Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 26th, 2013

[Prof. Ted McDorman]

The Americans, because they are not a party to the law of the sea convention, are working slightly differently. They also have multiple areas around the world, of which the Arctic is only one. The U.S. has clearly been doing scientific work in the Arctic. Interestingly and notably, a lot of that research work has been done in cooperation with Canada. There are cooperation agreements between the two governments regarding a number of the scientific expeditions that have taken place in the high Arctic.

There are great photos of the American vessel breaking the ice and the Canadian vessel doing all the heavy lifting in the middle of the Arctic Ocean. It's an interesting example of the cooperation between our two countries.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

As an expert in the international law of the sea, then, is it your view that the results of this study that's being done now should settle that dispute between Canada and the United States?

[Prof. Ted McDorman]

It will not settle the dispute between Canada and the United States.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Will it provide the information to settle it?

[Prof. Ted McDorman]

It will provide more information. The reality of the dispute in the boundary area in the Arctic Ocean at the moment is that we know where the disputed area is within 200 nautical miles because we have both drawn our 200-nautical-mile zone. What has not taken place is that neither country has made any indication of the claims beyond 200 nautical miles, so I cannot tell you where Canada claims and the U.S. cannot tell you where the U.S. claims.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I'm sorry to interrupt, but can you roughly tell us the size of the area that's in dispute between Canada and the United States?

[Prof. Ted McDorman]

Beyond 200 nautical miles, no, I can't. I'm sorry.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

All right. You mentioned the international law of the sea in connection with commercial shipping, the Northwest Territories, which you say is indisputably in Canadian territory—

[Prof. Ted McDorman]

The Northwest Passage.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

—sorry, the Northwest Passage—

[Prof. Ted McDorman]

That's the Canadian position, yes.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

—which is definitely in Canadian territory.

Can you explain a little more the source of the U.S. disagreement over navigation? Is it just that they're claiming they have a right to navigate because it's an international passageway?

[Prof. Ted McDorman]

Essentially that's correct. I'd use slightly different wording, but you're dead on. The United States takes the view that the Northwest Passage is an international strait used for international navigation. That has a very particular context in international law. If your body of water is a strait used for international navigation, then there is a navigational right. This exists, for example, in important areas like the Strait of Malacca and the Strait of Gibraltar. This is a critical issue.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Do they then have to show that it's used regularly for that purpose? Is it of like a right of way across land?

[Prof. Ted McDorman]

Yes and no. The U.S. has done this, not physically but through protest notes and other sorts of things. This is how good international lawyers and governments protect their legal positions. Whenever this issue comes up, you'll notice that somebody in the United States pops up and says, “By the way, it's an international strait.”

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I have one quick question, then. If it were an international strait, is Canada obligated to provide navigational charting or search and rescue services for the Northwest Passage?

[Prof. Ted McDorman]

Not under the law of the sea convention, although under other agreements they may be. There's Arctic search and rescue and things like that. There's an international search and rescue agreement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you. That's all the time we have.

Mr. Eyking, sir, seven minutes.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen, for coming. I'm a Nova Scotian, so welcome, Ted, and it's good to see you here, Ed.

Mr. Zebedee, my first question is about infrastructure.

Over the years, we’ve had various governments and different infrastructure agreements. Most of them are based on provincial instead of territorial agreements. You often see one-third, one-third, one-third. We had an agreement a few years ago on the GST rebate, but the reality is that the whole Arctic area is totally different. You don't have the big GST and wouldn't have that rebate. You have vast territories there, and you mentioned the challenges involved.

You stressed how infrastructure is going to be key to the north’s developing properly and how it can move forward with the rest of the economies south of the Arctic circle.

Sometimes we, as governments, pile all this money into infrastructure for a short time just to help boost the economy. When you're doing stuff up north, of course, you must have a lot more planning because of your short season, the frost, etc.

Do you think it's time that the current government looked at a different kind of an infrastructure deal, not just in terms of money but in terms of having longer-term vision, where we're talking of at least 10–15 years? Does a new deal need to be made because of how the Arctic is opening up and the challenges there? What kind of deal would you suggest?

[Ed Zebedee]

We need to develop a strategy that looks forward 10 or 20 years and is based on the basic infrastructure needs at community levels, particularly ports and airports. We're never going to develop road systems, or it will be many years before even a railway system exists, but ports are critical. Right now, we have no ports. A ship comes into Iqaluit to offload an annual sealift and it's there for 10 days because it can offload only at high tide. For 12 hours they run barges back and forth and for 12 hours they sit doing nothing, and that happens in all the other communities.

So it's a long-term strategy that we need.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

How could you avoid that?

[Ed Zebedee]

We need ports.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Would you have a wharf going out farther or a deeper port?

[Ed Zebedee]

We need port infrastructure. There are no wharves. They are building a wharf in Pangnirtung for fishery ships, but it's not a deepwater port. It's going to be limited in terms of the size of ships that can come in. Other than that, there are no ports anywhere.

When we're doing our emergency planning, the critical thing for us is what will happen if we have to get equipment into a community in the wintertime. If it happens to be a community with one of the shorter runways, we close the community and we evacuate the people. That's what would happen.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Do you see other countries, Norway, or some of the other countries that share the Arctic Circle, investing way more in their ports? Are they doing things differently than we are in Canada?