National Defence Committee on June 16th, 2009

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you.

We've heard from other witnesses that there are certainly some security challenges in the Arctic. What types of security challenges do you think we will be facing? Are they mostly state or non-state?

[RAdm Nils Wang]

I think I will point to the predominantly state issues, because when it comes to straits, and choke points, and also the strive for resources, if that is going to be a future scenario, it will probably be state driven. So I think I can put the security question into two categories.

One is the resource issue. If energy is a scarce resource and the strive to get these resources is sufficiently high, it will create security tensions.

The other security issue will be the one I mentioned, about the maritime infrastructure, and the strait, the new choke points, and so on. Then, of course, there is a certain category that is not maybe addressing the five polar nations, but if the meltdown of the north or the polar ice were to increase water levels all over the world, you would also see new hotspots in other parts of the globe that will also have an effect on the whole world. For an area like Bangladesh, for example, if you have water rise of less than a metre, it would create devastating damages to low areas and could mean millions of migrants and all the security issues that are related to that. It would also argue for the erosion of deserts and things like that.

But the direct security issues for the five polar nations are the ones I've just mentioned.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much.

I will give the floor to Monsieur Paillé, s'il vous plaît.

[Pascal-Pierre Paillé, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Thank you for being with us today.

I understand there is a lot of discussion going on at the moment. Even here, we will be meeting with a number of individuals to discuss the subject, and the same is true for you.

Beyond the discussions underway at the moment, do you not think that the actions are not concrete enough, and that we may be heading into a possible deadlock? Beyond all the discussions, do you not think there should be more done by each of the countries to ensure that the collateral damage—if I may use that expression—is as minimal as possible?

[RAdm Nils Wang]

I actually think the dialogue between the five polar nations is on track, as I mentioned. I think everybody adheres to the Ilulissat Declaration. I also think everybody adheres to the UNCLOS terms of reference in respect to when you have to deliver your scientific data in order to have your requirements taken into account.

I am more or less thinking aloud, but maybe what is required is to tell everybody else beyond the polar nations that we are actually on a good track with this and it will be settled in a UN framework that is basically making it as legitimate as it can almost be.

I also think you can talk the problems up and you can talk the problems down. It depends on how you are doing your rhetoric. So I think there is a huge responsibility around the daily communication amongst politicians about this issue.

[Pascal-Pierre Paillé, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

I will now turn to a different subject. As you know, since the Arctic is a relatively remote region, there is more danger related to melting ice, and consequently there can be more icebergs.

Perhaps there is really no connection to the issue of sovereignty in the Arctic. Nevertheless, do you fear that more dangerous goods will be transported? Have you had any discussions or talks about standardizing the transportation of dangerous goods, such as oil? An oil spill could have catastrophic consequences. Have you thought about including legislation on the transportation of dangerous goods in future international agreements? We know that the consequences of such an incident are always catastrophic. However, I think they would be even worse if this type of disaster were to happen in the Arctic.

[RAdm Nils Wang]

Yes, I fully understand your question and I share your concern. That is also one of the things I mentioned in my intro, that just a detail like surveying the area so that you will have decent sea charts so that you can actually conduct safe navigation is a big challenge, because most of the waters under the ice cap are unmeasured. So in order to start any safe navigation, you will need also a decent hydrographical effort.

That is also, I think, something that legislators amongst the five nations could start to discuss. That is, how do we want to regulate the traffic up there? I mentioned the cruise industry and that you need to create positive behaviour from the industry in order to avoid catastrophes. You could also put a parallel to, for example, oil transports and other kinds of transports, so you make sure it is quality seafaring that is actually taking place up in that area. There could be common IMO rules that actually encompass all that industry in the whole world, so you have common standards on quality seafaring in the Arctic regions. They could also be on which time of year you are allowed to be up there, and in which areas according to the ice patterns, and things like that. So there's definitely legislator's work to do in that respect on the international frameworks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

Mr. Blaney.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Wang, I want to commend your country and you for your cooperative approach on the circumpolar challenge. I think you can count on us for that type of approach.

You mentioned earlier that for political reasons you've decided not to go any further with submarines. I'd guess that's a cost-related decision. How will you ensure the sovereignty of your Arctic waters? How will you monitor them? Do you have any monitoring systems in place, or do you plan to have one within the next year?

[RAdm Nils Wang]

No, I think we will not know if anyone goes subsurface through our part of the Arctic waters. Basically, we were in the same situation during the Cold War, when we had submarines, because we used our submarines in the Baltic instead. At that time, we relied on somebody else to help us take care of that part of the problem.

But no, we don't have any monitoring systems submerged in that area.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

On the surface, do you have any satellite systems? Do you use the international ones? How do you proceed when it's on the surface?

[RAdm Nils Wang]

We have patrol aircraft and our ships. We also rely on some satellite surveillance, which is more or less commercial-based. We are very engaged in LRIT—the long-range identification and tracking—that is now being introduced all over the world. We also get coverage in Greenlandic areas, because that is the prerequisite for identifying things that we want to do something about.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Can you tell me how many ships you're going to build in the next decade? Where will they be built, and how much do you plan to invest in those ships within your forecast?

[RAdm Nils Wang]

I'm lucky that I'm head of a navy that has just got a whole bunch of new ships. Our whole naval inventory is new: what was not renewed during the last five years will be renewed during the next five. All the investments on the navy side have been made. Therefore, I don't foresee any new acquisitions, except for those already planned within the next ten years. So the Danish navy will end up having three frigates, two command platforms, four Arctic patrol frigates, three Arctic patrol vessels, eight smaller combat units consisting of four minehunters and four small coastal corvettes, and approximately 12 ships to take care of the sovereignty surveillance in Danish areas. It is a fairly small but very modern navy.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

How much did you invest in those vessels, and where were they built?

[RAdm Nils Wang]

When it comes to the Arctic patrol vessels, it would probably be $100,000 Canadian dollars apiece for the ocean patrol vessels we are introducing right now. I think the Canadian dollar is worth a little less than the American one. Is that right?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

It would probably be $100 million.

[RAdm Nils Wang]

Yes, I'm sorry, $100 million Canadian apiece for the ocean patrol vessels. We have invested in frigates that will cost around 1.2 billion Danish kroner. In Canadian dollars—

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Were those ships built in your country, sir?

[RAdm Nils Wang]

The ocean patrol vessel was built in a Polish shipyard and equipped in a Danish shipyard. Our frigates and our command platforms were built in the Maersk shipyard in Denmark.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

I would like to thank you, Mr. Wang, for testifying today by video conference. It was very much appreciated by all committee members, and will be of great assistance to us in our study of Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic. I wish you a good evening.

[RAdm Nils Wang]

Thank you. It was an honour, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

We will now suspend our work for four minutes, while we get the room ready for our next witnesses. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Good afternoon, everyone. We are continuing our 28^th meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence.

We have two witnesses: Marc St-Onge, Senior Research Scientist, Regional Geology, Department of Natural Resources; and David Boerner, Director General, Central and Northern Canada Branch, Geological Survey of Canada. Thank you and welcome to both of you.

We will begin with you, Mr. St-Onge. You have nine minutes to make your presentation. I notice that it is quite detailed and will certainly be of great interest to committee members. The floor is yours.