Canadian provinces and foreign policy in Asia
| Published date | 01 September 2018 |
| Date | 01 September 2018 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0020702018791583 |
| Subject Matter | Scholarly Essays |
Scholarly Essay
Canadian provinces and
foreign policy in Asia
Charles-Louis Labrecque
Research & Programs, Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Scott Harrison
Research & Programs, Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Abstract
Non-central governments in Canada have become increasingly active on the world
stage, most notably in the Asia Pacific region. The scholarly works on Canada’s foreign
policy in Asia tend to focus either on the federal government as the main actor, or on
the ‘‘other diplomacies’’ of non-governmental actors; little attention has been paid
to the increasing role of non-central governments in Asia. This article, therefore,
contributes to the discussion by documenting and evaluating Canadian provinces’
international activities in the Asia Pacific. It also situates these activities within
Canada’s foreign policy in the region, and assesses how important provinces
have become in Canada–Asia relations. This paper first reviews the literature on
non-central governments and foreign policy to expose the key forces pushing and
pulling Canadian provinces to be increasingly active internationally. It then details
the provinces’ international activities in Asia, and locates them within Canada’s foreign
policy in the region.
Keywords
Provinces, federalism, foreign policy, Canada, Asia Pacific, subnational governments
The involvement of Canadian provinces and territories in international affairs is,
without a doubt, an increasing phenomenon. Over the last decade or so,
non-central governments (NCGs) (i.e., provincial and municipal governments) in
Canada have become increasingly active on the world stage, and especially in the
International Journal
2018, Vol. 73(3) 429–448
!The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0020702018791583
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijx
Corresponding author:
Charles-Louis Labrecque, Research & Programs, Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, 900-675 West Hastings
Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6B1J9, Canada.
Email: charlesllabrecque@gmail.com
Asia Pacific, where they have been referred to as ‘‘new, vigorous and increasingly
sophisticated players.’’
1
The sustained resurgence of Asia’s economies over the last several decades has
been nothing short of impressive. In a very broad sense, countries in the Asia Pacific
have been gradually closing in on Western dominance, revealing an ongoing gravity
shift. It is therefore no wonder that Canada’s relations with the Asia Pacific have
recently attracted substantial academic attention. However, as much as these schol-
arly works vary in their subjects, methodologies, and goals, they either focus on the
federal government as the main actor in Canada–Asia relations, or on the ‘‘other
diplomacies’’ of non-governmental actors;
2
very little attention has been paid to the
increasing role of Canadian provinces in Asia: the main topic of this paper.
Considering Asia’s growing importance at a time when the Canadian govern-
ment is refreshing its policy in the region and discussing the possibility of a free
trade agreement with the People’s Republic of China and with other Asia-Pacific
countries (and having signed in March 2018 the eleven-member Comprehensive
and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership [CPTPP]), the lack of
attention paid to NCGs, especially to the provinces’ international activities in
Asia, is notable. Indeed, if provinces are involved around the world, they seem
to be particularly active in the Asia Pacific. And this raises a number of questions:
empirically, for the study of Canada–Asia relations, and, theoretically, for the
study of Canada’s foreign policy and international relations. Empirically, a
better understanding of provinces’ behaviour in the Asia Pacific is indispensable
for gaining a fuller picture of the context surrounding Canada’s actions in Asia—to
learn more about the tools these actors are using in their international activities, as
well as to assess Canada’s shift in focus from Europe and the USA to the Asia
Pacific. Theoretically, the study of the provinces’ behaviour in Asia will help us
better assess how influential sub-federal governments have become in the develop-
ment and conduct of Canada’s contemporary international activities, and help us
1. Peter Harder, ‘‘Canada-China: Opportunities in Transition,’’ An address to the Canadian
International Council, March 2013, http://www.cgai.ca/canada_china_opportunities_in_transition
(accessed 1 October 2016).
2. For works that focus on the federal government, see Charles Burton, ‘‘The dynamic of relations
between Canada and China,’’ in Duane Bratt and Christopher J. Kukucha, eds., Readings in
Canadian Foreign Policy (Don Mills: Oxford University Press, 2015), 171–185; Paul Evans,
Engaging China: Myth, Aspiration, and Strategy in Canadian Policy from Trudeau to Harper
(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2014); Huhua Cao and Viviane Poy, The China
Challenge: Sino-Canadian Relations in the 21st Century (Ottawa: Ottawa University Press, 2011);
Pitman Potter, ed., Issues in Canada-China Relations (Toronto: Canada International Council,
2011). On ‘‘other diplomacies,’’ see Mary M. Young and Susan J. Henders, ‘‘‘Other diplomacies’
and the making of Canada-Asia relations,’’ Canadian Foreign Policy Journal 18, no. 3 (2012):
375–388; Susan J. Henders and Mary M. Young, ‘‘‘Other diplomacies’ of non-state actors: The
case of Canadian-Asian relations,’’ The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 11, no. 4 (2016): 331–350.Two
notable exceptions are George Maclean and Kim Richard Nossal, ‘‘Triangular dynamics:
Australian states, Canadian provinces and relations with China,’’ in Brian Hocking, ed., Foreign
Relations and the Federal States (London: Leicaster University Press, 1993), 170–189; and
Martin Rudner and Susan McLellan, ‘‘Canada’s economic relations with Southeast Asia:
Federal-provincial dimensions of policy,’’ Modern Asian Studies 24, no. 1 (1990): 31–73.
430 International Journal 73(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial