Juno News - Canada and CANZUK

00:00:00.000 Welcome to Canada's most irreverent talk show. This is the Andrew Lawton Show, brought to you by True North.

00:00:13.000 Coming up, should Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand join forces on trade and security? We do a deep dive into KANZIC. 1.00

00:00:22.120 The Andrew Lawton Show starts right now.

00:00:25.620 Hello and welcome to the Andrew Lawton Show, Canada's most irreverent talk show here on True North.

00:00:33.960 Our Friday shows, you may know by now, we do a little bit differently.

00:00:37.300 We don't talk about news of the day, but we take a big issue, a big question, and we delve down into it with the brightest minds assembled.

00:00:44.680 Not me, but the people we bring on to talk about it.

00:00:47.300 And today I want to talk about KANZIC.

00:00:49.300 It might not be a word that ranks top of your lexicon, but it's one that's gaining a bit more influence and a bit more notoriety.

00:00:57.120 It was in the last two conservative election platforms.

00:01:00.300 It would link the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Canada together.

00:01:05.820 An agreement that would range from free trade, foreign policy cooperation and any number of other things.

00:01:12.080 That's one of the benefits of it. It would actually be a customizable and a malleable deal.

00:01:16.600 You can kind of make from it whatever you want to make.

00:01:20.140 And as we see a lot of the challenges that are coming about in getting countries to agree on things, is this the future of cooperation?

00:01:28.740 Joining me is Stephanie Cusey, the Conservative Member of Parliament from Calgary, Midnapore, also a former diplomat and a member of the Political Advisory Board for KANZIC International.

00:01:38.800 James Skinner, who's the founder and chief executive of KANZIC International.

00:01:42.360 And Andrew Lillico, we've had him on the show before, the executive director of Europe Economics and a big proponent of the LEAVE campaign in the recent Brexit debate.

00:01:52.460 Stephanie, James, Andrew, thanks so much for joining me today.

00:01:55.320 Thank you.

00:01:56.520 So let me start with you on this, James, because I know that when people hear KANZIC, which certainly has a meaning in a lot of political wonky circles, 0.51

00:02:05.600 but I don't know has necessarily entered the public consciousness yet, what are we talking about here?

00:02:10.180 Is it a trade deal? Is it something akin to the European Union-style relationship between countries?

00:02:15.700 Or is it something entirely unique that we don't really have a model for in the world?

00:02:20.300 Yes, it's a good question. Thanks for having me on the show as well.

00:02:22.800 So to sort of briefly describe KANZIC, what effectively is an acronym between Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom?

00:02:29.460 And the name is essentially, it was originally coined, I think, in the 1960s, but in the last five years or so, it's really taken on a brand new meaning, meaning closer cooperation between these four countries.

00:02:41.640 Essentially, if I was to sum it up briefly, I would say it mainly revolves around three pillars.

00:02:46.060 The first being reciprocal migration of citizens between these countries, free trade, so these nations can trade freely with goods and services, and foreign policy cooperation as well.

00:02:54.980 And that would be things like educational initiatives, military collaboration, things like that.

00:03:00.060 To your point where, is it something similar to the European Union? Absolutely not.

00:03:03.960 I mean, taking free movement, for example, in the European Union, obviously citizens, about 500 million plus citizens in the EU are eligible to freely move between country to country, and there's very little checks across the borders there.

00:03:17.120 With KANZIC, it's very much based upon the already existing agreement that Australia and New Zealand have called the Trans-Tasman Travel Agreement.

00:03:23.820 And what that basically means is that a New Zealander can live and work freely in Australia, an Australian can live and work freely in New Zealand, but there are commonsensical security measures in place.

00:03:33.460 For example, you cannot do so if you have a criminal record, you cannot do so if you have a terrorist affiliation, you cannot do so if you have an infectious health condition.

00:03:41.460 Lots of other conditions apply as well.

00:03:43.060 So it effectively gives people that freedom to move between those two countries, while also implementing common sense approaches as well to, you know, ensure their safety and security for citizens.

00:03:52.140 And the idea then is that, well, if these two countries have free trade, which they also do under the Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement,

00:03:58.460 if they have free movements under the Trans-Tasman Travel Agreement, and they also work together, you know, through foreign policy cooperation and the Five Eyes and other agreements,

00:04:06.740 why not have two other like-minded countries come onto that as well, being Canada and the UK?

00:04:10.940 And I think by doing so, all four of these nations could work tremendously well together, offer freedom and opportunity and business incentives for, you know, citizens of all four of these countries,

00:04:20.160 promote economic growth, and just give people general freedom to live and work in these countries too, which is a tremendous opportunity for everyone.

00:04:26.460 So, Stephanie, I know this was something the Conservatives championed in the last election in September.

00:04:32.780 I know the Conservative leader, Erin O'Toole, has been a big proponent of Kanzik for quite some time.

00:04:37.780 Why is it something that you feel would benefit Canadians?

00:04:42.440 Thank you, Andrew, and thank you so much for having me on the show.

00:04:45.520 I'm a big fan of yours, and it was excellent to get to know you better through election 2021, primarily through the Spaces space.

00:04:54.100 But it's a pleasure to be here, so thank you for having me.

00:04:57.500 Well, as you said, our leader, Erin O'Toole, has been a champion of this idea for some time, and it was actually placed within our policy at the 2018 convention in Halifax.

00:05:08.720 And I was very proud to be at the mic there, putting it through as legislation for our party with the Honorable Ed Fast,

00:05:16.640 who's also been a champion of Kanzik as well, from our party.

00:05:20.800 But I think what we really see with Kanzik, and what is so appealing to myself and the entire Conservative movement and the Conservative Party of Canada,

00:05:29.540 is really a return to solid values and foreign policy that we saw with the Harper administration,

00:05:36.560 which has been sorely lacking in the Trudeau administration, I'd have to say.

00:05:40.780 And this really is just a return to core values, including democracy, human rights, the rule of law,

00:05:48.620 and the members of Kanzik are just a natural fit for these shared values.

00:05:55.280 I think it's never been more important than it is now, certainly before the pandemic, with the sort of great power, balance, struggle, however you want to define it in the world.

00:06:08.140 I actually thought that would shift a lot more than it has post-pandemic, but it appears it's actually being intact,

00:06:17.420 and I certainly know we could have another conversation about the changes we're seeing there,

00:06:21.700 but really that's what it comes down to, is that Conservatives have always clearly identified our values

00:06:28.800 when it comes to foreign policy, including movement of people, including trade.

00:06:33.440 And that is, as I mentioned, democracy, human rights, the rule of law, excuse me, free markets.

00:06:40.600 And so supporting Kanzik is really supporting the values that guide our movement and our party.

00:06:46.840 Let me turn to you on this, Andrew,

00:06:48.880 because James mentioned that there was a big boost of what we've seen between Australia and New Zealand

00:06:55.580 and a perhaps expansion of that that Kanzik could bring to the UK and Canada.

00:07:00.260 The big red flag there, of course, is geography.

00:07:03.080 These are not countries that are as close to each other as Australia and New Zealand are.

00:07:07.680 And I know that the geographic distance has been one of the bigger criticisms of Kanzik as far as, you know, the integration of trade.

00:07:15.660 It's not like the Canada-U.S. border, for example, where you have more goods flowing across it than any other land border in the world.

00:07:22.080 So why do these countries that are, in some cases, significantly far away have the ability to work together as closely as Kanzik would have them?

00:07:30.940 Well, I think, first of all, there are a couple of things to say about this.

00:07:35.800 One is that the people, I think, underestimate the extent to which the in the modern world with modern communications.

00:07:43.700 I mean, we're having a cross-border discussion even now that people communicate.

00:07:49.680 And so the tourney of distance, as it were, has been diminished by modern technology.

00:07:54.300 But I don't think really that's the main thing, because the main thing about Kanzik isn't so much how the Kanzik countries deal with each other.

00:08:01.300 It's more how they as a group deal with the rest of the world.

00:08:05.580 So when people think of these kinds of alliances and agreements, they tend to think of them by the model of something like the European Union, where the aim is to have a certain degree of internal self-sufficiency, so that the key thing is how much you trade with each other or how you do things together.

00:08:22.900 But actually, Kanzik is more a matter of how the Kanzik countries working together can face out to the rest of the world, how they make common calls on foreign policy questions on things like China.

00:08:33.060 So, for example, there were there was a joint Kanzik select committees letter about Hong Kong, complaining to the Chinese about that time.

00:08:42.440 It's about questions like so as well as dealing with that, it might be dealing in international regulatory spaces, agreements on climate change questions or the regulation of the Internet or maybe recently the UK has joined together with Canada and Australia in a joint medical regulation group.

00:09:02.140 So you have the question of there is a question of the internal integrity, and I think that that can work well in the modern world, but also had this matter of how they all look out together.

00:09:12.560 In fact, as James pointed out, originally Kanzik was coined in diplomatic circles to talk about the way in which the Kanzik group tended to caucus when they were voting on global questions.

00:09:22.900 And part of the reason that the Kanzik group can do this is because they have such similar values and habits and natural affinities and that also because of those natural affinities, which obviously have a historic connection and origin.

00:09:37.980 And also because of that historic origin, where we even have direct relations, many of us have relations who live in each other's countries, there are 2 million people, British passports, for example, who live in Australia.

00:09:50.900 So you have very large cross and cross country connections of that sort and going to a point that James pointed and made earlier, one of the key differences, I think, with something like European Union is because of those natural affinities.

00:10:03.900 You don't need to have the same kind of level playing field forcing so that everybody is forced to do exactly the same thing, because we will naturally be inclined to do things which are close enough, but through our natural affinities, we can work together without all being without needing specific legislation to make us do it.

00:10:23.820 I think that's a very important point there, Andrew, and I'll return to you on this, James.

00:10:28.320 And I would add to it as well that if you're trying to get all the countries to agree on trade, you would have some difficulties there, some interest that might not be in alignment right away.

00:10:38.400 And of course, that's all something you deal with in a negotiation.

00:10:41.340 But then you add layers to it, like agreeing on security and agreeing on foreign policy, and it makes it a lot more complex.

00:10:47.320 And one example of this that's very concrete is the Five Eyes Alliance, in which there's been some criticism of New Zealand and how it wants to have a relationship with China versus the direction that we see the UK and Canada to some extent going.

00:11:01.780 So how do you overcome some of those hurdles if you have an agreement that is so integrated on so many different levels?

00:11:07.660 Yeah, it's a really good question.

00:11:09.660 I think the obvious answer to that is obviously just, you know, the tried and tested value of negotiation.

00:11:14.660 I mean, you know, you're absolutely right.

00:11:16.660 In terms of Five Eyes, obviously New Zealand has, you know, taken a bit of a different approach compared to Australia and the UK, especially with the new AUKUS deal.

00:11:24.660 But, you know, at the same time, obviously that's more around nuclear submarines and nuclear capabilities.

00:11:29.660 And there's always going to be disagreements, you know, no matter how closely akin you are and how much of a close affinity you have, you'll always have disagreements because every country has its own different values.

00:11:38.660 But we're seeing that right now with the trade agreements that have been, you know, negotiated between the UK and Australia and the UK and New Zealand.

00:11:45.660 You know, those negotiations took some time.

00:11:48.660 They weren't just straight off the bat, even though these, you know, these three countries in particular, you know, Canada is obviously going to have their trade agreement hopefully sometime next year.

00:11:56.660 But these three countries, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, very closely aligned, very similar in terms of kinship and, you know, the Commonwealth membership and ancestry and things like that.

00:12:06.660 But at the same time, those, those negotiations took time.

00:12:09.660 And what we've seen now is that eventually the UK and Australia and the UK and New Zealand got round to agreeing those trade agreements.

00:12:16.660 And what they've also said as well is that, okay, we've now got the trade agreement in place, we've laid the foundation, what we can now do moving forward is actually improve on those and already Australia off the bat.

00:12:25.660 I've been saying, well, okay, to do that, what we're going to consider is actually liberalizing visas between the UK and Australia.

00:12:32.660 So, for example, instead of having it just as a simple two year visa like I believe it is right now as it stands.

00:12:39.660 You know, that's going to be increased to a three year visa and it's also going to increase the age limit from those under the age of 30 to those under the age of 35.

00:12:45.660 And of course, what you can eventually do then, not just with Australia, but New Zealand and Canada as well, is eventually improve on that.

00:12:52.660 So right now you might have a, you know, a basic foundation to say three year visa for those under the age of 35.

00:12:57.660 Well, what we can do and, you know, obviously, what Kansas International tends to do is to work with those MPs work with those, you know, those cabinet ministers in each of those countries and say well there's actually added economic and sociological benefit to improve in the age limit for those visas.

00:13:11.660 And improving the time length at which these people can stay in those countries.

00:13:14.660 So it's all about negotiation and, you know, it'll happen down the line.

00:13:17.660 It certainly takes time as everything in government does.

00:13:19.660 But, you know, I'm very confident just by the rate of progress that we're making right now.

00:13:23.660 It's, it can be done.

00:13:24.660 It will be done.

00:13:25.660 And I think it's going to be beneficial for everybody in the long run.

00:13:28.660 Stephanie, one of the challenges that has been put towards a Kansas is that a lot of the things that a Kansas agreement would bring are already in existence in some form.

00:13:37.660 The five eyes is one notable example of this, but even some of the regulatory stuff you could deal with in a multilateral way without creating this new entity.

00:13:46.660 So I guess the question is, what do you think the real draw is here that doesn't exist elsewhere?

00:13:53.660 I would say the real draw is, I think, the collaboration of all of these aspects under a single agreement.

00:14:02.660 I'll point out again that, once again, the Harper administration really was the origin and the master of agreements historically.

00:14:11.660 In fact, I had the honor of being in Peter Kent's office when he served as Minister of State for Foreign Affairs for the Americas when the Canada-Chile agreement came out, for example.

00:14:24.660 So I believe that we have a history of strong, comprehensive agreements, which really are for the benefit of Canada.

00:14:33.660 And I certainly would add that we are not seeing this with the true administration, as is evidenced by the situation we have this week with softwood lumber.

00:14:41.660 And Minister Ng is on her way to Washington as we speak with my colleague MP Randy Hoback in tow at an effort to try and alleviate this problem.

00:14:54.660 You know, so I think it goes back to what both Andrew and James were referring to, and that is really the history and the relationships.

00:15:04.660 And, you know, that's really what we have amongst the groups is just our respect for each other as a result of the values that I indicated previously, as well as the history as Andrew was indicating in his response.

00:15:19.660 But, you know, I think it's it's again going through these negotiations that James indicated, but for a comprehensive agreement, a comprehensive accord, which, as I said, was strong within the Harper administration and has been sorely lacking in terms of not not even comprehensive agreements, but respectable agreements, respectable relationships between parties.

00:15:45.660 And and and for all the reasons I've said previously, I think we can find this within the Kansas group.

00:15:50.660 And of course, I believe the Conservative Party is it would definitely be the the best administration to under which we could achieve the most for Canada.

00:16:01.660 Unlike NAFTA, which, well, I guess, USMCA or CAUSMA or MUSCA, they they change they change the name depending on which country you're talking about it in.

00:16:11.660 But but unlike this, which is more focused on the outcome, one thing that you've noted, Andrew, is that and I'll quote you here, Kansas, Kansas could be as shallow or as deep as you choose to make it.

00:16:23.440 So in a lot of ways, it's a framework within which you have a lot of latitude more than it's a very specific thing.

00:16:29.440 And I was wondering if you could extrapolate on that a bit.

00:16:32.440 Well, there are different, I mean, Kansas, because there's a broad church of different kinds of people who believe in the Kansas type things that they there are some who would only want to have a trade agreement and maybe foreign policy collaboration.

00:16:47.440 There are others who would want at least the three pillars which James has pointed out and that that Erin O'Toole emphasized and that you would then maybe build on those a little bit.

00:16:57.440 There'll be others who would want to have something that was closer to the European economic community in concept.

00:17:02.440 And of course, you can imagine, as with any of these things, there are those who would want to have a completely, you know, fully federally integrated country and, you know, let a thousand flowers bloom.

00:17:13.440 I don't mind having fellow travelers that don't necessarily those are those are the ones who want a European Union military, I think, right?

00:17:19.440 Yeah, but they kind of yeah, the kinds of equivalent of the people who want to have this European state.

00:17:23.440 And but I think all of that stuff is rather unrealistic at this at this stage.

00:17:29.440 And but I don't mind people who are who favor those things supporting us in the things that we're trying to achieve.

00:17:36.440 And I think going back to something that James said and indeed Stephanie emphasized as well.

00:17:40.440 The ideal here, I think, would be to get to the UK and Canada exceeding to the answer to agreement between New Zealand and Australia, which is regarded as the gold standard, the best of all international free trade agreements.

00:17:55.440 moments and to thatthians Jasmine for travel area, which is absolutely a superb agreement for guaranteeing appropriate movement of peoples.

00:18:02.440 Now, if we don't get.

00:18:07.440 But I don't think that we should think that the types of progress that we make towards that constitute failure.

00:18:14.440 you know if you don't get all the way there then you've still got the cancer concept because as

00:18:19.820 much as anything it's an idea of who you have as your geopolitical allies who are your best mates

00:18:26.240 in the world that you work with on a wide range of questions the actual specific agreements you

00:18:30.800 have somebody once put it to me like this they said that it was the thing that lets you do the

00:18:34.440 thing the agreements that you have the point as much as anything the point of them is that that

00:18:39.480 they're the framework within which you deal together with china or deal together with you know who knows

00:18:46.680 trump again in the white house or deal together with the european union in international agreements

00:18:52.820 or in you in things like whatever the next climate change agreement is so it's or deal together with

00:19:00.060 having a collaborative space program or something so it's the thing which lets you do the thing

00:19:05.820 and the thing that lets you do the thing ideally i would see it as having the kind of depth that

00:19:12.000 that stephanie and james want but as james said if we don't get all the way there in one step i don't

00:19:17.900 think that that's crucial so you can have both this question of different people having different goals

00:19:23.640 for how shallow or deep it is but also you can have a progression through time it isn't all or nothing

00:19:29.000 we can make it deeper and then somewhere along the way will some people won't want to go any deeper

00:19:34.780 and other people will um but over time we'll see what it is that in the future that we want to

00:19:39.580 achieve and and i i feel like we're making solid progress on this at the moment in in it isn't in

00:19:44.460 every uh kansas state incidentally a particularly partisan question for example in the uk and there's

00:19:50.880 a huge cross-party support there there's surveys have been done of mps and uh and of um lords and in

00:19:57.520 fact there's a little bit more support amongst labor uh mps than there is amongst conservative mps and

00:20:03.180 conservatives of the administration here at the moment in the uk so i think that that it's worth

00:20:08.860 noting obviously the uk is negotiating a deal it's a conservative administration with new zealand with

00:20:14.540 the labor administration so these things in other i know it's quite partisan in canada but in other

00:20:21.020 parts of canada it's not especially partisan and i think that that may mean that if canada can come

00:20:28.460 around in the right sort of way they'll be pushing it a fairly open cross-party door in the other

00:20:33.020 parties stephanie let me ask you about that why does this seem like in the media's interpretation of

00:20:38.780 it in canada just this little conservative pet project that's of no interest to anyone outside of

00:20:44.060 the conservative caucus and that's a great question um i just want to go back to one thing andrew

00:20:53.580 mentioned that's the relationship between uh canada and the uk and actually he reminded me that in

00:20:59.820 fact the first policy announcement in the 2019 election for manager share or amongst the first

00:21:06.300 if you recall from that telephone booth was a canada uh uk agreement and so it is something that

00:21:13.580 really transcends leaders within our party i i do believe that um if if i had to name something i

00:21:22.540 would say that it is seen as a conservative initiative i i believe even though it is something that

00:21:29.980 would truly benefit uh all canadians i think that the the government as i said they don't have

00:21:37.340 guiding values i believe that they are uh reactive i i don't believe that they have a list of nations

00:21:45.100 um where they are going down the list in an effort to create accords i i'm not not even sure that they

00:21:52.300 have uh identified the the needs of of canada it even appears to me sometimes and how these would be

00:22:00.140 met through various accords uh throughout the world so you know i'm not i'm not going to give

00:22:06.140 them a lot of credit in terms of even strategically thinking about benefits for canada beyond canzik

00:22:13.580 but if i had to give a reason it would absolutely be because this has essentially been a conservative

00:22:21.900 initiative a conservative passion i would go so far as to say um because of the identified values that

00:22:29.980 i mentioned previously of the harper administration and i think that's what makes them the current

00:22:35.500 administration shy away from it is that it would be impossible for them to put their mark on it it

00:22:40.780 would be very incredibly difficult it would be impossibly difficult for them to uh take credit for

00:22:48.860 for very difficult for the good that would come from such a relationship and politics uh definitely

00:22:57.980 it is a partisan sport for sure every day i sit in the house uh i i see it more and more with a with a few

00:23:06.540 exceptions and if i if i had to give a reason that would be why because it is rooted in the conservative

00:23:12.860 party and would be very difficult for the current government to take credit for the so many benefits

00:23:18.940 that would come from such an agreement that's no it's a very insightful uh analysis of that stephanie

00:23:25.900 james i'll ask you looking at late the labor movement i don't mean the labor capital l uh in

00:23:30.620 the uk or australian context as far as a political party goes but labor is in unions and workers movements

00:23:36.540 how do they tend to respond to this because i i know they're the groups that are often most resistant

00:23:40.860 to free trade you add into this free movement and i could see i could see it working out both ways

00:23:45.900 there yeah and it really does work out both ways so we've had positive feedback and negative feedback

00:23:51.420 from a lot of say union groups labor administrations you get some which say well you know if we're gonna

00:23:57.340 advance trade and you know reciprocal migration between these countries well that puts a lot of

00:24:02.060 work as a threat you know let's say you've got a british um labor organization in the united

00:24:07.980 kingdom for example and they've got a bunch of canadians coming over they see that as well you

00:24:12.860 know there could be a bunch of conducts coming over to the uk to take our jobs and that's not a good

00:24:17.260 thing but then you also get a lot of associations as well who are very supportive of it to say well

00:24:21.900 part of cancer is that you know one of the things we advocate for is mutual skills um mutual skills

00:24:28.060 recognition between the countries so for example if you are a architect uh in canada and you want to go

00:24:34.140 and live and work in australia well what you have to do right now is that when you arrive in australia

00:24:39.900 you no longer have a valid credential to do architecture or any you know profession really

00:24:45.260 if you're a plumber you're electrician what you have to do in australia is that you then have to

00:24:48.620 convert over your skills and credentials to what the australians deem as valid and collaborative with

00:24:55.580 you know their educational standards and that can set you back years of training can also set you back

00:25:00.060 thousands of dollars right now but under cancer what we're saying is that well if you've got say

00:25:04.540 a doctor in canada and you want to go and practice in new zealand well you know hop on a plane go to

00:25:09.980 new zealand maybe do i don't know a month or two months worth of you know switch over testing so you

00:25:17.020 can actually comply with new zealand laws and then you know straight away you can be a doctor because you

00:25:22.060 know last time i checked a human body in new zealand is pretty much exactly the same as a human body in

00:25:25.900 canada so why not have that easy flow of people coming from canada to new zealand new zealand to

00:25:32.220 the united kingdom united came to australia and so on so forth saves people thousands of dollars

00:25:37.180 years of time retraining so you get a lot of associations like that especially in the legal

00:25:41.580 community who say well you know if i can be a lawyer in the uk why can't i be a lawyer in

00:25:45.580 australia especially as we have you know very similar common law uh we have the westminster style

00:25:50.380 parliamentary system you know there's a couple of differences here and there which of course would

00:25:53.900 require a bit more training and you know certain educational credentials to be added on top of that

00:25:59.020 but nowhere near to the degree where we have right now where a lot of people have to go and train for

00:26:02.540 four or five years they have to spend thousands of dollars and it's just not worth their time

00:26:06.940 so you get some you know to answer your original question you get some labor movements some labor

00:26:11.500 organizations who say well no we don't support this because you know trade could pose a threat to our

00:26:16.620 workers it could pose a threat to our way of life and you know those those are valid concerns as well

00:26:21.260 but i think the benefits of what you get with cans like in terms of you know the trade dynamics uh and

00:26:27.500 also as well the mutual skills recognition the freedom that gives people the cost saving that

00:26:31.420 gives people the economic opportunity that gives these countries as well whereby you get skilled migrants

00:26:36.300 from all four of these countries a massive labor market pool to go to any one of these other four

00:26:41.100 countries where they can practice their trade or practice their profession without having to spend

00:26:45.340 thousands of dollars and years of time i think those benefits far outweigh uh the negatives

00:26:49.740 which is what you know a few labor movements are saying so overall i think it's a general

00:26:53.420 massive plus for everybody involved andrew i know when nafta was being renegotiated to become the deal

00:26:59.820 we have now there was of course the obvious discourse around who's winning and who's losing it and this

00:27:05.100 was uh certainly amplified by the uh the trump administration at the time saying that the us was

00:27:09.980 really the big loser of of of that deal and if you bring this now into a kansic context is there going to

00:27:15.900 be a clear winner in this is there going to be a country of the group that it's benefiting more

00:27:21.340 than the others and does that work against making it politically viable i would say that it benefits

00:27:28.300 all of the countries quite and it also benefits the rest of the world having the benefits of us working

00:27:32.780 together for them uh so that seems to me to be the key thing about that and in terms of look there's some

00:27:39.820 the details of the of trade agreements it depends of course on how large movements are and people

00:27:45.980 have emphasized it when you had the uk australia trade agreement there have been claims by people

00:27:51.500 that the australians have gained more than uh than the uk out of the deal or with the australian farmers

00:27:57.260 and so on i don't think that obviously people are going to say those kind of things i don't think

00:28:01.820 that that's particularly influential upon the debate uh these these agreements are so overwhelmingly

00:28:07.580 popular uh uh amongst the uh amongst the general population that all of that kind of stuff i think

00:28:12.860 really gets swept aside and i think there's also uh the the the migration point is also overwhelmingly

00:28:20.620 popular in in opinion polls uh the uk is actually the least popular uh in the uk the idea of migration

00:28:27.660 but even in the uk it's um what 68 i think in the most recent poll it was it was the support for um

00:28:34.780 cancer and when you go to uh canada what's five to one support i think uh australia seven to one

00:28:41.660 new zealand eight to one um support for uh for free movement and one of the things with that is

00:28:47.660 and and i think it also goes back to some of the business with the unions and the politicians as well

00:28:53.180 it's not that if really amongst any of these peoples there's any resistance to the idea of movements

00:28:58.940 resistance to the idea of movements amongst the cans of peoples everybody knows that that's popular

00:29:03.340 everyone thinks that would be a good idea what they worry about is that if they agree to that

00:29:08.780 they'll also have to agree to movements from lots of other people otherwise they'll be or either

00:29:17.180 they'll feel like they have to agree to that or if they don't agree to that then they're worried

00:29:20.540 about exactly what the critique is from various sorts of historical baggage you can imagine the

00:29:25.100 last thing any australian administration wants to be accused of is returning to a white australia

00:29:30.300 policy and the last thing that the uk will want to do would be to have open borders to the entire

00:29:36.460 world so it there's a question of how the um politicians reconcile to themselves the the question

00:29:43.900 of um having these specific agreements and actually the business of having specific trade agreements

00:29:49.820 isn't you is a useful hook here because what's happened in both the uk um you australia and uk new

00:29:56.860 zealand trade agreements is that they've included an element of visa easing so as and i think that

00:30:03.260 that idea that you connect them in some way even though they're not really conceptually all that

00:30:08.540 connected but at least it gives you an excuse so then if you don't have a trade agreement with

00:30:13.740 um the india or nigeria or something then you can say oh well obviously we don't have one so we don't

00:30:19.980 have these provisions and and that allows you to achieve that at that end i i think but even though

00:30:25.260 it's a little bit artificial um so uh one other thing i think that the politicians will get there

00:30:31.660 in terms of a spin because in terms of the um this the support for these things it's an absolute

00:30:36.700 sophologists dream there can be no policy which is as overwhelmingly popular as the idea of cancer free

00:30:43.180 movement even in the uk where it's the least popular absolutely every demographic it has majority

00:30:48.860 support every age group every social demographic every region of the country this is a policy which

00:30:54.540 have which has majority support so the the politicians it's like of policies which are not

00:31:01.260 already in play it must be the most universally popular policy which anybody is suggesting at the

00:31:07.260 moment and the politicians just have to find a way to unlock that key one last thing i'll say on this

00:31:11.900 is one of the things which has complicated this in the past few months obviously has been the covid

00:31:16.460 pandemic because once you don't really have much moving around at all and especially when you have

00:31:21.180 very aggressive restrictions as in australia and new zealand the question of movement and the the

00:31:27.420 advantages of movement becomes less high up on the agenda and it also probably becomes less high up

00:31:32.620 on the agenda for um aussies and new zealanders i mean all that business where um these people used

00:31:37.900 to go off on a you know gap two or three years well they've not been doing that for the past couple of

00:31:41.900 years have they so i think that that will come back once we get past the the business of covid

00:31:47.660 that kind of pressure for movement amongst these peoples will come back on the agenda again yeah

00:31:53.180 australians are i think still fighting for movement within their own country right now let alone

00:31:57.660 elsewhere but i just on on the note of movement very quickly andrew wasn't the free movement one

00:32:02.540 of the biggest hurdles that the levers had to overcome because that was a very popular uh sentiment

00:32:08.540 through the brexit debate for even people that would have been on side with the leave campaign

00:32:12.060 elsewise wouldn't they well free free and free movement amongst kinds of countries is extremely

00:32:19.180 popular amongst amongst leaders free movement wasn't even all that unpopular within the eu when it was

00:32:25.420 free movements amongst countries with fairly similar gdps when it was when you were talking about

00:32:30.220 france and germany and spain and italy and countries where they'd been pretty much free movement for

00:32:35.580 3000 years between britain and those bits of the continent nobody had any objections to those kinds of

00:32:40.940 things at all um once you started to try to bring in countries where the gdp per capita was only one

00:32:47.660 quarter and lower and less of the of the level so that in movement no longer became a matter of mutual

00:32:53.740 migration as it is with people moving both ways but all a matter of how many you let in that concept

00:32:59.820 of free movement becomes something completely different and that of course doesn't exist at all

00:33:04.140 in the in the in the cancer sector people would move in both ways and everybody from the can all of

00:33:09.100 the cancer countries understands the idea that there'd be advantage in being able to go as well

00:33:13.900 as advantage in in having the people come to you that's a very very important distinction uh just as

00:33:20.060 we wind down here i'll ask you stephanie and i'll ask you as well uh this question james we saw canada

00:33:26.300 excluded from AUKUS which i know is a security specific deal within the united states the united kingdom

00:33:32.940 and australia this was something the conservatives in canada were quite frustrated about during the last

00:33:38.060 election but does this agreement threaten kansuk in a way not because it tries to do the same thing

00:33:44.140 but it it creates relationships that still have the united states very heavily involved

00:33:51.020 i think what it does is it actually emphasizes the terrible position that canada uh is in the world at

00:33:58.540 this time and what a fall we've seen from 2015. so i think it's more important we look at the

00:34:07.100 meaning of it outside of the two uh agreements themselves because you know ultimately when we're

00:34:14.140 considering foreign policy and certainly security it should be with objectives and ends in mind so i

00:34:21.820 don't think we should be thinking about um the the form that that this would take or this over this or

00:34:28.940 because that happened this isn't going to happen i think it just highlights the dire situation that

00:34:35.100 canada is in currently on on the world stage just the lack of disrespect and disregard that has shown

00:34:42.220 to our nation and our leadership at at this time and to go back to james point about uh migration i'll

00:34:49.660 tell you as the shadow minister for employment future workforce development and disability inclusion

00:34:55.500 we have one million job vacancies in canada right now and this of course is precipitated by the

00:35:02.620 pandemic and the difficulty of moving people from benefits back to jobs but also an aging work

00:35:09.420 population but also a failed immigration system again through the trudeau administration over the

00:35:16.380 last six years and with harper it was always on an eye as to the economy the future economic benefit

00:35:22.860 of canada which of course benefits all canadians but again another example of this government's failure

00:35:30.300 of the execution of foreign policy be it security as you're referring to in this question andrew

00:35:35.420 or immigration as james was discussing but it all goes back to the values that a nation holds

00:35:42.940 and that these values are used as the guiding principles for interactions with all nations on all levels

00:35:50.140 and james will give you last word on this yeah it's um i think it comes back you know this is just my

00:35:56.220 my perception i'm open to being right or wrong about this but i think it comes back to the sort

00:36:01.420 of the different values that these governments have me personally i don't think it's a coincidence

00:36:05.420 that in terms of the orcas deal which is australia the uk and the usa i don't think it's any coincidence

00:36:10.860 that you know the australia and the uk have i would say right of center governments and canada and

00:36:15.340 new zealand have left of center governments uh in terms of participating in that so traditionally and

00:36:20.540 and again maybe i'm stereotyping i'm open to being wrong about this but i find those uh who are

00:36:25.420 right of center in politics tend to favor nuclear capabilities a strong military uh those left of

00:36:30.540 center not so fussed on nuclear capabilities and i think that that played a big part in canada perhaps

00:36:35.340 not being part of it in terms of the usa uh whether that would perhaps threaten canada i i don't think

00:36:41.820 so but again it's an interesting question and somewhat philosophical in nature as well you know

00:36:47.100 what we have counting international advocate for is is you know strong uh foreign affairs collaboration

00:36:52.940 between these four nations and of course part of that is uh you know working together on military

00:36:57.500 capabilities now statistically if canada australia new zealand united kingdom were to work together

00:37:02.620 uh on their military capabilities not combine them you know obviously just acting as nation states

00:37:06.860 working together they would in fact have the third largest military capability in the world i think

00:37:10.860 somewhere in the region of about 130 billion dollars and that's only after the usa and china

00:37:15.900 uh now would the usa see that perhaps as a threat to uh the sort of hegemony to you know military

00:37:23.660 capability possibly but would they also see it as a complement to perhaps keep you know adversarial

00:37:28.940 actors like china iran north korea in check maybe so so the usa could potentially see kanzig as a

00:37:35.020 complement to the work they're trying to do in terms of promoting democracy human rights peace stability

00:37:39.820 around the world they could see it as a threat but i think the usa would probably welcome the idea of

00:37:44.060 kanzig especially in terms of a foreign affairs capability and especially you know having the

00:37:47.740 usa being a major superpower having kanzig you know working together as the third largest military

00:37:52.540 capability in the world i think that would do wonders in terms of promoting international

00:37:56.060 stability and peace and especially keeping adversarial actors like china like the chinese 1.00

00:38:00.460 communist party in check in that way so it's an interesting question it's very philosophical in

00:38:04.860 nature but overall i think the usa i don't think it would be a threat in terms of kanzig i think

00:38:09.020 probably the usa would probably welcome the idea that's a good point and it goes back to what andrew said

00:38:13.340 earlier about the importance of not only looking at kanzig internally but also externally and how this

00:38:18.860 block would then interact with the world on trade and security so great points all around i want to

00:38:23.900 give a big thank you to a conservative mp from calgary mindapore stephanie qc former diplomat and a

00:38:30.460 member of the advisory board for kanzig international james skinner founder and chief executive of kanzig

00:38:36.300 international and andrew liliko the executive director of europe economics it was an absolute pleasure

00:38:41.900 thank you all of you for joining thank you and with that my thanks also to those of you who

00:38:48.940 watched the panel it's a great way i mean i love chatting with these people but i don't think i would

00:38:53.500 get them to agree to do it if no one was watching then again you never know but regardless i appreciate

00:38:57.740 you tuning in and i appreciate the panelists sharing their time and insights that does it for

00:39:02.460 me for this week we'll be back next week with more of canada's most irreverent talk show here on true

00:39:07.420 north this is the andrew lawton show thank you god bless and good day thanks for listening to the andrew

00:39:12.620 lawton show support the program by donating to true north at www.tnc.news

Juno News - December 03, 2021

Canada and CANZUK

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript