Evidence of meeting #26 for National Defence in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was arctic.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Associate Director, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary
As long as the regulations reflect our interests.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Okay. Thank you.
I don't know if you had a chance to look at the transcripts from earlier questioning of other witnesses.
4:05 p.m.
Associate Director, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary
I've read some.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Okay. There was a professor, Madame Lalonde, who was here. My colleague Jack Harris was asking a question to her about some reading that he's been doing about this idea that the U.S. may back down on an international strait concept if we start talking about the fact that an international strait would create some pretty serious security issues for North America from other countries. Do you have any thoughts on that?
4:05 p.m.
Associate Director, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary
Yes.
I was in the group that had considered the possibility that perhaps we could enter a quid pro quo with the Americans. The idea was that we're never going to get the Americans to say it's an internal water, simply because of the precedent that sends out for places like the Strait of Hormuz. They simply will never do it. What many people had thought is that the Americans would be willing to at least agree not to say anything--in other words, not push us on the issue, and if we have a ship coming through trying to get through without permission, they would remain silent on it. In other words, we would still agree to disagree but they would not actively support.
On January 8, 2009, the Americans released their long-awaited Arctic policy, the first one in ten years. They made it very clear that they are not backing down on that position, nor are they interested in backing down. My discussion with state officials is that the Americans simply see that as a non-entity. I'm very much more pessimistic than I was maybe four months ago.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Okay.
I don't know if this is an area you can speak to, but on the changing nature of Inuit self-government, what role would regional Inuit governance bodies have?
4:05 p.m.
Associate Director, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary
From an international perspective, we have to convince our circumpolar neighbours about the importance of the Inuit and the manner in which this makes the Arctic an exception. I don't know how many arguments I've had with Americans or with Norwegians who say there is nothing in international law about aboriginal issues, ergo, these are moot points. And I think it goes right to the heart of our entire set of arguments.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Thank you very much. That is on time.
Now I will give the floor to Mr. Hawn, please, for seven minutes.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you, Professor Huebert, for being here.
I have a whole bunch of short questions but maybe not short answers. We talk about icebreakers. Is the John G. Diefenbaker, in your view, a viable piece of kit? Given, we may like more of them, but the Diefenbaker itself, is that a viable piece of kit?
4:05 p.m.
Associate Director, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary
The reality is that we need at least three of them. The nature of refit, the nature of the geography, and the fact that the Louis S. St-Laurent is already about 45 years old and the remaining four medium-class icebreakers we have are approaching 35 to 40 years means we need the replacement. We're not going to have the medium-class for much longer, so we need three of them, to be honest.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
We've talked about a long-term plan and regular re-equipment, and so on. The Canada First defence strategy obviously is intended to be a 20-year plan with some of the elements we've talked about. What is your view of that--enough, not enough? And if it's not enough, where do we get the money to make it enough?
4:05 p.m.
Associate Director, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary
On a policy intellectual perspective, I say it's very much in the right direction.
My concern is implementation. I've seen a series of very good policy statements come from both the Liberals and the Conservatives in the past, and the problem has always been that within two to three years of their release, we have faced the usual cycle of an economic crisis, at which point they immediately get thrown out.
The issue, in my mind, is implementing the types of policies we've started to see develop, I would argue, since the Martin-Harper recognition of the importance of the Arctic.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Fortunately, we don't have an economic crisis right now.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
You talk about having common cause with the Russians, and that's something most people obviously wouldn't intuitively think about. Do you think we can ever trust them?
4:10 p.m.
Associate Director, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary
We can trust the Russians.... As we teach in our first-year political science courses, countries don't have friends; they have interests. We can trust them when we have shared interests. And in terms of the management and transportation of northern shipping, we both have very strong interests to make sure it's done properly. In that regard, it's not an issue of trust; it's an issue of common interest.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
When we get to the development of resources and of counterclaims about the Lomonosov Ridge and so on, at some point there is going to be some international law come down that says who owns what and whatever, which not everybody may like or accept. What do we do when somebody--whether it's Russia or the U.S. or whoever--says they appreciate our international law, but they're going there anyway? How do we, Canada, deal with compliance or deal with enforcement of compliance in something that has been given to us?
4:10 p.m.
Associate Director, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary
For those of us who have a concern, that will be the worst-case scenario, the point at which that conflict will come. What happens if someone goes ahead, after they have been deemed not to be allowed to?
The reality is that for the types of disputes we're going to have, the resolution is not going to be coming from some form of arbitration above, but from negotiations. So we are going to be in a situation--and it doesn't matter if you're talking about the Russians, the Americans, or even with the French in terms of St. Pierre and Miquelon--where the final solution will be a negotiated solution among the countries involved.
So presumably you're going to have to have buy-in to whatever that ultimate agreement is. I think the crisis would come at that point, whether or not we are going to see the Canadian public accepting if we seem to be backing down on issues. To my mind, that is going to be the more critical point.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
And that's where I come back to the Russians and common interests and so on. Do you foresee a possibility or the day when they would just negotiate all that kind of stuff, but if they don't get the right answer they would continue to thumb their noses at us?
4:10 p.m.
Associate Director, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary
What will mitigate that is the fact that they have to sell their oil and gas somewhere. So the question is, can we develop with our allies a strong enough position to ensure that this type of situation does not arise? In other words, the Russians sell most of their gas to Poland and to Germany, which of course are NATO allies. Can we ensure that we speak with a common voice so that if the Russians do start becoming so unilateral, that can be reined in? That will be the key to our success, not a military response, to be honest.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Okay.
One of the things that we are mandated to study here is Arctic sovereignty but with a view to climate change and impact and so on. What is your view of climate change in the Arctic at the moment, and the impact that will have on military operations or operations up there in general, in terms of adaptation or opportunity?
4:10 p.m.
Associate Director, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary
It's transformational. Every piece of scientific evidence in my discussions with the experts, such as Dave Barber, Canada's leading expert on ice science, and the Americans makes it abundantly clear: the Arctic is going to be leading the world in terms of the transformational nature that is coming before us.
In terms of the response from a military perspective, any time that you have a situation of such transformational magnitude, you will have uncertainty and insecurity. The armed forces will have to be there front and centre in the context of the management of that uncertainty, be it in terms of responding to the various disasters that will come when in fact we start seeing sea levels rise, when we start seeing the collapse of economic infrastructure, when we see the various acidification that is now being deemed one of the biggest risks to the food chain within the Arctic. The military is going to have to be there to help pick up the pieces.
The other and more chilling thought, and this is something that Gwynne Dyer in his recent book has explored, is that historically, when you have such dislocation, you will see an increase in conflict internationally. Now, it may not be in the Arctic, but it is going to spill over because of what happens in the Arctic. That becomes even more chilling.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Going back to CFDS for a second, I know you're pretty familiar with it. Assuming that it progresses as laid out, what's your view of the numbers in there with respect to fighters, ships, you name it?
4:15 p.m.
Associate Director, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary
That's a hard one, because you need the capability and you need a surge capability--not now, but probably in about a ten-year period. I would say that, in theory, what is being proposed makes sense to me. In other words, there's nowhere that I'd say there's an obvious omission. With the possible discussion, I'm not seeing much of a discussion of what we do for our follow-up for Radarsat-2. I saw some discussion of the cost of light Radarsat Constellation, but I think that's being discussed. As long as you bring that in, then I'd say the picture is fairly complete if we follow through.
