National Defence Committee on June 2nd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Professor Byers.

Now I will give the floor to Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both witnesses for being here. I have a couple of quick comments first, then some questions.

Professor Byers, as you know, search and rescue in Canada, including the north, is based on risk assessment and cost. If we had unlimited resources and unlimited people, obviously we'd be in a lot of places that we can't currently be in at the moment.

The other point is that if you have Russian bears who ultimately wind up within 41 miles of Inuvik, we can say that's not very close, but when the intercept is coming from well over a thousand miles away in Cold Lake, then how long do you wait? Also, General Renuart, whose own forces conduct these missions all the time, fully supports that kind of operation and the necessity for conducting it.

I have a couple of questions for you specifically, first to Professor Byers.

We've talked about the threat of state players, non-state players, and so on. What's your view of the Russian plan to field an Arctic-specific military force that they announced a little while ago?

[Prof. Michael Byers]

Thank you very much for the question.

I agree with you about risk assessment, but my point is that the risks are going up in the Arctic in terms of a need for search and rescue. I would like to ask you how you think Canada would look if an Airbus 340 or a Boeing 777 crash-landed on Ellesmere Island and we couldn't get to them for two or three days. That's a serious challenge in terms of our reputation and our profile as an Arctic sovereign country.

In terms of the CF-18 intercepts of Russian bombers, that's a good thing. At a minimum, it's very good training for our pilots. It has been happening quite a bit, as it happened for decades during the Cold War. I understand you might have had some experience with this yourself.

In terms of the Russian plans for a military force for the Arctic, again, I am cautious with respect to the Russians. I think the Russian government is far from democratic, and we need to be vigilant, but we also need to be careful not to overinflate the threat. There are journalists who'd like to report on the potential for conflict while playing down actual cooperation.

From one perspective, what the Russians are doing is no different from what other Arctic countries are doing: increasing their northern presence to deal with, among other things, the non-state threats like terrorists, like smugglers. Take these reports with a grain of salt and, to the degree that it is possible, engage the Russians diplomatically, work with them, build confidence on matters like cooperation in search and rescue, so that we avoid the kind of arms race that could develop if this momentum were to continue beyond what is reasonable, with respect to the current situation, into something that could actually cause a series of much more serious problems.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Of course that's common sense. To quote Reagan, trust but verify, I guess.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada is the current lead within the Government of Canada for matters of Arctic sovereignty. Professor Byers and Professor Poelzer, do you think they are the appropriate agency to lead, or would you see that being perhaps National Defence?

Professor Poelzer, I guess.

[Prof. Greg Poelzer]

My understanding is that there's a mix on these issues within Canada. I think the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is the appropriate lead agency. There's a huge depth of experience, including through the circumpolar liaison directorate and other divisions within DIAND. That department does provide and has tremendous supports for the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade when they're at Arctic Council and other fora.

I think we need a routing, domestically, in our circumpolar cooperation and on Arctic sovereignty issues, so I think it's quite appropriate. If you go back to my comment about nation building, I think that's appropriate.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Professor Byers.

[Prof. Michael Byers]

If I could jump in here very quickly, of course INAC is the lead, but as I understand it, the PMO is also taking a very substantial interest, and that's a good thing. I think that certainly getting that leadership at the highest level, joining up different departments and thinking about how to promote efficiencies and cover all the bases, is exactly where Canadian Arctic policy needs to go.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Professor Byers, you've done a lot of work on the interface between politics and law, and legal arguments for Canadian sovereignty in the north. Is there a precedent that exists, situations where countries may fail to respect legal decisions, legal rights, once the Law of the Sea is refined or expanded and so on? How do you see us exercising our sovereignty in a circumstance where somebody basically says, buzz off, we're going to do what we want?

[Prof. Michael Byers]

Let's take the scenario that I have briefly described, of a flag-of-convenience vessel making a run through the Northwest Passage this summer. That situation will give us roughly three to four days to make a decision before the vessel is through, assuming that the passage is ice-free, as it has been the last two summers. Four days is not a lot of time for a major decision involving some very sensitive international diplomacy.

So we should be engaging with other countries now to talk about how we would like to work with them to deal with that scenario. For instance, we should be talking with the United States about how they might assist us in quietly pressuring the flag-of-convenience state to actually require that the vessel register with our northern shipping registration scheme. They should request Canada's permission, in a sense comply with the basic requirements of surveillance and policing in the Arctic, so as to avoid the danger of that dangerous negative precedent. Proactive diplomacy with the United States is advised, because the United States is starting to realize, as Paul Cellucci has made clear in the last couple of years, that a wild west scenario in the Northwest Passage is not in the interests of the United States or Canada. And we are partners in the defence of North America, so they should be encouraged to think in a forward-looking way about how they would deal with that kind of situation.

The other issue that needs to be put on the table is that we are currently engaged in a very complex legal and scientific exercise concerning the mapping of the seabed under the Arctic Ocean. It is absolutely imperative that Canadian scientists have the support necessary to complete that mapping by 2013, which is the deadline for making our submission to the UN.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Professor Byers.

Now I will give the floor to Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Merci.

Before I start, I have to disagree with the comments of Mr. Hawn. Of course, I think any analysis would show that there's a critical need for search and rescue in the Arctic. So Mr. Byers, your statements were music to my ears. As you probably know, I have been pushing in the media and in Parliament for the last several years for search and rescue north of 60. If the commander was worried about an Airbus 330, what about a cruise ship with 3,000 passengers? That would be an even bigger job....

I think you brought up an excellent point about the risk. If you have a lifeguard in one pool and then you have another pool with no lifeguard, and you ask how many times did the public interact with a lifeguard in the pool with no lifeguard, well, the answer would be zero. You don't have any requests if you have no service there. I think that if the service was there, you'd have more requests. Second of all, in the south you've got more civilian services that can actually respond. And as you said, it's a lot warmer, so you're not going to die within an hour or two, as you might in the north. These are all factors that should add to the arguments that you were making about search and rescue in the north for both fixed-wing planes and helicopters.

Mr. Byers.

[Prof. Michael Byers]

Thank you. I'm glad you agree with me. I want to make it absolutely clear that a whole range of things can be done to facilitate search and rescue at reduced cost.

Emergency satellite beacons are being given to Inuit hunters in northern communities, so when they go out on the land they can activate the devices if they are in trouble. This enables search and rescue teams to find them quickly. It's very cost-efficient and should be supported and made much more widespread. It doesn't get away from the need for a helicopter, but certainly there are ways we can deal with these challenges if we recognize the reality of accidents and that they can be extraordinarily serious.

If we are a serious Arctic country engaged in all of this diplomacy and making it such an important part of our foreign policy, and an accident happens and a couple of hundred elderly German tourists die in the Northwest Passage because we can't get to them in time, our entire Arctic foreign policy will be shot. We have to balance the risk, not just to life but to the entire dimension of Canadian Arctic policy and the perception as to whether or not we're a serious Arctic country.

We absolutely need the fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft you mentioned. Having four Twin Otters in Yellowknife simply doesn't cut it in the 21st century. We need to have planes that can move quickly and drop SAR technicians from the air. They need to be placed in the Arctic so that response is timely, instead of waiting for very large, expensive aircraft to fly in a long way--from Comox, Trenton, or Greenwood.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I'm delighted that you mentioned the Beaufort Sea in your opening remarks. We often forget that it probably has the most immediate economic effect on Canada, and most people don't mention it when talking about Arctic sovereignty.

Can you elaborate on what we should be doing to solve that dispute?

[Prof. Michael Byers]

We have a maritime boundary dispute with the United States in the Beaufort Sea that revolves around different interpretations of an 1825 treaty between Russia and Great Britain. It creates a disputed sector of just over 6,000 square miles of seabed that is likely to be very rich in hydrocarbons.

There are a couple of easy solutions to this, and we really should sort it out. One is to draw a line straight through the middle of the disputed sector and split in two, thus resolving the dispute. Another more imaginative approach would be to declare a joint development zone for hydrocarbons. Other countries have done this elsewhere in the world. It provides the legal certainty that the oil companies need, and in the context of a North American energy market under chapter 6 of NAFTA, it's no big deal economically to think in this direction. In fact, it could show some real bilateral cooperation on this important front.

But we need to get something done, not in the least because we are now mapping the extended continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. Where the line beyond 200 nautical miles goes depends a lot on where the line within 200 nautical miles is. So the Beaufort Sea dispute needs to be resolved by 2013.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Professor Byers.

Mr. Boughen.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I welcome both of the professors sharing their time with us today.

Professor Byers, you talked quite a bit about different aircraft and ships that you see as necessities for the north. What complement of aircraft and ships would be necessary to do the job, and where would you see those vehicles being harboured? What would be the base port?

[Prof. Michael Byers]

Thank you.

First of all, I've changed my mind on the Arctic offshore patrol ships in the last couple of years. Now that I think of them as replacements for the marine coastal patrol vessels, I begin to see a role for them along the west coast, the east coast, and up into places like Baffin Bay. The ice strengthening will simply add some utility to those replacement vessels. I think the Canadian Forces should get those vessels, but we should stop calling them Arctic vessels and realize that we do need additional capacity in the High Arctic and that the additional capacity should be provided by the Coast Guard.

In that context, we need to talk about recapitalizing the coast guard icebreaking fleet, not with seriously heavy polar icebreakers such as the Russians have, but with vessels like the Terry Fox and other medium icebreakers, which can go where we need them to go at any point when another vessel might be in Canada's Arctic waters.

In terms of a base for these vessels, a couple of years ago the Prime Minister announced the renovation of the old wharf at Nanisivik on northern Baffin Island. That makes some sense, because the wharf is already there, but it's not a terribly accessible location and it's not a replacement for a deepwater facility at Iqaluit on southern Baffin Island, which the Government of Nunavut has been requesting for a number of years.

The reality is that any vessels we use in the Arctic will be extremely long-range and in all likelihood will occasionally come south to places such as St. John's or Halifax, and that's okay. What we need during the summer months, when the activity is taking place, is the ability to surge into the Arctic with vessels that can fulfill a multitude of different functions, and we need some vessels that can go into the heart of the archipelago and assert our sovereignty there.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

What kind of aircraft complement do you see? I know you've talked about some of the aircraft that are currently there and made some reference to them. What's your idea of the complement of aircraft that we should have, and where would those aircraft be based?

[Prof. Michael Byers]

I think helicopters are a crucial part of the mix. At least in the short term, I would like to see one or two Cormorant helicopters deployed to the Arctic in those late summer months when they'll actually be needed, and I would like to see more serious, longer-range helicopters on our coast guard icebreakers. Having an icebreaker in the heart of the Canadian archipelago with a helicopter that can only go 150 kilometres away from the vessel is not a serious assertion of Arctic capability. We need better birds on our boats.

In terms of fixed-wing capacity, I would like to see new fixed-wing assets in places such as Whitehorse, Yellowknife, and perhaps Iqaluit, with SAR techs who parachute down in an emergency situation. I understand that's part of the long-term plan, for instance, with the acquisition of Spartan aircraft, but if aircraft like that are put into the north, let's make sure they actually have the personnel who can do the parachute jumps and get down to the surface quickly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

You still have 20 seconds.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Professor Poelzer, you talked about a university. Where would you see it located, and what do you see in terms of a college? Do you see anything like the two-year programs that focus on trades training in the college area? Could you tell us what your thoughts are on those two issues?

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

You have 10 seconds.

[Prof. Greg Poelzer]

The three Arctic colleges--Yukon College, Aurora College, and Nunavut Arctic College--have done a remarkably good job with limited resources, both on the trades side and on the post-secondary side.

If you want to build a university in the Arctic, you're talking five to ten years down the road, realistically. It's going to need partnership with other post-secondary institutions in Canada. There won't be one location, because the three territories are so varied. There are huge differences from Yukon to Nunavut to Northwest Territories. You're going to need multiple campuses, quite frankly, even if it was--

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

[Prof. Greg Poelzer]

It couldn't be one location.