Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 20th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're going to now move to Ms. Grewal, for five minutes, please.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

One of the issues related to the Arctic Council's future is the question of adopting an exclusive treaty between member states. Specifically, it seems that the Arctic Council is considering becoming a formal international organization with a treaty and all that. What would give the member states more binding powers?

Also related to the Arctic Council's future is the question of whether they will revisit the decision to exclude military security from council matters. As it is, the council does not attempt to address issues of a military nature in regard to these future considerations.

How might Canada benefit from a move towards each of these? In other words, how might Canada benefit from the Arctic Council becoming a formal international organization? Second, how might Canada benefit from bringing military security into the discussions of the council?

[Jillian Stirk]

I think we would argue that the Arctic Council is an international organization. In terms of treaty-making capacity, that responsibility lies with the sovereign states, not with the organization itself.

I think, really, the value-added of the council has been that it works on a consensus basis. The real value-added they have brought is, as my colleagues mentioned, advancing work in the scientific area, and, more recently, moving on into policy issues. Their good example was the agreement on search and rescue. But of course the responsibility for the application of these decisions rests with the states that are participants in the council.

When the council was established, it was decided that military issues would be specifically excluded. I think the sense is that there are other forums in which we can deal with those issues as required, whether that's bilaterally or through other arrangements.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

One of Canada's biggest challenges is to ensure that we maintain our claim to the Northwest Passage as an internal waterway. So while Canada reached an important agreement with the U.S. in 1988 to permit certain U.S. vessels through the passage on a case-by-case basis, this did not settle the question of sovereignty.

Can you elaborate on the position of the Arctic Council member states, as well as the current position of the U.S., on our internal passage claim? Also, what elements do you think need to be in place before the U.S. would publicly recognize the Northwest Passage as an internal waterway?

[Alan H. Kessel]

This is a really important question you've raised, because I think it's part of what we were discussing earlier in terms of the awareness-raising. Are you going to find countries agree with each other on everything, all the time? Probably not. The reality is how does it play out in real time?

We have dealt with the issue from both a legal and a practical point of view. Yes, indeed the Americans, I think mainly from a geopolitical strategic point of view, look at straits with one point of view in mind: they like to keep them open. Our point of view, from Canada, is that you can keep your straits open in other places. This is not a strait that fits that dynamic. But let's be practical.

When President Reagan was up visiting Prime Minister Mulroney, this issue came up at the time. They decided that instead of us bickering about this, why don't we just set up a practical arrangement? The practical arrangement is that you can have your views and we'll have our views, but in the meantime we will get on with business.

That has worked very well. We do not see a problem in terms of the legal reality we have. Canada has done what it needs to do to ensure its exercise of sovereignty. Vessels that do come into Canada come into Canada with permission. One of the exercises of sovereignty is that when someone asks and you give them permission, you're in control. We have been in control, and we've been strengthening that control over the period of time under question.

I would just raise a point of lexicon. I think lexicon is really important in this discussion, and it was raised by one of your members. We don't talk in terms of “claim”, because you don't claim something you own. If you raise that question, then you are raising the doubt. And there is no doubt. We do not claim the Canadian Arctic. It is Canada's.

Part of the consciousness-awareness exercise is to be aware of the language we use, as people who people look up to. So in my presentations, not only to this group but to others, I am always careful to ensure that there is never a doubt as to who owns what. There is never a doubt what part of Norway is owned, what part of Denmark is owned, what part of Russia is owned. We will not insert a doubt into that discussion where it doesn't belong.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We have time for one more round, so we'll have Mr. Bevington, and then we'll finish up with Mr. Williamson.

Mr. Bevington, five minutes, please.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you.

I want to go back to the issue of working with the partners on the Arctic Council, because I think that's quite clearly what has happened in the past and has been very successful. Sweden, in the previous chairmanship of the Arctic Council, set up a four-year agenda.

The two-year agenda for an organization like this is going to be very difficult, because of course it doesn't give you much time to accomplish the things that need to be accomplished, especially if you're taking a direction that's obviously a little different from what the other countries were looking for.

Have you entered into any discussions with the United States, which is going to be the next chair of the Arctic Council, in order to work on an agenda that could provide some kind of continuity through four years rather than simply two years?

[Sigrid Anna Johnson]

Thank you for the question.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Has there been any discussion?

[Sigrid Anna Johnson]

As the council has evolved over the 16 years, its ways of working to make it more effective have evolved, clearly. Particularly under the Scandinavian chairmanship, as they call it, the three Scandinavian countries worked very closely together. They had one secretariat for the three of them.

What we have done with Sweden, who is coming before us, is that we made sure, right from the first time Sweden took over the chairmanship, that their entire team came to sit down with the Canadian team. We looked at what was on the Arctic Council agenda—

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

That wasn't my question. My question was about the Americans.

[Sigrid Anna Johnson]

I'm getting there.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Have you entered into any discussions with the Americans?

We don't have much time here, so I can't really.... I'd ask you to be very specific.

[Sigrid Anna Johnson]

Canada and Sweden have worked very closely on the—

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I asked you a particular question: have you had any discussions with the Americans?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Bevington, let her answer the question.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Well, I'm limited in time here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

She's getting to it.

[Sigrid Anna Johnson]

Canada and Sweden have been working very closely on the existing Swedish chairmanship. Canada will do exactly the same thing with the United States as we are delivering our chairmanship.

We are moving towards a troika system, where there is the former chair, the current chair, and the future chair. It's a very effective way to run an intergovernmental forum, and Canada will certainly be continuing that process.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Why was that not indicated in your briefing notes to the conference of Arctic parliamentarians? Why was the opposite indicated, if you weren't considering a joint agenda with the United States?

[Sigrid Anna Johnson]

I think as we've discussed a couple of times—Mr. Kessel perhaps articulated it best—it's frequently an issue of language. We will certainly be working very closely with the Americans.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I'll certainly be tabling that document with this committee.

Mr. Kessel, who is ultimately doing the negotiation on the issues of Canada/U.S.? Is there a special committee that's been established to deal with this particular issue of the Beaufort Sea? Is it budgeted to do the work? Does it have the proper authorities to go ahead and effect an agreement?

[Alan H. Kessel]

The Minister of Foreign Affairs under the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act has the authority to negotiate any international agreement with a foreign state. So the minister, through his officials, exercises that mandate, normally based on a mandate that's decided by cabinet and the minister. Any negotiation you see in the press is a negotiation that is undertaken either through the Minister of Foreign Affairs in collaboration with the appropriate minister—for instance, in trade agreements with the Minister of International Trade.

For your specific question as to the Beaufort, there is no ongoing negotiation with respect to resolving the current dispute. As agreed between then Minister Cannon and Hillary Clinton, there is a dialogue between officials to establish some of the scientific parameters.

You asked about budgets. Our department is really about negotiating. The budget for negotiations on particular issues is part of our normal, daily A-base.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have.

We're going to move over to Mr. Williamson to finish up for five minutes.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Kessel, I appreciated the comment you made about claim versus ownership, that you don't claim something you own. Can we infer, though, that when we see claims from other nations on our territory, what they're trying to do is chip away or create doubt in the minds of others? I suppose my question is how we counter that, but before I have you answer, I'll just come back to something Mr. LeBlanc was saying about the perception. I think you asked, perhaps rhetorically, for him to raise some examples.

We've seen over the years the back and forth on Hans Island with troops from both countries. We've seen the Russians dropping a flag into the ocean allegedly at the North Pole—a Russian flag, however many metres down—and then, of course, occasional excursions by Russian airplanes into our territory, or on the fringe anyway before they're chased out. So there is something going on here. There's a perception in the north about a shakiness that is not, to use his example, in downtown Toronto.

You might be absolutely correct in terms of the legality, but what's going on in terms of the competing claims, and do these actions by these foreign states, in your opinion, strengthen their claim for this territory despite our ownership?