National Defence committee  It's friendly, in the first place. It is a friendly relationship that we need to build out to our utmost, but our defence policy has to have the capacity in case it's not friendly. For example, China is very—

National Defence committee  Thank you. I'm very concerned about the overall Canadian-American relationship at the moment. I believe it is a relationship in which few common projects get sufficient attention. I believe that the disagreements on Keystone XL, for example, have a significant impact on this relationship and I think there is a low expectation from the Canadian side that any significant proposals are going to come from the United States in the coming few years.

National Defence committee  I think it's very important to remember that Russia has been increasing its defence budget considerably in the last several years. China in the past 20 years has, on average, increased it between 8% and 10% per year. China is also quite interested in this stealth generation, this fifth generation of fighter jets.

National Defence committee  I certainly think, given Russia's policies in Georgia and Ukraine, that we ought to be able to think about what capabilities an Arctic conflict would take, should there be one. I believe it is part of defence policy to imagine that and to think about what capabilities on our part would be required in conjunction with our democratic allies to deal with various potential threats.

National Defence committee  I have to admit to you that the world of cyber is a difficult world to understand. But as I understand it, when there is a vulnerability in the lines of code, which is what we're talking about in the cyberworld, there is an opportunity for an enemy to attack, but when the enemy does, he also exposes his own capability, including vulnerability.

National Defence committee  At the moment, I don't think NATO is quite ready for the spreading of cyber-cooperation beyond what it's doing already. I think cyber is something so sensitive that it tends to develop more pragmatically with the democratic partners you trust and have experience with, and you build it up from there.

National Defence committee  No, probably more. I would say 1.7% and up.

National Defence committee  I would first make a small comment to your reference of Putin in Russia, since under Putin, Russia is increasingly becoming an illiberal autocracy. We have to be careful of what the Russian people really want. It's not the same as the free expression of interest as we have in our country.

National Defence committee  I don't think it will affect our interoperable capabilities in the near future, but I do think it's an enormously important signal for middle powers like Canada, France, Australia, Japan, and others to fill the gap of capabilities in the world, relatively speaking, that are being abandoned by the United States.

National Defence committee  Yes, I am. I am indicating that. Clearly, I am suggesting that experience with 1.1% of defence spending in the 1990s has shown that it isn't sufficient for defence investment, defence renewal, so I am arguing that there is evidence that 1.1% is not correct. If you look at the most expensive period within ISAF, it's probably about 1.4% or 1.5% of our defence spending, and that only renewed a small area of our capabilities—

National Defence committee  No, I would not use the word “mercy”. As mature liberal constitutional democracies, our disagreements will be settled by negotiations and by politics. I did not mention other liberal democratic countries in my two political opponents for that reason because I do not believe our defence policy needs to aim for that option.

National Defence committee  Thank you. To clarify, what I said in my comments was that defence policy and foreign policy and other domains of policy, of course, as an expression of our national interests, our Canadian interests, work together. But there comes a point where if our foreign policy objectives do not materialize, we must have certain defence capabilities that go beyond that.

National Defence committee  I think the comment about interoperability you mentioned is very true, but it is not exclusive of technology. Neither is the question about the F-35 exclusively around stealth. It's about developing an aircraft with technology from today into the future, rather than working with—

National Defence committee  I would say we don't know what our threats will be in five years from now. Therefore, since what we are trying to do in Canada is so ambitious and so difficult, we must be very careful not to go with the best, most modern technology available.

National Defence committee  In my comments, just to clarify, I did not use “military capability” in that sentence. I meant the ability to have air and maritime surveillance among three countries, because Denmark and Greenland guard the east flank, the United States guards the west flank, and we are in the middle.