National Defence Committee on March 23rd, 2009

[Dmitry Trofimov]

Okay. Well, you are very kind. I will try to do that.

First of all, back to the initial question, by saying there are clear-cut international regulations, I do not mean that I do not know. I do not know all the details. But the point is that there haven't been any incursions on the Russian side, if we are talking about either Canadian national air space or Canadian territorial seas.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Trofimov, please understand today that I agree that we are not in the Cold War and that we should not be throwing oil on the flames.

I am totally in favour of our talking to each other, so we don't play politics about that. But Canadians want to know. When everything is supposed to be classified and when we are having that kind of discussion, the Canadian people want to know. Arctic sovereignty is key, and if we have submarines that are not supposed to be there, we want to know. That's the only reason, respectfully, we ask those questions.

[Dmitry Trofimov]

Actually, to start with, we're talking about a certain submarine that is not supposed to be there. I have, frankly speaking, a very simple question: what submarine, whose submarine, and where exactly?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Well, we are asking questions--

[Dmitry Trofimov]

Because when it is clear whose submarine we are talking about, there are different international regulations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much, Mr. Trofimov. We appreciate your reply.

Now I would like to give the floor to Mr. Boughen, from the Conservative party.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll share my time with Mr. Payne.

Thank you for taking part of your day to share your insights through the questions the committee has asked you. In that vein, I have a couple of questions.

First, what is the purpose of these kinds of flights, as you see it? Is it to teach pilots navigational skills, or is it for some sort of tactical operation? When we look at countries, we know that Russia has a massive amount of northern area, as Canada has. Why would an aircraft have to get close to an international line? I'm not sure why that would happen.

Second, if there is no communication link today, do you not think it would be a good idea to start to make a communication link with Canada and the U.S., similar to the American linkage, so that we don't have incidents turning out very badly and things happening that shouldn't happen simply because we haven't talked to each other?

[Dmitry Trofimov]

Thank you.

The first question is why. If you have a racer, he should run. Otherwise, there is no reason to have a racer. If we approach this problem from a different angle, it would be about the prospects for disarmament. Let's do it. Let's not have a single bomber or nuclear submarine over there in international air space or on the high seas. That is a pretty different thing. We inherited that--the Russians, the Americans, the British, the French--from the Cold War period, so it will inevitably take some time for eventual radical disarmament to be over. I don't know...[Inaudible--Editor]...sanctuary whatsoever. Within this period of time, we are, first, to guarantee operational efficiency and reliability to prevent the different submarines from colliding like those of the French and the British.

We should prop up and enhance additional confidence- and security-building measures. Actually, if it hadn't been, for instance, for the fact that the Americans lapsed, during the period of the administration, from the ABM treaty in 2002, we would now have both START II and START III instead of just START I, with much more detailed leverage for notification. That would eventually benefit not only Russia and the States but all other countries, Canada included.

The remedy is very simple. Let's reset the whole process. We've already done it symbolically with the Americans during this recent meeting between Sergei Lavrov and Hillary Clinton. That's all I'll say about where we should go. That is very basic or general advice, although it's really complicated.

As for the communication link, that is a grey zone; I do admit it. That's a problem, and somehow that's deplorable. But the best way to discuss it is at the bargaining table through normal diplomatic channels. As a matter of fact, I should have made that--

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

You still have one minute.

[Dmitry Trofimov]

Okay.

We might use those military START talks, for instance, as one of the channels for initial expert exchange, because it's an extremely complicated issue. It is not wishful thinking talks; it is really very focused on specifics. So while generally speaking we would never have anything against it--let's try--it is really a very complicated process. The core element is the disarmament process, which we should push ahead.

As a matter of fact, our Canadian partners, I should admit, are extremely instrumental, whether it's non-weaponization of space, the NPT process, the CTBT process, or whatever.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Mr. Trofimov.

Mr. Paillé.

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

Thank you.

I am just going to ask one question and then I will yield the floor to Mr. Bachand.

People can view this incident in two ways. On the one hand, they can think that the flight met all the conditions and that is the government's reaction that should be questioned instead. Or, on the other hand, they can think that, while the flight observed the zone established by international law, it was in a grey area and was one more way for Russia to assert its claim of sovereignty in the Arctic.

Which view is closer to yours?

[Dmitry Trofimov]

To start with, I will not comment on the official comments made here in Canada. I would rather draw your attention once again to the fact that since this particular flight incident took place in the very vicinity of two states, and we haven't had any comments or reaction, either official statements or from the public, from the States, it speaks for itself. That's point number one.

Second, I imagine there is yet another grey zone--the problem of interoperability of different international and national legislations, while mentioning those self-declared air defence identification zones that several countries have, like the States, Canada, Australia, and Japan. From the Canadian perspective, as far as I can understand, the limit of this zone is up to 300 kilometres, if I'm not mistaken, but you should consult your own military; I'm not an expert. But it definitely stretches over the region where this particular incident--or episode, to be more precise--took place.

So from the point of international law, absolutely nothing happened. It's pretty much the same thing as happened when American or NATO aircraft flew along the national air space of the Russian Federation. Nothing happened at that time. We did not make any comments, any statements. We were probably not quite happy, but that is what we inherited from the Cold War period. We could not, regretfully--we would love to--be fair to traditions and practices in one day. It will take decades--probably less, but it depends on the politicians. Naturally, those politicians should demonstrate more flexibility and readiness to use normal diplomatic working channels to discuss all those issues.

Thank you.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

When an incident of this kind occurs and comes to the attention of the public, you must receive instructions from Moscow. If I go by the answer you just gave us, Moscow told you that nothing illegal had taken place.

[Dmitry Trofimov]

I will tell you, quite frankly, that what I'm telling you is not the instructions from Moscow, but my reading of different international conventions. If you follow suit, you will definitely come to pretty well the same conclusions. A fact is a fact, as I've said many times. If there is a particular provision of the international law, convention, or treaty, whether you like it or not, it is what it is. According to international law, the Russian side and the Russian aircraft did not do anything that was against the existing international law. We might not be happy that it does not cover all the spheres it should theoretically, probably, but that's a different matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Mr. Trofimov.

That ends this part of our session. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for agreeing to be a witness today and participating so actively in our meeting. You were very forthcoming and you gave us very good information.

I am going to suspend our work for five minutes.

[Dmitry Trofimov]

Thank you very much. It has been my great pleasure.

[Proceedings continue in camera]