Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 27th, 2012

[Prof. Michael Byers]

There were nine concrete steps. Just so you know, we quite deliberately set it up so that there was a team of American negotiators, Canadian negotiators, all non-government or ex-government people.

Mr. Cellucci came in as the lead American negotiator, and the first thing he said was that he was putting his personal views on the shelf and behaving as if he was negotiating for the United States. He had previously expressed the view that the U.S. should embrace Canada's legal position in the Northwest Passage. That was not his position in the negotiation. He came in as a hard-nosed negotiator.

It's tough. The Americans are tough negotiators. But we were able to actually arrive at some mutually agreeable recommendations. If we could do that in a day and a half, imagine what Gary Doer and his team and the team in Foreign Affairs could do if you gave them six months.

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

That's great.

If we could have that to look at, that would be much appreciated. Thank you.

[Prof. Michael Byers]

Yes, absolutely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Ms. Brown.

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

Mr. Chair, as long as he didn't put his personal feelings on the continental shelf....

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to put on the record that when we talk about multilateral forums and inviting others in, we have a model already, and it's NATO. The parliamentary group just had meetings in Prague. The Russians were at those meetings. They were voting on motions that were being put forward. There was shared information. Of course, they aren't part of NATO, as we all know, but there is a confluence there and there's a space created.

So I think it's important to note that this isn't that unusual to contemplate, and both of our witnesses have suggested that we should look at embracing both the EU and China as permanent observers.

We haven't talked about it yet, but you touched on it, Mr. Byers, and that is the whole issue of nuclear weapons proliferation. The idea has been put forward, and I think we'll touch on this later in our committee, that we should consider what has been done in other parts of the world, which is to have an agreement to ensure—and these would be tough but important negotiations—that the Arctic will be a nuclear-weapons-free zone. As you said, we should do things when they're quiet. Right now they're quiet. There is mutual benefit, particularly for the U.S. and Russia, in being seen as achieving something here.

I would like your comments or thoughts about pursuing this as part of our foreign policy.

[Prof. Michael Byers]

Very briefly, I think the only way forward with regard to nuclear-weapons-free zones in the Arctic is in taking an incremental approach. It is essential to recognize that the Arctic Ocean is one of the most heavily nuclearized places on earth, because of the Russian northern fleet and the U.S. navy's presence to monitor and track Russian nuclear submarines. Murmansk is north of the Arctic Circle.

So, in reality, getting the Russians and the Americans to agree on a nuclear-weapon-free zone for the Arctic is probably the last thing we'll do before we totally denuclearize the planet.

But there are important incremental steps. The one I would point to as most achievable is a recommendation that was put forward by our colleague, Franklyn Griffiths, at the University of Toronto three decades ago. That was to seize on the fact that the surface of the Arctic Ocean is currently demilitarized. Because of the ice cover, the shifting, moving ice, and the very inclement weather conditions and total darkness, we don't have surface naval vessels in the central Arctic Ocean. This would be an opportunity for us to get ahead of the melting ice and say, “Let's simply do an agreement to maintain the central Arctic Ocean, the surface, as demilitarized.” That would be step one.

The key with nuclear-weapons-free zones and other issues of this matter is to always pick the low-hanging fruit first. This is there as low-hanging fruit, but it won't remain there for very long, because as that ice melts and all those fishing trawlers move in and everything else, there will be a move of surface naval assets to follow them. We can manage those fisheries without having nuclear-powered destroyers chasing those fishing trawlers. Let's get ahead of that curve.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

I had a couple of quick questions left over here, so why don't we go with Mr. Schellenberger and then Mr. Van Kesteren?

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

Mine is going to be very short.

I know definitions are very important in any agreement or any law.

Mr. Byers, you mentioned black carbon and Arctic haze. I was with a delegation in Germany not too long ago, and they talked about the carbon clouds that were up in the sky. Am I wrong, or is carbon not heavier than air?

Could you explain black carbon and the Arctic haze? What are they?

[Prof. Michael Byers]

First, I'm not a scientist, so my answers need to be taken with an understanding that this is not my expertise.

Black carbon and Arctic haze are particulates, very fine particles, produced through the burning of fossil fuels. Black carbon is specifically in developed countries mostly from diesel generators and diesel trucks. It can cause respiratory problems. The Government of Canada has dealt with that in southern places.

As a consequence, because these particulates are heavier than air, they actually fall onto snow and ice. They don't stay in the atmosphere, like carbon dioxide. And because they're black, they absorb most of the solar energy that strikes them. The ice and the snow reflect 90% of the solar energy; the particulates absorb 90%. Therefore, they cause a warming and a melting of the ice and snow on which they sit. There are scientists who say that upwards of 40% or 50% of the snow and ice melt in the Arctic is the result of these particulates. So it's augmenting the climate change caused by warming air temperature.

The response here is simply to adopt available modern technologies to reduce the particulate production, with scrubbers on diesel generators, for instance. We don't need to invent any new technology here, but it's a question of recognizing that, for instance, in many of these northern communities—and Mr. Bevington knows all about this—sometimes quite aged diesel generators are used to power whole communities. That's producing black carbon, which is then having an impact on the snow and ice for tens and hundreds of kilometres around.

It's the same thing for Arctic shipping. As I understand it, there's consideration about putting world-class scrubbing technology on the coast guard icebreaker Diefenbaker, which the government plans to build as a recognition of this problem. If you're going to have a heavy icebreaker operating in the Arctic, it should not be contributing to the black carbon issue.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Van Kesteren, do you have another question?

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

I don't have a whole lot of time, do I?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

No, you don't.

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

I've got to say that it's a tough sell. It really is. I hate to be identified as a naysayer, and I'm not suggesting that there's no validity to that, but that's a tough sell. You'd have to see the carbon. I know this is a new challenge. It's something I've just started to hear myself, too. You can understand why Canadians and people in general just kind of approach this with some skepticism.

I know you're not a climatologist, but if the Arctic is going to melt, just give us some indication of.... Obviously the darkness you talked about would absorb more of the sunlight than reflect it from the snow. What kind of climate change...what would that make in terms of picking up precipitation and dropping snowfall in northern hemisphere countries? Is there some thought? Are there some climate models?

[Prof. Michael Byers]

I'm going to defer on the climate science question because I don't want to mislead you. You should call an Arctic scientist, perhaps Louis Fortier from ArcticNet, to talk to you about this.

On the issue of it being a tough sell, similar concerns were expressed back in the 1980s about the remedial measures needed to address acid rain. To his enormous credit, Mr. Mulroney got an agreement with the United States on acid rain that resulted in the installation of scrubbers for sulphur and nitrous dioxide on American power plants, which is why we still have fish in lakes around Ottawa.

These are new developments. They require new responses. Again, as I said, this isn't a partisan issue. I cite Mr. Mulroney because I admire what he was able to do on these issues, and I put him forward as a model. By working with allies like the United States, by embracing the opportunity to address new challenges, including through science and technology, we can be responsible stewards of Canada's Arctic.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have because we have some committee business. I do want to thank our witnesses for being here today and for all your information.

Thank you very much.

We'll suspend for two minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Here's the process that needs to happen. We need unanimous consent for Mr. Dewar to withdraw his motion. Is that okay?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We have consent. Thank you very much.

Now we have a new motion to put forward.

Mr. Dechert, go ahead.

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

Mr. Chair, I'll read it. It is slightly amended from the motion that was previously put before the committee members.

I'll read it from the top:

That, with regards to the growing humanitarian crisis in Syria, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development note and welcome the substantial efforts taken to date by the Government of Canada to respond to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Syria and in the broader region; that the Committee

—and this is where we insert some new language—

express its support for the efforts of UN Arab League Joint Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi and all reasonable efforts to achieve a negotiated end to the crisis;

That's the insertion. I'll give this to the analysts so they have it. Then we go on with the words as they currently exist:

...encourage the Government to continue to consider providing

—so the word “providing” needs to be inserted—

additional financial contributions that would provide tangible results by assisting those most in need; support the Government's efforts to expedite family reunification for Syrians who are sponsored by Syrian-Canadians and who face individualized personal risk; and that, following its adoption, the Committee report this motion back to the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Mr. Dewar, go ahead.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

That's agreed to by our folks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

All right, then. I will just call the question.

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you very much.

Is there any other new business?

Thank you very much.

With that, the meeting is adjourned.