Can I add something?
Evidence of meeting #120 for National Defence in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was world.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #120 for National Defence in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was world.
A recording is available from Parliament.
As an Individual
I completely agree with that, to the extent that we can do it at the same time as our allies and in collaboration with them once we've thought about the message we want to convey to China. I think that would make things easier. By itself, Canada can implement useful initiatives, but that's not going to change the world. Canada should expand its alliance with other countries, which would allow it to do more than it is currently doing.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I only have a minute left, so I'd like to ask you a quick question.
When you appeared on Power & Politics, you said that Canada was one of the most cautious countries, one of the ones that makes the least noise.
What countries are setting examples we should be following?
As an Individual
I would suggest the United States, but they're in a completely different class as a global power. I think Australia is much more direct. Even France and England can sometimes be more direct than Canada. I don't mean to suggest that Canada never says or does anything, but Canada is so worried about upsetting China anytime it does anything.
The countries I just mentioned seem to have a comprehensive policy that enables them to act within a framework. It doesn't necessarily surprise China. In Canada, the one China policy has been interpreted so restrictively that anything Canada says immediately sets off a lot of reactions.
Liberal
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I was one of the MPs who was able to travel to Taiwan, and we saw that ministry entirely devoted to digital affairs. I recently went to Poland. They were talking about a lot of the same things. We're very far behind in terms of education, but is this something that Canada needs to think about when you were talking about those larger issues and provisions of how we move forward in a faster way?
As an Individual
Yes, is the short answer. I think we are far behind. We are catching up in some ways here and there. The deputy minister of digital affairs, in fact, said to us directly they want to talk to us more than they have been. They want to share more information. I would guess they have more intelligence about what China is doing than we do. It's a two-way street. We could learn from them, but that's an area where it's not directly military. As I was saying to Madam Normandin, it will not upset them quite as much, but we could make a substantive difference if we, again, developed a bit of a program and push forward over a few years.
As an Individual
It could be a department, an agency, it doesn't matter. In my view, form should follow substance. Once you figure out what you want to do, then you can figure out whether it's part of a department or whatever. It's whatever you create or utilize, as long as there's the possibility of direct links.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
I want to shift gears a bit and talk about the Indo-Pacific strategy in terms of India.
India has become quite something in the news, and we haven't really put our entire minds to it over this past year. Certainly Thanksgiving was a wake-up call—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Excuse me for a second here.
We did invite the witnesses here to talk about the Indo-Pacific. The Indo-Pacific is more than just Taiwan and, similarly, both General Thibault and Mr. Fadden have expertise that far exceeds their visit to Taiwan. I take the view that these two gentlemen are uniquely qualified to talk about not only past events but current events as well.
We are, if you will, fortunate to have both of you here at this particular time.
My view is that this line of questioning is in order.
Ms. Mathyssen, please continue.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
I appreciate that, Chair. Thank you.
Last fall I asked senior officials from Global Affairs Canada and DND about India.
I was talking about the ongoing military strategic partnerships with the Modi government. We've seen them engage in extrajudicial killings and interference in Canada. I asked specifically about Canada's co-operation with India's military engaging in Exercise Sea Dragon. The response I got at the time was only that they would be reassessing engagements into the future. We haven't seen anything change as far as I understand it in that regard.
Could you comment on that and on whether Canada should reassess those continuing operations?
As an Individual
I think we should, because it seems to me that what has been made public over the course of the last little while has fundamentally shifted our relationship with India.
I know there are a lot of people in Canada who still think back to how it's a Commonwealth country. We were one of the first ones that recognized its independence. There are a lot of personal connections, but the people who are running India right now care not one whit about any of that.
We certainly need to find a way, in my view anyway, to maintain communications. We can't break diplomatic relations. I think there's been an agreement we'll continue on the trade front.
I would argue—and this is not directed exclusively at the current government; we've done this in Canada over the decades—that we have a tendency of registering objections to things and not doing anything. Maybe we can register the objection and at least suspend, if not terminate, some of these arrangements—that would be my view—while acknowledging that we have to keep up diplomatic relations. We have to find a way of continuing to talk.
The Prime Minister and ministers have been very blunt in their views of China, but they've only articulated their view. I don't think we have done anything. I think India will not register our concern unless we do something.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Would a fair assessment be potentially the banning of the RSS or naming them as a terrorist organization in this country, as has been requested by the World Sikh Organization and many Muslim organizations?
As an Individual
I'm not sure that the criteria we currently apply would make it such that it would be easy to ban the RSS. I haven't looked at that for a long time. To call them a terrorist organization, point final, I'm not sure. There must be some ways of registering our concerns other than simply saying so, however forcefully.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
In the conversations that we just heard and the conversations about joining the Quad and so on, that includes India, so how does that colour or change a response in that regard?
As an Individual
If you join a club, it doesn't mean you love everybody equally. I think that's true in personal life, and I would argue that in international relations it's also true.
If the majority of the members of the Quad are our allies and there's somebody there who we don't really like, we can use it as an opportunity to push back on them.
I would not say we can't join because India's there. We should use every opportunity we can with our allies to push back in those organizations.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Do you feel the same way in terms of, potentially, the expulsion of certain diplomats, whether they be Chinese, Russian or Indian?
Liberal
As an Individual
All I can say is that in a large chunk of my career in working in national security, I tried to convince GAC and its ministers to expel people from a number of countries on which we had fairly decent information, and that's a very difficult thing to do.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
We're going to leave it there. We're not going to be asking for details.
Mr. Cooper, welcome to the committee.
We have 20 minutes for six questioners. That's not going to work, is it? Is that three minutes per question? Okay.
You're down to three minutes, Mr. Cooper.