Mr. Chair and honourable members, I'm honoured to have the opportunity to speak to you today.
The Standing Committee on National Defence is charged with responsibility for guiding Canada's defence and strategic planning—a daunting task, given the fast-changing nature of global and continental affairs.
I was asked specifically to speak to you about matters of Arctic sovereignty and Canada's role in defending the far north. The historian in me is compelled to tell you that Canada has been reluctant to determine its long-range strategy in this region, from Confederation to the present. This country has generally responded to external threats and challenges to Canadian sovereignty, rather than preparing its own plans for incorporating the region. From the Klondike gold rush to the militarization of the north during World War II and the Cold War, Canadian policy has been largely reactive. Threats from outsiders, rather than national or regional priorities, have pushed this country into action. As the current situation once again suggests, the north and indeed Canada have not been well served by this episodic interest and the absence of sustained commitment.
As this standing committee knows very well, the Arctic situation has changed dramatically. There is uncertainty about Arctic boundaries, and there is the prospect of major resource discoveries in the region. Arctic navigation has opened up through the melting of Arctic ice. There is growing international interest in the region, with Japan, China, and the European Union expressing new interest or renewed interest in Arctic affairs. The re-empowerment of indigenous peoples, particularly the Inuit, has emerged as a major factor in northern politics.
At the same time, the increasingly urban and southern orientation of the Canadian population, which has left very few Canadians with a personal stake in the far north, has weakened the national bonds with the Arctic. It is not clear to me that the decades-old and often romantic notions of Canada as a northern nation still resonate with the people of this country.
I understand you wish to determine whether the Canadian Forces are properly equipped and trained for the challenge of protecting and asserting Canadian national sovereignty in the region. Permit me to offer my thoughts on this very critical question.
The Canadian Forces do an admirable job, as they do in other theatres, with limited resources and without the full range of equipment and new technologies that are required. As I'm sure this committee agrees, the country cannot ask the men and women of the Canadian Forces to tackle major assignments without the proper equipment and preparation.
At present, Canada does not have the scientific capacity in the north that is required to back up a sustained military presence in the region and that is needed to understand the regional impact of anticipated environmental change. Scientific understanding is a critical underpinning of regional defence.
There is a particular need for proper communications and surveillance capacity in the Arctic, whether in the form of electronic networks, as we saw a few minutes ago, regional bases, underwater capabilities, icebreakers run by the navy or the coast guard, and/or an expanded Canadian Rangers operation. Put simply, Canada needs to know what is going on in the north.
The Inuit and first nations of the Canadian north have critical roles to play in asserting Canadian sovereignty in the area. The implementation of land claims is crucial to defending Canadian interest in the region. Indigenous Canadians are vital partners in the north, and their circumpolar connections have been important in presenting Canada to the world as an Arctic nation.
It's vital that investments in defence and the protection of sovereignty not be viewed in isolation from other national commitments in the region. Coordinating the development of military facilities with the provision of infrastructure required for community and northern development can help address pressing social, economic, and related problems while strengthening the long-term foundations for national defence.
Canada also tends to approach issues of Arctic sovereignty based on current threats and issues. This is a very risky time to take that kind of approach. The pace of change in the Arctic is unprecedented. Preparations for the defence of Canadian interests have to look not to the north today, but to the north of 10, 20, and 30 years ahead, to a time of potential conflicts over oil and gas reserves, intense concern about the environment, increasing prospects for conflict along Arctic boundaries, and issues and threats that are not yet fully understood.
Canadians' understanding of northern challenges also tends to focus on the Arctic islands, the location of many of the current conflicts. It's important in my mind that the country adopt a broader definition of the north, one that reaches from Labrador to the Yukon and that recognizes the commonality of interests across this vast expanse of Canada. We need a northern defence plan with a substantial Arctic component, and not simply an Arctic sovereignty strategy.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it's time to break Canada's historic pattern of treating Arctic sovereignty and northern defence as a short-term issue. Canada includes vast northern and Arctic territories. Canada is responsible for the protection of these lands and the peoples within them and for the assertion of Canadian sovereignty over the whole region. There are aspects of the current uncertainties that are truly disturbing. There would be significant national benefit from this uncertainty, if Canada rises to the challenge of the sovereignty question and implements a viable and long-term approach to defending Canada's interests in the far north.
I hope my comments are of some value to the standing committee. You face an important challenge in helping Canada define a proper and sustainable approach to Arctic sovereignty and northern defence.
Canadian governments have wrestled with this issue many times over the years. I wish you the very best in your efforts.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.