National Defence committee  In the case of the Arctic Council, the working groups have decided that they will proceed, but it will be online. One of the major concerns, of course, is that Russia has the largest Arctic territory. We're seriously concerned that we do not have access to their data that speaks to how much methane is being released from permafrost that is melting, which is going to change the world's weather and climate change values.

National Defence committee  You know, it is, and this is why having global affairs is—

National Defence committee  They are the eyes and ears in the Arctic. I'll note that with any incursion that has happened in the Arctic, including submarines, it's been the locals who have noted it and brought it to the attention of the Government of Canada. We want them to be out on the land, being those eyes and ears, not trying to struggle with PDF versions, wonky Internet, filling out complicated forms again and again and again, and then waiting for months for reimbursement.

National Defence committee  Yes. We're talking about de jure sovereignty. Nobody is arguing that the Arctic is not Canadian. Even if we have Russian bombers that are in the Canadian air defence identification zone, that's still international airspace. That is not losing our sovereignty. I think the problem with using a term like “sovereignty” is that we aren't talking about discussions of how we detect threats, how we defeat threats and how we make sure the whole of government is integrating its efforts.

National Defence committee  I've been arguing for a decade that we need to invest. I do a lot of research on NORAD, and the NORAD modernization and continental defence projects are going to be essential. We are in an era of deterrence by denial, which means we need to be able to get a common operating picture that can be shared securely with all of the necessary partners to understand what is happening, and that's not going to happen unless the NORAD modernization projects, the satellites and the land-based and sea-based sensors, are in place, connected, and protected, and we start to consider the defence of North America as a wider contribution to NATO in general.

National Defence committee  When it comes to the indigenous governments, especially the Inuit, we're talking about rights holders, so they absolutely have to be at the table: It's nothing about them without them. This is where Joint Task Force North is so essential. They are the connectors for the Government of Canada to indigenous governments and to other government departments, and with the increased tempo of activity that's happening in the Arctic, they need more resources to be able to make those connections so that consultations are significant and not ad hoc and after the fact.

National Defence committee  Thank you for the opportunity to present to the committee. I would like to focus my remarks on Joint Task Force North, the Canadian Rangers and, if time permits, clarification regarding multi-purpose projects, given the Arctic-focused “Our North, Strong and Free”, or ONSF. While I disagree with the idea that Canadian sovereignty is at risk, I do agree that defence and security in the Arctic need to be assessed and that a whole-of-government approach needs to be taken.

Foreign Affairs committee  I think you're right. I think I was trying to respond to the fact that.... I don't want to give the impression that sanctions are in place, and then everybody takes a big step back and just waits for the RCMP and CBSA to swoop in and do something. No, we all have obligations, and you're right, so probably compliance is a much better term for that.

Foreign Affairs committee  I would just add that we're talking about provincial regulations and jurisdiction as well. That's the wonderfulness that is the Canadian federated system. There are going to be several layers of jurisdiction to navigate.

Foreign Affairs committee  I'm hoping that Dr. Martin can answer that question, because that is very specific.

Foreign Affairs committee  Yes, and I would encourage you to ask Craig Martin about this as well. The EU and the U.K. provide yearly reports. They're not in depth; it's broad-strokes information that helps correct course. The U.S. also provides all sorts of reports on their sanctions regime. It is normally done by our allies, and I'm sure we could do it too.

Foreign Affairs committee  Well, I am noticing frequently asked questions coming up. For example, our autonomous sanctions list is so clunky to search. Its targets are listed based on the order in which GAC puts them on a list, as opposed to alphabetically. It's things like that. The list may work for the government, but it's not working for the people who need to access the information to enforce the sanctions.

Foreign Affairs committee  It's complicated. We're hemorrhaging people from the public service. You're asking people who do the work of 10 people, “Oh, could you just add this on too, and create a new sanctions bureau?” I have a lot of sympathy for public servants. I know this is difficult. Canada, generally, is terrible with procurement.

Foreign Affairs committee  Yes; however, how are Canadians to know? That's the point I'm trying to make. At the end of the day, sanctions first and foremost are enforced by Canadians' understanding them. If they are not listed on the Global Affairs website, then how are we to know?

Foreign Affairs committee  They're poor. We have very little information about sanctions that's publicly available. On targets, we often don't even get birthdates.