Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 20th, 2012

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Kessel, but you would agree, then, that we as a country have more trouble—and again, perhaps this is a perception—impressing on the public's mind our ability to exercise sovereignty over that territory than we would in downtown Toronto. If the same legal regime applies, there is a massive perception that somehow we're not really in control of the Northwest Passage. Nobody is going to drive a submarine down Yonge Street, granted, but there is a perception that this control—sovereignty—is not exercised. The legal framework is there. This is not the first time that we haven't applied a law in Canada, but I think there's a public perception that it's weaker than perhaps we want it to be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. LeBlanc, that's all the time we have.

Mr. Kessel, please reply with a quick answer.

[Alan H. Kessel]

That's why you and I are here. We're here to help dispel that myth, because both you and I know it's not true. If you can come up with an example where we have problems, certainly we can take a look at them. Our job is to take the real thing, which is to say Canada is in control of its north. You can see that by the amount of resources we put into development, into our military presence, and into ensuring with our neighbours that we live in a safe environment.

If you were to say that we lived in a volatile environment in the Arctic and that our neighbours were threatening us, I could understand you might be correct and then the person on Yonge Street might have some reason, but if you take a look at everything that all five of the governments in the Arctic have done, everything they have done is about dispelling that myth. I think our job as officials of government and as members of Parliament is to say to our constituents, whoever they are, that we should look at the facts and decide if we need to be worried about things that are not real. We're happy to provide those facts to this committee and to help you do your job.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kessel.

We're into our second round, which will be five minutes for questions and answers.

Mr. Van Kesteren, please, you have five minutes.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here.

I have a number of questions, and I'm going to go to Mr. Kessel. I'm looking at the map that we received from the Library of Parliament. I think I understand where the Northwest Passage goes. Does it top off around Baffin Island and then head straight to that line? How long is that water open now? How long can we expect to see...? Are we looking at a month, two months? I know that's increasing, but....

[Alan H. Kessel]

You've raised a very interesting point. You had trouble finding the Northwest Passage, didn't you? That's because it is a concept, not a reality. The reality is that we have a series of different channels that run east-west, west-east through the Arctic Archipelago. If you look at your map—and I don't have the map you have, I just have my own map—you will see that we have a large number of islands, and depending on the year and the navigability between those islands, that could be the Northwest Passage.

The Northwest Passage was an idea. It was a creation of those who believed that if they could only get through the Arctic and find the way to India, there would be massive riches. A lot of them died in the process. The reality is that those channels, each of which has its own name, comprise the Northwest Passage.

The other question you are dealing with, and that's the kind of thing that we as officials of government and as members of Parliament need to get our heads around, is that there is no question from anyone as to whether we own the land, those islands, or whether we own the water. The only discussion people are having right now is, like the Strait of Malacca or the Strait of Hormuz, that the channels through the Northwest Passage are an international strait, and our argument is simple: no. Why? Because you can't create something that didn't exist before. It has to have been used for international navigation. Until very recently, for 10,000 years, you couldn't get through. The poor guys who died there 100 years ago couldn't get through. You can't create a right out of something just because the nature of water changed from ice to liquid.

So we have a very simple argument. It's a strait. It's never been an international strait, and it won't be an international strait because it's internal to Canada. Why is it so different? If you go to the Strait of Malacca, they have 10,000 ships going through a year. If you go to the Strait of Hormuz, they've been doing that since time immemorial. It's not the same here.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

I've read that the Chinese have had a successful passage. That was north of Siberia. When I look at the map, it occurs to me that if there were a trade route it would probably go to Europe and to the United States. So one would be used on the Russian side and the other would be used on the Canadian side.

We're taking a lot of things for granted, that we have to see a continuation of global warming and opening of the passages. That would be correct as well. There would not be just one passage, but two, correct?

[Alan H. Kessel]

They are two passages. There's the northern passage, and I would point out to you that because of the way the currents in the Arctic work, the northern passage is open a lot of the time in the summer.

The Russians, very entrepreneurially, have decided to make this a major business. They have guaranteed shipping; they will get you through with the fastest times from east to west or west to east. They have, in fact, updated their ports to do so. They have icebreakers that you can rent to ensure your vessels get through. The Russians are pretty good at this.

We don't have the same luck. The reality is that as the ice is melting, it doesn't just melt like a couple of ice cubes in a glass of Scotch, where it just disappears and things taste better.

[A voice]

It leaves you with the Scotch.

[Alan H. Kessel]

Yes, it leaves you with the Scotch.

The reality is that the ice, as it breaks up, gets into places where ice never was before. So those large chunks of ice are now becoming much more of a greater peril to shipping.

This is all to say that someone at Lloyd's of London is really making the decision as to what traffic will go through Canada's Northwest Passage, based on the insurance they're willing to give those vessels. At the moment they're more likely willing to give that insurance to vessels going through Russia than through Canada. But we're hoping that at some point in the future we too will have a capacity to benefit from traffic.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

In the time we have we're going to move to Mr. Bevington.

You have another five minutes, sir.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you.

The debate on the Northwest Passage, of course, has been overshadowed by the Chinese icebreaker that went right over the North Pole very successfully this summer. The direct route across the North Pole is, of course, the shortest way between Europe and Asia. As well, the Russians just laid the keel on one of the largest icebreakers that will guarantee all-season passage in their Arctic waters. The Northwest Passage issue is one that is going to fade very quickly.

You talked about how, in the Beaufort Sea...that we're working away at that. Why, then, have the Americans over the past three years passed fishing regulations, passed air emissions regulations in the disputed area? Are the Americans building a better case internationally for ownership of the water through these regulations that they continue to pass in the area of dispute? Canada has fallen dramatically behind the U.S. in this regard.

Could I get your comment on that? Could you make it brief, too, please? I have something for Ms. Stirk as well.

[Alan H. Kessel]

None of the issues you've raised actually impede Canada and the U.S. from negotiating a resolution to our boundary dispute.

The issues you've raised are really about managing resources and environment, as Canada is doing as well. If you try to separate those two, it really confuses the issue. When it comes to where the line should go, that's going to be about where the line should go, not about what's in the air or how we're dealing with fish. Both of us are concerned about fish and both of us are concerned about the air. We do that together. Where the line goes is a negotiation between two sovereign states to eliminate a dispute.

What I indicated in my statement was that the two governments are now meeting at the scientific and official level to determine just how and when we can start a real negotiation. The Americans are pretty keen on having much more science at this point, in terms of the seabed, before they want to come to the table. Canada is happy to work with them. We've had the Louis S. St. Laurent and the USCGC Healy working together to make those soundings.

A lot of these disputes will be dealt with by science, and the rest of it will be dealt with by lawyers like us.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

And as a lawyer, you know that those who exercise jurisdiction over an area have a better case.

I'll move to Ms. Stirk.

You talk about the involvement of northerners. In the draft statement from the conference of Arctic parliamentarians, the position was made that permanent funding should be sought and obtained for the permanent participants at the Arctic Council, yet the Government of Canada said it wasn't interested in that.

If you're interested in expanding the role of northerners on the Arctic Council through the permanent participants, wouldn't it make a lot of sense to push for permanent funding for those organizations so they could interact correctly with the Arctic Council, rather than funding simply on an ad hoc basis?

[Jillian Stirk]

Perhaps just to clarify, the Government of Canada, through the Department of Foreign Affairs, does support the Canadian-based permanent participants with some financial resources to help them participate in the work of the council. This I think has been ongoing since the creation of the council in fact.

Of course, the Department of Foreign Affairs cannot be the only funder of permanent participants. That said, we do find means to support both their travel and their participation, and in some instances also in helping them to strengthen their policy capacity, but not for the entire operation of the organization.

I would say that the permanent participants play an extremely important role in the Arctic Council and on northern issues in general. We certainly look to them as a valuable source of advice and input on a whole range of issues facing the north. I think their participation has been actually critical to the success of the Arctic Council. In many respects it makes it quite a unique organization; you have states and civil society organizations, like the permanent participants, sitting around the table together at the international organization dealing with the issues that of course affect these groups directly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

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

We're going to move back over to Mr. Schellenberger for five minutes.

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This question is for Ms. Johnson.

In one of your statements in response, you mentioned a northern community in Sweden that was dying due to a lack of work. Was this a long-established town or was it newly developed? What were the former jobs that supported this area? What sort of northern development do you or the council foresee to make this and other northern communities viable?

[Sigrid Anna Johnson]

The name of the community that we met in last week is Haparanda. You'd be interested to know that apparently in the 1800s, Thomas Cook, of Thomas Cook travel agencies, said that to honestly become a true globetrotter one has to visit three places on earth: Samarkand, Timbuktu, and Haparanda.

We were quite skeptical looking around Haparanda, which was a town with no one in the streets. It used to be a port. It's at the top of the gulf where Sweden joins Finland. There used to be a lot more timber-related exports and imports, imports of other products, fish, the whole thing, and that is now dying off. The town is still alive because an Ikea has been built, and it's where all the Russians come across Finland to buy their Ikea products. I'm not sure that putting Ikeas into all northern communities in Canada would have the same success, but you can see that innovation is being used to try to come up with ways to keep a community alive.

While there may be roads to this town of Haparanda, and we don't have roads to a lot of Canadian northern communities, the issues of economic and social sustainability are themes that are very common throughout the circumpolar region, and we find we do have much to talk about when we get together to discuss those issues.

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

The residents of that particular community then are not indigenous people?

[Sigrid Anna Johnson]

There are some Sami people and some non-indigenous people as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You have two minutes.

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Canada is working to define the outer limits of the continental shelf in the Arctic. Can you explain how this process works, and what is the status of the long-term project? I don't know who wants to answer that.

Mr. Kessel.

[Alan H. Kessel]

Yes, indeed, and I was pretty short in my statement at the beginning on this, but this is really one of the major success stories of the Law of the Sea convention, and also in the foresight that Canada had put into it many, many years ago.

In a nutshell, coastal states have the right to extend their exploitation of resources on the seabed to what is called the foot of the slope of the continental shelf. It sounds simple, but it's horribly complicated, from both a scientific and an analytical point of view. We have spent the past four years mapping the Canadian continental shelf on the east coast and in the Arctic. The east coast is a much easier endeavour, given that the ice conditions are pretty well non-existent and we have a much greater season. We have almost completed the work on the east coast.

In the Arctic we have spent some considerable amount of time, and this is a case of working with our American colleagues and using vessels from other countries, too, to map the continental shelf. We have a commitment to complete our work by December 2013. By the time we're finished, the land mass equivalent will be that of the three prairie provinces in terms of the extension, with, as you can imagine, extraordinary hydrocarbon potential and the like. Whether we can actually harvest that in the near term is debatable, but we are planning for 100 and 200 and 300 years from now to ensure that Canadians have their right to the continental shelf. We will submit in 2013, and hopefully we will have a result in the near future on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're going to move over to Mr. Holder for five minutes.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you, Chair. It's a pleasure to be on this committee today, even if I'm only here temporarily.

Mr. Kessel, no disrespect, but ice with Scotch just doesn't work, I have to tell you. I want to challenge that.