issues -- trends in Asia, what the problems are, what governments must do to grapple with this interrelationship of issues -- will be one or two years down the road.

The Chairman: Who is drawing together the draft report?

Mr. Edwards: It would be officials from my department.

The Chairman: So that is being done by Canada?

Mr. Edwards: Yes.

The Chairman: With input from the other members of the conference?

Mr. Edwards: That is correct, but also through ministerials, energy and environment working groups, a food task force which is co-chaired by Australia and Japan, and so on. It is coming at us not only from the economies but also from different fora.

The Chairman:When can the public see the draft?

Mr. Edwards: It will be available some time before the leaders' meeting. I should say that, in addition to government representatives, we are engaging NGOs and academics and experts in this exercise.

The Chairman: I must now put a footnote to my opening comment, because I think that this is specific and important. I congratulate the persons who got this into the program. It is a good piece of work.

Senator Andreychuk: APEC's strength has been the fact that it is a process which has not been hamstrung by infrastructures and institutional mandates, especially considering how long it took to go from a GATT process to a WTO. I am glad that we do not need a Second World War in order to get the impetus for a UN model. Your presentation pointed out the struggle to try to find what the agenda might be. APEC is new to the process.

In your paper, are the plans and priorities for APEC 1997 already approved by the government?

Mr. Edwards: Yes.

Senator Andreychuk: You put out rather fairly the expectations and what we hope to gain and what we hope the region will gain.

A paper has been circulated to us which is entitled "APEC Leaders Set Direction 1997", and it was issued from the Prime Minister's office on November 25, 1996. It ties in with what you gave us and seems to be on target.

On page 4 of that document, it indicates that the two elements for the APEC 1997 are APEC's built-in agenda which, as you mentioned, is a standardization of these things, and then the Canadian chair's priority. I presume that is where we can push the envelope. Traditionally, when other leaders were in the chair, they were able to put something on the table which now has come into what you call the built-in agenda.

Your last item under Canadian emphasis is to engage youth, women, and civil society. I do not see that in the work of APEC or in your description of it. It seems to be an add-on. I do not see the engaging of youth, women, and civil society anywhere in any of your comments, for example, on human capital development. How do we intend to insert that issue?

Further, I heard Mr. Chan say, "Human rights will not be part of the formal agenda". Yet, in this document here, we have several places for good government and democracy, and surely those go hand in hand. Debate must include some issue of rights, the rule of law, contract obligations, et cetera. That is also missing.

The APEC process seems to be pure, but we know we have a Canadian constituency which wants to enlarge and broaden APEC discussions. We also have the NGO forum which might deal with human rights or whatever else they want. Surely that is not a good way of presenting Canada because we do care about the issues of fairness and the rule of law. Why would we want them in an adjunct forum and not the main forum? They do not seem to arise. A great deal of debate on human rights, women and youth went on in the NGO forums, but it was also discussed by our leaders in the main forum.

Do you understand my confusion around that issue? Will the issue be on the formal agenda engaging youth, women, civil society, good governments, and democracy, and in what forum? You have not been as specific about those engaging topics as you have been on the ongoing, built-in topics.

Mr. Edwards: Those are all pertinent questions, and I will preface my remarks by saying that, in Canadian policy vis-à-vis the region, all of those elements appear quite strongly. Our championing of human rights in the Asia Pacific region is done in a number of ways, and we are carrying forward the issue of good government in our bilateral relationships, through our AID programs, and so on.

The overall approach we are taking as a government is a broadly-balanced approach which engages not only issues of economic and trade importance but also issues of governments and human rights and the role of women and youth and so forth. As you know, the role of women is a strong thread which runs through our development program around the world, including Asia.

With respect to how youth and women play into the work this year, I did not elaborate on several areas. However, you are quite right that the role of youth is prominent in human capital development. In fact, NGOs participate in the Canadian delegation to the HRD working group, Human Resources Development, which has a number of projects in that area, but generally on education and job creation and so forth within APEC which are targeted specifically at youth.

Discussions between leaders have also focused on the role of youth, particularly the importance of education, and human resource development. A number of proposals involving the training of youth have come forward at various times and are now being implemented.

Senator Andreychuk: I have no difficulty with them, and we have done an admirable job in talking about women and development and human development.

This is a unique moment for Canada. We will be in the chair. You have used phrases such as "the Canadian emphasis" and "pushing the envelope", and I take that to mean we have a unique contribution to make. How will we push the envelope in the areas you have mentioned? How will we push it from a leader's perspective when our prime minister is in the chair? How will we push the envelope in APEC on youth, women, and civil society beyond sustaining the ongoing human development work if it is not to be specifically on the agenda? Is that our priority, or is it part of the built-in work?

Mr. Edwards: The work that we do as chair covers a number of areas, not just the leaders' meeting itself which is a rather limited several hours of intercourse among the leaders. There is a whole program of activity, and we are chairing a number of groups within that activity. We do not chair the whole process, however, because a number of groups are chaired by other economies, but we do chair the overall process.

We are trying to broaden the engagement of youth and to involve youth in delegations which come to our ministerials. There will be opportunities for youth to express their views, certainly during the environment ministerial, and we hope in other ministerials as well. In that sense, we will be pushing the envelope quite strongly.

As I said in my remarks, not all economies feel comfortable with this engagement. We will be showing examples in some areas where I expect other economies will not follow suit, but we will do our best to try to move youth into the delegations and into the dialogues themselves with government officials. We can and will be including some views on our own delegations.

I will ask Mr. Klassen to comment on the issue with respect to women. He is more familiar with the details than I am. There is an APEC women senior leaders network which is not part of the APEC structure itself, but it has met on several occasions in parallel with APEC events. It will be doing the same here in Canada in September. I believe it happens around the time of the small- to medium-sized enterprises meeting here in Ottawa.

The work within the federal government, particularly within the office of the Status of Women, has been quite forward looking in terms of trying to build a consensus within APEC, which is what needs to be done. You must build a consensus within APEC in order to make these things happen and formalize a specific strand of work which will be blessed by APEC over the course of the next several years. Right now, it is on the side, and so work is now underway to build this consensus within APEC, led by officials of my department, but also spearheaded by the Status of Women to build this kind of consensus. I do not know how successful we will be. On that issue too, we are pushing the envelope.

With respect to civil society, I will to turn to John Klassen who has been working closely with NGOs and so forth on this particular issue.

The Chairman: Before he does that, I will state a problem I have with regard to the term "civil society". Perhaps it is a function of age, but the literature I read about governments and economics used the term "civil society" to describe what we would call a national economy. In the early literature, you find the family society or the clan society, and then they start talking about civil society, which included the economic aspect with a government over the people to ensure that they followed the rules. The key points of the rules were the protection of private property and the enforcement of contracts. That is the classic definition of "civil society". It is only recently that I have been undergoing some modernization and discover that the term now has quite a different meaning.

Mr. Klassen, as you tell us about the emphasis on civil society and the engagement of civil society in this year, would you tell us what you mean by "civil society"?

Mr. Klassen: You pose a difficult question, Mr. Chairman. I have had the same problem of definition that you have.

It is used is to distinguish civil society from the private sector, which we largely define as the business community. That is the simple distinction that is being made. We would consider as part of civil society non-governmental organizations, NGOs, which deal with everything from sustainable development through to human rights through to women's rights. We talk about civil society in that broad sense. In some ways, it is used almost as a synonym for NGOs, but not quite. I would say it is broader than what most people think of when we think of NGOs. It is a long way from the classical definition that you have given, and with which I agree, but we are looking at it through the modern parlance.

I will add a few things to what Mr. Edwards said about youth and women. The fact that they appeared in the Subic declaration by leaders was the result of a Canadian initiative. We have frankly been out in front on these issues in APEC. We have been pressing more than any of our other APEC partners, in public in the sense of senior officials' meetings, that we should be broadening our involvement.

We do have a fairly formal arrangement for receiving inputs from the business community -- from the private sector, if you will -- through the Business Advisory Council and through the working groups with which business people are directly involved. Through our ministerials this year, we will have large business components.

We believe and have argued consistently over the last several years that if APEC is dealing with the broader, people-to-people issues -- and that phraseology is in the statements and declarations -- then we have a responsibility to broaden our contacts and the inputs we receive.

The youth and women references come from Canadian pressure on these issues leading up to Subic Bay. Mr. Edwards mentioned the work we are doing with Status of Women Canada, which is examining the ongoing APEC activities and determining where we can push the envelope within those activities. We are not quite at a point in APEC's evolution where you would get consensus around the table on these issues. However, within the widespread activities within APEC, we can push things further in a number of areas and generate some greater support. Status of Women Canada is supportive of this and, in fact, is taking the lead role.

On the matter of youth, we have, through the Department of Human Resource Development, established youth coordinators for each of the ministerial meetings that will be held in Canada this year. Their responsibility is to develop a strong youth element for each of the ministerials, whether it is trade, environment, energy, or transportation.

We can go much further in our own context, our own backyard, in terms of engaging Canadian youth and dealing with women and gender issues. We hope to thereby set an example for our APEC partners and urge them to emulate and join us in this exercise. In our senior officials' meeting in Victoria, the first one of the year, we explained what we have in mind in terms of the involvement of youth and women this year, and we urged our partners to become engaged. A number of them are starting to respond, particularly on the youth side, in terms of sending youth delegates or having young people on their national delegations. We think, therefore, that that is starting to come along.

On the broader question of civil society, the NGO/APEC committee is chaired or led by the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development out of Montreal. This committee has 15 to 20 members on it, and we can provide you with a list if you are interested. It covers a wide range of NGO interests, everything from human rights and sustainable development to women issues. This core committee is developing the people's summit, as it is being called, which will be held in Vancouver at the time of the leaders' meeting.

We have a close relationship with this committee, and we are working with them. We meet with them almost monthly. We are approaching it by engaging in a constructive dialogue and encouraging them to identify those elements of APEC activity that are of interest to the NGO community. For instance, the vast work we are doing in APEC on sustainable growth, equitable development, women's issues, environment, and training and education are things of interest to the broader civil society, if you will. We want to give them the opportunity to give us their views, priorities, and recommendations as to whether APEC is dealing with these things properly in terms of the Canadian context and in terms of our national obligations or objectives, much as we do more formally with the business community.

Our work with these groups so far it has been positive, and we have even contracted with the group to do their own analysis of what APEC is doing in terms of civil society interest. We are planning a day-long session with this NGO/APEC committee here in Ottawa to again give them the opportunity to express their views to us and for us to explain to them what APEC is doing.

The confusion to which a number of you have referred in terms of trying to understand APEC is a common response when looking at this beast. We must tell people what APEC is doing in a number of these areas and work with them to try to push the envelope wherever and however we can.

Senator Andreychuk: Is civil society through this committee an accepted concept which has been approved by not just by Canada but by APEC? You have traced youth and women to Subic, but where do we trace civil society?

Mr. Klassen: In our own backyard, we can go further than we can in the APEC context at this point. Quite frankly, when you start talking about NGOs and civil society in an APEC context, there are may sensitivities around the table. This NGO/APEC committee is a Canadian committee. It is not an APEC committee, and it is not recognized as an APEC body. It is something we are doing internally. From that internal base, we will try to move it along in the broader context, but it is a slow process.

Senator Andreychuk: Will the question of civil society be on the leaders' agenda?

Mr. Klassen: It is too early to say. The agenda is fixed towards the end.

Senator Andreychuk: When would we be able to see the agenda in a normal context? When does the leaders' agenda for APEC come out?

Mr. Edwards: The leaders' agenda, to be honest with you, is often a non-agenda. It focuses around one or two themes usually set by the chair during the last week or so before the meeting. It is driven by suggestions which come from a number of leaders ahead of time, and decisions are taken quickly.

The notion is that the leaders' meeting itself focuses on an informal setting with leaders raising key issues at the moment that are important to them on the trade and economic agenda. There has been some discussion at past leaders' meeting as to whether the agenda should be broadened to include political security and other issues, and so far consensus in the room has been that it should not be so broadened.

We are looking at a long-term evolution here, and we will do our best to push that envelope to the extent that we can. It depends on the consensus within the organization.

The Chairman: You are involved here with a process, and, at this early stage in the process, you do not anticipate achieving the ends of the process immediately.

Mr. Edwards: That is probably a good prognostication, but we will not admit defeat ahead of battle.

Senator Andreychuk: A great deal of impetus comes forward because there is a leaders' forum. These are the people who can move the agenda faster than perhaps Mr. Edwards. This is key. I am beginning to sound like Senator MacEachen saying a political will is being brought to this process at that point.

The Chairman: I am uneasy, senator, about a situation in which a leader -- perhaps the Canadian prime minister, perhaps the American president, perhaps the Japanese leader -- makes a statement and no one says anything because it is not something behind which there is a domestic interest. You can only have a dialogue or symposium if there is a general interest.

Senator Andreychuk: Consider the experience in Europe when the presidencies move. We know that some of the smaller countries have, through their leaders, brought their major concerns forward, and there has been silence in the room. In a partnership, you set forth your basic interest and basic desires. I think it is taken into account somewhere down the process. I should like to know where the leaders' agenda comes from and how it is formulated.

Senator Stollery: Perhaps I am a little sceptical, but when I hear about civil society, gender issues, youth, and NGOs, I think to myself, "We are not talking about the European leaders and the European community; we are talking about an organization in which some countries, not all of them, are run by the most authoritarian, ruthless, and often corrupt governments in the world." All of Canada has watched the unfolding of events in Indonesia. We know the kind of government involved. We watch from afar the power struggle, which is sometimes a deadly affair, going on in some of these countries.

If I mentioned civil society to the Chinese or whoever comes out of the power struggle, even with the corruption of the language, it does not somehow come across to me as what I think of as a civil society with gender issues, youth issues, and NGOs. They just say, "Okay, you can say what you like, but it will have no affect on the way in which my group runs this country to our advantage."

We all know that; every one knows that. Does it not stretch the credulity of the listener when all of this stuff is thrown in, and then you say, "Yeah, but this does not mean anything to these guys because they shoot"?

Mr. Edwards: This goes back to one of the real advantages of APEC in that it has provided a forum, perhaps not as threatening a forum as some would like in terms of these issues, but a forum nonetheless, where lessons can be brought to bear in a rather gentle way and messages can be passed. I think it is fair to say that China's involvement in APEC --

Senator Stollery: I was not referring just to China. There is a group of these kinds of countries.

Mr. Edwards: Let me refer specifically to China, however, and say that China's involvement in international institutions of this type is slowly bringing change. It has certainly brought change with respect to the economic environment in which the Chinese operate domestically.

It has provided a means of bringing trade policy officials from Beijing into contact with trade policy officials from the United States, Canada, and other places as an adjunct to their own contacts in the WTO as part of their accession process. We have engaged them in discussions, committee work, and so forth on a number of issues upon which they have never had discussions in a multilateral setting, and I think it has helped pave the way for an eventual negotiation with the Chinese and WTO accession.

In the same way, it brings the Chinese into an institution which considers market forces and issues of governance, among other things. Governance involves more than legal systems and protecting human rights; it also means the rule of law when it comes to investors, commercial activity, competition policy, and so forth. It is all part of the same overall picture.

Senator Stollery: In some countries, there is no rule of law. That is what informed witnesses have told us. There is no independent judiciary in China, for example.

The Chairman: I think the witness will say it is desirable to make a start somewhere. It is a process.

Senator Stollery: It is a long process.

Senator Grafstein: Let me come back to the same issue. Upon what topics and subjects and narrow objectives can we constructively engage this rather diverse group of states which have come together to discuss things in some sort of fashion?

I thought back to the same problem that the missionary movement had when it approached China 100 years ago. There is a great lesson to be learned from that. The missionaries decided that they wanted to go and promote their social gospel. The Methodist, Presbyterian and Roman Catholic missionary movements had an impact. China was too big, so they decided they would focus, and most of them focused on West China. They then came to the conclusion that this was too amorphous a problem for them and that they had to be more specific in terms of how they engaged the Chinese communities. They moved to the next step by deciding that they would focus on education, so they started teaching, not English but Chinese, because many Chinese were illiterate. Then they decided that that was not really satisfactory and what was really necessary to engage the Chinese masses was to provide a valuable service. The valuable service that Canada provided -- Canada was the leader -- was medical services. This is 50 years before Norman Bethune and the barefoot doctors. They established a whole series of clinics based on barefoot doctor approaches. Then they moved to dentistry, and the first western-style dentistry clinic was established by Canadians.

I look at this list, and this is great. We are trade; we are environment; we are transportation. However, we do not seem to engage these countries on a people-to-people basis.

I come to my grand conclusion, Mr. Chairman. Why, for instance, do we not have a ministerial conference on medical care? That certainly is of great and deep interest, and Canada has a huge reservoir of talent at the medical research institutions that is underutilized and undermanned and underpaid. That, to my mind, would be engaging Canadians.

Let me put it in political terms. The one thing that all Canadians believe differentiates us from the rest of the world is our medicare program. However, here we are, with the one cultural value we share, and we are not transmitting that. Who cares about our philosophy on trade? How do we differentiate ourselves from the United States or others? Perhaps on medicine; perhaps on scientific exchanges; and perhaps on putting together the three research institutes of Canada, the medical, the engineering and the social sciences, which are all undermanned and underpaid. Perhaps they could make a difference in terms of engagement.

We are wrestling with how Canada can strategically make a difference. I just use that as a suggestion. It is not there. It is too vague for us. It is probably too vague for you, too. It is just based on history and a careful analysis of how Canada tried to probe the Chinese masses at an earlier stage. It is a good lesson for us.

Mr. Edwards: You make valid points on this score. I work at the strategic level, not the detail level, but let me assure you that much of that detail work is taking place. I would be prepared to provide to you the list of projects underway in APEC, and I only do so with some hesitation because there are so many of them. The problem that we have faced as managers of the process is that we need these six priority areas to begin to bunch the others together.

You used medicare as an example. I do not know if there has been a conference on that area yet, but work has been done in our science and technology working group on issues surrounding health and technology. I was surprised the other day to find that there is actually work underway in APEC on setting up an early warning system for new infectious diseases to deal with the kind of thing everyone fears in the way of a new outbreak of Ebola, for instance. They are looking at ways to provide that kind of information. The science and technology working group is working in a number of areas, not only medical but others, to bring people together, to bring practitioners and researchers in different areas together, to do exactly what you are saying must be done. As I said, I would be happy to provide that information.

If you mean investment seminars and seminars on intellectual property and competition policy, again we are bringing practitioners and government together. The small- and medium-sized enterprise ministerial will bring together SMEs from China, Indonesia, and other places where transition is underway from a command economy to a market economy and will slowly bring change in the way the Chinese and others think about doing business.

It is a slow, long-term process, but it does have at the heart of it some specific activities which I think you would agree fit into the kind of thing you think should be done, and I would be prepared to provide to you a list of these activities.

The Chairman: Senator Grafstein, you are saying that the history of religious missionary activity in many parts of the world shows that the initial primary goal was not accomplished, that there had to be some particular vocational or professional service which was offered to the host people, and that that particular service established, in a sense, the credibility of the missionary. Is that correct?

Senator Grafstein: Social gospel.

The Chairman: You picked medicine as an example, or technical education.

Senator Grafstein: I used medicine because medicine was the specific example that seemed to work and had a long-ranging impact in China.

The Chairman: In other words, the missionaries found that just preaching or haranguing did not accomplish much.

Senator Grafstein: It is hard for me to make that argument, Mr. Chairman, but I would accept what you say.

Mr. Edwards: There is a parallel here, Mr. Chairman. Is that what you are saying?

The Chairman: Yes.

Senator Grafstein: Mr. Chairman, there is a curious piece of history here.

The Chairman: Yes, and we should learn from history.

Senator Grafstein: We should learn from history. If one examines the foundations of the first department of external affairs, the key members were all sons of missionaries in the China experience. Mr. Pearson, who was a great ---

The Chairman: Oh, yes.

Senator Grafstein: -- of a subsequent generation was part of that. The department was based on members of families who came from the China missionary experience, and that was the primary motivating force.

Senator Stollery: The China inland mission.

Senator Grafstein: Correct. That was the motivating force which energized foreign affairs in this country, and I do not know why we do not go back to our roots.

Mr. Edwards: Let us have another Boxer rebellion.

Senator Grafstein: Exactly, or something like that but not a Boxer rebellion. It is a piece of interesting history.

The Chairman: I suggest that we conclude by asking the witnesses to produce for us a list of the kinds of enterprises where we are doing specific things, such as in the medical field or in technical education or in infrastructural education, technology and so on. I am not asking for that now, but perhaps at some time in the near future we could have that.

The fact that it is almost six o'clock suggests that we have had an interesting presentation from the witnesses. On behalf of the senators, I thank them both most enthusiastically.

The committee adjourned.