Foreign Affairs Committee on March 11th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Staples.

Mr. Patry.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Roussel, you talked about the Arctic, and that was very interesting. Canada ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in 2003. In 2013, we will have to submit the matter to the commission. We are working very hard to prepare the file. Moreover, the committee has begun to examine it. This preparation includes establishing cartography and alpha and beta lines, etc. I can't talk to you about that because it's all Greek to me.

When Canada submits its file in 2013, how will that commission operate? How much time can it take?

As you are a specialist in this field, I want to ask you for advice. The committee wants to examine the issue of the Arctic in the fairly near future, probably in early June. In your presentation, you said that the Arctic is a very broad issue. You talked about the environment, defence and so on. What should the committee focus on in order to conduct a useful study and not to stray into fields beyond its jurisdiction?

[Prof. Stéphane Roussel]

Thank you, Mr. Patry.

What will happen after the Canadian file is submitted to the commission? It will be reviewed by experts, as was the case for the Russians' file. We will probably have to wait a year or two. I believe it should go quite quickly, but the real test will be when the Americans are going to decide. They'll do it eventually, they'll join the convention, but, until we have all the documents in hand, that is to say until all the national files have been submitted, validated and compared, it will all remain a theoretical exercise.

Second, if I had any advice to give you committee members as to what should be studied in the Arctic, I would suggest that you really focus on concrete problems. Perhaps you should set aside the sovereignty issue, even though it is very “sexy” for journalists. That's what appeals to them the most. Instead you should focus your efforts on how the government can provide services to the communities there and occupy the land. I'm talking about environmental threats, search and rescue operations, scientific operations. Really you should look at how the government can show its presence in the field, and thus focus on problems that are of a more technical nature.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Roussel.

We'll move to Monsieur Crête and Madame Deschamps, who are going to split the time. Oui?

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I'm going to let my colleague speak because I know he's very interested in this issue.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Robertson, you witnessed my first steps as a parliamentarian when you were head of the office at the U.S. embassy. You talked a little about that today. Could you tell us more about the action plan we should have for Canadian action on American soil, from parliamentarians here, from the provinces and all that. What would be the extent of the additional effort that would have to be made so that we could really respond to what Mr. Douglas said earlier, that the second issue in the United States is always the fact that a lot of people, including U.S. parliamentarians, don't know much about Canada? You talked about letting parliamentarians travel more, getting out of Washington. At least that's what I thought you said. Can you tell us more on that subject?

[Dr. Colin Robertson]

That's definitely why we have to conduct visits, especially to Washington, to engage congressmen, because relations among elected representatives are frankly odd, particularly with the U.S. Congress.

I might just say, the American system, as we know, is constructed...there's the executive with whom we have well-established relationships, but the Congress, where most of our problems come from...these are elected representatives like yourselves, and my experience is that this is one area where we really can make a difference with you taking the lead.

I observed firsthand in my over 300 calls on Parliament Hill, the times I went up with parliamentarians, it just lifted our game significantly because you understand one another, you have so much in common, you're both elected. That does more to help us, particularly in Washington, but then taking the relationships, because it's all personal, and going to their districts and inviting them up here. I heard many times from senior congressmen who are now well placed, the chairs of the committees who take the actions that are aimed...because they had relationships with Canadian parliamentarians. In my view, the two most effective Canadian parliamentarians are Jerry Grafstein and Colin Kenny, partly because of longevity--they've worked on a sustained basis with members of Congress, and that's where you can make a difference because that's where the problems start.

In my view, diplomacy in the United States has to be waged differently than the way we do it in the rest of the world. Again, I come back; a critical ingredient is parliamentarians like yourselves. I was very pleased when you were allowed to visit Washington, but I would strongly encourage you to widen the travel privileges so you can go into the districts. I also encourage provincial parliamentarians.

For example, I've seen the members of Quebec's National Assembly all across the country.

I've seen them also in the western state legislatures, because this works at every level.

You have Darrell Dexter, from Nova Scotia, the leader of the opposition, coming down and meeting with counterparts in Maryland and New York and heading off potential problems with “buy America” by pointing out the relationship with the Atlantic, in this case, particularly Nova Scotia. There was then-leader of the opposition in Ontario, John Tory, coming down and calling on members. They understood him, because he was the minority leader from the provincial legislature. This made a big difference. We can't do it enough.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Robertson.

We'll go to Monsieur Crête.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

With respect to the Arctic, you talked a lot about the importance—at least that's what I understood—of going beyond what you call the sovereignty approach, but what we also call the militaristic approach. I understood from your message that, when we denounce the fact that a Russian bomber approached the border but did not enter Canadian air space, we're going downstairs rather than up. I won't ask you to comment on the situation in political terms, but that's what I understand.

I would like you to speak more in detail about the kind of bilateral organization you prefer. You talked about the seaway and NORAD as being two somewhat different aspects, one concerning defence, the other day-to-day management. It is the day-to-day management aspect that interests me the most. What concrete form could that take? Would the two countries come together around a table like at the joint commission, or would it be different?

[Prof. Stéphane Roussel]

I mentioned those three models. If we talk about day-to-day management models, such as the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, those are two state organizations, one American the other Canadian, that have the mandate to manage the St. Lawrence Seaway, particularly the locks. There aren't any of those in the High North, but there are similar problems. We could have a two-headed or even binational organization that would be responsible for monitoring ice and providing assistance to navigation in the Northwest Passage. A number of authors are suggesting this approach. I find it riskier because the issue of where the border lies will inevitably come up again. In the St. Lawrence or Great Lakes, the Canada-U.S. border is clearly delineated. In the High North, however, it's not clear. So I'm cautious about that model.

I prefer the Permanent Joint Board on Defence, or PJBD, model where there are three Canadians and three Americans, who are selected based on their qualifications and expertise in the field. They conduct studies on very specific, concrete problems, and each one returns to his government to say what he suggests, working with the others, to solve the problems. In doing that, we advance, we move forward, we get to know each other and trust each other more. What was put in place with the PJBD, or the Permanent Joint Board, could be put in place in the High North relatively easily. That's the model that I would favour.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Roussel.

We'll go to the government side. We have Mr. Abbott and Madam Brown.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Staples, I made notes about the MDA space-based strategy, the non-proliferation use of space and space-based threats, disarmament, and the NATO Nuclear Planning Group round table on space. Then I see that you're suggesting that we request that the Minister of National Defence appear before the committee to explain Canada's position on NATO's Nuclear Planning Group.

I suppose I was rather expecting that you might have been talking about maybe a joint focus for our two countries, Canada and the U.S., on climate change, or territorial challenge, or the Northwest Passage, or NAFTA, or the thickening of the border, or border security, or perimeter issues, or management of joint issues, maybe with NORAD or IJC. I wasn't really expecting your dissertation on space. Considering the topic of the day, which I believe you were advised of, I was curious about why you chose something that, to my simple mind, appears to be a little obscure.

[Steven Staples]

I think it's a welcome opportunity to discuss this. Thank you for your question.

I think these are issues of mutual interest with the U.S., and I think these are emerging as two important priorities for the Obama administration, both in terms of space security and in terms of nuclear disarmament. I think in this regard we want to look at areas in which we have strengths and where we can contribute to U.S. priorities.

In terms of our relationship with the United States, I took an interest in, and many of the speakers have pointed out, the need to find places where we can make contributions to their priorities. We need to seek areas of cooperation. I think, in particular, that these are areas in which we have a great deal to contribute. I would agree with Senator Segal, who pointed out that we have a long history in this area. He was specifically focusing on Iran, for instance. This is also an issue of concern to the Obama administration. I think these are areas on which we can work with this new administration, which wasn't as easy to do before, under the last administration.

That was my intention here today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Staples.

Ms. Brown.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank all of you for your presentations today. I found them most fascinating. All six of them have been great.

What I hear about over and over is this integration of what's going on in North America. We talk about the integration of our security, so we talk about the border issues, and we talk about the integration of our economy.

I represent the riding of Newmarket—Aurora, which has a tremendous number of auto supply parts manufacturers. I recognize fully that those parts are often travelling back and forth across the border to create one motor vehicle.

How do we as Canadians establish ourselves firmly, given the size of the American population and their influence globally? How do we retain our influence globally? How do we retain our influence and a strong voice in the North American market? What do we do to make sure that happens, given that all of these integrations are going on?

Mr. Robertson, you spoke about “relationship”, and I would like you to expand on that, if you would. I am a person who firmly believes that relationship is how we are going to maintain strong voices. I love the fact that you've talked about us as parliamentarians extending a hand in friendship to our counterparts in the States. I would love it if you could provide me with a list of people to whom I could start making phone calls, writing letters, and introducing myself. I'm a new parliamentarian, so this is contingent on my doing that.

Perhaps each of you could comment briefly on how you see us retaining our own strong voice within this context.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Ms. Brown.

Maybe Mr. Robertson could start.

[Dr. Colin Robertson]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's the power of ideas. I've spent all of my career in the service of Canada, but I've spent half my career outside of Canada. We're actually much better than we think we are.

Perhaps it's a good thing, but there's a certain deference about Canadians. The rest of the world looks to us with envy and great interest, particularly because of our position on the upper half of North America vis-à-vis the United States. They often look to us to interpret that giant south of the border. There is no better people to be able to understand the United States than Canadians, because we have a certain sensibility and sensitivity. We understand, for example, what a tailgate party is. It's the little nuances that make the difference.

When we bring the power of ideas, and because we play multilateralism--we have to because of our relative size--again, the rest of the world is interested in this. The Americans, for their part, are also increasingly a bit befuddled by what's going on in the rest of the world. Now we have an opportunity with Mr. Obama, who has said he wants to reopen America.

Now, America never shut down, but there's an opportunity for us to play in this. When we do play, and I think we should play, we usually play very well. It's not a party thing; it's just something that we Canadians have and that we don't always appreciate. Again, I will say that we're really good at this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Robertson.

I would also just make mention of this, because in your comments you did talk about the importance of organizations such as the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group. These are committees and groups that do have an impact, and all parties work together, if you're looking for ideas on how you can build those types of relationships.

I thank Mr. Robertson for bringing that forward and noting the good work done by those members of that committee.

Mr. Dewar, please.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our guests for their presentations.

I want to start with the whole issue of the Arctic, around what models would work. When you consider all the views and the blown-up rhetoric that we've seen in the last while, with the talk about the Russian bear as opposed to protecting the polar bears' habitat, we can see that we need to have some clear direction as to where we should go.

I say this as someone who sees that some of the strategy of the government is to create this kind of phony war, in my opinion, be it with the Russians or with the Americans. In fact, when you see the joint work that's going on between scientists, what we need to do is get behind what they're doing.

Where would you see the role of scientists in joint management? Would you see them as being on the board? Would you see them feeding into the data and the joint projects? I'm sensing that there's a lot more cooperation going on between Canada and the U.S. than we are actually aware of. On the models you talked about, where would you put scientists and researchers?

[Prof. Stéphane Roussel]

That model will involve people from the government--from Foreign Affairs, National Defence, Indian Affairs, and Environment Canada--and their counterparts in the U.S. Basically, these committees, like the PJBD, are made up of official people, not of those from outside.

Scientists can always act as counsellors. Obviously we could create some committees to study a question in particular.

Another problem we have with Arctic issues is that we are oversensitive about this, and people react too strongly regarding the conflict there. We are forgetting--what you said is really important--that there's a lot of cooperation at the ground level. Canadian officials and the Canadian military are constantly working with their counterparts in the U.S. We're not talking about this because it is informal or because there is a memorandum of understanding. This is important. I think we should build on this and give them a more elaborate structure.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Staples, you mentioned--and we've heard it at least three times now--the reference to disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation as a way to engage the United States in a common cause.

When you look at Washington and the direction they're going on this file, what can Canada do?

[Steven Staples]

I think Canada can do a lot of things on this.

As a traditional middle power, we've been able to work with other countries that seem a little bit like us in dealing with countries in a broad engagement. I think we have a number of very talented people in the Department of Foreign Affairs who have been working on this, in terms of verification and looking at ways of preventing these kinds of threats.

So I think we have a long tradition of this that maybe we have forgotten a little bit. But we can engage in this.

I like this idea, and I also think we should not forget about engaging the United States on multiple levels. Non-governmental organizations provide an extra level of engagement with the U.S. We're working with the Secure World Foundation and other U.S. organizations. I really do hope that the Department of Foreign Affairs, when it goes to New York in May, includes a non-governmental organizational representative in its delegation, as it previously has. My understanding is that they have not yet made certain whether they're going to do that or not, and I certainly hope they do, because I think that's an important tool in our diplomatic tool box.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I just want to finish with Mr. Robertson.

When you talk about this approach and this engagement, I think a lot of us would agree. I don't think we've seen a lot of that MP-to-congressman engagement.

I agree with the chair that we have these associations that have worked well in the past, but expanding on that, have we in the past actually either buddied or twinned through any other structures or approaches that you're aware of, or at least contemplated how we will further engage with legislators in the States?

[Dr. Colin Robertson]

Mr. Chair, I realize a minority situation makes it more difficult to travel, but at the subnational level, in the Pacific Northwest economic region, the buddy relationship that was spoken of does exist among British Columbia, Yukon, Alberta, and now Saskatchewan, and, on the American side, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. It's very effective.

You will remember in the American system there is a progression from city to county to Congress to Senate, then often back to the state house as governor, and then back to the U.S. Senate. And never forget, four of the last six presidents were governors. The current president was both a state senator and then a U.S. senator. These relationships are critically important. In my many calls on Congress--now on both sides, because again it doesn't matter whether they're Republican or Democrat--they would speak of their relationships with Canadian legislators, both at the provincial level and with members like you. It just makes such a difference.

So I think there are many ways to do it. But the idea of the personal relationships that you make.... I was talking recently with Rob Merrifield, who was co-chair of the committee until he moved. He'd established a very good relationship with, for example, Louise Slaughter, who is now chair of the critical rules committee and was co-chair of the Canada-U.S. interparliamentary group. This goes across the way.

Jerry Grafstein will go on at some length about his superb relationships, and he's telling the truth. I used to sort of attach myself to Jerry when he would go around and work the Hill, because, again, there are doors you can open that benefit all. That's something that you have that really no one else has, and it's an asset that we have, because we understand one another, particularly that the significance of being elected members makes a difference.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank all of you for being here again today. You brought forward different ideas, good ideas, and we appreciate your input to our committee.

We are adjourned.