National Defence committee  I think that's right. If we don't have the capabilities to contribute, then.... It used to be said of Canada that we are at the NATO dinner table but when the cheque comes Canada runs away. We want to make sure that's not us.

National Defence committee  I'm not a sub expert by any stretch of the imagination, so it's not for me to say what it is the military needs. The comment that has been made by many practitioners is that overall NATO and NATO allies have let their antisubmarine warfare capabilities atrophy, as a function of t

National Defence committee  Well, no, we have a combat-capable Canadian Armed Forces who will do what they're called upon to do by the Canadian government. It's up to the Canadian government to decide what they do. I will note, though, that since 1990 Canada has contributed more to NATO-led or U.S.-led oper

National Defence committee  Yes, I agree. We should continue discussing the Arctic with Russia. Russia has been very productive in the Arctic. We have a lot of agreements. We need them for search and rescue. Yes, as I think Dr. Byers was trying to say, we have to trust and verify when it comes to the Arcti

National Defence committee  I said I don't want NATO exercises in “Canada's” Arctic. That would not be prudent.

National Defence committee  I think some big events would have to happen before we considered that, but I don't see that time happening any time soon.

National Defence committee  There are a couple of points. First of all, we do invite individual NATO allies to come and participate. We've had Denmark, we've had the United States, etc. That can continue, but it's because of the propinquity of those allies with our Arctic. It makes sense for search and resc

National Defence committee  Yes.

National Defence committee  I'm suggesting that it's a particular area, the GIUK gap—the Greenland-Iceland-U.K. gap into the North Atlantic. That's an area where before, because we had SACLANT, we had strategic overview of coordinating exercises and working together at a strategic level. Now, I'm suggesting

National Defence committee  Well, I hope they respond as they are—very cautiously. We're staying within our mandate. We are there to support especially our NATO allies that are bordering or are coming close to Russia, but it's not just for NATO to fix. As you know, we have sanctions against Russia, as does

National Defence committee  It's always difficult, of course, because Russia is one of the permanent members and has a veto, so they're going to ensure that action against Russia isn't taken via the UN Security Council. This is why the United Nations is so important, because we have something called a Gener

National Defence committee  They're very similar. I think any time we have an opportunity to continue to engage with Russia in positive areas we should continue to do that. The whole purpose of our engagement with Russia in the Arctic is first and foremost to improve the lives of northerners. We don't want

National Defence committee  I guess my first question is about which states in particular have disagreements about Arctic sovereignty. That would be my first question. We have quite a few processes to determine things like outstanding maritime boundary limits. I think you might be referring to the extension

National Defence committee  Again, I don't know that we're necessarily seeing that, especially when it comes to the Canadian context. For example, one of the things we're waiting to come online are the Arctic offshore patrol vessels, but those are going to be a whole-of-government platform that happens to b

National Defence committee  I'm afraid this is not my area. Somebody like Jim Fergusson would be best to speak to this.