Foreign Affairs Committee on June 14th, 2018

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

We are further strengthening the legal argument that we will never deny passage. I'm not a lawyer; I won't argue it.

I just had that one particular question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj. Your time is up.

We'll go to Mr. Sidhu, please.

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, the three of you, for coming in front of the committee today.

Let's explore more Russia's and China's presence in the Arctic.

Definitely we are lagging behind in our presence in the Arctic. I had an opportunity to visit the Irving shipyard in Halifax last year. We have this great vessel under construction. It's supposed to be an icebreaker, with monitoring gadgets on it and all that. Will that ship be the first one in the Arctic? It's not the flexing of our muscles, but monitoring our territories. Is it going to be in the water soon, or is it just Irving telling me that? It's under construction. It's supposed to be done by the end of this year. Do you know anything about that ship?

[Alison LeClaire]

In specific answer to your question about the presence of Canadian vessels, icebreakers and others, in the Arctic, I'm not an expert. I think you'll want to be speaking to Fisheries and Oceans and the Coast Guard to get a really accurate picture of our fleet and what they do. However, we do have icebreakers that are in the water now, so it will not be the first, just to answer that specific question.

I would say that, beyond that, questions around our monitoring and surveillance capacity are absolutely important and legitimate questions. I think you would get better answers from the Coast Guard and from DND. I am sure they will be part of your study, and I hope they will be able to answer your question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Just to remind colleagues, the witness list includes the Department of Transport and the Coast Guard, and you can put those kinds of question to them.

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Okay.

Let's try questions about sustainable growth in the area.

What would it take, for sustainable growth, to explore the Arctic going forward? Being a builder/developer in my previous life, I know the soil structure is not all that stable with the ice. Do we have any plans on how we're going to put the structure in place when it comes to ports and bridges and roads? As a country, do we have any plan, or are we going to depend upon Russia and China?

[Alison LeClaire]

Well, the work that is currently under way to develop an Arctic policy framework will be an important vehicle for looking at those kinds of questions. Other witnesses—transport comes to mind—will be better able to answer your questions. If I understand you correctly, you're asking about domestic infrastructure.

I have a recent personal experience, in that I had the privilege of being up in the Northwest Territories last week and drove the new road from Inuvik to Tuktoyaktuk. According to the information that was provided to us, that is a road that was built using cutting-edge technology that will be of interest to other Arctic countries. They too—and Russia would be a particular example—are dealing with thawing permafrost, and what do you do to manage infrastructure when you have stability that is compromised? That is certainly one example of infrastructure in our north that is being heralded by local communities as necessary for their growth and prosperity, and which is of interest to other countries.

Another example I saw, also in Inuvik, was a data link field where we are managing satellite dishes in co-operative agreements with other countries, because of the global positioning. That is another source of growth for local communities.

That is just to say that international co-operation is creating these opportunities, but I saw for myself one example of cutting-edge Canadian technology that is cold climate infrastructure-adapted, shall we say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Mr. Sidhu.

We will go to Mr. O'Toole, please.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you very much.

I want to start by saying that if we show concern, or profound concern, in the case of my friend, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, about developments, it's not related to the work of your departments or anything else. Part of the work our committee wants to achieve with this study is to make more Canadians aware of the fragility, in some ways, not of our claims to the Arctic and to its waterways, but of others' respect for those claims. That's essentially what the driving force is, because of course I share his concerns.

I focused on our closest friend, the U.S., in my first round of questions. I now want to focus on Russia, and my friend, who is an expert in this area, stole a bit of my thunder. If you look at the Ilulissat Declaration, the year prior to that, in August 2007, was the second Arktika mission, where they planted a flag at the bottom of the seabed. The first was in 1977, when the first maritime vessel traversed from Russia.

When the crew of the 2007 seabed planting returned home, they were the heros of the Russian Federation. Russia has had ice stations on ice floes, which show the ever-changing nature of the Arctic waterways and, really, of sovereignty.

When I was in the military and we used to speak about the Arctic, we said that sometimes external sovereignty has to be demonstrated by internal sovereignty, or the ability to protect and govern a vast land space.

Do you feel that Canada needs to ramp up its presence and its exertion of sovereignty in its own internal waterways in order to have that recognized externally?

[Alan H. Kessel]

There are a number of questions there. I'm going to deal with some that I think are directly legal, and also with the lexicon that we're all using.

I think it's incumbent upon us, as public officials who work for departments and as members of Parliament, to use the lexicon that is to the advantage of Canada. I heard the word “claims” used quite often, with respect to territory of Canada. I would suggest that that would not be a good thing to do. We don't claim that which we own. We own the land and we own the water. I would hope that we, as officials, can talk about that as our own territory.

The other thing is that we're not claiming sovereignty; we're exercising sovereignty. Every time we do what we do in the north, we're exercising Canadian sovereignty. I think it's dangerous to play into the lexicon of those who would suggest we're not.

As to the stunt of the flag on the seabed: that's exactly what it was. The Russian person in control of that flag issue is a known stuntman. They did it. That's true. When the flag landed down there, they would have probably found a bunch of material that says “Made in Canada” on it as well.

The reality is that flags do not indicate sovereignty, otherwise the Americans would own the moon and National Geographic would own the Himalayas. I would suggest we be careful with how we go down that route.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Let me interrupt you there.

I agree on the lexicon. My concern is not how strong our sovereignty is. It's our ability to exert it. Right now, if an aircraft crashed near the North Pole, which of the five nations surrounding the Arctic Ocean would be able to be on the ground first?

It's my suggestion that we'd be last.

I'm happy to hear the perspective of anyone, in terms of having boots on the ground—either aircraft or ship. Would Canada be first?

[Alan H. Kessel]

I hear what you're saying, but you're conflating two issues. I'm dealing with the legal sovereignty of Canada, and you're talking about the ability of someone to help someone in a difficult area.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

If the other nations don't respect our sovereignty; it is a claim to them. It's like the Northwest Passage. We can be very satisfied that the legal structure for that being an internal waterway is sound, but if it's not respected by our closest neighbour, what value is that?

[Alan H. Kessel]

That is a question.

The answer to the question is that we work closely with our American friends. We've never had a situation where they have come through without our authority. During the “Shamrock Summit”, when President Reagan and Prime Minister Mulroney met, they had this discussion about what we're doing up in the north. They also had an agreement that we had to work together on this, even though we may not agree ultimately on the the name of that passage. I would suggest to you that our American friends are very strategic. They have an interest in straits to be open, whatever they are called and however they are named. The Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Malacca—those are very geostrategic for them from a military point of view.

We are not in the same situation, therefore we've had a very sensible discussion with them. The result being that when they want to come through, they ask us. We either help them, or they may not need help, on occasion. We do not have a situation where our American friends force their way through our territory. In fact, we don't have any examples of a foreign state forcing its way through our territory. I would be cautious to leave the impression in the minds of Canadians or media that we do. We do not.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Do we have any means of detecting a submarine in the Arctic?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Mr. O'Toole.

We're going to go to Mr. Levitt, please.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

The answer is no.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

We have a very short timeline. We're looking at three or four minutes, and then we're going to move on to other business.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Last summer, President Putin directed his generals to prioritize “defence of interests in the Arctic”. That was soon followed up by a submarine-launched ICBM. I understand there have been two launched across the Arctic. In many ways, this is probably the beginning of a very significant militarization of the Arctic.

When you look at the investments, the numbers are showing potentially about $35 trillion of natural resources that will open up should the ice be opened up. Russia has a capability that no other countries have, not just in numbers of icebreakers but their icebreakers, because of their design, are able to go places where none of ours can, hence the question that Mr. O'Toole has posed.

Are we working on some type of doctrine to counter that? Are we working to find ways that we can counter this very heavy militarization of the Arctic that's taking place on our longest undefended border? There are other countries in the Arctic with big, very important stakes in this, but we perhaps have the biggest stake.

Could you comment on that?

[Alison LeClaire]

Yes. I'll comment, if I may, in two ways.

First, I would say, in specific answer to your question about a doctrine, there is policy work under way right now, the Arctic policy framework. Of course, that builds on the oceans protection plan that builds on the defence policy review. Of course, I can't speak to what the Arctic policy framework will end up looking like, but issues around security and defence are certainly part of the work that is under way now.

I would at the same time just go back to my introductory comments in recognizing that Russia is modernizing its military after a period of considerable shrinkage. I had a conversation with a think tank some months ago that referred to Russia's inability to know what's going on at their own northern coast as part of their rationale. That's not to say it isn't something on which we should be vigilant. Of course we should, but we recognize as well that Russia does have these economic interests it wants to protect. Part of protecting those economic interests is ensuring that, in their rhetoric but we all agree on it, the Arctic should remain a zone of peace and co-operation. For them to threaten our space undermines what they're trying to do in their own Arctic in protecting those economic interests.

That's not to say that is a reason to be complacent. I need to reiterate that vigilance is key, but it is part of the geopolitical analysis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you. We're going to have to leave it there for today.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank all three witnesses from the department for coming and giving us a good opportunity to talk and the beginnings of an important dialogue on how sovereignty and/or the business of protecting the Arctic works.

Colleagues, we're going to suspend and then we'll go in camera to do a bit of work. We shouldn't take too long. Part of the discussion will be about next steps of this study, so I look forward to that dialogue as well.

Let's suspend for five minutes. Thank you.

[Proceedings continue in camera]