Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 23rd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Hart.

We'll move to Mr. Goldring and Mr. Lunney, who will split the time.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Thank you for appearing here today.

I agree with you. We're certainly not a mouse geographically, and I think that certainly is a very substantive reason we're being viewed as very important economic partners.

My question is more about the Arctic region and perhaps to add a little bit of clarity to it. We know the Russians were there and planted flags on the sea floor. Do we have to do something like that to establish territory?

It seems to me there are three issues. One is the sovereignty of the territory itself, the land territory and how that extends. Then, of course, there's the question of the international shipping access to the waterways. The third one is deciding the delineation of the coastal seaways territorial boundaries.

Are there other issues? And considering these much more amiable relationships with the United States, is there an opportunity to take any of these issues off the table and work with them?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Goldring, whom are you directing that to?

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Hampson.

[Prof. Fen Osler Hampson]

I would refer all of the committee members to a very good paper in the second volume of our report by Don McRae, who is one of Canada's most distinguished international lawyers. It's a paper that's focused on sovereignty issues in the Arctic. Let me just summarize what his argument, and the main argument of our report, is.

When it comes to sovereignty over the land, it is not contested, period. The issue has been one of transit rights in the Northwest Passage, and since 1988 we've had an agreement, in effect, to disagree quietly and privately on that issue.

The main challenge, I think, for Canada is to stop worrying about property rights and to start getting responsible about stewardship in the Arctic. The Arctic, and particularly the waters of the Arctic, are, at the end of the day, part of the global commons. Working with the United States and the other circumpolar countries, we have to start getting a stewardship regime in place that will address mounting environmental problems in the Arctic—which don't respect national boundaries—and the issue of marine stocks, which, again, don't respect national boundaries.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Was NAFO involved in that type of research before? I think it was polar continental shelf research. There were several places in the Arctic where they were located, including Resolute Bay, I know, and perhaps Tuktoyaktuk. But were they not engaged in that type of research?

[Prof. Fen Osler Hampson]

Absolutely. And we in fact need to ratchet up the level of our research and engagement with other Arctic countries as part of a new stewardship approach for dealing with the Arctic.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Hampson.

Mr. Hart, were you going to respond as well?

[Prof. Michael Hart]

I agree completely with what my colleague has said, and I recommend the paper too. It's a very fine piece of work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I might also advise the committee that Dr. McRae will be appearing before our committee on March 9.

Mr. Lunney, please.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Well, Mr. Goldring took this right in the direction I wanted to go in, and that is the Arctic and Canada's relationship with the U.S.

I just have to say that I appreciate the comments from both of you regarding the mouse and the elephant metaphor. It's perhaps over-utilized, and it's time we grew past it, so I appreciate your remarks related to that.

As for the relationship in the Arctic and stewardship, I appreciate the way you framed that, Mr. Hampson. We're making great efforts, at least in trying to move in that direction with the permanent scientific research centre up there and with creating a facility for vessels to patrol up there and so on. We certainly think we have to make our presence felt in the north, and it's really past time for that—but not too late, hopefully. You can't go back, so we have to move forward.

Do you have any other suggestions, other than getting on with the job and fulfilling what we've already laid out in our direction, as to how to make better use of our presence in the Arctic? We're increasing the number of Canadian rangers up there and our presence up there, training more soldiers and trying to get more facilities in the Arctic. Do you have any other suggestions on how we can improve our utilization of the north and move ahead our own agenda up there?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Hart, did you want to have an opportunity to respond here?

[Prof. Michael Hart]

I think you will hear this from Don McRae as well, that one of the challenges we have is to sit down with the Americans and say, what can we do together in the Arctic? Given the fact that they have a very large share of the Arctic as a result of Alaska, and we do as well as a part of the islands and so on, there are a number of areas where our interests segment. In fact, we have some disputes over the 200-mile economic zone.

Given the fact that technology is advancing to the point where there are many things that can be done now in the Arctic that could not be done before, I think we would gain a lot more than we would ever threaten if we sat down with the Americans and said, what can we do together? Then together we can approach the Russians and the Europeans and so on, who also have a stake in the Arctic and who are part of the circumpolar panel.

I think you will find that your discussions with Professor McRae on that should be quite fruitful.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Hampson, did you want to add to that as well? No?

All right. We'll move then to Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our guests for appearing at committee today.

I have many questions. Maybe I'll start with Afghanistan.

I liked your idea. It has been floated particularly around Mr. Brahimi. Actually he was here in Ottawa just last June, and I had the opportunity to speak with him. He was at a conference here on Islam, with Ahmed Rashid, the Pakistani journalist. It was interesting because he was not only the UN representative post-9/11; he was also there in 1998, and he reported to the UN three things that were of concern in Afghanistan. He said there was a problem with drugs; there was a problem with the terrorists being trained; and there was a problem with human rights. He was dutifully ignored, particularly by the U.S.—he told me this—which said drugs in Afghanistan weren't a problem they were worried about because they were worried about Colombia and cocaine; the training of terrorists wasn't something that was happening in their neighbourhood in particular; and regarding the area of human rights, there were cultural nuances so they were not going to really go there.

You know well his work in Bonn. One of the things he said to me was that he was very specific about the role of the UN, and he said again he was ignored in terms of what he recommended and what happened.

I am concerned that if we don't have something other than NATO to offer, we certainly won't be able to use this institution to forge what you're describing. After all, NATO--even just in name, let alone what it does--isn't sufficient for next steps.

Mr. Hampson, talking about eminent persons, would they then engage the countries in the neighbourhood for peace talks, to then forge some sort of agreement? What would happen after that, in your mind?

[Prof. Fen Osler Hampson]

The first comment I would make is that we shouldn't be looking too much into the rear-view mirror when it comes to Afghanistan, because with the change of administration in Washington there is a desire to turn the page and move forward with a new policy. That creates a window of opportunity.

Second, the idea of an eminent persons group that would include people of the stature of Brahimi is really to do, at an informal level regionally and internationally, what we did in Canada with the Manley panel, which was a domestic exercise; it wasn't an international exercise. To pay for and support the creation of a group that can, on an ongoing basis, feed ideas into a diplomatic initiative that is going to be led by the United States, and that has just started...we want to make sure it gets off on the right foot and that it stays moving in the right direction.

Mr. Holbrook cannot talk to everyone in the region. His mandate is actually Afghanistan and Pakistan. He probably will talk informally to others in the region, but he's not going to be able to do it all alone. The fact is we are one of the key countries that have troops on the ground. We need to be part of that process. The challenge is to become part of that process in a way that is constructive, that will be accepted by the Americans.

One of the other things you could do is to try to set up a contact group. There was that model in Bosnia, but this is a somewhat different situation because we're not talking about a peace process as yet. We're talking about getting a political dialogue going, making sure that the issues you have just identified are properly on the table, trying to get a handle on those issues and a dialogue around those issues, and also begin to form a consensus on how we collectively move forward.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you. I agree with you on looking forward and not in the rear-view mirror. I was just giving you his description of his experience.

I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, I agree with those who don't see it as the elephant relationship. That party is gone now from Washington, as a matter of fact, if you look at how things are represented through symbols; the party of the elephant is even gone. I'd like to see us more as roommates.

If I could turn to NAFTA, I might take exception with Mr. Hart about what SPP was and what happened. I actually have no idea, because we weren't allowed in and the window was rather foggy--what they were negotiating. You may have had a better insight as to what they were negotiating. But on NAFTA—and I'm not sure whether both of you may want to respond to this—we heard from Mr. Obama that there's still an interest in taking the side agreements, particularly on labour and environment, and putting them into NAFTA.

I would like your take on whether you see problems for Canada in doing that—not for the government, but for Canada as a country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Go very quickly, please, Mr. Hart.

[Prof. Michael Hart]

No, I don't see that as a problem, and I'll tell you why. I think that to Mr. Obama and to the union movement to whom he is speaking—this is a domestic message for Mr. Obama—NAFTA is a word you use to talk about broad trade and investment problems. It is not to talk about specific issues between Canada and the United States.

In fact, it really speaks more to China and India than it does to Canada and Mexico, because that's the fear, in places such as Ohio and Michigan, about the erosion of the U.S. industrial base. NAFTA is taken as a symbol, and what can you do about NAFTA? Then they say, “We don't like the labour and side agreements.” I would be surprised if Mr. Obama has yet received a briefing on those side agreements and what they do.

Last week I took the time to sit down and read the provisions of the Australia-U.S. agreement, which is one of the later ones, to see whether there is any material difference between the side agreements we negotiated in 1993 and what the Australians have in their new agreement, and there isn't one. There is no difference. It's a very similar kind of thing, to say that both countries agree that they will fully implement their domestic laws relating to labour and the environment, and that if there is a problem, there is a dispute settlement discussion phase permitting them to say, we think there's a problem here and could you do something about it? And that's it.

If you sit down with the United States and ask exactly what their problem with Canadian labour laws or Canadian environmental laws is, they'd have a very hard time identifying what it is, because we're talking about a symbol.

Probably, this will ultimately have to resolve in something symbolic rather than something substantive. It's not even with Mexico; it's really with China and India.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Hart.

We'll move to Ms. Brown, please.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you.

I really enjoyed those presentations. Not to be left behind with the discussion about the mice, I would suggest that all of us pick up the satirical little book that was written some years ago called The Mouse that Roared, a mythical story about a little duchy in Europe that had a product it was trying to sell, but they were up against the great European market. It's quite funny, actually.

The question I want to raise with both of you is this. Both of you talked about the economic issues we share, both with the NAFTA agreements and in areas you both talked about where we need to find clear interests. Given that Canada has been recognized by so many countries in the world now as having strength in our banking institutions, strength in our financial institutions and in the regulatory processes that have been put in place, do you think there is a place now for Canada to roar, as it were, in these areas, to work with the United States and to take leadership? Is this an area where we can really find our feet and show leadership in this economic time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Ms. Brown.

Mr. Hart.

[Prof. Michael Hart]

I had some diplomatic training before I joined Carleton, and I was trained not to roar but to work quietly.

Quietly, yes, I think we have a very good story to tell. When it comes to our banking and other regulatory things, I think there is a broad consensus that what we have done is about right. When we begin the process, and I don't think we have started it yet, of looking at what kind of international cooperation is required to deal with the financial crisis—with the banking issues and so on—I think we have a very good story to tell, and we should not be shy about telling that story. It doesn't mean there aren't some areas for improvement even in Canada, but I think we can build on this.

But I think it's important to not jump to too many conclusions. You read in the paper now, “Let's redo the Bretton Woods institutions.” People forget that the Bretton Woods institutions, when they were negotiated in the 1940s, reflected 20 years of quiet work, first in the League of Nations and then outside of that process by a group of allies who had worked together to defeat the axis powers. They didn't just spring up quickly; they were the result of a lot of quiet diplomacy over the years. I think if I were the Canadian government, and particularly the Department of Finance, that's where I would begin: with some quiet diplomacy on the strength of our institutions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Hampson.

[Prof. Fen Osler Hampson]

I think it was last week that Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, held up Canada as kind of the poster child of how to get financial regulation right and in fact argued that Canada is a good model for the United States. That being said, lecturing others on the Canadian model may make you feel good, but it tends to make others feel rather nauseated.

I think our bigger challenge—because we do have credibility in these areas—is to translate that into effective diplomacy in what is going to be an ongoing series of negotiations about the reform of international financial institutions. And right now there's a lot of hysteria. The European Union is rushing into high regulatory mode; the Americans continue to be resistant to it, largely for domestic political reasons. I think we can bring a stable, sober, measured voice to those discussions.