Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Huebert, you made a very good presentation. It was extensive, but I sense that your reasoning turns on military capability.
In the matter before us, the sovereignty over the Arctic that is being claimed by a number of countries, I'm not sure that's our best asset. I don't mean we should get rid of our weapons and send doves to fly above the Arctic to show that we are pacifists. However, I get the impression that, regardless of the military equipment that Canada can afford to have—that's another problem—we won't be able to face the Russian or American navies.
For me, the military aspect weighs less heavily in the balance. I'm more in favour of relying on international cooperation; I'm more in favour of compliance with international law. On that point, and you mentioned this, there is a convention. In addition, the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf has just recognized that 230,000 km2 belongs to Norway. I was in Oslo two weeks ago, and that was a major topic of discussion.
I wonder whether the solution doesn't lie in a mix of both, relying more on international law. I nevertheless want to reassure you with regard to the military aspect; I was in Oslo for a NATO meeting. The major discussion focused precisely on the Northwest Passage and the Arctic, and on the evolution of events. You know, I was at a NATO meeting three years ago to talk to them about the Arctic and about the opening of the Northwest Passage. It's as though I was speaking Chinese; my colleagues didn't understand me at all. Now, suddenly, everyone understands the issue.
I'm wondering whether, from a military standpoint, our traditional alliance with NATO isn't the best solution because we won't have to pay for everything you've mentioned. I believe that international law should settle the matter. That won't prevent shows of force by the Russians, who blow hot and cold by times. I don't think the military solution is the best one. Sticking to our NATO friends seems to me to be a better idea. However, I think international law should apply, through the UN.
I would like you to clarify your thinking. Do you still claim that Canada must acquire all the military equipment you mentioned? Wouldn't it be better to work with international laws? If some decide to brave international law and go beyond international law, what do you think of NATO as a police force to enforce international law in the Arctic?