Foreign Affairs Committee on Oct. 7th, 2025

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Okay.

Mr. Sinclair, if I understood correctly, you said that climate change was one of the four pillars. Can you go back to what you said and how important it is, in terms of foreign policy, to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Give a brief response, please.

[Robert Sinclair]

In regard to climate change as part of the Arctic foreign policy, climate change is identified in Arctic foreign policy as a key threat for the Arctic. Certainly our increased support for the Arctic Council reflects that, and our efforts to incorporate indigenous knowledge about how climate change is impacting local ecosystems, environment, human health—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you very much.

Next we'll go to MP Ziad Aboultaif for five minutes.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Thank you, Chair, and thanks to the witnesses.

Some countries are calling the Northwest Passage, the Arctic waters, international waterways. That brings to mind Canadian sovereignty in this field, and there could be a risk of confrontation with some of these vessels coming into our sovereign property and borders.

If this becomes an issue, what can we do? Are we ready to deal with that to preserve our sovereignty in the north?

[Eric Laporte]

That's a very good question.

From a Canadian perspective, we have put baselines around the entire Arctic archipelago, including the Northwest Passage, which we all consider to be internal waterways of Canada by virtue of historical title. That claim is long-standing and well-established on the part of Canada.

We do have foreign vessels that traverse through the area, and they do so provided that they comply with Canadian rules pertaining to safety, security, protection of the environment, etc. By them applying for a process to go through, that is, frankly, recognizing our sovereignty over those waterways.

I would also argue that the fact that every day there are a range of activities happening in Canada's Arctic whether it's government, whether it's JTFN's activities.... The indigenous peoples who are there in local communities, just being present by themselves, exercises their enduring sovereignty over the Arctic land and waterways.

You asked the question, are we ready, and I would point out, and this joins a bit with the previous line of questioning, the Department of National Defence issued a new defence policy in 2024, “Our North, Strong and Free”, and a large portion of that is about getting the capabilities right to be able to defend the Arctic. It's about getting the sensors, getting the domain awareness and getting the capabilities to do so in due course.

Just again, on climate change, “Our North, Strong and Free”, frankly, is a strategy about the Arctic, and there's an element in there about climate change and adaptability in terms of the capabilities the Canadian Forces will need.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Thank you. It seems like you were prepared for my question. Thanks for answering.

I have a question for Brigadier-General Rivière.

What are the unique challenges in protecting sovereignty, and do you believe that the government is giving you what you need to be able to protect sovereignty? If not, what do you think you need in order to do that?

[Brigadier-General Daniel Rivière]

The first challenge in anything “Arctic” and, I would say, in anything “defence” is to be aware of what's happening. It's a question of sensing your environment. Then, you can make sense.

The first challenge is that the Arctic is 40% of Canada's land mass. This is immense, yet you have 130,000 Canadians in 72 communities. For the forces, especially our size of forces, you can't be everywhere at once. The challenge is to be able to sense the environment by being there. What we're doing now by expanding Operation Nanook as a near year-round, near-persistent activity in focused areas is working on that gap of being able to be present in an immense territory, but this is based on information.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Being on the front line, what are the main issues facing the military bases and troops out there? Do you have enough personnel to meet the needs? Do you have enough equipment to meet the needs, especially if we get surprised by a challenge? How ready are we?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Give a brief response, please.

[Brigadier-General Daniel Rivière]

We are addressing some of these gaps in staffing by undertaking a JTFN staffing and structural review. We are assessing our requirements to match the operational and defence needs of 2028. That's our very short-term horizon. There is work under way to improve our structure, and—in a mindset of growth—having the right ranks, trades and numbers to face the challenges of tomorrow, and there are challenges.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you very much.

We will now go to MP Anita Vandenbeld.

You have five minutes.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to our witnesses.

I would note that about six years ago, this committee did a study on the Arctic. I was part of that study. There were a number of recommendations at that time regarding security, infrastructure, local ownership and engagement, and multilateralism. I wonder if you could give us a very brief summary of, first of all, what's changed in the last six years, but also, what progress has been made on those recommendations.

[Robert Sinclair]

Thank you for the question.

Perhaps I'll start with what's changed: Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, accelerated climate change and increased interest of non-Arctic states in the Arctic, seeking to advance their own interests. Those are some of the drivers that led to our recalibrating our approach through the Arctic foreign policy.

In terms of what we've achieved, we've appointed an Arctic ambassador, with an office in Canada's north, Iqaluit. That is literally and figuratively groundbreaking for Global Affairs Canada. We're making good progress on opening consulates in Nuuk and Anchorage. We've initiated the dialogue among what we term “A7” or “Arctic Seven” foreign ministers to mirror the discussions and dialogue that happens on the defence side. We have provided additional funding for our global Arctic leadership initiative to advance our engagement internationally. We've created a new position in one of our Nordic embassies to help expand our reach.

I would say, most importantly, Global Affairs has changed the way it engages with indigenous peoples. We've expanded what we call the Arctic co-operation advisory committee. We codeveloped the Arctic foreign policy with indigenous, territorial and provincial partners. We've come a long way.

I know that doesn't address your specific ask on the last study, but it I think speaks to the progress.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

That's a very impressive list, indeed. Thank you.

One of the things that we heard quite a bit was about the extended continental shelf. In terms of Canadian sovereignty, the need at that time, the imperative, was to be mapping that continental shelf. I know that quite a bit has been done on that. I understand that it may be completed by 2026. I wonder if you could tell me how that will reinforce Canada's sovereignty but also create perhaps increased need for enforcement of those waters.

[Robert Sinclair]

One of the priorities under the Arctic and northern policy framework was to better define our Arctic boundaries. That work is progressing, as you said, and awareness of your environment, as the general has said, is the starting point.

In terms of the need to enforce our jurisdiction, the starting point is, I would say, awareness of what is under our jurisdiction. Progress is continuing. The adjudication of disputes in the Arctic is one that Canada is committed to doing through a rule of law approach. Concerning Tartupaluk or Hans Island, it's no coincidence that we negotiated that and created our second land border. It's through rule of law and not through force that we define our borders.

Perhaps I'll leave it at that for now, Mr. Chair.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I wonder if the general might have something to add on enforcement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Give a brief response, please.

[Brigadier-General Daniel Rivière]

At this point, I don't have a response to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to the third round of questions, beginning with MP Michael Chong.

You have five minutes, sir.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Thank you.

I have a question on our Arctic archipelago waters. Canada has long claimed these waters as internal waters of Canada and not international waters. Many maritime states, if not more maritime states, including the United States, see these as international waters.

Can you tell me which maritime states see our claim as internal waters as the case?

[Robert Sinclair]

I do not have a list at hand of which states have recognized our internal waters.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

If you could come back to the committee with that, it would be appreciated.

As you know, the United States doesn't recognize these waters as internal waters to Canada. In 1985, an U.S. Coast Guard vessel, the Polar Sea transited these internal waters.

Did you read the piece by Franklyn Griffiths in The Globe and Mail? He is an esteemed professor emeritus at the University of Toronto who wrote a long-form piece in the Globe and Mail four days ago. He speculates that the United States may send a navy vessel through those straits imminently. What would Canada's response to that be?

[Robert Sinclair]

Perhaps I'll start the answer. Our view is that the dispute over the Northwest Passage is well managed, including through our 1988 Arctic co-operation agreement.

Perhaps I will turn to the general.