National Defence committee  Thank you so much. A vast and forbidding region that is also enormously important strategically, the Arctic holds as much as 25% of the fossil fuel reserves in the world. Among western states, however, the Arctic has hardly been a centre of geostrategic interest, and policies have often been driven by noble hopes and limited attention.

National Defence committee  Yes, I do. We're not buying an aircraft; we're buying a system. It's a mistake to think of the aircraft as a stand-alone. As Elinor Sloan said, we have to think about which allies we operate with in the north, and that would be Norway, Denmark, and the United States. The United States is buying this aircraft massively.

National Defence committee  I think there will be enormous pressure on the NATO members who are not spending 2% of GDP on defence to increase their spending. I think we're beginning to see signs of this, even in Scandinavia where, in a way, they've been mugged by reality. The Swedes had sold off their anti-submarine aircraft.

National Defence committee  There is always a risk because of the kinds of temptations that exist. We look for resources and companies that want to make profits. On occasion we allow companies in and maybe we don't fully think through all of the implications that involve more than just economic benefit, but can involve security factors as well.

National Defence committee  The argument presents a very complex picture of both opportunities and threats. It is a vast region with enormous resources. Something like 22% of potential fossil fuel resources are in the Arctic. The temptation is tremendous. As the Arctic ice melts, the navigation potential, the northern sea route, could dramatically change trade patterns.

National Defence committee  In a sense this would tie in to some of the other questions that were asked. We need a conceptual clarification of what is a threat. When we say, “Look, there is no threat,” there is no threat in the sense of what we were used to in the Cold War, where we saw massive forces with tens of thousands of tanks as part of a strategy that would have involved a lunge toward the Channel.

National Defence committee  Well, it's not just a matter of where you deploy; you have to have something to deploy. If we don't have enough aircraft, there is no magic.

National Defence committee  Well, we have some capacity. We obviously have to try to deploy them as wisely as possible and where the most likely threats are going to be. But we have to cooperate with our allies. We just don't have enough and will never have enough, so we have to do it jointly. I'm sure we can refine the policy, we can adjust it.

National Defence committee  That's the sensible way to do it. If that is what you're advocating, it makes eminent good sense.

National Defence committee  I say that's exactly how they could detect, but to respond, you need to have ships. You need to have troops on the ground and you need to have icebreakers. This is where Russia has a tremendous advantage. I'm not that concerned about non-state actors. They're not likely to do it; there's not that much capacity.

National Defence committee  As an academic, obviously my preference would be that we spend money on universities and hospitals, and not on weapons. But the reality is that we live in an international system where there are significant threats. Russia has been prodding and probing, and it has enjoyed tactical successes, at a great cost to its domestic economy.

National Defence committee  Thank you for the warning, and the invitation and opportunity to appear before the committee. This is indeed both a vital and urgent topic. I would like to state at the very beginning that from my perspective, any analysis of North American defence may be deconstructed only for analytical and functional purposes.

Finance committee  I think everyone has the right to be nervous about what was happening in a human rights organization where you could not get information. We did not control when, for example, the Deloitte report would be released. As members of the board, we wanted it to be out as soon as possible.

Finance committee  I appreciate the question. I hope you read the Deloitte report, which did not cost $1 million. The report was actually devastating. I'm puzzled, as an academic, how you could read the report—I'd like to assume you read the report—and say this. The report basically stated that there was no accountability.

Finance committee  When I came in, I had some idea that Rights and Democracy had been problematic. There had been previous crises, and we knew that. The severity of it was not apparent until you got to the organization, until you began to ask for accountability and transparency. What was sad about it is that despite the efforts we made, and we invested an enormous amount of time, people who were on the board were highly dedicated and tried to get the organization right.