Evidence of meeting #9 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 nato.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Perfect. Thank you.
I know that it's been said by many, on earlier panels as well, that even though what is happening in Ukraine right now is obviously of high importance, NATO and Canada as a whole are still keeping an eye on everything else. Do you have any comment on maybe China's activities right now? We've seen that they have a newly formed friendship with Russia. We've heard testimony about whether or not that will last, and to what effect, but is there any kind of chatter about things Canada should be particularly watching for, while we're focused on Ukraine, in terms of whether they're supporting Russia in other ways? Are there things we should be watching for? I know that especially in the Arctic, Russia and China have maybe competing interests.
I'm just kind of curious on that take, if there's anything there.
5:15 p.m.
Ambassador and Permanent Representative, Joint Delegation of Canada to NATO
Mr. Chair, NATO in the past two years has focused a lot of attention on China to understand the implications of Chinese activities on Euro-Atlantic security. There is an enormous increase in the Chinese military capability, for example. It's being pursued with a degree of opacity that is of concern to us. But there is also a wish to work with China, for example in arms control, and we are trying to figure out how to do that.
On the situation in Ukraine, we're certainly very conscious of the summit meeting at the outset of the Olympic Games between the presidents of China and the Russian Federation, but we're also very conscious that Ukraine historically has had a good relationship with China. There is a possibility, if Ukraine can persuade them, that China can play a moderating role. I know that there have been discussions between the Ukrainian and Chinese governments.
It was interesting to watch the Chinese behaviour over the past week. They abstained in the General Assembly vote. They did not vote with Russia. They abstained in the Security Council vote. They did not vote with Russia. So there are some indications that the support that Russia was expecting to see from China may not be materializing.
We will watch this very, very carefully and with the hope that China will be able to exercise a moderating influence in the Ukraine crisis, because Russia is not listening to very many countries at this point.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Chair, could I raise a very brief point of order?
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
We're approaching the vote. I would like to again thank our witnesses for their testimony and service and also very much for their reference to the work that we're doing with women and peace and security.
I just wanted to point out to this committee, especially as defence committee, and with the historical imbalances in gender that we have faced and are continuing to work on, that we as a committee should bring better gender representation to our panels. That's a message to my colleagues as MPs and our support staff and anybody who's working with and for this committee.
Also you, gentlemen, as leaders in the organization and in our government and with NATO, if we can mobilize better gender representation, I think it will help us a great deal going forward.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you for that point.
On behalf of the committee I wanted to thank all three of you, and particularly General Wright, for your patience in being here for almost two hours. I appreciate your patience and your willingness to engage.
This concludes our meeting with extraordinarily good witnesses and information. It's been a very interesting and timely study for us. We appreciate your contribution.
Thank you.
Colleagues, before I gavel it closed, it's my intention to have a subcommittee meeting on Monday to scope out where we're going. I think all parties are in agreement.
I understand there's been a motion that's been circulated and there is unanimous agreement. Is it fair to say that?
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I'm going to work on the assumption that as far as you know there is unanimous agreement to have a meeting next week.
If we do go ahead and schedule a meeting next week, I will need at the earliest possible opportunity a suggested list of witnesses and a suggested area that you want to delve into so that the clerk and the analysts can start working on lining up panels for that time.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Mr. Chair, maybe the witnesses can go because I know they're on a time difference and I feel bad.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I thought they had left.
Particularly Vice-Admiral Bishop and Ambassador Angell, it's 11:30 where you are. I'm sure you might be looking forward to a little shut-eye.
Thank you.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Bryan May Liberal Cambridge, ON
I had the same issue that Jennifer brought up.
My only other question would be pertaining to the time and date of that meeting. Given that it's a break week, we're all going to have other commitments that we've scheduled. I want to see if possibly Monday after the subcommittee meeting would be possible.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
We're done, unfortunately. Please feed it in to me and the clerk and we'll try to work out what is convenient.
The meeting is adjourned.
