National Defence Committee on Oct. 6th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

I will give the floor to Mr. Boughen.

It's your turn for five minutes.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be sharing my time with Laurie.

Mr. Griffiths, let me add my voice to those of my colleagues in welcoming you and thanking you for taking the time to share with us your vast expertise in the north.

I noticed that in your presentation you talked about stewardship. I'm wondering who's responsible for stewardship, if it has now started. If it has not started, how does it get started? How do you put the model in effect when you're dealing with five different countries? How do you reach some sort of harmony with everyone so that they can sit around the table and do some forward planning and thinking on what happens in the Arctic?

Could you comment on that?

[Prof. Franklyn Griffiths]

Someone has to take the lead, and in my view, it should be Canada. We should start speaking and acting in favour of stewardship. I think we should start acting in the North American context. We should be talking to the United States, but we should also be talking to Greenland, that is, Denmark. We don't need to take credit, but we should lead the way to a unified North American approach to stewardship--the fisheries, shipping, the tourist cruise boat industry, pollution prevention, and emergency response. We should do this in North America and then move forward as stewards with a common attitude and common approach.

This is not going to be easy. Governments on the whole prefer freedom of action. They do not like to be encumbered and they don't like to answer to others. This is normal, but I think there's a common-sense requirement here for us to act together. Sooner or later, somebody upwind or upwater will do something that will spill down into our sovereign domain, which is not free-standing and independent. We are all in it together up there in the Arctic, and we need to manage these interdependencies.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, Professor Griffiths. It has been very enlightening.

You talk about the honour of the crown, and that's a good point. In your view, how long have we not been acting as we should in that area? I mean the honour of the crown with respect the Inuit.

[Prof. Franklyn Griffiths]

I'd say it would be since the land claim agreement in 1993. We've been slow to act. You need only read Thomas Berger's report about the implementation of the land claim agreement and the need for federal support for a new educational policy in Nunavut.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

We talked about equipping the Canadian Forces or having a more constabulary role for whoever is up there, some of which would fall to the Canadian Forces. What are your thoughts on some of the equipment required for that constabulary role for the CF?

[Prof. Franklyn Griffiths]

I think there needs to be a stronger remote sensing capability. There may need to be a more frequent use of unmanned or unpiloted aircraft for sensing. There may need to be a capacity to detect submarines going through. These things we do not have. There could be pre-positioned emergency response equipment and supplies, which would be the responsibility of the armed forces to look after. If the traffic picks up and we have worries, there should be a way of having a helicopter capacity to board a ship that refuses to obey.

I'm told that the coast guard, if need be, is prepared to use fire hoses to get right against a ship and force it to comply with Canadian law. We do not necessarily need to have armed forces, but as the situation evolves, we should be ready for all possibilities. I think the coast guard is the main instrument, and we will need to replace coast guard vessels, Arctic-capable ones in the years to come, beyond the John G. Diefenbaker that is promised.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

The Russians, as you said, are a key player in this. But of all the players, they are the most difficult to deal with. How should we try to work with the Russians? What is your view on how to deal with the Russians in these situations?

[Prof. Franklyn Griffiths]

My view of the Russian problem—and it is a problem, especially when it comes to stewardship—is that there is so much that needs to be done that Canada alone is not going to be able to make a basic difference. I think the seven other Arctic countries should get together. Above all, the United States should be persuaded to approach the Russians for a new beginning in the Arctic, a new strategic understanding. We can't do this alone. We need to sway the United States if we can, and I think it's up to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister to see to it that our ideas about the need for a U.S. initiative are brought to Washington and maybe right to the attention of the President.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

You talked early on in your remarks about the lack of constancy in policy with respect to northern sovereignty. What do we need to do to inject that constancy?

[Prof. Franklyn Griffiths]

To obtain greater constancy?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Yes.

[Prof. Franklyn Griffiths]

It's a good question.

Even if we became stewards, how much more constant would our behaviour be in the Arctic? I don't have a good answer to that. I think it would be better. It would be less dependent upon a threat. It would be more dependent upon ambition and determination and maybe on Canadian values; that is, on things we want to do.

But I don't really have a good answer for you.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

That's no problem.

You talk about the Russians commercializing traffic through there. Should we open and build, in effect, a Canadian Suez Canal and have the infrastructure there to cater to international traffic and generate some investment and employment in the Arctic through that kind of process?

[Prof. Franklyn Griffiths]

This is a big question that we haven't really asked in this country: what do we want to have, and what is our judgment, and when you think about it, what cargoes are likely to go through the Northwest Passage as opposed to the Panama Canal? To the lower eastern seaboard of the United States, it may be that cargoes will go via Panama. They won't want to go all the way around the top and then all the way back down to wherever it is. Some have suggested that cargoes destined to points south of Boston will go from Asia through the Panama Canal. Anything for north of Boston may want to use the Northwest Passage.

There are economics that have to be considered. I believe Canada is not going to charge a fee for anybody going through the passage. If we do, then we're going to make the passage less competitive compared with Panama, and so on. In the past we have not charged fees. The Russians are the ones who will charge a fee.

There is, in other words, a great deal of economics to be worked out, and that's part of deciding what we want. The thought of a joint administration for the Northwest Passage is a little ahead of its time. A joint seaway authority, for instance, is ahead of its time because we haven't really decided what we want, what the economics are, and what we want to make happen. We're expecting that somehow it will happen, but I don't believe it will. Maybe we could make it happen.

Again, northerners are not going to benefit greatly from this, and they will probably have a slightly higher risk and maybe a substantially higher risk of rain pollution from all of it. Do we want it, or would we like the Arctic to be a kind of go-slow zone?

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

We really appreciate your presence here, Mr. Griffiths. Thank you for being with us. I'm sure your testimony will be useful to our work, and I want to thank you for it.

This concludes the 31st meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence. Thank you very much.

We shall meet again Thursday when we will receive the Minister for National Defence.

The meeting is adjourned.