Committee on Security and Defence Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Replay
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
SEDE European Parliament
Follow its sittingsMarie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann
I would now like to invite Lucia to report back from the last successful trilogue and to give us a brief summary of the discussions and of the agreement reached. Lucia, you have the floor for five minutes.
Lucia Yar
Thank you, Chair, and as it was said, I am glad to report that we have successfully concluded the work on this file.
We will follow up closely because also the other files are very much involved in that one. So what we have agreed? Thanks to the regulation, we will drastically reduce the overall length on the permit granting procedures and I think this is something important that you can go back home to your capitals and say yes, the permits that are sometimes lasting almost two years in some of the countries, we thanks to the European Union are going to massively, massively cut it. And we are going to cut it in a way that once the country or project promoter applies and becomes a defense readiness project, that promoter is eligible to follow so-called single point of contact to streamline all the communication between the project promoter and the national authorities. Once applied through that, the length of procedure is limited to 42 working days with a possible extension of another 60 days.
So altogether we're talking about 102 days at most. And it is counted from the confirmation that the application is complete. So we're not derogating or going away from the procedures and certain stamps and confirmations that need to be there. Nevertheless, it cannot be longer, the process of getting the permit longer than 102 days. And what is the main driver and motivation for the member states to actually accelerate the procedure and issue decisions in a due time?
We are also introducing so-called tacit approval. It simply means that if a member state does not issue a decision within the given timeline, the project will be granted a permit automatically once the deadline expires. This mechanism was what Council was resisting the most during the negotiations. Nevertheless, we managed to push this through. However, there are two kind of conditions that are slightly narrowing this whole approach.
Firstly, there is a 12 months cutoff, meaning that if a member state wishes to derogate, meaning change something within the tacit approval or simply introducing it or limiting it, it only has 12 months of entry into force this kind of new law. And secondly, at the same time, such derogation may be invoked only in two duly substantiated grounds and only after a case-by-case assessment and those two grounds are grave risk to human health or the national or to national security. We have also succeeded in pushing through a monitoring and reporting and review clause, which was our political priority also despite strong resistance from the Council. This is not an extra burden, administrative or bureaucratic, this is just to report annually on the applications of these rules. We need to know whether these are working or not.
So to conclude, this is still a very strong outcome. We had Marie-Agnes present at the trilogues, we had Commissioner Kubilius, and I think the agreement was fairly fine. I'm pretty happy that we delivered to our priorities. I want to thank to Mr. Da, my co-rapporteur from the IMCO side, but also shadows that were present throughout all the discussion, especially shadows from SEDE, which really helped us to shape the final piece of what we got. And especially also I would like to thank to Marie-Agnes for keeping it all civil throughout the process.
Thanks to all the technical teams because it wasn't an easy nut to crack, but I think we've achieved what was possible at the moment, time and the frame that we've been working. So thanks everybody once again.
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann
Thank you too, Lucia. It was really not easy, but it is like it is. So any other comments? Okay, then we continue to conclude our updates on the Defense Omnibus negotiations. We will now move to the debrief on the trilogue concerning defense readiness and measures to facilitate defense investment and strengthen the conditions to the defense industry.
This trilogue took place on the 19th May in Strasbourg, and I had the honor of chairing Parliament's negotiation team with Sven Mikser from S&D SEDE, and from Pier Francesco Maran from S&D ENVI, and Aura Salla from EPP ITRE as lead negotiators. I would now like to give the floor to SEDE rapporteur Sven Mikser to go further into content on the discussions. Sven, you have the floor.
Sven Mikser
Yes, thank you very much, Chair. This file was shared between three committees, but we had a rather clear demarcation of responsibilities. So the ENVI committee dealt with the part of the file that relates to the chemicals regulation, and the parts pertaining to the EDF were jointly dealt with by the SEDE and ITRE committees. We had, as the Chair said, a successful trilogue negotiations last Strasbourg plenary week, Tuesday, the 19th of May, and we came to a provisional agreement. This proposal is part of the Defense Omnibus package, obviously, and among other things, it introduced targeted amendments to the European Defense Fund to make it more responsive to current defense needs.
It responds to lessons learned from Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which exposed shortcomings in Europe's defense industrial base and highlighted the need to accelerate defense production, innovation, and industrial capacity. More broadly, the proposal seeks to remove regulatory barriers and adapt the EU legislative framework to strengthen Europe's defense readiness by 2030. This text, or the final outcome, echoes the outcome of the mini-omnibus on the topic of the inclusion of Ukraine. Under the final text, costs related to cooperation with Ukraine entities for testing activities can be supported by the EDF where this strengthens the competitiveness, efficiency, and innovation capacity of the European defense and technological and industrial base. We also restored the provision that Union funding may be rewarded without a call for proposals only in duly justified and exceptional circumstances.
There was some discussion on the on the award criteria. The Commission in their original draft proposed that research and development actions could be assessed only on the basis of one or more criteria rather than all criteria listed in the previous version. The European Parliament argued that that essentially when you it it is reasonable to reduce the number of criteria that need to be met, but in such a case they must be of roughly similar degree of specificity. So we the outcome was that we agreed to always assess the proposals against two core criteria: the contribution to excellence in the defense domain and the quality and efficiency. And in addition, proposals will be assessed against one additional one or more additional criteria, including a new criterion on the contribution to addressing the needs of Member States and associated countries facing the highest exposure to conventional military threat.
One of the most sensitive issues and actually the last one to be resolved was the issue of negotiations on the access rights to results of the EDF development actions for national authorities that co-finance projects. The Parliament's initial concern was that while we recognize that there is a legitimate expectation on behalf of the Member States to gain access to the results that were co-financed by of the of the actions that were co-financed by those governments, the wording proposed by the Commission did not provide sufficient clarity on on what exactly is entailed and what is not in the in the access rights. We ultimately reached a balanced compromise. National authorities and the companies generating the results are required to to negotiate access rights in good faith, but there is no automatic obligation to actually come to a conclusion and to grant the rights. Importantly, any access rights that that would be granted cannot involve the transfer of intellectual property ownership and are limited only to non-commercial and non-competitive uses.
I think this outcome strikes the right balance between the interests of public authorities and the protection of industrial intellectual property. I think it's also a strong result for the Parliament and one of the key achievements in the in the negotiations. So we have a positive outcome now on the two files and and I'm hopeful that there will be soon a positive conclusion of the third file so that that we can come to a conclusion of the whole package because they they are treated as a package by the by the institutions. So hopefully we will be able to vote in the committee soon and then plenary before the summer break. Thank you.
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann
Thank you very much, Sven. I'm very pleased with the progress made on this file. I look forward to further positive developments on the outstanding issues under this omnibus. So thank you to all involved members but also staff for your efforts. Any comments to...
Okay, so thank thank you very much in these really special times. So we continue. We are a little bit quick, but I think seven minutes too early, it's okay. Everybody's ready for takeoff? Perfect.
So if you travel with the German Bundesbahn, everybody is shocked if the train is too early. So, dear colleagues, we will now continue with the debriefing of the DNAT delegation of the spring session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Vilnius. And now give the floor to the DNAT chair, Salvatore De Meo. The floor is yours.
Salvatore De Meo
Thank you for the floor. I'm glad to report back on what was the first mission of DNAT delegation under our new status as partner for comprehensive security. The spring session took place from 30 May to 1 June, hosted by Seimas of Lithuania. And I led the delegation of eight members from different political groups working together in a focused and coordinated way. What set this session apart was how we prepared.
Thank you, President.
Before the mission, the secretariat mapped every report under discussion in assembly's committees against our legislative work. The preparation made the difference because we didn't come with general political statements. We came with specific arguments grounding in our role as co-legislators on military mobility, burden sharing, defense financing, technological warfare, counter-terrorism, hybrid threats, and Ukraine. In every debate, our message was consistent. The European Parliament is not simply present, it's actively contributing ideas and concrete proposal to strengthen assembly's work.
I held bilaterals with the President Perestrello and with the committee chairs, and our discussion focused on how to better structure the European Parliament's contribution and how to make our right to table amendments more meaningful and effective. We also exchanged views on the 2027 spring session, which will be hosted by European Parliament for the first time in its history. And we agreed on the political message that session must carry. The EU-NATO bond is strategic and indivisible. The meeting with Ukraine delegation was, as always, one of the most important moments of the session.
The conversation was frank and we reaffirmed full support, financial, military, and political. We also listened to their concrete requests: air defense system, CBAM exception, acceleration of the accession process. What we bring back from Vilnius is clear. Ukraine's security and Ukraine's path to EU membership are not separate agendas, but they are the same fight. In plenary, the debate on the transatlantic partnership was the most political charge of the session.
Members stressed the need for the assembly to project a clear message of unity and determination. As I said in Vilnius, at a moment when adversaries seek to divide the alliance through disinformation, hybrid pressure, and exploitation of political fault lines, this assembly chose unity over division. A reduced American role is not a crisis to be managed, it's a responsibility that Europeans must be ready to assume. Our next stop will be Berlin in November. Before then, we have important work ahead in preparing for Brussels 2027.
And this is not only organization challenges for our service, but it will also be a highly symbolic moment for EU-NATO partnership and a demonstration of the value of parliamentary dialogue and parliamentary diplomacy. Now, if they want, I give the floor to members of the DNAT delegation who participated in the mission and who may wish to share their first-hand impression from the committees in which they worked. Thank you.
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann
Thank you very much. Maybe somebody wants to add something? Please.
Nicolás Pascual de la Parte
Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you very much, De Meo, for the read-out of a very interesting meeting with the Parliamentary Assembly of NATO. I think that here concerning Ukraine, we are doing a confusing exercise here because we promise our Ukrainian friends to have a fast-track entry into the European Union and not total full membership of NATO, but also to integrate them into our military structures in the European Union.
And they are receiving confusing messages of one step forward and two steps backwards. I think that all of us, we should, all the political groups, we should make here an exercise of honesty in order to convey to our friends in Kyiv what are we ready to offer them concerning the European Union, concerning NATO. Because otherwise, these confusing exercises are bringing about disappointment on the side of the Ukrainian side, and they don't deserve that. I think that again here, we should have our ideas clear and to convey our political parties to come to an agreement as to what exactly we can offer them. I understand that there is in the next meeting of the heads of state and government in June, they are going to come to more concrete details concerning the profile of the offer from the European Union.
There is some ideas there to have a progressive accession of Ukraine into the European Union, not in the institutions, but to benefit from the EU programs and to be present in the working groups and so on. I think that again here, we need all of us clarity, and I only wanted to raise this point with you. It's more a reflection than anything else. Thank you.
Tobias Cremer
I mean, very briefly on that, I agree, but I would also say in some ways we have actually just done that yesterday voting on the committee in the AFET report on Ukraine, which I think was very clear on these points. So I think it's also very good that we have this connection and this consistency across Parliament, across the different committees. But I agree with your points and really think we should focus and also have this regard also with regards to NATO and defense in the report, which I think is the case. Maybe just one or two comments in addition to what Salvatore mentioned. We really noticed that there was an increased interest in the European Union delegation.
There were a lot of conversations, not just from the transatlantic side, but the Ukrainian side, but many, many members really coming to come up to us because they understand that at this moment, the European Union has a role to play, and I'm very glad that we actually managed to also bring that into the final text. One final thing, once again, it's more reflection, but I think also the conversations with our Turkish partners, I had a couple of bilaterals with our Turkish partners, and I think we have to be especially as a European Union, be very, very careful and explicit looking into the next summit coming up in Ankara and think of what can we offer to make sure that this becomes a success, both with regards to how we find a way of better burden-sharing with our American allies, but also finding a way to come to an agreement with Turkey, because the problem continues to be that a lot of the barriers to EU-NATO cooperation is the unresolved issue of Turkey and Cyprus, and it's simply unsustainable that we continue in that way. And I think we should also as a SEDE committee start thinking about that, how we can find solutions there that protect the interests of the EU, but also further the interests of the alliance as a whole and the cooperation between EU and NATO.
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann
Thank you very much. Another comment? Maybe Walter, you want to add something? It's not a must, just possibility. Okay.
And Martens.
Martens
Maybe I could just tell a few words for myself that many people asked me about this meeting, how the our colleagues from United States was reacting in this meeting.
Et juste quelques mots pour dire qu'ils étaient assez sensibles sur deux sujets. Le premier sujet concernait les livraisons d'armes à l'Ukraine. Ils ont pris la parole à chaque fois pour dire que nous soutenons toujours l'Ukraine et que nous leur livrons toujours les systèmes d'armes, même si, comme nous le savons tous, nous payons pour cela. Et ils étaient également très sensibles concernant l'Iran. Il y avait une demande d'amendement de la part de quelques membres de l'AP de l'OTAN, mais cet amendement n'a pas été inclus dans la résolution parce que les collègues des États-Unis y étaient strictement opposés.
Et ils exhortent tout le monde à rester unis et, vous savez, à ne pas créer de conflits entre les États membres de l'OTAN. Cela n'a donc pas été inclus dans le texte. Merci.
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann
Salvatore. D'accord. Merci beaucoup. Je suis donc heureuse de vous informer que la prochaine session annuelle aura lieu à Berlin du 20 au 23 novembre 2026 à Berlin. D'accord.
Maintenant, nous sommes vraiment rapides. Nous sommes vraiment rapides. D'accord. Alors, nous commençons par le compte rendu du voyage au Canada. Peut-être pourrions-nous commencer par Petras, puis nous attendrons l'arrivée de nos collègues.
D'accord. Le point suivant de l'ordre du jour est un compte rendu de la mission SEDE à Ottawa qui a eu lieu la semaine dernière, du 26 au 28 mai. Nous discuterons également avec nos invités, nous les attendons, des résultats du plus récent dialogue UE-Canada sur la sécurité et la défense qui a eu lieu à Bruxelles le 21 mai. Ainsi, le vice-président de la SEDE, Auštrevičius, a dirigé la mission et était accompagné de Nicolas Pascual de la Parte, Laurent Vinz de l'EPP, Ana Catarina Mendes pour S&D et Petras pour Renew. La délégation de la SEDE a conclu la visite en donnant une évaluation positive des progrès réalisés dans la mise en œuvre du partenariat de sécurité et de défense UE-Canada.
J'aimerais maintenant donner la parole à Petras, qui s'exprimera au nom du chef de la délégation pour nous rendre compte des résultats de la mission. La parole est à vous, Petras, et prenez votre temps car nous sommes un peu en avance et nous attendons nos invités. La parole est à vous.
Petras Auštrevičius
Merci, Madame la Présidente. Je pourrais me plonger dans les biographies, les CV de ces cinq membres dévoués et travailleurs qui se sont rendus au Canada récemment, la semaine dernière, pendant quatre jours. C'est la durée de notre visite. Mais en effet, vous voyez, chers collègues, pendant des décennies et des décennies, le Canada s'est appuyé sur la géographie. Au nord, l'Arctique.
Au sud, un partenaire fiable, les États-Unis. À cause du changement climatique et de l'administration Trump, les choses ont changé. Et le Canada s'est retrouvé dans une situation absolument différente. C'est pourquoi, Madame la Présidente, je suppose que notre visite était très opportune, très nécessaire. Et je pense que nous tous, toute la délégation, avons beaucoup appris et nous devons poursuivre nos contacts avec le Canada bien davantage dans les mois et les années à venir.
For decades, Canada has relied for its defense on US continental protection, NATO interoperability and niche industrial contributions. Since its inception, the Canadian government under the leadership of Prime Minister Carney has brought about a paradigm shift committing Canada's 8.1 billion over five years and further 73 billion over 20 years, prioritizing the defense of Canada and North America. Canada met NATO's target of spending 2% of GDP on defense in 2025. Colleagues, I have to admit that Prime Minister Carney is very active in foreign policy. Recently he visited more than 20 countries.
He goes all around and brings a very good input in this regard. Overall, Canadian government has an ambitious investment target of 1 trillion dollars over the next five years, which includes energy, transport, infrastructure, mining as well as defense industry. The modernization of NORAD, North American Aerospace Defense Command, is a strategic defense priority with 30, almost 39 billion allocated investment. In addition, priorities are also foreseen in the Arctic maritime domain, air defense, drones as well as cyber and disruptive technology sectors. Modernizing and procurement systems is a priority through a newly created Defense Investment Agency.
Similarly, the establishment of Canada-based International Defense Security and Resilience Bank is expected to generate investments for needed defense capabilities. EU efforts to develop joint approaches to security and defense were welcomed by all interlocutors during our mission. In the face of the unpredictable US administration and its rhetoric questioning Canada's sovereignty, the Canadian government aims to be more self-reliant and diversified in terms of trade and defense. This diversification includes much closer ties with the EU and European industry. Canada is the only non-EU country participating in the SAFE instrument, which opens a new channel for joint procurement, industrial scale-up and trusted partner cooperation.
Canadian interlocutors express openness for enhanced cooperation with the European Union in the Arctic region in general and the defense field in particular. Colleagues, you have to know that EU and Canada jointly, we cover 90% of military support for Ukraine and Canada's contribution is over 6 billion Canada's dollars from 2022, which must be appreciated and understood by us in full. Canadian interlocutors committed to continuing Canada's significant military, humanitarian, economic and financial support of Ukraine, as I mentioned before.
There is a need for a coherent effort in support of Ukraine's defense capabilities. The alignment and consistency of EU and Canadian sanctions policies against Russia and certain individuals remains necessary to pressure Russia to ending its war of aggression against Ukraine. And I can tell you, colleagues, that in all meetings we heard very strong, committing words from the Canadian side what comes to support, continuous support for Ukraine and our cooperation in this regard. So that's why, Madam Chair, I think we have to foresee more actions to bring our forces together, have more political exchanges and learning from each other indeed at this very crucial times would be utmost important. And at this point, let me to thank Secretariat of SEDE and our APAs for indeed great work of this delegation.
And I guess my colleagues who took part in this mission will contribute later after my presentation. Thank you.
Nicolás Pascual de la Parte
Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I think that only to to coincide obviously with what our colleague Peter has read out of our travel to Canada, it was very timely, it was very fruitful and it was very constructive. There is something that one idea that was on the air there and I think that we have to bring them to the floor is that with Canada, perhaps we should start thinking about building up an structural dialogue, permanent structural dialogue, not only visits, but to have this kind of permanent dialogue. And perhaps the initiative could come from us, from this house, because they are ready, but according to our exchanges, they are ready and willing and able, but perhaps they expect that we take the first step.
And I think could be very useful and a precedent for other special allies that we have around the world. They are very like-minded with our agenda, we are on the same page, and I think that we should take advantage of this opportunity to deepen our dialogue through this structural one. Having said that, they also explained to us that they have created a bank, a security and defense bank that it's open to enterprises to participate. I think it's a good idea as well. Perhaps we could engage also in this structural dialogue how best for our security and defense related enterprises could participate actively in this in this fund.
And going quickly to other aspects of the of the visit, I think that when prepare these travels abroad in general, it's a it's a horizontal remark, we should we should make we should make sure that we have always interlocutors at political level, not at technical one. And for instance, there we were received in the foreign department by the Director General. It's okay, but it's not enough. I mean, we need always to have in front of us across the table a political level, either the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Secretary of State, but not lower than that. If we accept to be received by technicians in the future, we will be received always by technicians and not by politicians.
It's not the objective of our travel. The second example is that the Secretary General of the Minister of Defense cancel the meeting with us once we were there, they cancel the meeting with us after having flown 8,000 kilometers. It is not acceptable. I mean, if if he or she has another commitment, we have to arrange that beforehand.
No, it's only a point of order in of general a general remark that we are parliamentarians, we are politicians, and we need and we deserve to be received by politicians, not by technicians. I think it's it's a point only of order, of good order. Thank you.
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann
Yeah. I already make it clear to the ambassador because for us it's very, very important to talk to the politician. And there was a huge exhibition, I think this was the reason, but it was no excuse, absolutely. So the next will will be Laurent, if you are...
Laurent Vinz
Thank you. I didn't ask for the floor, but of course I can strengthen what my colleagues said. It was interesting for me to see, we were there in in Canada two years ago with with a mission of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, and I could see the evolution of the relationship with EU. At that time, the US didn't change yet its position regarding Canada and and the EU, but since then Canada realized that stronger partnership with Europe benefits them. So I fully agree that the EU should find the best approach to have a special partnership with Canada.
It is difficult yet to find a good name to to explain how this partnership should look like look like because in the treaties really it is not possible that Canada becomes an EU member state. Some, you know, statements are floating and even on the Canadian side, it would be nice, but it's really not possible. But something else yet, yes, and and something stronger than partnership that we have with with many countries around the EU. So it is food for thought and we should be ready as Parliament to make such a proposal before the autumn summit that is foreseen between the EU and Canada. But indeed it was a very useful trip and and we should maintain such a close relationship also through our committee with the Canadian partners.
Thank you.
Michał Szczerba
Thank you very much. Sorry about this, it's a very spontaneous committee. So everybody has to be aware it could happen. So Michał Szczerba.
Good morning to everybody. I was not participating in this mission, but of course I was rapporteur for EU security and defense partnerships and during the Polish presidency last year the EU has signed an agreement with Canada. So after this moment our cooperation is becoming closer and closer. And of course participation of Canada within the SAFE instrument is beneficial for both sides. And I can tell you that just last week Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defense of Poland was in Canada and I can announce that we will have a common projects under SAFE instrument.
So we have common common interest and of course defense, new technologies and innovation is one of those. Thank you very much.
Christophe Gomart
Thank you, Chair. No, that's as Michael Gahler said, maybe it's a good opportunity for us to have a good relationship with Canada. But be careful because the defense industry of Canada is very linked and very, very close relationship with US defense industry. So we have to be careful, we have to be aware about this because I don't want that European money is going to US defense industry. Thank you.
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann
Petras, do you want to add something, or Nicolas? Nicolas, you want to add something? Petras, please, sorry.
Petras Auštrevičius
As colleague Gomart rightly said, just some figures. 70% of Canada's defense products go to USA, as 40% of Canada's defense industries are like subsidiaries from USA. I mean, they are much interlinked, but I wouldn't see probably it as a kind of, you know, caveat for our possible cooperation. Definitely we have to be selective, but in any case, probably this technological mix-up is an advantage in this regard. And definitely we visited a biggest annual exhibition, Canada's Security and Defense Industries Exhibition, which is indeed must be visited by Europeans, European producers and suppliers.
And I'm sure, I mean, will be more and more joint projects coming out of this. I mean, there are good things, especially for particularly for Arctic region. They have specialized defense products for Arctic region, which is of our common interest as well. Thank you.
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann
Thank you very much. Nicola, you want? No. Okay. So, colleagues, now I'm turning to Cosmin Dobran, sorry for suddenly hurry up, Director for Peace, Partnerships, Crisis Management at the European External Action Service.
So the floor is yours to brief us on the outcome of the most recent EU-Canada Security and Defense Dialogue that took place in Brussels on the 21st of May. So you have the floor for about eight minutes.
Cosmin DOBRAN
Thank you very much and good morning to all of you. Always a pleasure to come to exchange with SEDE members. The dialogue and cooperation on security and defense between the European Union and Canada is long-standing and it's excellent. The participation of Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs Anita Anand in the Foreign Affairs Council on the 11th of May this year underscored the importance of this relationship. As the international security environment remains under severe strain in the Euro-Atlantic area, primarily due to Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, it is key that the EU has trusted, willing, and capable partners to rely on, such as Canada.
And Canada is one of the EU's closest partners in that regard. Our dialogue and cooperation on security and defense is rooted in the ambitious EU-Canada Security and Defense Partnership, which was signed on the 23rd of June last year, one of our 12 such security and defense partnerships across the world. It marked a significant step forward in deepening cooperation across many areas of common interest, from crisis management to defense industry cooperation, from hybrid threats to military mobility, to mention just a few. We recently held on 21st of May in Brussels the ninth EU-Canada Security and Defense Dialogue, the first one since the signing of the Security and Defense Partnership. And this was an excellent opportunity to take stock of the implementation of the Security and Defense Partnership and chart the way forward in priority areas such as defense initiatives, hybrid cyber issues, maritime security, missions and operations, space security, as well as climate security and defense.
We have progressed very well on many of these areas, and I will not go through all of them, but just to highlight a few important ones.
Our top priority for cooperation remains our support to Ukraine. We are fully aligned and committed to strengthening our cooperation and coordination to ensure long-term security of that country. In that context, we appreciate Canada's interest in the Ukraine support law. Underscoring this point, on the same day as her participation in the FAC, Minister Anand also co-chaired together with the HRVP Kaja Kallas the high-level meeting of the international coalition for the return of Ukrainian children. Defense industrial ties remain very important as we both need to ramp up production of capabilities to strengthen our respective and collective deterrence and defense.
In that area, EU and Canada hope to leverage the latest participation in SAFE to enhance defense industrial cooperation, including in support of Ukraine. We very much value Canada's participation in two PESCO projects, military mobility and the network of logistic hubs in Europe. Our cooperation on hybrid and cyber, including on responding to malicious behavior, is close and highly beneficial. Canada is playing a big role in the international fight against foreign information manipulation and interference. EU is keen to further work with Canada on UN efforts concerning governance of cyberspace.
There is also potential to enhance our collaboration on cyber capacity building of partners. With its long coastline, Canada shares EU's concerns about maritime security, including the protection of critical undersea infrastructure. We will enhance our cooperation in this key area, including by sharing information and best practices. We very much appreciate the cooperation with Canada on the shadow fleet, especially in the G7 N8 task force, and together we need to continue to deprive Russia's war machine of revenues. Canada is also a long-standing contributor to CSDP missions and operations, currently EUAM Armenia and EUPOL COPPS, and there is a joint interest to explore additional contributions through personal assets or financial contributions.
We also discussed space security as both sides attach importance to ensuring a safe, secure, and sustainable space in the current geopolitical environment. Here again, there are many opportunities for enhanced cooperation, notably on international norms. Canada and the EU intend to launch a climate security dialogue and are keen to enhance cooperation in this area. Finally, on Arctic security, an area of shared growing importance, which was also discussed during our dialogue, not least as the EU is revising its Arctic policy. And with such a rich agenda of common endeavors, we are convinced that our security and defense partnership with Canada will continue to pay dividends for our shared security interest and the protection of our respective citizens.
Thank you, back to you, Chair.
Nicolás Pascual de la Parte
Thank you, Mr. Dobrev, and I will now give the floor to members for their questions, starting with the coordinators, Nicolas, the floor is yours.
Thank you very much, I think that we have already raised this point, the relation with Canada is of special importance, it's one of the closest allies, if not the closest concerning security and defense related matters, and I think that our visit there was very timely and was pertinent because we were able to share our approach, our evaluation, and to see that we are on the same page. But having said that, I think that we have to institutionalize our dialogue through a kind of structural dialogue, permanent structural dialogue in defense and security matters.
And I think that we should bring together all these elements, which are very, very important, in order to have, as I said, a calendar of permanent, of regular meetings in the framework of a structured dialogue. I think that it will be in the benefit of both sides. When we raised the point, they were very willing and able to go down this road. And I think that here, the EEAS, the Commission, and the European Parliament, we should join forces in order to offer an attractive package. Thank you very much.
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann
Thank you very much, Sven. Ah, okay, Tobias Cremer also as EP rapporteur for Canada.
Tobias Cremer
Yes, thank you. Thank you very much, and I'm glad that things are moving on, also since we voted on and approved our first, of course, Canada report in over a decade with a large majority. So I'm very glad to hear that there's some movement on it. I had a few quite concrete questions, basically on how the feedback has also been on the implementation of some of the things. In particular with regards to PESCO, we knew from the beginning, some of the things have been mentioned here, that some of the difficulties are the integration of Canadian defense industry with other industries.
But I'd just be very interested to hear how so far the feedback has been, both from the Canadian official part, but also Canadian industry. Do they actually have the feeling that they get access? How do they get access? What are the barriers that they're encountering at the moment, and what can we do about it concretely? A second question would be for me also whether there were any conversations about Canada's own procurement, so to speak, really on the demand side.
I know that there are discussions at the moment about submarine procurement, whether going for a European or a South Korean one. This is just one example, but I'd just be intrigued whether there were conversations around these issues. A third point would be, of course, we've mentioned it earlier, that of course the Arctic is one of the theaters where really EU and Canada cooperation is forward-looking and essential. And I'd just be intrigued, also with regards of the EU Arctic strategy, how, what role we are seeing for Canada in there concretely. Like, do we put anything in writing?
Do we have any concrete initiatives, coordination on that aspect in particular? And then finally is really how are we moving in some ways from, we always say the good thing is with Canada, we really on the political level we all agree, we keep writing each other's love letters basically and saying this is all fantastic, we want to move on. But the problem is often then on the political and technical level, there's still a lot of concrete barriers and that we haven't often established the formats to work together on a working level. I'd just be very intrigued how that progress is, whether there's anything concrete planned beyond having these meetings going on again, and even whether there've been any discussions, we've raised that earlier in the delegation, of something, how to formalize it, whether there is space for instance, I know EU membership will be a bit tricky, but for instance an association agreement and the role of the defense cooperation if such an association agreement would be taking place. How it would fit into that.
Thank you very much.
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann
Thank you very much, Tobias. Pierruma. Then we come to Petras.
Petras Auštrevičius
Thank you, Chair. Indeed, we had an extensive presentation of our visit program. I am sure EEAS will have it in its files and will go through and will see what can be done more in this regard. I have one particular question to you concerning security and defense.
Is there any special field of cooperation and interest between the European Union and Canada on so-called FIMI, foreign interference and manipulation? I guess both sides have something in this regard. And since Canada is not just Atlantic Ocean exposed, it's Pacific Ocean exposed, I wonder what comes in this regard. I mean, cooperation in a Indo-Pacific area or region more broadly. And colleagues, we shouldn't forget that we are not just security and defense, although our committee is all about it, but it's much about economy and trade.
In 2016, we have signed a free trade agreement with Canada. From 2017, we have a provisional application of this agreement. But up to now, 10 member states didn't ratify this agreement. We are screaming and shouting that trade is important and Canada is a strategic partner to a great extent, but we do not contribute, I mean, we do not support this tendency by our legal and political actions. So something is missing.
I mean, I see a huge link missing in this regard. I mean, is there any plan, I mean, how to, you know, facilitate and speed up finalization of ratification of CETA agreement with Canada? I would call it scandalous. Scandalous. I mean, from 2017, our trade has increased 80%.
80%. It's a kind of a proof, economic proof, we need each other, but let's finalize it. And one more point in this regard, since we met with the John Hannaford, who is a special representative of Prime Minister Carney. Well, you see, a special representative for EU. And I made a proposal, I mean, to intensify youth exchange between EU and Canada.
I mean, we have to involve more exchanges, I mean, those students and scholars and the rest. Are there any plans in this regard? Maybe it's out of your scope, but please, can you convey this message, I mean, to colleagues of yours who are busy with EU-Canada relations on a broader scale. Thank you.
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann
Thank you very much, Martins, or Willie instead. Okay, Willie, the floor is yours.
Villy Søvndal
Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your presentation. If I think, I think I agree with all the ones saying every step we could take to closer every kind of cooperation in Canada is in our interest. I visited with some of the others in this room Canada in September with the EU-Canada delegation. And if Europe is angry with the Trump administration, the Canadians are furious for obvious reasons.
So they are really looking for a way to get more independence from the grip that the Americans have on their economy. I think the last example of that is that last week Canada announced that instead of buying aircraft fighters in US, they did it in Sweden, they bought Gripen flights there, just to say also that their move to get independent of the US is also opening up possibilities for European defense industry. And I think you are probably looking into that as well. We also very happy with them in the Arctic. I'm elected in Denmark.
We're very happy with their active participation against the threats to Greenland from the Trump administration. That was very helpful what they did there. I learned when we were in Canada that one of the reasons they're so present in Ukraine is that 1.3 million Ukrainians are living in Canada.
I did not know that. So they're very very also in that way tight connections between Canada and and and Ukraine. But every step we could take to a closer cooperation would be in our interest but as well in Canada's interest. So please use all your possibilities.
Marc Botenga
Thank you very much. Now let me maybe get get start off of something my colleagues mentioned. We've had indeed the CETA deal. Now the criticism and this is the reason why a number of countries have not gone all the way on that CETA deal of this deal are manifold: corporate courts, secret committees overviewing the the implementation, lowered regulatory standards and so on. Now one label that has been applied to that deal to the CETA deal has that has been that of a Trojan horse saying actually considering the intertwinedness between the US economy and the Canadian economy US companies might actually exploit everything we are giving to the Canadians in and and benefit from it and use it as well to kind of circumvent certain restrictions we now currently have in regard to trade with the US and investment from the US.
Now as you know we have a similar issue on defense. Canadian and US companies defense sectors are very much linked, very much interconnected. It's true that in Canada there's a big debate right now on saying how can we make that more can we be more autonomous, can we have more made in in Canada and so on. However I do see the risk of a similar how would I say back door for US companies if we do not pay attention in regard to the Canadian integration in SAFE. So what I would like to to know is like what concrete safeguards, what concrete protections, guarantees and monitoring mechanisms do you have in order to make sure that that does not happen and that risk can be completely excluded.
Thank you very much.
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann
Thank you very much Marc and now I give in the first round the floor.
Cosmin DOBRAN
Thank you very much for all the questions. Let me start by thanking SEDE for the contribution to increasing the cooperation on security and defense between the Europe and Canada. I really think that the visits like like the one you you had are extremely helpful. Obviously we do we do our our part but I think it's important also at the political level to push for more cooperation with the with the with Canada. Now I could not agree more in terms of moving in the next years to a very structured approach to meetings and engagements with the with Canada.
We have our own formats obviously but I think there can be only benefits if this it's organized in a more systematic way. I don't see this as a barrier. I think I think we can we can do it. Obviously this needs to be discussed at the political level as as as well. In terms of feedback from from from Canada I think we explained that the security and defense partnership this is a starting point.
There are areas where there is already cooperation. There are areas where we want to develop the cooperation like for example the the climate change and security but the feedback overall was quite positive.
Obviously, we run on policies and instruments which are determined by the 27 member states, and this is the basis on which we work with all the partners, not only with Canada. And this can be PESCO, this can be EDIP, other programs. So this is basically the basis on which we work. I cannot give you information on decisions in terms of the procurement because that's for the parties that are engaged. But on the Arctic strategy, I can tell you that Canada already contributed to our reflection process, which is very much welcomed because I think when I entered the room, somebody was saying that not only that they have assets, but they have a good knowledge on what is happening in the Arctic region.
And we very much welcome that input. Now, in terms of the operational level, we actually exchange very detailed information on what Canada is doing, for example, in Ukraine. What we are doing is not only about exchanging, but we try to create synergies between the EU's actions and what Canada is doing. And every time we discuss with the Ukrainians, we always make sure that we have a clear understanding on what partners in support of Ukraine are doing as well. And there are seven areas: it's training of soldiers, it can be military equipment support.
So we cover pretty much the whole spectrum of cooperation. On FIMI, what we want to do, we want to move from, because for the time being, we are exchanging information, how we address FIMI, how Canada is addressing FIMI. But what we want to do is to actually try to see if we can do something jointly. Obviously, it's a vast area, but Canada has quite a good understanding on this kind of threats. So we're looking at different geography to see exactly how that can be done.
Yes, that's correct. It's not only the Atlantic Ocean, it's also the Pacific Ocean. The EU as such, in terms of instruments and policies, we have a strategy, it's more on the political side. On the security and defense operation side, it's less, but obviously there are possibilities there as well. But at this point, I don't want to venture into too many speculations on that.
I cannot comment on trade in general, the FTA and all that. But I think we have several European companies that are on the defense market, which have fully developed offices in Canada: Rheinmetall, Leonardo, Airbus, which is very good. So from our perspective, from the security and defense perspective, the more cooperation we have, the better. Because then the impact in terms of capabilities can be higher. That's how we look at this.
I will relay the message on youth exchanges, but in fact, perhaps we can do more because there is also a possibility to increase the interaction between youth which are in the military. This is also important, and we are looking to see how we can use, for example, the European Security and Defence College to have more exchanges with Canadians as well.
And I think I pretty much covered all the questions, but if I forgot something...
US influence.
Cosmin DOBRAN
Yes, US influence. I mean, the way we look at it, we need a strong transatlantic relationship. That's how we look at this. In terms of decisions, acquisitions of military equipment, obviously is for each country to decide, but our perspective is to increase cooperation and the bond on the transatlantic relationship. This is how we look at this.
And obviously, we have an interest that European companies actually participate in many projects, as many projects as possible. This is something that we always do, and this is something which is reflected in the different policies, but also in the different instruments which are agreed at the level of EU 27 member states.
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann
So, we starting with the second round. Laurent, the floor is yours.
Laurent Vinz
Thank you, Chair. Our role is, as said, Mr. Dobran, and thank you very much for your presentation and your remarks. Our role is to look for and to develop global opportunities for our defence industry. Probably EEAS has the same interest. And I believe that this should become on the top of the bilateral relations.
We had earlier a discussion here in the committee saying that there is a very strong dependency of the Canadian military from the US. They are in full interoperability, but they are looking to open their procurement, diversifying their acquisition. So, it's a niche that opens up also for the EU. Colleagues already mentioned the 12 submarines, that is in a procurement phase. We had a direct question to the Ministry of Defence.
They were vague in their answer, meaning that there is still place for negotiation. On the CETA agreement, the Canadians are happy with the CETA agreement. I believe we are also happy because the bilateral trade has risen with 80% since CETA is in place. And we also witnessed in Canada that their regulatory system is extremely strict. They are even confronted with over-regulation as much as we feel it here in the EU on our side of regulations.
So, I would not think that there is an imbalance in this trade relationship. It's functional and it's working well. So, it's only a comment from my side. But thank you very much for being here.
Martens
Thank you, Chair. Yeah, from my side it's also more like a comment as a question. As you know, the Canadians are the leading nation in Latvian NATO EFP group. We are super satisfied with this cooperation. They are very committed and there is so much to learn from them.
Because this year, there additional I think 800 soldiers will come. It will be full operational brigade in Latvia. And of course, for that you need a military base to be built. And when the Canadians said we are going to do that, they said we need two years to build a base. We said it can't be done.
In Latvia, usually it takes five to ten years.
And they did it. There was a forest and in two years there was fully operational military base. Of course this is not solid rock, you know, buildings, they are more like a various type of tents and containers type accommodation. But they are fully operational also in Arctic conditions. I was visiting this base this winter, there was minus twenty-five.
It was a bit chilly to be honest inside, but for soldiers good enough. The bad news, all this equipment they couldn't procure in Europe, it was just not existing, so they brought everything from Canada. But the good news, if anyone in your country says that you need years to build something new and to increase the number of the military troops on ground, then you are more than welcome to Latvia to see what Canadians did. Thank you.
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann
Any other questions, comments? Okay, so thank you very much. I think it's a very, very good advice that we have to really build up a special relationship as non-EU member but a special close country to us. And so thank you very much. And now we have, because we were so speed up today till eleven o'clock, we have a short break and then we will continue with the defense scrutinize how we protect selected under the European Defense Fund.
So colleagues would be great you come back and we will see us at eleven o'clock.
Eleven, yes. Time for emails and a coffee.
Good morning, everyone. I'd like to welcome you to this meeting of the Subcommittee on Security and Defence. I'd like to welcome our guests, our speakers, and our colleagues. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. The agenda was circulated to you.
Are there any comments or objections? I see none. The agenda is adopted. The second item is the Chair's announcements. I'd like to inform you that the meeting is being webstreamed.
The interpretation is available in the following languages: French, German, Italian, Dutch, English, Greek, Spanish, Portuguese, Finnish, Swedish, Czech, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Maltese, Polish, Slovak, Slovenian, Bulgarian, Romanian, and Croatian. I'd also like to inform you that the next meeting of the Subcommittee on Security and Defence will take place on the 25th and 26th of January. The third item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the meeting of the 14th and 15th of November. The minutes were circulated to you. Are there any comments or objections?
I see none. The minutes are approved. The fourth item on the agenda is the exchange of views on the implementation of the Common Security and Defence Policy. We have with us today the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Mr. Josep Borrell. Mr. Borrell, you have the floor.
Josep Borrell
Thank you, Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to be here with you today to discuss the implementation of the Common Security and Defence Policy. As you know, the world is changing rapidly, and we face many challenges to our security. The war in Ukraine has shown us that we need to be prepared for any eventuality. We need to strengthen our defence capabilities and our cooperation with our partners.
The Strategic Compass, which was adopted last year, provides us with a roadmap for our security and defence policy. We are now working on the implementation of the Strategic Compass, and I'm pleased to say that we are making good progress.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.