Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for having invited me. I know several of you because I participated in the committee's work previously.
I'll make my remarks in French. If you would prefer to ask any questions or to debate in English afterwards, that's absolutely no problem. It's just easier for me to do this in French.
I participated in your work, in particular the proceedings having to do with NATO and Canada's participation in various alliances. Today in examining the issue of Canada's cooperation with the United States, you are broaching a topic I know very well, since my doctoral thesis was about Canada-U.S. relations in the area of defence. Moreover, by extension, one of the topics involved is security in the Arctic, which is another of my research topics. Most of the topics on the committee's agenda are also familiar to me.
I would like to remind you briefly of my understanding of Canada-U.S. relations. Basically, when discussions are held with the United States, the work of the Canadian government must consist in seeking two basic points of equilibrium. On the one hand, Canada's relations with the United States have to be balanced with Canada's relationship with the rest of the world. There can be contradictions, or links between the two. In addition, the Canadian government's central concern has to be to attempt to balance matters of security, prosperity and national identity.
Very often, those considerations are contradictory. If we put the emphasis on one of those considerations—for instance, we can emphasize security and defence—we risk causing problems or difficulties involving prosperity or identity. I could come back to that later.
On several occasions I have declared publicly that I am a “continentalist”. That means that my concept of foreign policy and Canadian defence is based on the idea that Canada has to line up as closely as possible with U.S. policies. Prosperity and security and even Canadian identity is dependent on a very cautious, but real, closeness with the United States. I label myself a “continentalist”.
However, I generally advocate for a mature “continentalism”, that is to say that Canada must manage its relations with the U.S. in a cautious way. What I mean by that is a continentalism within which Canadian identity considerations—i.e. Canada's own identity—must be preserved. That is an important element not only for Canada's very existence, but also for Canada's national unity, as well as public opinion and the public support the Canadian government must have.
My concept of continentalism, contrary to what certain governments have done over the past few years, is not one that anticipates the requests or expectations of the United States. Offering gifts to the American government in the hopes of obtaining something in return is generally a strategy that does not work in Canada-U.S. relationships.
Moreover, I firmly believe—I believe in liberalism as a political philosophy—in multilateral and bilateral institutions. Certain actions or positions taken by the government over the past few years may lead one to believe that some institutions are no longer held in high regard, as they were before. Certain institutions may be seen as cumbersome, ineffectual or costly, but they also come with a lot of extremely important advantages particularly as concerns Canada-U.S. relations in the area of defence. The institutions thus play a very important role because they allow for balance in the relationship between the two countries. They make the relationship more predictable, and they set anchor points that we can use as benchmarks to develop a long-term relationship.
Finally, I firmly believe that the common values and vision held by Canada and the United States constitute a cornerstone we can use to build a long-term relationship. All of that, if you will, forms the basis of my thoughts on the matter.
Regarding the current state of Canada-U.S. relations, I will first of all discuss the Arctic and issues relating to security that come up periodically.
As you know, there is necessary debate on the nature of the problems and challenges that will arise in the Arctic over the coming years. We do not know what they will be yet, because this belongs to the future, but whatever we may think, those challenges will be important and will absolutely require international cooperation. That cooperation may be multilateral, via institutions such as the Arctic Council or the United Nations, but it is crucial that Canada examine more attentively the possibility of developing relations with the United States in that region.
Some progress has been made over the past years. For instance, the agreement signed with the United States in December 2012, or the Canada-U.S. Framework for Arctic Cooperation, 2012, are steps in the right direction. However, I would like to suggest that we go a bit further, as I did publicly before the committee several times by suggesting that a joint Canada-U.S. advisory committee be created on matters of security in the north. This would be a type of permanent joint committee on northern defence which would resemble a parity committee. Its mandate would be to explore matters of security that are of concern to both countries and to make recommendations to both governments. The committee would not be a decision-making body, but it would have the power to make recommendations.
You also want to examine missile defence. That is one topic on the list I was sent, and I will close on that point.
In 2004 or 2005, that question raised a lot of interest among Canadians when the bases were laid for the current Canada-U.S. relations. I consider this situation uncomfortable and incomplete. This would probably be the right time to go back to the issue and allow Canada to take part directly and openly in missile defence. I have in fact spoken out in favour of that participation on several occasions.
The difference between 2004 and 2005 and today's situation is that the opposition to missile defence in Canada was due in large measure to the hostility a good number of Canadians felt toward the Bush administration. That was also due to feelings that remained about the very controversial war in Iraq.
That situation has dissipated today and most European states have come out in favour of missile defence. Canada has not given itself the opportunity to talk about it openly because it has stayed outside of the program. Perhaps the time has come now to look at that issue.
Mr. Chairman, I think I have used my 10 minutes, so I'll stop.
Merci beaucoup.