Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 20th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Good morning, everyone. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), our study of Canada's Arctic foreign policy will begin.

As we discussed before the break, we are having at our first meeting the Department of Foreign Affairs to talk a bit about what we're looking at in terms of Arctic foreign policy. I want to thank our officials from DFAIT for being here today.

We have Ms. Jillian Stirk, assistant deputy minister, global issues, strategic policy and Europe. I know you've been here before, so welcome back. We're glad to have you.

We have Alan Kessel, who's the legal adviser. Welcome, Alan. It's good to see you.

And we have Sigrid Anna Johnson, who's the Canadian senior Arctic official. We look forward to hearing from you as well.

We're going to hear from all three of you. Ms. Stirk, why don't we start with you? We'll turn the floor over to you, then to Mr. Kessel, and then to Ms. Johnson. We'll open it up for questions after that.

Ms. Stirk, welcome. The floor is yours.

[Jillian Stirk, Assistant Deputy Minister, Global Issues, Strategic Policy and Europe, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you once again for having invited us to address the committee this morning and for giving us the opportunity to outline some of the elements of Canada's Arctic foreign policy, which was launched in August 2010.

As you know, the north is undergoing rapid change, and this has sparked unprecedented international interest.

Not a week goes by without an international meeting, conference or roundtable on the Arctic taking place. Just last week, Sweden hosted a meeting of Senior Arctic Officials in Haparanda in the context of the Swedish chairmanship of the Arctic Council. At about the same time, the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region met in Inari, Finland. In attendance was a Canadian member of Parliament.

As is often the case, change presents both opportunities and challenges. The Arctic is no exception to this rule. Through the development of its Northern Strategy, Canada has positioned itself at the forefront of these developments, identifying four pillars for Canada's engagement in the north.

The four pillars can be described as follows: exercising our sovereignty; promoting economic and social development in the region; protecting the Arctic environment; and enhancing and delegating northern governance by empowering the people of the north.

Mr. Chair, our Arctic foreign policy provides the international platform from which to project and promote our national interests on the international stage, on the basis of the four pillars of the northern strategy, through leadership and stewardship. It also recognizes the importance of a comprehensive Government of Canada approach to addressing the broad range of issues facing the region, and it puts a clear emphasis on respect for international law.

Canada's vision for the Arctic as a stable, rules-based region with clearly defined boundaries, dynamic economic growth and trade, vibrant northern communities, and healthy and productive ecosystems is fully supported by our northern strategy and the Arctic foreign policy. For example, in the area of sustainable economic development, our embassies across the world promote Canada's northern leadership in science and industry innovation. They seek out opportunities for international partnerships, including joint research and development and technology partnering and transfer.

Our embassies have also helped to promote the Canadian service industry, including Canada's polar marine technologies and Yukon's excellence in cold weather climate technologies.

In the environmental field, Canada has long been at the forefront of protecting the Arctic marine environment. As far back as the 1970s, we enacted the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. We ensured that our approach would be covered by the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. Then, in August 2009, we expanded its application from 100 to 200 nautical miles.

Today Canada is pressing for a robust, mandatory polar code. The objective of the ongoing negotiations by the International Maritime Organization is to establish international shipping regulations that will enhance ship safety in the Arctic region, strengthen pollution controls, and enhance the protection of the fragile marine environment.

Canada has also been working to reduce Arctic pollutants. Along with the U.S., Sweden, and other international partners, Canada launched the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants in February 2012. The benefits of reducing emissions of short-lived climate pollutants, such as methane and black coal, will be felt in the near term and will substantially improve air quality and help in the fight against climate change.

Mr. Chair, building on the success of the International Polar Year in 2007-2008, which mobilized over 60 countries and 50,000 individuals around the world, Arctic-related scientific co-operation and research are going well. Scientists continue to work with their counterparts from other countries to come up with innovative and practical solutions to polar issues.

Mr. Chairman, in terms of northern governance, Canada recognizes that international cooperation strengthens our national efforts to address the opportunities and challenges emerging in the north. In that context, a common commitment to a rules-based Arctic region was reinforced when representatives of the Arctic Ocean coastal states—Canada, Denmark/Greenland, Norway, the Russian Federation, and the United States—met in Greenland in 2008 and again in Canada in 2010. They confirmed that an extensive international legal framework applies to the Arctic Ocean, providing a solid foundation for peaceful uses and responsible management of this ocean.

But improving and devolving governance also requires the direct involvement of northerners. That is why Canada continues to strongly support the participation of indigenous participant organizations at the Arctic Council. Canada's current policies and initiatives are grounded in strong collaboration and reflect the outcome of direct consultations with Canadian northerners. We will have an opportunity to showcase our achievements and further implement Canada's Arctic foreign policy during Canada's upcoming chairmanship of the Arctic Council, starting in May 2013 for a two-year period. During this period, we will closely collaborate with our Arctic neighbours on a broad range of issues that require international cooperation, seeking to promote the application of Canada's high standards and best practices throughout the region.

My colleague, Alan Kessel, legal adviser, will address how Canada is exercising its sovereignty by strengthening our Arctic presence and enhancing stewardship while managing our boundary disputes. I will turn to my colleague, Sigrid Anna Johnson, who is Canada's senior Arctic official, to deliver some remarks about the Arctic Council.

Thank you very much for inviting us this morning. I look forward to taking your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, Ms. Stirk.

I'm going to move over to Mr. Kessel.

Welcome. The floor is yours, sir.

[Alan H. Kessel, Legal Adviser, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As my colleague mentioned in her introduction, Canada's sovereignty over its lands and waters in the Arctic is long standing and well established. An understanding of the legal framework within which we are working will demonstrate how there are, in reality, few geopolitical tensions in the region.

I would like to take a few minutes to describe the reality on the ground with respect to the legal disputes we are currently dealing with and to demonstrate that Canada has a secure legal foundation in the Canadian Arctic. Let me first make something completely clear—there is no legal vacuum in the Arctic.

There are no legal vacuums in the Arctic.

There is an extensive international legal framework that applies to the Arctic. I am talking about the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Negotiated over many years, with considerable Canadian contributions, that convention is the most comprehensive instrument governing the oceans, with 164 states parties—3 of which are our neighbours in the Arctic region. The U.S. administration has indicated that it is a priority for them to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. In the meantime, they will extensively apply the legal principles found therein.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that a review of the facts will help dispel some other myths and clarify the realities of the situation in the Arctic. Some commentators and academics tend to conflate the concepts of Arctic sovereignty with security in the Arctic. Some have suggested that a regime similar to that found in the Antarctic could be suitable for the Arctic region. We disagree.

The Antarctic is a land mass that is covered by ice and is in dispute. The Arctic Ocean, on the other hand, is just that, an ocean covered by ice with the surrounding land owned by sovereign states: Canada, the U.S.A., Denmark, Norway, and Russia. These states are sovereign over their waters and their land and apply their domestic and international obligations with respect to the environment and navigation.

The reason for a special regime in the Antarctic is precisely to reduce the friction between disputing states and to protect the sensitive environment. It appears that the Antarctic Treaty is doing the job it was designed to do.

In the Arctic context, leadership and confidence-building by the Arctic Ocean states has reduced any potential for misunderstanding as to the mutual interests in the region. My colleague mentioned the Ilulissat Declaration, which was a landmark discussion between ministers in May 2008. Canada, together with the other four Arctic Ocean coastal states, met at the political level in Ilulissat, Greenland. The objective of this high-level meeting was to dispel the myth that the five Arctic coastal states were not taking their responsibilities seriously. The ministers stated unequivocally that:

...an extensive international legal framework applies to the Arctic Ocean.... Notably, the law of the sea provides for important rights and obligations concerning the delineation of the outer limits of the continental shelf, the protection of the marine environment, including ice-covered areas, freedom of navigation, marine scientific research, and other uses of the sea. We remain committed to this legal framework and to the orderly settlement of any possible overlapping claims.

This framework provides a solid foundation for responsible management by the five coastal States and other users of this Ocean.... We therefore see no need to develop a new comprehensive...legal regime to govern the Arctic....

This was stated by the foreign ministers at the time. Of course, the complete text is available and we can supply you with the website.

As for disputes, there are three that Canada is concerned with in this region. These are well managed and will be resolved peaceably in accordance with international law. I'll run through them very quickly.

Many of you will be aware of Hans Island. It's the only land under dispute in the Canadian Arctic. This is a 1.3 square kilometre barren and uninhabited island and is claimed by Denmark. Since the maritime boundary between Canada and Denmark in the Kennedy Channel, where Hans Island is located, was settled by treaty in 1973, the dispute about Hans Island has no implication for the surrounding waters or the seabed. This dispute is well managed in accordance with a joint statement of September 19, 2005, between Canada and Denmark, and regular bilateral discussions take place to move toward a mutually acceptable solution.

In the Lincoln Sea north of Ellesmere Island and Greenland, Canada and Denmark dispute two small maritime areas of approximately 65 square nautical miles in total. Canada and Denmark agreed in the 1970s that the boundary in the Lincoln Sea should be an equidistant line, but disagreed on some technical aspects about how the equidistant line should be drawn. Canadian and Danish experts have met informally to exchange technical information about the Canada-Denmark boundary, including the Lincoln Sea, and are continuing their technical work. Canadian and Danish officials believe the work of technical experts will provide a good basis to move forward on this dispute.

In the Beaufort Sea north of the Yukon and Alaska, Canada and the United States dispute the maritime boundary. The United States does not agree with Canada's consistent and long-held position that the 1825 Treaty of St. Petersburg establishes the maritime boundary along the 141st meridian of longitude, resulting in a disputed maritime area measuring approximately 6,250 square nautical miles. The United States and Canada have both offered oil and gas exploration licences and leases in the disputed zone, but neither country has allowed exploration or development in the area pending resolution of the dispute.

Further to the understanding reached between former Minister of Foreign Affairs Cannon and U.S. Secretary of State Clinton, government experts from both countries are engaged in a dialogue on technical aspects of the maritime boundary in the Beaufort Sea and the extended continental shelf. Surveys and other work being done by Canada and the U.S. to define the outer limits of their continental shelves will be helpful to this dialogue. Experts have met or otherwise been in contact regularly as part of the dialogue.

I would like to turn briefly to the work being done to define the limits of Canada's continental shelf.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea provides that coastal states have sovereign rights over the natural resources of the sea bed and subsoil of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from coastal baselines, as well as jurisdiction over certain activities on the extended shelf. The convention sets out a process the states must follow to determine with precision where they may exercise those rights and jurisdiction and gain international recognition for those limits.

The first step in this process involves making a submission to an expert body called the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. As an aside, I would like to note that Minister Baird welcomed the election, in June 2012, of Richard Haworth for a five-year term. He is the first Canadian member of the commission.

Canada is currently engaged in the scientific, technical and legal work necessary to prepare its submission to the commission to define the outer limits of its shelf in the Arctic and the Atlantic, and is co-operating with other Arctic Ocean coastal states in this work. Canada intends to file its submission with the commission in December 2013.

A few years later, the commission will review Canada's submission and provide recommendations, based on which Canada will define its outer limits. The continental shelves of Arctic Ocean coastal states may potentially overlap, but the extent and location of these overlaps is not yet known. Any overlaps will be resolved bilaterally in accordance with international law.

Mr. Chairman, briefly, there's been a lot of speculation by commentators and academics with respect to the Northwest Passage. No one disputes that the various waterways known as the Northwest Passage are Canadian waters. The issue is not about sovereignty over the waters or the islands; it's about the legal status of these waters and, consequently, the extent of control Canada can exercise over foreign navigation.

Some have argued that these waters are straits used for international navigation, and as such, a right-of-transit passage should be permitted through them. Canada's position is that these waters are internal waters by virtue of historic title and not an international strait. For greater clarity, Canada drew straight baselines around its Arctic islands in 1986. As a result, Canada has an unfettered right to regulate the Northwest Passage as it would land territory.

Let there be no misunderstanding, Mr. Chairman. Canada welcomes navigation in its Arctic internal waters, provided that ships respect Canadian conditions and controls. Shipping in the Arctic will be instrumental for the responsible and sustainable development of the north, the second pillar of the government's integrated northern strategy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Kessel.

We'll now turn it over to Ms. Johnson.

[Sigrid Anna Johnson, Canadian Senior Arctic Official, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for inviting me to speak on a very timely subject today: Canada's 2013-2015 chairmanship of the Arctic Council.

As Jillian Stirk mentioned earlier, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade plays an important role in delivering the international dimension of Canada's integrated northern strategy, as well as the 2010 statement on Canada's Arctic foreign policy. The statement highlights the key areas where we are working internationally in pursuit of Canada's Arctic interests. Chief among these is our work at the Arctic Council.

As you may be aware, Canada led in the establishment of the Arctic Council in Ottawa in 1996 and was its first chair from 1996 to 1998. Through federal and territorial government departments, northern aboriginal organizations, and science and other research bodies, Canada contributes expertise and leadership to Arctic Council projects and initiatives. Working in the Arctic Council helps to leverage our resources with those from the seven other Arctic Council countries to produce truly circumpolar outcomes.

Some of the past council deliverables where Canada played a significant role include developing the science that formed the basis for the Stockholm convention on the elimination of persistent organic pollutants, an Arctic search and rescue agreement to respond to the growing numbers of people travelling in the north, and an Arctic marine shipping assessment that is helping policy-makers develop rules and procedures for safe shipping in the region. There are many more.

Mr. Chairman, you will be aware that the Prime Minister recently appointed the Honourable Leona Aglukkaq as minister for the Arctic Council and Canada's chair of the Arctic Council. Minister Aglukkaq is responsible for the development of the priorities that Canada will pursue during its chairmanship of the Arctic Council. The appointment by the Prime Minister of a dedicated minister for the Arctic Council and of someone with such a deep understanding of Canada's north and its peoples reflects the importance the Government of Canada attaches to the north and to the work of the Arctic Council.

Earlier this month, Minister Aglukkaq completed a series of engagement round tables with territorial premiers and cabinet ministers and round tables with aboriginal leaders, permanent participants, and interested parties from industry, municipalities, non-governmental organizations, and research institutions. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade has in turn led an interdepartmental process involving federal government departments to identify areas where Canada may wish to focus some attention. From these meetings we heard a clear message from northerners, and that was to place people first in our Arctic Council priorities. This has been reflected in the overarching theme for our chairmanship, which will be development for the people of the north.

Beneath this broad theme will be three sub-themes.

The first of these is responsible Arctic resource development. Central to the economic future of the circumpolar region and the long-term prosperity of northerners is the development of natural resources.

We believe that the council can play an important role in making sure that Arctic resource development takes place in a sustainable manner. We also believe that the current efforts under Sweden's chairmanship to engage the industry and the business community in the work of the council should continue, and we will explore ways on how best to achieve this through initiatives such as a circumpolar business forum.

The second sub-theme is responsible and safe Arctic shipping. We know that, as the Arctic navigational season extends, it will result in increased Arctic marine activity in what is a very challenging environment.

Under the Canadian chairmanship, we will want to continue, and look to extend on, the council's recent work on oil spill pollution prevention. Initiatives that seek to enhance Arctic tourism and passenger safety, support monitoring and policy enforcement, and strengthen environmental protection are areas that we think the council should focus on.

The third sub-theme is sustainable circumpolar communities. New opportunities and challenges are emerging across the Arctic, partly as a result of the impacts of climate change. The council can help bring together some of the necessary information and tools that will enable northern communities to adapt through initiatives that address the physical, socio-economic and cultural impacts of the changing Arctic in their communities.

Under the last three chairmanships, the Arctic Council's work on short-lived climate pollutants has been ground-breaking both in and outside the Arctic. A Canadian chairmanship will look for ways to continue this work and determine whether the council can pursue more ambitious action, possibly including the development of a regional instrument.

Finally, the Canadian chairmanship will build on the council's continuing efforts to improve coordination across all of the council's working groups and task forces, and to improve tracking and reporting to effectively implement our work. The objective of this internal work will be to achieve results and outcomes that benefit northerners.

In conclusion, the Arctic Council is an important forum where we advance northern Canadian interests internationally. Northerners have always contributed to the discussions taking place at the Arctic Council, and they will continue to have an important role in shaping Canadian policy on Arctic issues.

Through Canada's chairmanship of the Arctic Council, Canada will champion initiatives that benefit northern peoples and communities in Canada and throughout the circumpolar region.

I welcome any questions or comments you may have. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Johnson.

We're going to start with Mr. Dewar for seven minutes.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I have one very quick question and then I'll pass it over to my colleague, Mr. Bevington.

Thank you very much for a very crisp, very thorough presentation. I have a question regarding the issue of climate change and where it fits, because I think I heard it maybe once or twice. Among its four pillars, I was surprised the government didn't have that as one of the issues.

Every single partner we have on the Arctic references climate change as a key issue. Where does the issue of climate change fit in with the government's strategy?

[Jillian Stirk]

It's a very important question. Indeed, I would say that in many respects everything we do in the north is driven by the realization that there are rapid changes taking place in the north as a result of climate change. Much of the work we have been doing in the Arctic Council, and will continue to do, will in fact reflect this.

I have a couple of examples. My colleague spoke about safe shipping. We certainly recognize that as a result of climate change there is increasing access to the Arctic region. Many of the steps we will be taking to ensure safe passage and to ensure that ships that are increasingly entering this region meet certain regulatory requirements are part and parcel of that.

My colleague also spoke about the importance of sustainability of northern communities. Adaptation to climate change will be a very important aspect of that, whether it's looking at infrastructure issues or indeed the health and well-being of northern communities and how those can be impacted by climate change. This will be an important part of our ongoing work in the Arctic Council and of Canada's northern foreign policy.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I will turn it over to my colleague, Mr. Bevington.

Thank you.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you for the presentations today. I think it's a very important topic. The Arctic is viewed by most of the world as a crisis area, where change is so rapid now that the assumptions we made even back in Ilulissat don't really hold up as well anymore because the conditions have changed so dramatically.

I have a question for Ms. Johnson. This Arctic Council is an international body dedicated to international issues. You see the agenda is very importantly speaking about responsible Arctic resource development and sustainable communities. Those are really national issues. They are of great importance, but they are national issues. How do you see that those particular issues, which need to be played out in Canada prior to being played out on the international scene, represent the best foot forward here? Quite clearly, the Arctic Council has been engaged in issues—such as search and rescue, ecosystem management areas, and shipping—to do with the importance of the connections between the countries and the international aspect of the Arctic.

What we see here are sub-themes that focus very much on responsible resource development, which is part of Canadian policy. How do you see that this is the best direction forward when we see a circumpolar Arctic requiring so much international cooperation on the issues that are not simply national but international?

[Sigrid Anna Johnson]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Bevington.

I hate to disagree with you, but I think in fact sustainable communities are relevant to the entire circumpolar region. If you look at the north of Russia, the north of Scandinavia, Alaska, and the three Canadian territories, they are all facing many similar issues.

I just spent last week in an Arctic community in Sweden that is dying. The majority of people who live in that small community are unemployed. It struck those of us who were there as being very similar to the situations in many northern Canadian communities. We know it's the same in Alaska and in Russia as well.

Under the theme of sustainable communities, we have adaptation. When you take the term “sustainable” in the strongest fashion, it's about whether communities can continue to exist where they currently are. Adaptation to climate change is a theme that has been in the Arctic Council for a number of years already. It's a priority for Canada. Government money is already being put into that program. We will continue the work that is already ongoing in the Arctic Council on adaptation to ensure that those communities that are affected by the impacts of climate change can continue to sustain themselves physically, culturally, and socio-economically as well.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Can you tell me what efforts have been made so far by your department and by the new minister in charge to engage the other countries that are part of the Arctic Council? A chairperson and a chairman must, of course, represent the group that is in front of them. I noticed such a difference in the briefing notes we received from DFAIT on the draft conference statement for the Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region, in which many of the major items were virtually rejected by DFAIT and this government.

Where is the consultation that has taken place between this government and the other Arctic nations in terms of the development of this agenda?

[Sigrid Anna Johnson]

Very soon after Minister Aglukkaq was named, she spoke immediately by telephone to Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, who is the current chair of the Arctic Council. She will be having a bilateral meeting with him in Sweden in about two weeks' time. As her representative, I continue to meet regularly with the other senior Arctic officials of the Arctic Council. She is also planning a trip in the new year to meet with the other Arctic Council ministers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're now going to move to Ms. Brown, for seven minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for being here this morning. I really appreciate the material you've given us from your speeches. I think that's going to be very helpful for us. I think this helps to set the table for us for this investigation our committee is going to be doing.

I have two questions that I suppose actually seem to be juxtaposed and contradictory, almost, but I think they work together.

I'm particularly interested in our pillar on promoting economic and social development in the region. On Sunday, when I was flying back, I had the opportunity to sit beside a gentleman who works for a company called Richardson International. They are grain sellers. They are probably one of Canada's largest grain sellers. He was talking about the activity now taking place at the Port of Churchill and the jobs being created at the Port of Churchill in the shipping industry

I wonder if you could talk to us about how that kind of activity is going to impact the livelihoods and the lifestyle of people in the Arctic region.

My second question comes from a visit I had from one of my constituents. This is why it seems almost contradictory. He was looking at arranging an art show of Inuit art in Europe, and he met some barriers. Some were barriers of access and continuity in getting the art pieces. I wonder if you could maybe talk about how some of this opportunity we see is going to impact opportunities for cultural renewal, cultural extension, and cultural visits. Do you see that happening in the context of the growth of the north?

[Jillian Stirk]

Indeed, I think the issue of economic and social development was very much something emphasized by the Prime Minister during his tour of the north this summer. While I think there are a number of different opportunities coming forward in the north, certainly, as you said, I think some of the shipping will prevent tremendous potential for economic growth and jobs for the people of the north.

While it may be some time before we can actually take full advantage of these northern shipping routes, there is still only a very short period of the year when there is full access to some of these ports. Certainly, looking at the longer term, I think we recognize that there could be real possibilities to expand shipping and take full advantage of these ports. I think there has been some work going on for some time with respect to the Port of Churchill as a gateway, if you like, to North America, certainly for grain and perhaps for other commodities as well.

You also raise a very interesting question about cultural exchange. I would say that for quite some time there's been growing interest in the traditional culture of the Canadian north and in the Inuit people in particular. We've seen a number of exhibitions of this type in Europe and Asia and elsewhere. I would say that in many respects there is ongoing cultural renewal. Our Arctic Council chairmanship will certainly be a good opportunity to highlight some of that for a wider audience.

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

I was on the transport committee when we reviewed the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the extension of the area Canada wanted to protect. Do you think it would be beneficial for this committee to have some sort of review of the criteria we put into that act, such as thicker hulls for ships, just as an assurance that Canada is doing what it needs to do to protect our waterways in the north?

[Jillian Stirk]

May I defer to my colleague Mr. Kessel on this one, Mr. Chairman?

[Alan H. Kessel]

That is a very good question, and in fact it's something that's been preoccupying successive governments of Canada: how we deal with protection of our north. That is precisely the reason we are so active in the discussions of the International Maritime Organization with respect to developing the standards that shipping will use in all northern, Arctic countries.

Shipping companies are thinking 20 years ahead. When you're looking at building ships—whether you are in Korea, Russia, or Norway—you're thinking about the next 20 years. Governments have to be thinking beyond the next year in order to ensure that what we want as policy for the next 20 years is already in the minds of the shipbuilders. We've been working in concert with the private sector and the shipbuilding industry and transportation in general in the Arctic.

I think we're pretty much of a single mind as to how we should be doing it. Canada's extension of its Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act to the 200-mile limit was part of a strategy of this government to ensure that we have the utmost control about who comes into our area. Not only that, but with the concert of the other countries in the Arctic, we have a pretty strong like-minded group that wants to achieve similar standards. I think this is one area where we are actually ahead of the game.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

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

For the last question of the first round, we're going to move over to Mr. LeBlanc, for seven minutes, please.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses.

I agree with my colleague, Paul Dewar, that it was a very succinct and rather compelling beginning to our work. Thank you for the time you've put into the presentations.

Mr. Kessel, one phrase you used struck me. I think you said that no legal vacuum exists in the Arctic—or legal void, or words to that effect. You referred to the Law of the Sea. I had a chance to spend some time with the former ambassador, Mr. Legault, who was one of Canada's great architects of that work for a number of decades. I'm somewhat familiar with the Law of the Sea—and legally I have no reason to think you're not very accurate—but there is a perception, and I think you might agree with me, in the minds of Canadians that there's some confusion as to Canada's sovereignty in the Northwest Passage, or there's some dispute.

A number of countries are calling for the Arctic to be managed outside the Law of the Sea process. You referred to the Antarctic context. We see media reports of Russian bombers and we justify fighter aircraft purchases based on sovereignty in the north. I'm wondering if the legal framework is as solid as you claim. What more can we do as a country to convince our own population and our partners in the Arctic region that this is the case? I think if you ask people on the street whether it is true that there's no legal void or vacuum with respect to Canada's sovereignty and to compare it to a land mass—you talked about a land territory. It surprises me. If somebody flew a Second World War Russian bomber over northern New Brunswick, people would react differently, and yet we had reports of this happening a few years ago.

I'm just wondering why we seem to have missed the mark as a country. It's not a judgment of this government; successive governments have failed to implant in the public imagination a legal principle that you think is so solid.

[Alan H. Kessel]

Thank you.

I really do appreciate the question, because I think part of what we're doing here today, and what this committee is doing, which we are so appreciative of, is actually raising the consciousness of Canadians, and not only of Canadians but of those who are listening to and reading Hansard on these discussions, because we are not alone in this. People do look at the words that are used in our committees and in Parliament and by our government, especially the five Arctic literal states. I'm not excluding Sweden, Finland, and Iceland; I'm just saying that the ones around the Arctic Ocean share very much the same concerns you have as to how we raise the consciousness amongst our populations as to what is real and what is a myth, and how we dispel fears that are unfounded by providing them with accurate information.

I think governments—of whatever stripe, of whichever country—have a duty to explain that in the clearest possible terms. I think we appreciated being able to do it today. In my statement, I've tried to reduce to the essentials the real issues out there, to reduce the myth that we really are dealing with an area under siege, under attack, and under exploitation without any kind of control.

The reason I explained the difference between the Arctic and the Antarctic is because in the Antarctic, of course, you have land that is, in legal terms, terra nullius: land that was not owned by anyone is now really a disputed area. What was thought at the time—and we actually participate in the Antarctic Treaty, not as a full member but as an interested observer, because it does deal with things we care about—was to say, look, we don't have the clarity that we have in the Arctic where we all own our land. We have land that we are designating ourselves by putting up shacks or flags and just saying, this belongs to us. You name the number of explorers who have gone out there and done that.

So they said to themselves...and this is really tremendous, because post-World War II we decided that we shouldn't be fighting over things that we can really resolve around a table. They said, you know what? There are some key issues. One is, how do we protect the environment? And how do we not bump into each other? How do we look towards resolving problems in a negotiated way? They dealt with that through the Antarctic Treaty. Transpose yourself to the Arctic and you'll find a completely 180-degree perception. We're all sovereign states. We're around a sea. We developed, over 40 years, the Law of the Sea convention, which we did in order to deal with those gaps.

I think the message to Canadians and the message that we as the Arctic states are trying to get out there is to say that we've actually been working on this, and to say, you may have discovered this recently, but hello, we have been dealing with this for 40 or 50 years, and guess what? We've come up with a really decent system. Is it 100% implemented? No. Most of us would hope that we could implement more parts of it. We would hope that the Americans would sign on as soon as possible, in which case it would be full parties, but I must say—

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

To the Law of the Sea, you mean?

[Alan H. Kessel]

To the Law of the Sea, yes, but I must say that the Americans have been extremely good stewards as well. While they have not been able to go to their Senate to get acceptance of the treaty, what they have done in actual fact is abide by many of the tenets in there. We appreciate that.

The other point you raise—and I think this is a very important point—is that you have talked about a combination of security, sovereignty, and fear. I think we have to try to take those bits and bobs apart. When I talk about legal sovereignty, Canada owns every part of the Arctic, as it owns every part of downtown Toronto, Halifax, Vancouver, or Coquitlam. There is no question that Canada is sovereign.

When you talk about issues related to security and how we deal with—