Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2012

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you, Ms. Charron. I appreciate your testimony here and your concern about the north.

I've lived in the north all my life. I recognize the lack of coherent northern policy and also the lack of resources for northerners in their own governments to create the kind of north that will be sustainable. It's not an international issue. It's going to be solved in the three northern territories, in northern Quebec.... Those are the places where we're going to solve our sustainability issues, and we need to do that. We need action on it.

When it comes to cooperation, the Arctic Council is a compendium of a number of international states. In the previous iterations of the Arctic Council, the chairs had joint agendas that stretched over more than two years. One of the recommendations of the Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region was that Canada work with the U.S. to establish at least a four-year agenda so that some of the larger issues can be dealt with in a good fashion. Two years is kind of a short timeframe if we're going to do anything differently.

Would you say that the most important aspect of cooperation right now on the agenda would be that Canada consult with its partners on the Arctic Council to understand where the international issues are on which they can cooperate, the directions they have to take, and the need for that continuing agenda that goes beyond two years?

[Dr. Andrea Charron]

The Arctic Council, as you know, is a continuation of the Arctic environmental protection strategy. Now that we've been a part of the Arctic Council for well over 10 years, going on 20 years, there are many agenda items on the Arctic Council that sort of roll over from chairship to chairship, so there's not a lot of room to include new agenda items because it's limited to environmental protection and sustainable development.

That being said, where I think the Scandinavians and their six-year agenda helped tremendously was in the area of fundraising. When you have a six-year timeframe, it does make fundraising easier, because you have the luxury of time.

It would make sense if Canada and the U.S. had sort of a North American chairship, but there's nothing then stopping the Russians who follow from being part of that six years as well.

My one concern with having the Scandinavian and then a North American chairship is that we get very mired into very specific national issues, when the Arctic Council is all about the issues affecting all of the Arctic. It can also squeeze out the permanent participants.

If we have coordinated agendas that don't clash, if we allow for predictable funding, and if we ensure that the timelines that are set are met, that's fantastic. The Scandinavians were very good about not strictly focusing on Scandinavian issues. As long as we keep it global and to issues of the Arctic generally, then there is an advantage to having a North American chairship.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

What we saw from DFAIT at the last meeting was that the focus is going to be on the northern strategy, on sustainable development, and on those economic development issues, which largely in Canada are on the land.

How do you think Russia is going to take that as an agenda for the Arctic Council moving forward? Can you give me some insight there?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Dr. Charron, we've got about 45 seconds left.

[Dr. Andrea Charron]

Sustainable development is one of the raisons d'être of the Arctic Council, so I don't think Russia is at all opposed to that.

Sustainable development is like cultural awareness. It's like the health of northern inhabitants. It's like selling artwork and the like. There are lots of different aspects of sustainable development. I don't think Russia is opposed to any of that.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

They suspended their permanent participants. If you've been following it, you'll see that Russia tends to do these sorts of things in response to challenges to national policy, not to international policy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Bevington. That's all the time we have.

We're going to move over to Mr. Dechert, for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Professor Charron, for joining us today.

I was very interested in your opening comments. You mentioned the chasm between perception and reality. I believe Professor Lackenbauer also discussed that a little in his presentation. For example, there is the reality of land claims issues, boundary disputes, or the lack thereof, in the Arctic region, and the perception of the average Canadian.

In my constituency in southern Ontario, about 100 kilometres from the U.S. border, in the greater Toronto area, there is a significant amount of interest in Arctic issues. It quite surprised me. In every election I've run in, and I've run in four elections, people bring it up at the door. They want to know that Canada is protecting the north. They ask all the time, proactively, even if I don't raise it. They're concerned about sovereignty issues in the north. They want to see the Canadian military present in the region. It brings home to them the reality. These are people who have a great interest in the north, although most of them have never been north of Sudbury and probably never will be.

However, it's important to all Canadians; that's the point I want to make. They need to know, and we need to demonstrate through government action, that all those issues are being taken care of. They need to know that Canada is represented in the region, that we're looking after the northern people and providing opportunities for them. They need to know that we're looking after the environment and making sure there is sustainable development of our resources there, and that we're ensuring that everyone in the world knows where Canada's territory lies in the region. That is very important to the people in my constituency, and I suggest across Canada as well.

I want to ask you, because you brought it up and I think it's very important, about the northern people. How do you think Canada can, through the Arctic Council, ensure that whatever development takes place in the Arctic region primarily benefits the indigenous people of the region.

Our government, with the leadership of Minister Aglukkaq, has made sure that the northern people are involved in Canada's northern strategy. She's just completed a round of consultations in the north, primarily with the indigenous people in the region. I contrast that with what's happened recently in Russia, where there's a report that the indigenous people of the region have been excluded from participation in the Russian delegation to the Arctic Council.

I wonder if you could comment on that. I would be interested in Professor Lackenbauer's comments as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You have about two minutes left, so maybe a minute each.

[Dr. P. Whitney Lackenbauer]

I'll respond to the perception versus reality part. This is where I disagree with Dr. Charron that there should be a reset. We already have momentum. There's a lot of national interest in Arctic issues. Reset is the wrong mentality. It's the same thing with our northern strategy. It's not a flawed document. It's rather imprecise, which on one reading one can say gives us a lot of room for flexibility and adaptation in terms of policy.

The call I would make would be that there are opportunities for greater clarification and priority-setting within the northern strategy, but I think it's one that resonates with all of the policies and platforms of...[Technical difficulty—Editor]

I would not advocate a reset, because I think we have to capitalize on this intense popular interest. The key is getting the correct narrative, the one that's been developed and broadcast in the northern strategy in 2009 and the Arctic foreign policy in 2010, to have that gain popular traction. It's about messaging and consistency of message. It's about correcting some of the misinformation that's circulated and convincing the media that there are very interesting frames involved in looking at these issues from the perspective of northerners.

In respectful disagreement with Andrea, I can say that there are foreign policy aspects to all four pillars of the northern strategy. The key is saying not all Arctic issues have a foreign policy aspect to them. I think that's a very important distinction that we need to make—that not everything in the northern strategy should be pushed up into a foreign policy portfolio. That's not appropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Professor Charron, before you comment, and you have about 30 seconds, we do have 30-minute bells for votes. I'm going to suggest that we have another round each and then we wrap it up.

Professor Charron.

[Dr. Andrea Charron]

Thank you.

Whitney and I are not that far apart. What I'm saying by reset is that we need to change the language to be more reflective of what's actually going on, rather than using the sort of jingoistic vocabulary that we've been using.

On the question of development, I would say that the best way for the northern residents to take advantage of development opportunities are things like having equal access to services, having infrastructure, and having access to mental health care professionals—the same things that southern Canadians have, which isn't the case right now.

This sort of protection and militarization of the north is connected because we in the south think that if we have more patrol vessels up in the north, ta-dah, we've fixed all our problems, when in fact the Canadian Forces don't have the mandate to deal with tuberculosis, lack of housing, and things like that. They don't have the mandate. We're setting them up for failure in that case. So the two are extremely connected.

As Whitney said, it's the inaccuracy and the mis-messaging that I think is really one of the biggest problems.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

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

We are going to move over to Madame Péclet for five minutes.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You said that the mandate of the Arctic Council, through negotiation, creates restrictive tools. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea aims to define the boundaries of territorial waters, and not the use of a certain part of the planet. Do you think regulating the use and interstate relations related to the Arctic is sufficient?

A lot of problems have already come up with respect to the environment, and things are changing quickly. Both witnesses agree that the main issue is protecting the environment. Under these conditions, I'm wondering if the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is really the international tool that should apply in the Arctic. There have already been a number of attempts to adopt a specific treaty for the Arctic. Unfortunately, the United States did not sign the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and did not want to ratify that kind of treaty.

Do you not think the Arctic Council should encourage the adoption of an instrument of international law that would govern interstate relations, rather than let the states settle their issues themselves, bilaterally?

[Dr. Andrea Charron]

Thank you. There are a couple of comments.

First of all, the Arctic Council cannot make binding agreements. The one agreement that we have, a search and rescue agreement, is binding on the eight member states, but it's not binding on the Arctic Council. It was the forum in which it was negotiated.

UNCLOS is the most appropriate body of law to deal with oceans and seas. When we're talking about the Arctic, we do have a big ocean, so, yes, UNCLOS does provide a lot of the necessary regulation. It is well respected, and the U.S., even though it hasn't ratified it, treats it as customary law.

There are also many other international organizations that deal specifically with environmental protection. For example, the International Monetary Organization would like to create a mandatory, as opposed to voluntary, polar code. That's where Canada can certainly encourage that.

So I don't think we suffer from a dearth of international law and frameworks. Between the national legislation we have and the international, we have more than enough. What we need to do is understand what applies, making sure that international and domestic legislation don't clash or are not at cross-purposes.

[Dr. P. Whitney Lackenbauer]

I agree very much with that. I think the key is—and I'm sure you heard this from DFAIT on Tuesday—that there's not a governance vacuum in the Arctic, which is one of the drivers for people suggesting that we need to create a treaty-based organization or a need to beef up the Arctic Council to give it more teeth. Large clusters of international law apply. I think the centrality of UNCLOS is a reflection of the Arctic coastal states dispelling the myth that there is an Arctic race or that the Arctic is the next great game and that there is a potential for conflict erupting over uncertain boundaries.

I think the reason why UNCLOS has been pushed to the forefront is to say that driving myth, that misconception, is wrong. That was the message coming out of Ilulissat. I think your concern that people think UNCLOS is the solution for everything is a very simplistic way of looking at it. As you're suggesting, it's recognizing there are other areas and there are other global agreements: the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities. These are all things that relate to the environmental piece of what's happening in the Arctic.

I think there is a role for the Arctic Council to continue to do research to coordinate and figure out where those governance gaps exist, but I don't think that means that the Arctic Council takes responsibility.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

The fact is that those instruments only regulate the land...not the international sea. A huge part of our planet is an international sea, and there's no treaty. Nothing covers environmental protection, exploitation of natural resources, and this is the most fragile part of the Earth now.

Do you really believe all these instruments that do not regulate this particular space are enough? I don't believe it.

But I have another question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have. We're just over time.

Mr. Dechert, I'll allow one question. I'll finish with Mr. Eyking. You'll have one question.

We can talk very quickly.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the time constraints.

Professor Charron, you mentioned that one of your four “c”s was commerce. You said there are commercial opportunities in the Arctic region. Can you tell us briefly what you think are the two most significant commercial opportunities? The other thing you mentioned, which I didn't quite understand, was that the U.S. is our greatest challenge. You said that came out of the academic conference you attended, and I wonder if you could expand on that a little and tell us what you mean by that.

[Dr. Andrea Charron]

I'll start with the second point. My comment vis-à-vis the U.S. was that for some reason the common perception is that the U.S. is our biggest challenge in the Arctic, despite the fact that Canada and the U.S. defend North America jointly. We seem to think that U.S. assistance, participation, ends at the treeline. I'm not quite sure why that's the case. The U.S. is not a challenger to Canada. We work in cooperation and to good effect.

As for your second one, in terms of commerce, this is why I am not a business person, because I don't have that kind of imagination. There are things like artwork, the possibility for shipping, for resource extraction. There are lots of opportunities up there, and certainly Canadian companies are taking advantage of that. We want to make sure they can continue to make those investments and have those opportunities, and that it includes the northern residents.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, Mr. Dechert.

One question, Mr. Eyking, and then we're going to have to wrap it up.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for coming, Ms. Charron. You made a very good presentation.

Some of the comments you made are interesting, and I truly believe that this so-called threat we are under and the rhetoric by the present government.... We saw that with the defence minister not too long ago: “The Russians are coming.”

I think all Canadians know the Arctic is very important. It's very important that we give them the right message about what we're dealing with, and the priorities. It's not only sometimes the wrong message but how it's portrayed. This Arctic distraction disorder you're talking about...I believe it's happening.

We are going to be chair of this council in a year. I think it's very important that as Canadians we set the table in a responsible way so that our messaging is right and we get some respect when we are chair.

What is your concern about how the present government has portrayed this to Canadians so far and how that's going to translate to how the rest of the countries on the Arctic Council are going to see this? Maybe we're going to be discredited in some respect, and we may not be able to achieve what we should be able to achieve at this very important time for the Arctic.

[Dr. Andrea Charron]

I think one of the main problems is that the Arctic Council, generally, is a very well-kept secret, and certainly the fact that Canada has been working on our agenda for the Arctic chairship has been very quiet.

Perhaps we need to tell people that we are actually working on this, that we are actually doing consultations.

It is a whole-of-government approach. It's to let people know that the agenda is coming, because lack of information then encourages people to come up with misinformation and to suggest that perhaps Canada doesn't think it is important when in fact we do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Just a quick response.

[Dr. P. Whitney Lackenbauer]

I think the messaging has been better since 2009. I think that's key. It's whether or not that new messaging, or more appropriate messaging, has traction. I think selection and maintenance is the aim. The aim is to correct a lot of the myths that were circulating, and that requires coherence and consistency on that particular part.

I think the key is to keep sovereignty for domestic audiences. The language of sovereignty for international audiences makes people question whether Canada has its priorities straight or actually recognizes that the world understands that Canada has sovereign rights. That's not a thing that is helpful to us. It makes us look like we're defensive, when in fact, as you are suggesting, we need to be constructive and proactive and take the leadership role that we should be playing.