THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 10, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met with videoconference this day at 4:01 p.m. [ET] to study foreign relations and international trade generally and the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 4, 5, 10 and 11 of Part 4, and in Subdivision A of Division 3 of Part 4 of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.
Senator Peter M. Boehm (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: My name is Peter Boehm. I am a senator from Ontario and the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
[English]
Before we begin, I wish to invite committee members participating in today’s meeting to introduce themselves.
Senator Ravalia: I’m Mohamed-Iqbal Ravalia from Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Amina Gerba, from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Harder: Peter Harder, Ontario.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Antigonish, Nova Scotia.
Senator Richards: Dave Richards from New Brunswick.
Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario.
The Chair: I wish to welcome all senators, as well as those across the country who are watching us today on SenParlVu. For our first panel, we are meeting under our general order of reference to continue exploring the role cultural diplomacy plays in advancing Canada’s interests around the world.
Today will be our final meeting on this subject, so we will be hearing from officials from the departments implicated who are responsible for this file.
I want to acknowledge that Senator MacDonald of Nova Scotia has just joined us.
[Translation]
We are pleased to welcome, from Global Affairs Canada, David Morrison, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jordan Reeves, Director General, Trade Sectors, Catherine Boucher, Director, Mission Support, and Patrick Riel, Head, Cultural Diplomacy Unit.
And, from Canadian Heritage, Isabelle Mondou, Deputy Minister, and Joëlle Montminy, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs.
[English]
Welcome and thank you for being with us. We will have five minutes for a statement from each of the deputy ministers, and then we’ll move to questions.
Mr. Morrison, you have the floor.
David Morrison, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Global Affairs Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to thank the committee for inviting me here today, and I don’t actually know Senator Bovey. I’m given to understand she’s retiring tomorrow. I just wanted to have the opportunity to recognize her before her retirement for her advocacy and promotion of the arts.
Today, along with my colleague the Deputy Minister of Canadian Heritage, I will be addressing Canada’s cultural diplomacy efforts around the world. I expect that members of this committee are already well versed in cultural diplomacy, particularly those of you who were on the committee responsible for the 2019 report. The findings and recommendations of that report have guided my department’s implementation of its cultural diplomacy program since that time.
[Translation]
Cultural diplomacy has distinctive value and relevance for Canada’s international relations. Global Affairs Canada and our network of missions abroad engage regularly in cultural diplomacy to build bridges and strengthen people-to-people ties. Let me be clear, we have always undertaken cultural diplomacy activities in some form or another and will continue to do so in the future.
We know that cultural diplomacy can open a space for dialogue and foster trust while underscoring Canada’s foreign policy priorities. Canadian culture and arts can also attract foreign decision makers and target audiences while projecting Canada as diverse and innovative, as was done by the High Commission in London in 2022 on the occasion of the Commonwealth Games, where Canadian artists from Indigenous, 2SLGBTQI+ and visible minority communities engaged audiences through immersive works.
Importantly, cultural diplomacy also creates international opportunities for Canadian cultural stakeholders and artists to expand their profile abroad and build new relationships, especially in nontraditional markets.
[English]
We have used cultural diplomacy to advance our political, legal and economic interests around the world. In many instances, we have managed to engage several objectives with a single initiative, including during a recent project by our embassy in Juba, South Sudan, where a Canadian-South Sudanese artist was invited to share his story of being a former child soldier to an engaged audience of young peacebuilders, as well as government and diplomatic officials. In spearheading this event, Canada promoted youth empowerment, as well as peace and security.
[Translation]
Cultural diplomacy has been an asset in countries with which Canada enjoys strong bilateral relations, such as with our G7 partners, but also in countries where relations are strained or fragile. This speaks to the strengths of using various diplomatic levers, such as cultural diplomacy, to create opportunities for rapprochement and dialogue on more difficult issues.
The department has also engaged in productive partnerships with Canadian and international stakeholders to deepen the impact of our initiatives, as was recommended in the Committee’s report.
Some of our strongest partnerships have been with Canadian Heritage and their portfolio agencies, notably our collaboration with the National Film Board, Radio-Canada, Telefilm and the Canada Council for the Arts in 2019 when Canada was guest of honour at the Marche des Arts du spectacle in Abidjan.
[English]
We are pleased with the recent decision to extend Global Affairs Canada’s trade-focused support for the creative sector under the Creative Export Strategy. This will continue to have positive outcomes for Canada’s creative industries’ exporters in priority markets and build on past successes, such as the example of a woman-owned Canadian publisher of Indigenous literature that signed a licensing agreement with an American digital platform in 2022, after receiving Trade Commissioner Service support. We look forward to continuing our collaboration with Canadian Heritage on the strategy’s next chapter.
As this committee is undoubtedly aware, the dedicated funding for Global Affairs Canada’s cultural diplomacy program sunsetted on March 31, 2023. Still, cultural diplomacy will remain an important tool in promoting Canada’s foreign policy objectives, as cultural diplomacy initiatives go beyond a dedicated program and funds. As one of Minister Joly’s mandate letter commitments, our department continues to actively consider the development of a cultural diplomacy strategy, in collaboration with our friends at Canadian Heritage. We have notably engaged cultural stakeholders to see how to collaboratively seize opportunities abroad and help shape a future approach.
No matter what, and irrespective of a dedicated program, missions will remain able to deploy culture, as we have always done, to support priority initiatives. Various tools remain at our disposal, including the option to use other funds available to missions. Just last week in Sweden, for instance, our embassy in Stockholm worked with the Canada Council for the Arts to present two Canadian exhibits of Indigenous circumpolar art at the 9th World Summit on Arts and Culture. These efforts were made possible through departmental funding, notably our Post Initiative Fund, helping to bring Indigenous and Northern perspectives to the forefront.
In this context, our experience over the last few years will continue to benefit our missions abroad, and we will build on existing partnerships, new networks and use the tools developed, notably in implementing this committee’s recommendations.
[Translation]
This Committee is, of course, well aware of our ongoing work on the Future of Diplomacy, a departmental modernization effort launched last May. As part of this effort, we are continuing to look for ways to adapt, improve and more effectively deliver on our mandate. Our experience with cultural diplomacy, among other diplomatic tools, will inform this review.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Morrison.
Ms. Mondou, the floor is yours.
Isabelle Mondou, Deputy Minister, Canadian Heritage: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Let me say that I agree with my colleague when it comes to Senator Bovey, who was a force for culture, the arts and heritage before being appointed senator and during the time she was a senator. I hope her work will continue during this next chapter in her life. I thank Senator Bovey. Obviously, we will continue to work with her.
Distinguished Senators, I am pleased to be here before you today to provide an update on the efforts made by Canadian Heritage to promote Canadian culture internationally and to maximize the export potential of Canadian creators.
I will begin with the Creative Export Strategy.
Many of you will remember that in 2018, representatives from Canadian Heritage testified before this committee to present the Creative Export Strategy, which is a $125-million investment over five years to support Canadian creative industries to maximize their export potential.
I would now like to share some of the results of that strategy.
Since the launch of the strategy, more than 1,900 businesses and organizations from Canada have benefited from its programs and services.
Its contributions program, called Creative Export Fund, has funded 95 projects, three of which alone have generated $58 million in export revenues.
With the essential support of Canadian embassies and consulates, and some of my colleagues who are here today, Canadian Heritage has led nine multi-sectorial trade missions, in other words, both virtual and in-person missions, and four missions to help Canadian businesses expand their network and meet potential buyers. These missions have generated a total estimated value of more than $140 million in business contracts.
We have also supported a commercial activities program on the occasion of international events focused on culture and trade. These events have resulted in more than 100 trade agreements that have been signed or are at an advanced stage of negotiations, and other spinoffs are expected.
[English]
One of the key outcomes of the strategy was the support provided for Canada’s participation as Guest of Honour at the 2020 Frankfurt Book Fair. I think the last time we appeared was just before that. Since then, we have had quite an eventful time with the book fair being deferred due to the pandemic.
But this multi-year collaboration between more than 40 federal-provincial-territorial and private-sector partners shone an international spotlight on Canada and resulted in nearly 500 Canadian titles being translated and published in Germany between 2018 and 2021. That represents a 120% increase of Canadian book sales in the German market for that same period.
As part of the strategy renewal process that we have just gone through, Canadian Heritage engaged to get the feedback of over 345 creative industry stakeholders and partners across Canada, including Indigenous peoples and equity-deserving communities.
The lessons learned and feedback received are reflected in the renewed Creative Export Strategy, which launched for an additional three years on April 1.
I also want to talk about some of the other work we’re doing. As you know, at the core of its mandate, my department runs programs that contribute to fostering and promoting “Canadian identity and values, cultural development and heritage” domestically but also internationally.
Beyond the Creative Export Strategy, allow me to provide a few examples of how Canadian Heritage supports Canada’s cultural diplomacy efforts.
The Canada Book Fund supports the participation of Canadian authors and exporting publishers in international book fairs and trade events across the world. Similarly, the Canada Music Fund makes international tours possible and helps Canadian musicians break through in global markets.
Bilaterally, Canada has audiovisual co-production treaties with close to 60 countries, which helps broaden audiences for Canadian productions, attract foreign financing and raise the profile of Canadian creators abroad.
[Translation]
As you also know, Canadian Heritage partners with TV5MONDE. The thing that is new is that a few years ago, Canada invested an additional $14.6 million to support the creation of a premium online platform TV5MONDEplus.
[English]
Very recently, in 2022, Toronto’s Harbourfront Centre hosted a year-long initiative with support from Canadian Heritage, known as Nordic Bridges, which presented multidisciplinary contemporary art and culture with a view to strengthening cultural exchanges between the Nordic countries and Canada.
In closing, I would be remiss not to talk about the partners in the Canadian Heritage portfolio. I want to highlight the critical contributions of Canadian Heritage portfolio organizations such as the Canada Council for the Arts, Telefilm Canada and the national museums. With their technical expertise, extensive professional networks, global programming and outreach activities, they too raise the profile of Canadian creators abroad.
The success of Expo 2020 Dubai, for example, would not have been possible without the collaboration of the National Arts Centre, the National Film Board, Ingenium and other partners to showcase Canadian excellence and innovation in the arts and culture.
In conclusion, I would like to mention that, very recently, in May 2022, we held a National Culture Summit. During that summit, stakeholders from across Canada, including artists and creators, underscored the importance of cultural diplomacy as part of a strategic approach to supporting the long-term competitiveness and growth of Canada’s cultural sector.
With this in mind, and consistent with our minister’s mandate letter, we will continue to collaborate with our colleagues at Global Affairs Canada on the development of a cultural diplomacy strategy and continue to work every day to promote cultural diplomacy for the benefit of Canadian artists and creators but also for the benefit of all Canadians. Thank you so much.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Deputy Minister.
[English]
Colleagues and witnesses, I forgot to make an important announcement previous to the opening statements, just to say that, as you know, you have to refrain from having your earpiece too close to the microphone. This will ensure that there is safety for those who are working, the committee staff who are providing interpretation to us. That’s an important element that I did not mention.
Senators, as usual, we’re looking at four-minute segments for questions and answers. I would encourage you to keep your preambles fairly precise to allow our witnesses enough time to respond.
I also want to recognize that Senator Boniface of Ontario has joined us for the meeting.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much to our witnesses today. This topic is very important to us, and it’s been a real pleasure to be delving back into it. I joined the committee just at the end of the important study that was conducted here.
I really appreciate the descriptions giving us some of the colour of what both departments are involved in. It’s very impressive work. I think both of you — or at least you, Deputy Minister Mondou — mentioned the mandate letters. Both ministers have mandate letters tasking them with the launching of a new cultural diplomacy strategy.
You’ve both also worked together, as you’ve described, historically and currently. I’m curious: Where are you with the development of the new cultural diplomacy strategy? How are you going about the development of that strategy? What might you have learned from past cooperation that would feed into that? And then how will you measure the success of that new strategy?
Ms. Mondou: I will say a couple of things about where we are. Over the last years with the Creative Export Strategy, we are taking stock of everything we’re doing. We have gotten much better at measuring results, and that includes any activity we do. I will say that we are taking that very seriously in terms of the limited resources we all have to make sure we’re making a difference. Any work on the strategy will be informed by that.
I mentioned the culture summit. That was a way for us to basically consult our stakeholders. There were more than 500 people within that summit, and we had a session specifically on that to get their feedback about what they need, what’s working well for them, what’s not working well and how we can complement each other.
Another thing we have done well — and I think the book fair is a good example and a good lesson — is that when we engage everybody, we’re so much stronger. It’s obviously the collaboration between our two departments but also the portfolio and also provinces and municipalities. That’s some learning we’re taking on board, too. For example, at the Frankfurt Book Fair, Quebec contributed 20% of the engagement, which is amazing. I’m not even talking about private stakeholders.
I think all these lessons we have learned over the years haven’t stopped us doing diplomacy now. We continue to do it, but they will continue to inform the work on the strategy.
Mr. Morrison: Measurement is key, and some of this stuff is very hard to measure. I was just trying to find in my notes where measurements or a robust measurement framework was part of the recommendations of your 2019 report. We obviously measure outputs in terms of how many things and how many people came and all the rest of that. COVID threw a wrench into that, where we had, interestingly, fewer initiatives but broader audiences because we could reach more people online. We also had our program evaluated at Global Affairs at some point.
This is always hard to fund. One of the reasons it’s hard to fund — I look at colleagues from the Trade Commissioner Service who keep telling you that if you buy $1 worth of a trade commissioner, you get $61 worth of exports. It’s harder in cultural diplomacy, but that’s not an excuse. It just means we have to try harder to continue to make the case.
As we work together and develop a new strategy together, rest assured that we will pay very close attention to the measurement part of it.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you very much for your testimony.
We’ve heard from previous witnesses about the impacts of ending the Understanding Canada program in 2012. Given our multicultural tapestry and our rich Indigenous heritage, how can we best engage a broad spectrum of Canada’s current human fabric to implement an innovative cultural diplomacy strategy, particularly in geographical areas where we’ve historically been absent? You’ve given some excellent examples, but I’d like to hear a little more about that.
Mr. Morrison: We are, as part of the development of a new strategy, currently consulting — self-evidently, consulting in creative ways — and ensuring that we reach those parts of the country and those sectors of the population that have perhaps not been reached in previous decades. I think that is a good starting place.
I’m in the throes of trying to finalize our report on the future of diplomacy. I know you’re continuing your own study in parallel. Just this afternoon, I was looking at the demographic changes in Canada in terms of where people are coming from, the percentage of children entering first grade in major metropolitan areas who have neither French nor English as a first language, the rate of growth of Indigenous populations as opposed to the rest of Canada. It’s really quite something.
We’re planning for how the department needs to respond to all of that, including the shifting expectations of Canadians for what our international relations will be like in 2035 and their expectations given that, unlike in decades past, you can maintain daily contact with anyone you want around the world for free. That fundamentally changes what you expect in Canada’s foreign policies but also in the makeup of Global Affairs Canada’s programs, I would say. It’s a very different world because of information and communication technologies, so-called ICT, and the shifting demographics in Canada.
Senator Ravalia: For example, thinking about our Indo-Pacific Strategy as a new and creative and very promising progressive move forward, do we parallel some of our cultural diplomacy in tandem with that type of initiative?
Mr. Morrison: Absolutely. One of the things I would say is that the funding for the most recent period of cultural diplomacy has sunsetted. In our own studies on the future of Global Affairs but also in the study that our advisory committee did, one of the most significant recommendations, in my view, is to be much more nimble at reprioritizing resources. As management, as we look at what we’re going to do with the department, we are going to try to have much more of a culture of reprioritization so we are constantly looking at the bottom 5% and wondering where to deploy it.
I would strongly expect that a lot of that redeployment will be towards the Indo-Pacific region. We have no new programs coming to support cultural diplomacy in the Indo-Pacific, but my expectation of our missions will be that they reprioritize in such a way that they can conduct cultural diplomacy.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you.
The Chair: I’d like to note that we’ve been joined by Senator Housakos of Quebec and Senator Woo of British Columbia.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you all for being here today. It’s greatly appreciated.
As you mentioned at the beginning, Senator Bovey and I have conversed many times on the power and opportunity that sports and the arts bring on their own and together. We’ve even worked on similar projects without knowing. I’ve been thinking about that and reflecting on my participation in the past 16 Olympic and Commonwealth Games. I’ve been able to see in real time that Canada has led in empowering youth, international community outreach, peace and environmental sustainability through sport and the development of the Canadian Olympic School Program, which is basically sought after by over 120 countries. Next week, I’ll be sharing a draft of reconciliation through sport that Commonwealth countries worked on together but that was led by Canada.
My question this afternoon is how we can better and more strategically leverage international sporting events to bring Canada to the world and the world to Canada.
Ms. Mondou: Thank you for the question. The issue is absolutely right. I will give you an example that will happen this summer that illustrates your point. We’re going to have Les Jeux de la Francophonie in Kinshasa. In that place, they have a delegation of sports and a delegation of arts. That’s wonderful because those are the new people — the next artists, the next stars of sports — who will be there.
More and more, I will say that when we are doing a hosting bid, for example, we are creating a legacy of art with the program of sport that is very significant. We are going to work on FIFA. As you know, we have FIFA coming. Part of it will be the sport, obviously, but we will also have the arts and culture and show Canada to the world as a cultural place. More and more, we’re working on the two together. It’s now part of our advantage because we are doing that to show, basically, that Canada is a wonderful place to do all these things.
We are going to do that more in the context of Canada Games, which is a unique experience. There is nothing like Canada Games anywhere else in the world. You also have a program of culture that is just as big.
It is starting to bring those two things together as two elements of cultural diplomacy that we can deploy when we are abroad but also when we ask the world to come here.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. You opened with the francophone example, which is a good one. Just as a reminder, the Youth Olympic Games have only been held for 12 years, starting in Singapore and Austria. In that world, our Canadians spend a week in competition and a week in a whole Culture and Education Programme, CEP, so that they learn about the world and about Canada in a way that is fascinating, deep, heavy and something that I suggest we consider as a model.
Ms. Mondou: If I may, Mr. Chair, I would say another good innovation we have now are the North American Indigenous Games, or NAIG, which we hold between the U.S. and us. There is a strong cultural component to these games that shows to the world the rich Indigenous culture that is here. It is another example of how we can mesh these things to make it even more powerful.
Senator M. Deacon: You said NAIG.
Ms. Mondou: It is the North American Indigenous Games.
The Chair: Is that North America without Mexico? So it is just bilateral. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Welcome to all our witnesses today. I am pleased to see that Canada is investing more and more in cultural diplomacy and that you are developing a strategy to amplify the situation.
This does lead me to wonder — because when we look at other G7 countries, such as Germany with the Goethe Institute, France with the Alliance française — if the strategy that you are developing might contribute to the creation of such an organization. An organization that would be permanent, whose real mission would be to support, help and welcome our artists, our athletes, in fact, the entire cultural community that we have in countries where we want to be recognized.
[English]
Ms. Mondou: These are good examples of, obviously, a strong presence of G7 countries in their own way. Every country does it in a slightly different way. The U.K. is doing something completely different but also very strong. We have to look at what is best for Canada and what the best space for us to occupy is. That is what we’re working on to represent the artists and the culture that we have. It is certainly a model that we are looking at.
I will say that every country has its way to do it. I am not sure that doing it exactly like Germany or France is necessarily the way for us to go, but we are certainly looking at it.
Senator Gerba: Yes, of course. Every country has its own way of doing diplomacy, but sometimes we have to look at the best practices and we can be inspired by them, see if it is good for us and how much it takes to do it. Is it better? Maybe we can explain and we can compare. That is why I am asking. Thank you.
Ms. Mondou: Yes.
Mr. Morrison: I agree with my colleague from Canadian Heritage. Of course, we will look at all possible models.
We don’t have the kinds of institutions right now that you mentioned. I like to think that as we look at future possible models, we would look at what is most appropriate for the Canadian reality. I am personally obsessed not with institutions and new organizational structures but with networks and more modern ways of trying to project Canadian influence on the global stage.
If we need to have a different institutional set-up to pursue some of our cultural diplomacy work, that should certainly be under consideration, but I am seized with this notion that institutions of the future are going to look very different from institutions of the past. Learn from them, yes, but design something that is appropriate to the Canadian reality into the future.
Senator Harder: My question is for Jordan Reeves. You come from the business side of the department, the trade. I see the relief of the deputy minister, which I understand entirely.
Can you describe to us the place of cultural diplomacy not only as an economic benefit — it is that — but how you in your work leverage cultural diplomacy across the economic branding of Canada? You have just come back from overseas, so perhaps a tinge of that experience in this context as well.
Jordan Reeves, Director General, Trade Sectors, Global Affairs Canada: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for the question.
Cultural diplomacy or the Creative Export Strategy under which the Trade Commissioner Service has been very much engaged for the past five years has produced results; you are right. We have a good track record, as the deputy mentioned as well.
To give you a quick flavour of that, over the past five years, under the existing strategy, we have seen our number of clients increase about three times, 285%. We keep track of the services that our trade commissioners in our network deliver to creative exporters from Canada. We have seen an increase in services delivered over the past five years of the strategy of almost five times, 478%, and in terms of successes, as well, 562%. The numbers have been impressive.
The other point is that under the strategy, we have supported a small number of additional, dedicated trade commissioners in those markets that Canadian Heritage informs us are leading export markets for cultural products. But it is not a big number. We have four full-time trade commissioners under the strategy in London, Paris, Los Angeles and New York, and then another four-and-a-half positions that we call “hybrid positions” — half‑trade-commissioner and half-cultural-diplomacy officers. It is a relatively small number, but we have also seen in these missions that the number of results we have returned to our Canadian creative exporters has increased substantially.
I can give you one example: London, which has been a top performer for us. Prior to the strategy, amongst all the sectors that our trade commissioners work on in London, creative industries ranked fourteenth in terms of the number of successes that were returned. Towards the tail end of this five-year strategy, creative industries now rank first in London in terms of the number of successes, more than other sectors such as ICT, agriculture, agri-food products, those sorts of things.
All this to say it has returned results. It has been very successful. In missions, for example, where I have worked — most recently, in Taipei, but before that I was our Consul General in Mumbai, Bollywood — I can tell you that this program was effective where we had large film festivals, for example, where on the cultural diplomacy side we would support a retrospective for Atom Egoyan, a number of films.
But at the same time, we leveraged the presence of many other producers, directors coming in from Canada, not only to give them a stage and a voice and to bring media attention to them locally in India but also to raise the profile of Canada’s capabilities in India — a huge market — and then to turn around and bring Indian producers to the Toronto International Film Festival and organize business-to-business meetings to promote results.
That, perhaps, gives the senator a little bit of a flavour of the kind of work on which we are engaged under the strategy.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Boniface: Thank you for being here — some of you again. It is appreciated by this committee.
I wanted to pursue more on the provinces and the municipalities and how your strategy works to include those. You mentioned Quebec, but we didn’t hear beyond that. Can you give me a little more insight? I am particularly interested in the territories as well.
Ms. Mondou: Absolutely. I gave the example of Frankfurt, where actually all the provinces and territories were there and were represented. That was really an all-Canada effort.
We have created now a more formal table with all our provinces to have a better capacity to align but also to collaborate and to pool our resources together. That is a conversation that we now have. We have collaborated since Frankfurt on many other projects. What is really great is that we’re doing that in various countries, in various forums. We had the Festival Internacional Cervantino in Mexico; that was also an experience.
For all of our missions now, our trade missions, we are inviting the provinces to participate. Some of the provinces and territories come; some don’t. It depends upon the industry, the interest and all of that, but actually many of them have chosen to participate. So we’re getting more integrated.
We still have more work to do with the municipalities, to be honest. That is an area that we will definitely explore.
I will say another thing. The new version of the export strategy is also to try to focus on reaching people we have not reached before. That could include doing a better job with Indigenous people, going to the North and all of that. That will be a focus, too. Thank you.
Senator Boniface: That is good. Thank you.
The Chair: I will use my prerogative as chair to ask a question as well.
In my previous life serving in Latin America and the United States and in Europe, there were two programs that really stood out. There was the Understanding Canada program, which was basically to reinforce Canadian studies abroad with a focus on academics and, of course, providing enough for younger students then to learn about Canada. As they moved up into whatever line of work they chose — some became academics — they could continue being these junior ambassadors for us. That program was cut a few years ago; there were talks about reinstating it.
I have been lobbied, and I think colleagues have been lobbied, quite significantly by academics, well-known Canadians, writers who have called for the reinstatement of that program. I’d like to know whether there might be plans there. That’s my first question.
Two, I think Deputy Minister Morrison mentioned the Post Initiative Fund. As I recall, that is a relatively small fund where you can get a rather big bang for your buck by administering it right out of the mission abroad, for whatever purpose. Are you looking at that as well as a vehicle for a small investment but with a big gain directly in situ?
Mr. Morrison: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am not aware of any concrete plans to try to reinstate something like Understanding Canada.
As the chair knows, I followed him after some years into an early posting in Havana. One of the things that we were able to accomplish during my three years there, in the early 1990s, was the setting up of a single Canadian Studies Centre at the University of Havana. That was pre-internet when I left in 1994, so I never figured out what happened to it.
I do know that it grew, by 2004, 2005, 2006, into a network of half a dozen or so Canadian studies centres at universities across Cuba. By 2014, it had withered to zero, very unfortunately. I would say these things can come and go in waves.
We talked, before some senators got here, about the important of measurement. When fiscal times are tight, the programs that go are the ones that have the most difficult time proving that they have met or exceeded their metrics. Yet, certainly when I travel, everybody talks about scholarships, Canadian studies programs and cultural diplomacy. That’s what actually makes a difference and what people remember about your country.
I like to joke that it would be impossible to start a true liberal arts college today because you wouldn’t be able to prove to anybody what they got for the investment, but we all know how transformative the liberal arts education can be. Things can wax and wane over time. Unfortunately, the funding for Canadian studies has not been restored.
I also spoke about the reforms that we are committed to implementing at Global Affairs. One is a commitment to constantly reprioritize resources. It is unfortunate that the centrally managed cultural fund sunsetted at the end of March. So I asked, Senator Boehm, about the Post Initiative Fund and whether we couldn’t use that model, maybe widen the parameters a little bit, grow it and have missions be able to apply on a competitive basis — best ideas win. We are talking here about $3,000, $4,000 or $5,000 that can make a real difference to an event.
If we are able to free up more resources internally, one of my priorities would be creating a more robust Post Initiative Fund.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Woo: Thank you all for being here. In February of this year, there was a big event in Singapore, a kind of a jamboree of Canadian and Canadian-connected people and institutions and so on. I think it was called Canada-in-Asia Conference, something like that. I know that GAC provided significant funding and attended it with strong representation.
Was there any reflection on how the event went? What did you learn from it? What was novel about the approach that was taken? I have some thoughts on what I think was novel and what might be replicable, but I’d like to get some reflections from any of you who may have been involved in it. I understand you may not have been directly involved.
Mr. Morrison: I wasn’t directly involved, although I did sit last summer with the head of the Asia Pacific Foundation, APF, in Vancouver and listened to what I thought were just extraordinarily innovative ideas about how to bring a critical mass of Canadians together in Singapore, all at the same time, to have an event with a trade-and-investment focus, but also other activities tacked on.
It was such a compelling set of ideas that our Asia branch decided to have a regional heads-of-missions meeting there at the same time. I know Minister Ng went out. Some senior folks from that part of Global Affairs went out. They invited graduates of Canadian universities from throughout Southeast Asia to come to Singapore and participate. I thought it was a really innovative set of proposals.
I wasn’t able to go. I heard it was great, but I don’t know the details. We certainly can come back to you and inform you about that.
Senator Woo: What strikes me as really innovative is that it turned the premise of how Canada can project itself overseas around. Rather than thinking about what we have here to then project over there, it took what we already have over there, which is tens of thousands of alumni.
Mr. Morrison: Graduates.
Senator Woo: They are not necessarily Canadians, but they are all connected in some way, and I think that they were very successful — Universities Canada, APF and Global Affairs Canada — in mobilizing these friends of Canada at one event there.
Mr. Morrison: One of the things that is hard to prove that it hits its metrics is scholarships.
I used to travel extensively in Africa. The goodwill that we have, those are all ambassadors for Canada. I was in Bhutan once, and it turns out that half the Bhutanese cabinet went to the University of New Brunswick. It is extraordinary.
An Hon. Senator: And StFX.
Mr. Morrison: We do not have to work very hard to organize that into an asset for Canada.
The Chair: Mr. Morrison, I heard you commit to providing some additional information on this event. If you could do that or your department could do that in writing to the clerk, Chantal Cardinal, that would be terrific.
We’re into round two.
Senator Coyle: I have two fairly simple questions.
One, I would love to hear more about the constitution of your unit, Mr. Riel. What does that look like? How many people are there? What do they do? Second, when do you expect the new strategy on cultural diplomacy to be ready?
Patrick Riel, Head, Cultural Diplomacy Unit, Global Affairs Canada: It is a small unit. We have two dedicated positions from the Creative Export Strategy. We are able to hire people once in a while. Most of the time, we try to work with Canadian Heritage to get some expertise through secondments or we work with the Canada Council for the Arts as well to bring interchanges so that we can get that expertise at Foreign Affairs. This is our small unit.
Senator Coyle: Thank you. That is good to know.
Mr. Morrison: We have been going back and forth. As I mentioned, we have done a lot of consulting. We are into the paperwork stage and a formal set of options and requests. It is a very busy —
Senator Coyle: Yes, a lot going on.
Mr. Morrison: — environment out there, if I can put it that way, with a lot of craziness in the world, as everyone knows. I cannot predict when things will be considered or see the light of day.
Senator Coyle: Thank you. Stay tuned.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: My question is for all of our panellists. In fact, we live in a very diverse country with many cultures. Thanks to these cultures, we can benefit from an incredible wealth from our creators from diverse backgrounds.
I wonder about the current export strategy. Does this strategy include a way to use the creativity of visible minorities and what efforts will be made to further promote this diversity in our cultural diplomacy?
[English]
Ms. Mondou: That was one of the learnings of the review of the first version of the strategy. We have to say that we have to do a better job at really supporting the exports of people of diverse backgrounds, including Indigenous and racialized communities as well. Under the new strategy, one of the new features is that up to 30% of the funds will be reserved for racialized communities to give support to artists and sport.
The other thing that is interesting is that the new export strategy also has a new program that is there to support organizations that may not be ready completely to export but need that support and that help to get ready. So we are going to have an advisory service that will help and a fund that can support projects that may not be as big but are kind of nation projects so that people can also build and be ready for export in the future.
Those are the two things that we have really changed in the strategy, both putting funds aside for racialized and Indigenous communities and creating that kind of support for people so that they can also develop their companies and be successful.
That was a very important finding of our evaluation of the first version, and we are going to be following that very closely by developing new relationships that perhaps we don’t have and going in with more focus and intent to really reach that objective.
Senator Gerba: Thank you.
Mr. Morrison: If I might add, the structural challenges that my colleague just mentioned do not only exist in exports that have to do with cultural industries. There is a set of structural challenges that the Trade Commissioner Service faces in reaching racialized and Indigenous communities.
Almost by definition, many of the enterprises that they are trying to reach are small. It is relatively straightforward for the Trade Commissioner Service to service medium-sized and large enterprises in Canada because you know where they are, and sometimes they call you. But we are very well aware from our own evaluations what we need to do in order to diversify where exporters come from and who they are.
It is the right thing to do and the smart thing to do because the growth in exporting from Canada is going to come from small- and medium-sized enterprises, so it is a nut that we have to crack.
Senator Gerba: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I would just like to point out that the 2019 report of this committee to the Senate — as good as it was, and as good as it still is — has just been reintroduced into the Senate because it was not formally approved; an election intervened. We will have an opportunity to look at that in the broader Senate context. It might coincide with your own strategy at your work.
I would like to thank our deputy ministerial witnesses and their colleagues for taking the time to join us today. We very much appreciate your testimony. It has given us food for thought.
Colleagues, we will now begin the study of the subject matter of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023. The specific elements referred to this committee by the Senate on April 27 are Divisions 4, 5, 10 and 11 of Part 4 and Subdivision A of Division 3 of Part 4. Today we will focus on Division 11, which amends the Privileges and Immunities (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) Act to enable the obligations contained in the Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquarters set up pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty, known as Paris Protocol, to be implemented in Canada.
To discuss the matter, we welcome from Global Affairs Canada Blair Brimmell, Head of Section, Climate and Security, Security and Defence Relations; from Justice Canada, Michelle Campbell, Counsel, Global Affairs Canada Legal Services; and from the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, Ty Curran, Deputy Director General International Security. Welcome to the committee. Thank you for being with us.
Ms. Brimmell, you now have the floor. We’ll follow with a question-and-answer period.
Blair Brimmell, Head of Section, Climate and Security, Security and Defence Relations, Global Affairs Canada: Good afternoon, senators. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting us here to speak to Division 11 of Part 4 of Bill C-47. I’m Blair Brimmell, as you mentioned, and I work for Global Affairs Canada as both Head of Section for Climate Change and Security Policy and also as Interim Director for the NATO Climate Change and Security Centre of Excellence initiative.
[Translation]
As you may know, Global Affairs Canada and the Department of National Defence are working to establish a NATO climate and security centre of excellence in Montreal. This measure can be found in Part 4 of Bill C-47.
[English]
This measure amends Canada’s Privileges and Immunities (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) Act in order to enable implementation of the obligations contained in the 1952 Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquarters set up pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty. This was signed in Paris and is thus called the Paris Protocol in short form.
The requested amendments will enable the Governor-in-Council to make orders to provide legal status to the NATO Climate Change and Security Centre of Excellence, or CCASCOE, in Canada and to grant appropriate privileges and immunities to the organization and to its international personnel in Canada. Such an order will be necessary to enable the centre to operate in Canada.
[Translation]
Thank you. We are prepared to answer your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much. I have a list with no names on it. Senators, if you want to ask a question, please.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you very much. I was wondering how closely the centre will collaborate with other NATO members and partner countries on the climate change and security issues given the fact that, as is normal with a large alliance such as that, there will be outliers; there will be individual countries that may not have a parallel respect for climate change as we do.
Ms. Brimmell: Absolutely. Thank you for the question. The centre will be actually an international military organization, so not just Canada will be forming this centre. There are actually 10 NATO allies besides Canada who will be founding members of the centre, and they will send personnel to work with the Centre of Excellence in Montreal and make contributions to the centre’s operational budget, and those personnel will enable close linkages back to those nations and their governments.
Besides that, NATO centres of excellence are open to participation by any members of the NATO alliance. Their services can be accessed by members of the NATO alliance, for instance, analyses, expertise they might offer, courses they might develop and initiate.
Finally, it’s traditional that NATO centres of excellence tend to cooperate with certain NATO partner countries that have partnership agreements with the alliance. I’d say, as a last point, that several NATO centres of excellence also have public-facing or more open products and services, so they might publish their analyses or papers or research online or have conferences and workshops that are open to participation from people around the globe.
The real intent is that this Centre of Excellence should be a tool to enable Canada to work very closely with our international partners, especially those in the NATO alliance.
Senator Ravalia: If I could go tangential for a moment, given that our own contribution to NATO falls well below the 2% margin that has been the base standard, would the contributory effects have any impact on our longevity within such an organization in terms of actually establishing and maintaining the plan that you have long term?
Ms. Brimmell: If I could turn to my colleague Ty Curran to speak more about the 2% and defence spending point. However, I’d say that Canada is a well-respected member of the NATO alliance, and I think our continued participation in the NATO alliance is not in question. In this case, this initiative would be quite positive, as it’s a very tangible contribution to an emerging NATO priority area, and, in fact, establishment of the Centre of Excellence is something the NATO alliance itself asked for as part of its NATO Climate Change and Security Action Plan agreed by allies in 2021. It’s quite a positive measure on the part of Canada as a NATO ally contributing in this emerging priority area.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Your testimony was very clear and to the point, and this is something that needs to be done. I don’t think there’s any question about that.
I have a quick question for Ms. Brimmell and then one for Mr. Curran. For you, why now? Why not sooner? This is an old protocol; it has been in place for many years. I’m curious why it is coming now.
For you, Mr. Curran, could you give us a little flavour of what this centre will be doing? We know that Canada’s 2017 defence policy Strong, Secure, Engaged acknowledges, as do most countries, climate change as a serious security concern and that we need increased capabilities to address the impacts of severe weather events and natural disasters both here and internationally. I’d be curious to know some of the flavour of what will happen at this new centre.
Ms. Brimmell: Thank you for the question. It’s a great one. It’s one that we asked ourselves when we found that Canada had not yet ratified this 1952 agreement, although we signed it in 1952. We did a thorough examination of the text of the Paris Protocol and found no legal or policy reason why Canada could not have ratified it previously. Although we couldn’t say for sure why Canada didn’t ratify it before, it might simply be the case that there wasn’t a pressing need to do so previous to this. Canada has not previously hosted NATO headquarters or international military organizations accredited by the North Atlantic Council, but we are going to now.
Ty Curran, Deputy Director General International Security, Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: Thank you for the question. You’ve already talked about Strong, Secure, Engaged. I’ll highlight that under that strategy we recognize the security implications of climate change and the fact that it’s increasing our challenges in the Arctic and requiring us to deploy more — you would have seen lots of discussion about Canadian Forces’ support to the wildfires in Alberta. We think that climate change exacerbates a lot of the security challenges that we’re seeing around the world.
When we’re thinking of how any centre of excellence can support through helping ensure best practices, through bringing together academia and practitioners and subject matter experts, it provides us another avenue to better understand the security implications of climate change, to better understand how we might mitigate some of those. We are already doing a lot of that within the Canadian Armed Forces, but we think climate change will help improve our approach on that and, as well, provide information that can be shared within the alliance, helping out with things like the fact that Armed Forces have significant emissions, so looking at ways we can reduce emissions while also maintaining our effectiveness in responding to security challenges — how we can balance that out.
I think it’s something that the Climate Change and Security Centre of Excellence could be looking at. We’re looking forward to it.
Senator Coyle: Thank you.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you all for being here. We all appreciate it.
I’m going to start with perhaps a continuation of what my colleague Senator Coyle said. This Centre of Excellence makes clear that the strategy and military consequences are there for climate change. We’ve seen throughout the history of wars and conflicts in the past that out of war come technological innovations. I’m wondering if it’s envisioned that this Centre of Excellence will look to reframe the debate around climate change as a conflict and immediate strategic threat and thus leverage military innovation in creating carbon-neutral technologies in order to fast-track their civilian use and adoption.
Ms. Brimmell: That’s a very good question. Thank you very much for it.
This Centre of Excellence will be limited in size. It will have about 35 personnel within it. The personnel will have a fairly wide range of areas of expertise, but they won’t be able to cover everything and all the very many subtopics that we get to when we talk about climate change and security, like climate change, security, technological innovation.
It has been baked into the design of this Centre of Excellence that it should work with a very wide range of partners in a wide range of sectors, including industry. It is entirely possible — and I hope it will be the case — that the Centre of Excellence will work with industry actors in Canada and outside of Canada, especially in terms of collecting those best practices which might relate to, as Mr. Curran mentioned, reducing the climate footprint of military and defence forces themselves. As you say, it’s often the case that military innovation can complement or transfer to the civilian sector. It’s entirely possible.
The specific program of work on an annual basis that the Centre of Excellence will pursue will be formed by the nations that compose the Centre of Excellence itself and based upon requests from its member nations or from NATO or from other actors. If pursuing technological innovation which could be transferred to the civilian sector is a priority for NATO or any nations or other partners, the Centre of Excellence could take those requests on board and potentially work them into the annual program of work in any given year.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. Something you mentioned when you responded and maybe it helps with the other piece — I was trying to figure out the scope and size. How many staff in regular capacity and what’s the number of foreign personnel that might be there? You mentioned 35. Would that be the number of people you think would be at this site on a regular basis?
Ms. Brimmell: That’s correct. That’s the initial footprint of the centre. We’ve designed it in such a way that it could expand as necessary if there is higher than originally anticipated interest in the centre, especially from our international partners, who might want to contribute additional personnel to the centre itself.
About half of the centre’s personnel will be Canadian, many of them in supporting roles, but some subject-matter experts as well.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I will continue in the same vein as my colleagues on the operations of the centre.
I would first like to say that the arrival of the NATO centre of excellence in Montreal is to be commended. It is very good news.
We know that NATO operations provide that the costs related to the infrastructure, operations and maintenance of these centres of excellence are the responsibility of the host countries. The sponsor country, in this case Canada, and these centres of excellence must not incur any additional cost.
My question is: what is the extent of these costs? You are talking about 35 support staff members. Is there a market study showing the cost of this centre of excellence? What are the potential spinoffs for the centre?
Ms. Brimmell: Thank you for the question. In budget 2023, the government decided to give — I will continue in English.
[English]
The government decided to provide $40.4 million over five years starting in 2023-24 and $7 million per year ongoing to launch and then sustain the Centre of Excellence. Part of these funds will go to Global Affairs Canada, and part of the funds will go to the Department of National Defence, who are co-leads on the project and who will deliver different aspects of the project. So $20.2 million over five years will go to Global Affairs Canada, with $2.5 million per year ongoing.
That will mainly be concentrated on sustaining the host office space, IM/IT equipment and security needs for the centre, while $20.2 million over five years and $4.5 million per year ongoing will go to the Department of National Defence. Many of those funds will be used for staffing the Canadian contingent of the Centre of Excellence itself and also providing Canada’s portion of the ongoing year-over-year operational budget of the centre.
As I think I mentioned, the other nations who are sponsoring members of the Centre of Excellence will also contribute on an annual basis to the operational budget of the centre, as well as provide in-kind support by sending their personnel to work with the centre.
Senator Harder: Why use the budget implementation act for a protocol under the Privileges and Immunities Act? I assume it’s because that is required as a prerequisite to actually getting organized, but it is not a usual process.
Ms. Brimmell: Thank you for the question. You’re quite right; it is a time-sensitive measure to ratify the Paris Protocol at this time and use it to enable appropriate status being given to the Centre of Excellence and the privileges and immunities to it and its personnel.
In terms of the decision to include this in Bill C-47, I believe that was ultimately the decision of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, so I couldn’t speak to why that decision was made.
Senator Harder: But it is a prerequisite to getting it up and running.
Ms. Brimmell: Yes.
Senator Harder: Thank you.
Senator MacDonald: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization — I know all about the North Atlantic; I grew up on it. For 250 years, the navy has been located in Halifax, Nova Scotia. I’m curious: How was the decision made to place this new organization in Montreal and not in Halifax? Who made that decision? What criteria were applied to put this organization in Montreal?
Ms. Brimmell: Indeed, we considered many different potential locations for the Centre of Excellence. Some of the factors that were considered were proximity — as much as we can say proximity to Europe when we’re across the Atlantic — but time zone considerations, so that the Centre of Excellence can have real-time virtual engagement and communication, especially with our partners in Europe. Certain areas of the country have time zones such that it would have made that very difficult to find workable —
Senator MacDonald: Yes, but Halifax would not have been one of them.
Ms. Brimmell: That’s correct. In addition to that, we looked at factors like ability to reach the Centre of Excellence easily by air, especially for those Centre of Excellence personnel and visitors who would —
Senator MacDonald: We have planes and airports.
Ms. Brimmell: Indeed.
Senator MacDonald: I’m not blaming you. I think I know why.
The Chair: I have a couple of questions as chair. I’ve noticed or noted that there are 28 centres of excellence that NATO has established. With every established centre of excellence, there’s usually a big announcement. The Secretary General comes, and it’s a pretty big deal.
I’m wondering, as you get this Centre of Excellence, Canada’s first, up and running, whether you’re looking at the best practices undertaken at some of the other centres of excellence, given that they perform different functions.
Second, and this goes to where Senator MacDonald was, what sort of benefits would accrue locally? You mentioned, Ms. Brimmell, that there are some jobs that would go, obviously, to the local level. But as we look across the country, will there be an opportunity for Canadian experts and academics to get involved, whether they’re on the West Coast, the East Coast or in the North? What is your sense of that?
Ms. Brimmell: Absolutely, we’re going to be lucky in a sense that this should be the thirtieth NATO Centre of Excellence to come online. There is in fact a twenty-ninth that’s in development right now in France, Space Centre of Excellence. We’ve received excellent guidance and advice to date, especially from the NATO headquarters responsible for centre of excellence direction and management in Norfolk, Virginia, Supreme Allied Command Transformation. We’ve also been lucky enough to have good relationships with other existing NATO centres of excellence that have been generous enough to give us some practical and generally useful advice on establishment practices and best practices to undertake once the centre is up and running.
It’s envisioned that this Centre of Excellence will work very closely with many of the existing centres that have subject matter that is complementary to climate change and security. For example, the Energy Security Centre of Excellence in Lithuania, the Military Engineering Centre of Excellence in Germany or the Crisis Management and Disaster Response Centre of Excellence. There are 30, so there are quite a number with crosswalks between climate change and security in their subject matter.
In terms of benefits that would accrue locally and across the country, we do anticipate that there will be significant benefits to Canada in general and some to Montreal specifically of hosting this Centre of Excellence. It will, as I said, work closely with a wide range of partners and a community of interest that should include industry, academia and think tanks.
One of the benefits of Montreal was the fact that it hosts several universities and it’s also quite close to the Royal Military College Saint-Jean, which itself is establishing a program that integrates climate change into the studies for its students. Also, we are aware that there is something of a clean-tech hub in the Montreal area, and there are, of course, many other clean-tech industry actors across Canada as well as defence industry actors and other experts.
The cooperation by no means will be limited to those people and sectors who are right next to the Centre of Excellence in Montreal. It has been designed such that it should have means of collaboration and cooperation with partners using the virtual means that we have all learned to use so well during the pandemic.
Canada, as a framework nation of the Centre of Excellence and also one of its sponsoring nations, will have the ability to put forward recommendations for expert engagement with different members of the Centre of Excellence’s community of interest from our own network. Of course, these actors will be able to reach out to the Centre of Excellence themselves.
Senator Coyle: You answered most of what I was going to ask. I just have a small question to build on that, which is about bringing in the Canadian expertise from the various sectors — academic, industry, et cetera. I’m used to centres of excellence because I’ve worked at university. Often, when you have a centre of excellence in a university, it is a node for experts from across the country or across the world, in fact. This, I imagine, will be across the world.
Will it have the budget to foster and build on existing expertise? I’m thinking about universities in particular, where we may already have some pretty significant expertise where defence intersects with the climate change issue. Are there going to be some wonderful benefits beyond the centre itself and the centre staff and what they are doing with their colleagues in the NATO countries? Will the benefits extend to other institutions in Canada, where we may see some other flowers blooming as a result of this and their becoming national experts in this crossover sector between defence and climate change — housed not just at this node, if you like, but also in other places across the country?
Ms. Brimmell: Thank you for the question.
I have a two-part response. The first is concentrated on the budget for the Centre of Excellence itself. On a year-over-year basis, like the program of work for the Centre of Excellence, its budget will be developed by the staff of the centre. It will be agreed on by all nations who are members of the Centre of Excellence. They will form a steering committee, and that is the executive decision-making body of the centre. So ultimately, decisions on how these nations choose to allocate the budget of the centre will be made by CCASCOE and its members.
We could not say for sure right now that it will certainly have funds available to foster innovation and build on expertise. However, I would say that just the design of the centre itself and the activities that it is anticipated the centre will undertake would include things such as conferences, workshops and collaborative work on research projects. It really is meant to be, among other things, a platform that will be used to connect experts within this country and experts in this country to those outside so that we can all move forward in an exponential fashion to address these really serious challenges that we’re facing.
Senator Coyle: Thank you.
The Chair: I have a follow-up question. This will be the last question. It follows on what Senator Coyle said.
Since this centre will be located in Canada — and recognizing there are other participants and, of course, all of the alliance members — will there be a way for Canada to exert a little bit more influence on some of these climate-change-related factors in terms of security?
Our National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs Committee is just concluding a study on the Arctic. Mr. Curran, you mentioned in your testimony concerns about conditions in the Arctic. We have been up there. We know the conditions are tough, particularly with the melting of permafrost and how that is affecting infrastructure that would be used for defence purposes. With Sweden coming on as another Arctic power in the alliance and, hopefully, Finland fairly soon, this provides a number of avenues to pursue with the participating countries who have Arctic experience — obviously including the United States, in Alaska.
I am wondering if either of you would have a view on that. Technically, everybody’s equal. Would this be a way for us to push our agenda forward as Canada?
Ms. Brimmell: Thank you for the question.
I would say that within the NATO alliance in Brussels, Mons and elsewhere where climate change and security are already being discussed quite actively, Canada is a serious actor. It is recognized as a very active ally at the table whenever the issue of climate change and security is discussed.
Certainly, matters related to the Arctic come up regularly. They don’t come up simply when they are raised by Canada and our other Arctic allies. The rest of the alliance is fairly seized with the fact that there are very significant changes happening in the Arctic as a result of climate change and that these have implications for the alliance’s security interests. We could certainly say that the Arctic will be a permanent subcategory of exploration, research, analyses, education and training that will take place through the Centre of Excellence.
Structurally, the Centre of Excellence is a collection of equals. All the nations that form a part of it do have an equal say within the steering committee, but this is a body that is going to operate by consensus. We can anticipate that on issues related to the Arctic, there will be a lot of appetite for those to be addressed by this Centre of Excellence, as in the rest of NATO.
Canada is certainly a credible actor on that topic due to our geography and experience.
The Chair: Some country members would have the potential to be a bit more creative than others, I would imagine. Sorry, that is a tongue-in-cheek comment.
Senators, are there any other questions? We have heard ample evidence to support this inclusion in the budget implementation act.
I would like to thank Blair Brimmell, Ty Curran and Michelle Campbell for being with us today as witnesses.
If there is nothing else to raise, the meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned)