Evidence of meeting #111 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 spending.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
It took nearly two years for Canada to come up with a new defence policy, which talks about the possibility of exploring the idea of buying major equipment, such as submarines.
Would it have been better to say nothing about it, rather than to appear not credible as to our intentions on these acquisitions?
12:45 p.m.
Professor, As an Individual
It is a profoundly disappointing document. It's a Hail Mary effort by the Liberal Party, suddenly panicked by the realization that so many Canadians now consider defence and security an electoral issue, to address the shortcomings in defence. Much of it is not worth the paper it's written on, because it's pitched 10 or 15 years into the future.
I would say in conclusion that one of the things that concerns me about the committee is the partisanship. Use the Australian model, which is bipartisan. You have to move ahead as an entire nation.
In terms of the DPU, it would have been far better to have thought the thing through rather than to have rushed it out as part of the whole electoral process. It's deeply unsatisfactory.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Boutilier, in June 2022 you wrote, “Canada is a nation adrift in the Indo-Pacific, and that needs to change”. The government came out with the IPS, but it has changed since then. The government recognized foreign interference from Modi's government, but the DPU also brought a smaller focus on the Pacific region.
Looking back on that in terms of the last two years, how do you think Canada should approach the region differently?
12:45 p.m.
Professor, As an Individual
If we're talking about the Indo-Pacific region, when I wrote a critique of that, I suggested that it was aspirational and ambitious but 40 years late. In fact, we have come to the Indo-Pacific after the action has largely taken place. If we're having challenges meeting our responsibilities in NATO, we are in no position to fulfill our responsibilities in the Indo-Pacific, much to my deep regret. We should be in a position to do so if we find ourselves drawn in the future into supporting, for example, American operations in the region.
We have a huge deficit to make up simply reputationally in the region, let alone in terms of our capacity. The IPS dedicated us to moving ships into the region, but the navy will be at extreme difficulty in terms of sustaining that over the next half-decade.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you, Ms. Mathyssen.
Unfortunately, that brings our time to a close. I want to thank both of you for your patience. This is an unsatisfactory way to deal with an important policy document, but it is what it is and we are in the time we are.
Before I bring the gavel down, I want to note that this is the final time that Mr. Fillmore will be with us, and I want to thank him for his contribution to the committee. He may not be mayor yet, but he is resigning.
Thank you, Andy. You've been a real trouper and a real contributor to the committee, so thank you and good luck wherever your political aspirations go.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
