Evidence of meeting #36 for National Defence in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was threat.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
Professor, Canada Research Chair in the Study of the Canadian North, Trent University, As an Individual
I was actually reassured that Russia has continued to adhere to the established process under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to submit their scientific research in support of their particular position to the Convention on the Law of the Sea—
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Let's get to the question. Let's talk about the presence of security, for terminology reasons, for the Arctic seabed. Let's just keep going.
12:45 p.m.
Professor, Canada Research Chair in the Study of the Canadian North, Trent University, As an Individual
There is no presence built into articles 76 and 77 of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea. Presence has nothing to do with establishing your extended continental shelf. That already belongs to you as a coastal state. We're dealing with overlap.
In terms of China as a near-Arctic state—thank you for that question—very simply, we need to continually remind China that “near-Arctic state” is an idea with no legal status whatsoever. They only have international rights as an international actor, like everybody else in areas beyond national jurisdiction in the Arctic. They have no special status between the Arctic states and other states; they are simply not Arctic states.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Professor, in theory you're correct, but what if Russia and China decide they are going to assert themselves?
Again, going back to my original question, do Canadians...? I have been up to the north. This might be a topic that's of concern to us; it might be fifth on the list, and further down in the lower half of our country, but if you live in the north, this threat is very real, and it's at your front door. They very much take it as a threat to their personal security and their people's security.
Going back to my question, do we not have to have some kind of strength in the north, and again, on the topic of the day here at committee, sufficient strength to be able to assert our Arctic security?
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Christine Normandin
That's a very good question. Unfortunately, we won't have time to answer it. We're coming to the end of the four minutes, and I have to give the floor to Ms. Lambropoulos of the Liberal Party.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Emmanuella Lambropoulos Liberal Saint-Laurent, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to thank both of our witnesses for being here to answer some of our questions today.
I'm going to start with Mr. Lackenbauer, but both witnesses can chime in if they feel like it.
Both of you mentioned that Russia is not a direct threat at the moment to our Canadian Arctic. Of course, other witnesses, and I think all Canadians, can understand that climate change is real and that it has a real impact in the Arctic and the north.
The reality will be changing in the near future. This was perhaps not an attractive place in the past, but as it becomes warmer and more attractive, it is possibly going to trigger more conflict in this area by Russia. I understand that we're not necessarily at the top of Russia's list of countries to get into conflict with, but I believe most of the members of our Parliament have been banned from Russia based on our interventions with Ukraine.
Can you comment on that, what the future might look like, and how we can prepare ourselves for that type of situation?
12:45 p.m.
Professor, Canada Research Chair in the Study of the Canadian North, Trent University, As an Individual
Thank you, Ms. Lambropoulos.
First of all, I think we have to prepare for many future contingencies and possibilities. Ultimately, at the end of the day, I turn to our military and security experts to determine the balance of probabilities and risks, because we're always managing risks.
Climate change is the existential threat to humanity. We're seeing its impacts most directly and urgently playing out in the Arctic right now. Where I see that affecting our defence posture is on questions around the Canadian Armed Forces as representing essential capabilities to deal with the emergencies in the north. We need to be able to respond, as a country, to humanitarian and environmental disasters of greater magnitude and frequency. I think this brings up pretty fundamental questions about whether we have the right force mix and structures to address these missions, in addition to operations across the spectrum of competition.
In essence, I see climate change as representing a clear and present danger to many of my friends in the north in a day-to-day way. That requires us to develop the right capabilities now, and at the same time to anticipate what stressors on the environment might bring in terms of the competition changing going forward, and potentially different patterns of activities or risks that we should be anticipating.
The fact that Canada has offered to host the NATO centre of excellence on climate and security in Montreal, to me, is a step in the right direction by our being leaders in understanding and anticipating some of those drivers and dynamics.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Emmanuella Lambropoulos Liberal Saint-Laurent, QC
Thank you.
Mr. Byers, I'll allow you to comment as well. You mentioned that you believe we should be doing more on search and rescue in the north and that we should make sure that the proper infrastructure is in place in order to help people get from one place to another and help in that way to better prepare.
Would you like to go a little further into detail?
12:50 p.m.
Professor, Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
I have two initial points.
I'm proud to be on the Russian sanctions list also.
12:50 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
12:50 p.m.
Professor, Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
I think I was the first Canadian academic to be so honoured. It probably has something to do with calling Vladimir Putin a war criminal in The Globe and Mail.
I carry no brief for Russia. It is a threat to Canada, and that includes in the Arctic.
With respect to nuclear missiles, including cruise missiles and hypersonic missiles, we do need that over-the-horizon radar. It could be a threat in terms of low-level harassment, interfering with communications, for instance, or disinformation campaigns in Arctic communities. The sorts of things Russia does against the west in general can happen in the Arctic. That's why we need to maintain our surveillance capability, especially from space.
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Christine Normandin
Unfortunately, I have to interrupt you there.
I want to move on to a new topic in the remaining two minutes. In fact, I'd like to pick up on something you said earlier in response to a question. You said that China has an interest in keeping the Northwest Passage open, for purely economic reasons.
I'd like to hear from both witnesses on Russia's view of the north as a gateway. Does Russia want to keep it open, as China does, or does Russia consider it to be a private preserve?
12:50 p.m.
Professor, Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
I think I'll take this first because, of the two witnesses, I'm the international lawyer, although Professor Lackenbauer knows a heck of a lot about international law.
Russia has the same position concerning the legal status of its Arctic straits as Canada has with respect to the legal status of our Northwest Passage. It has the same principal opponent, in terms of the legal claim, in the United States. That's why the dispute is an awkward thing for Canada and the United States to have in the current situation, when we're effectively supporting a belligerent in a war against Russia.
Again, I call for Canada to have open-minded discussions—not negotiations, but open-minded discussions—with the United States on the Northwest Passage.
I will say something else that I think Professor Lackenbauer will support; he's effectively said this. It's that there will be a time when we need to re-engage with Russia—in other words, when Vladimir Putin is gone—and the Arctic is a place where we will be able to start that re-engagement. To the degree that we can avoid an escalation of rhetoric, the so-called security dilemma, that's probably a good thing.
Again, I carry no brief for Russia. Vladimir Putin is a war criminal, and Russia does pose a very significant security threat to North America in terms of nuclear weapons, so let's keep our eye on that ball.
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Christine Normandin
Thank you very much. Unfortunately, I have to interrupt you there to give the floor to Mr. Zimmer, who has four minutes.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I guess in response to Professor Lackenbauer—
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Christine Normandin
Sorry, I made a mistake. It will be the next round. I'm new to the chair. I forgot my colleague Ms. Mathyssen of the NDP. I'm sorry about that.
Go ahead, Ms. Mathyssen. You have two minutes.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
You get one.
I want to follow along with what Professor Byers was just saying in terms of re-establishing at some point the communications with Russia. There were some conversations about potentially pushing Russia into...not pushing it into the arms of China, but ultimately seeing it turning to China more. How do we avoid that?
That's for both witnesses.
12:55 p.m.
Professor, Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
I think we make it very clear to both China and India that picking sides on the Ukraine war is not in their long-term interests. Through that, China's giving the kind of support that draws Russia into its orbit is not in China's long-term interest, given the centrality of the west-China relationship in the future of our world.
12:55 p.m.
Professor, Canada Research Chair in the Study of the Canadian North, Trent University, As an Individual
It's really important for us not to distort the fact that Russia does have sovereignty and sovereign rights as an Arctic state and China does not. It should be affirmed that there are deep-seated differences between China's interpretation of its role in the Arctic and that of all of the Arctic states, including Russia. It's a very straightforward narrative that upholds our primacy of rules-based international order and suggests that within the Arctic, our desire is to not have Russia break the rules-based regional order and that we share a common set of concerns about the roles China may play in putting into question stability and order in the Arctic, stability and order that primarily serve the interests of the Arctic states and Arctic residents, particularly Arctic indigenous peoples.
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This is in response to Professor Lackenbauer.
You seem to not see the need to have a presence in the Arctic for the reasons you give. Theoretically, they can't do it. However, we see Ukraine being invaded, based on a previous theory that it could happen, and sad to say, lawyers couldn't keep an invading Russian army out of Ukraine.
I'll ask Professor Byers what I had asked before.
Russian and Chinese claims in the Arctic are growing stronger. Their assertions are getting stronger. What does Canada need to do—and you've alluded to it before in your previous comments—to be seen strong enough by these two countries to push back against those threats?
12:55 p.m.
Professor, Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
The most obvious thing is something that we are doing in terms of standing with our NATO allies against Russia in Ukraine. NATO is much stronger than it was before February 24, and that's a really good thing. Canada is there. We need to continue that stance as a central pillar in the NATO alliance. That's the strongest signal we can send.
In terms of the Arctic, we need to maintain and improve our capability to see what's going on there. That's the first step. In addition to that, we need to improve our ability to get to places quickly with small numbers of personnel to deal with harassment situations and search and rescue situations. It's a very, very big region. It's very hostile. We need the ability to get small numbers of troops or search and rescue technicians to places quickly and reliably, and then we build, if necessary, into long-term investments along with our other NATO partners.
Building those kinds of long-term investments is a decades-long exercise. We should focus on the immediate, which is the NATO alliance facing Russia in Ukraine and on the entire frontier up to northern Norway. In addition to that, we should improve our ability to see what's going on in airspace, including space, as well as tracking potential missiles and tracking what's happening on the ground.
Those are investments we can get to work on right now. We need to upgrade the North Warning System. We need the next procurement for the RADARSAT Constellation. Those are my two top items. Let's make sure that our glasses are new and clear in the Arctic.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
Professor, Canada Research Chair in the Study of the Canadian North, Trent University, As an Individual
If I may respond, I do think we need a military presence in the Arctic. The question is, how much, and how proportionate is it to the threat environment that we place in the Arctic specifically?
I would argue that Canada can best defend the Arctic by investing smartly in homeland defence overall and in a forward presence in Europe. We need to ensure that we, as we've done historically, defend against threats and defeat them before they manifest themselves in North America. This includes making sure we invest in ready, agile and southern-based expeditionary capabilities, as we might call them—in this case, expeditionary within our country—to be able to deploy southern troops to deliver kinetic effects where needed in the Canadian Arctic.
This goes to General Eyre's comments about persistent presence versus permanent presence. We have the permanent presence in the form of the Canadian Rangers in the communities. What I'm advocating is figuring out what the right persistent presence looks like and how the best-calibrated proportionate investments can be made to ensure we have the necessary defence at the time of relevance over various time horizons.
1 p.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Christine Normandin
Thank you very much.
We are concluding this round with Darren Fisher for four minutes.