Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 26th, 2013

[Ed Zebedee]

I know that Russia has invested heavily in its Arctic communities and infrastructure, both in ports and in basic infrastructure.

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

What you would like to see is an agreement of at least 10 to 15 years, one that would say, “Okay, here's the amount of money and here's the plan”, so that people could invest and carry on with their lives, or even live up there, depending on what that investment would be.

[Ed Zebedee]

I would suggest to you that the economic development coming into the north in the next 15 to 20 years is going to pay back any infrastructure building. Given the amount of mineral resources, the oil and gas, the potential in the Arctic is there. To develop these, you're going to need that transportation system.

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

So you see this as a similar situation to when we built the railroad or the Trans-Canada Highway or the St. Lawrence Seaway, or many of our facilities. It's the same kind of thing, that we just have to get ahead of the curve.

[Ed Zebedee]

That's correct.

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

Okay, thank you.

Mr. McDorman, do you think that we should have a special deal with the United States on the Northwest Passage, similar to what we had with the St. Lawrence Seaway?

They are our biggest trading partner, they are our close ally on defence. There's no big problem right now with Russia, as we do have NATO. What if we had an agreement with the Americans? Assume that they might bring minerals, or oil, or products out of Alaska, and that it might be better for them to ship to Europe.

Do you think we should sit down with them and have some sort of a different arrangement, similar to the St. Lawrence Seaway, because of our proximity to them? Even on the defence side, maybe it's to our advantage that they have military ships there, in the long run.

[Prof. Ted McDorman]

I'm sorry, but I'm going to avoid the question. I'm in an odd position as an academic who is currently working within the Department of Foreign Affairs, but I don't want to be seen.... This is an issue of policy. I can explain to you the background law, which is what the other questions have been about until now, but I don't wish to venture an opinion on that at this time. I'm sorry.

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

Can you answer a question about whether a country should have preferential treatment? Not necessarily the United States, but you did mention that the straits off Singapore are for everybody, that agreement there, right? Do you—

[Prof. Ted McDorman]

There's not an agreement in the strait, but it's an odd kind of agreement in the Strait of Malacca. It does not actually guarantee rights. That is an open ocean that any country, any state, and any vessel can go through. There's not an agreement per se with the Strait of Malacca.

There is a complex agreement between the strait states and some of the user states on the somewhat voluntary arrangements dealing with navigational aids. I was using that as an example of what is seen as an international strait by the United States, and why this is important, not necessarily that the Northwest Passage is or is not an international strait. The Canadian view is not the U.S. view that it is. As for the St. Lawrence Seaway analogy that we've read about numerous times, there are some very difficult political and legal issues that would have to be sorted through very carefully.

I am sorry, sir, but that's about as far as I can go on that. I have views on the law and can tell you about the law to answer those kinds of questions, but on the more speculative things I respectfully decline to respond at this moment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You're out of time anyway, so we'll save you with the time.

[Prof. Ted McDorman]

If I'd known that, I would have shut up immediately.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We'll start a second round, which will be five minutes for each side.

Mr. Van Kesteren, we'll start with you, sir.

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

Thanks to both of you for appearing here. It's very informative. There are some great insights.

We've been talking a little bit about the opportunity for business. Even this morning we've certainly touched on it. It's enormous. When I talk to Minister Aglukkaq, she tells me of all the wonderful opportunities in that region of the world. It's just incredible.

I suppose we should be asking the question about businesses operating, and specifically those people and those organizations that have on-the-ground experience. Maybe both of you can answer this question. Do you think that the creation of a formal circumpolar business forum would be useful for sharing best practices on responsible resource development? Is that an idea that you've floated around? Is it something that you think might be useful?

Mr. Zebedee?

[Ed Zebedee]

It would be very helpful and interesting to see, from their perspective, the way that other Arctic countries have dealt with resources and the lessons they've learned. Resource development in the Arctic is difficult, so to hear from any country with some expertise in that area would be welcome.

I think that opening a forum among the circumpolar countries on infrastructure development would pay dividends. Russia has quite a bit of history in Arctic development and community ports and runway development. I don't know about the other countries, but I know that Russia does. Some of their lessons would be interesting to learn.

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

Mr. McDorman?

[Prof. Ted McDorman]

Let me just say no. It,s well beyond my area of knowledge and expertise, but I do point out as a matter of fact that when you're talking about the European Arctic, you have to realize that there's Murmansk and then there's Tromso in Norway. These are significant population areas.

One of the perceptual difficulties that exists in the Arctic is that there is really no single Arctic area, in some respects. There is in terms of weather and other issues, but the infrastructure, the cities, and the populations that exist in northern Russia and northern Norway are completely different from what exists in the North American Arctic. I think it's sometimes a little difficult to compare the two. It's not that we can't learn lessons, and I'm not suggesting that, but it is a very different situation in some respects.

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

Maybe I'll direct this question to you then.

We speak of the north, and we speak about the Arctic. How would you compare the two distinct regions? Are there distinct regions or are they one and the same? Maybe you could just clarify the distinction between the two terms, because oftentimes we just call the north “the north”, but should we refer to it as the Arctic?

[Prof. Ted McDorman]

The international lawyer in me will tell you immediately that there is no agreement on what the terms mean. They are in the eyes of the beholder. In the areas in which I've looked at international treaties and things that talk about the Arctic Ocean, it has been described in different ways in different places and different contexts.

Once again I'm being rather useless, but as a professor, I'm used to that.

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

Let me ask you this question as well. We've talked about the north opening up and we're hearing more and more about the ice breaking up. Do you foresee a significant expansion in shipping in the Arctic? What would the implications be for the region?

[Prof. Ted McDorman]

I can go by the Arctic marine shipping assessment, which was done through the Arctic Council. I think it has already been referred to here in this committee by other speakers. It was done two or three years ago. It was a comprehensive study of shipping in the Arctic, both in terms of some legal stuff—fortunately not too much, so it's moderately readable—and also about expectations. The projections they made were not so much in terms of dates as routes. They said that the northern sea route, the northeast passage, if you will, over Russia will probably be open first. We have seen, and I'm sure you have read about, commercial traffic through the northern sea route of Russia. It is still at the point where every particular passage is noted, so it's not yet on a regular basis.

The Northwest Passage is seen as probably being the third to open for commercial shipping. As I understand from the Arctic marine shipping assessment, it is not perceived as a high priority for international navigation.

I want to distinguish what I'm talking about here. We're talking about international vessels passing through the area, as opposed to “local traffic” increasing. It's not meant to be a determinant, but it's about where the traffic is coming from, and that it is stopping in Canada to do something and then going away. I understand, from what I have read, that this will increase. We have, of course, seen the proposals for different mines and things like that taking place in the north.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We'll move over now to Mr. Saganash, please, for five minutes.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I'd like to thank our two witnesses for their presentations, which were quite relevant.

I would like to make a comment that is intended for Mr. Zebedee, who described the Hon. Leona Aglukkaq as the perfect person. I do not think anyone should describe her like that when we know how the minister handled the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. Nor would I make such a comment because we also know that, at the international level—as Mr. McDorman pointed out—cooperation and a multilateral effort are required to come to international agreements. That is certainly not the approach that has been adopted.

I also agree with my colleague on the geopolitical importance that this region has taken on in recent years. But when we compare it with the poor infrastructures of that region, it isn't catching up that we need to do. We must seriously wonder if we will eventually catch up. I fully agree with my colleague on that.

My question is for Mr. McDorman.

I listened carefully to your four or five truths. I think that you added a fifth at the end. Mr. McDorman, other instruments of international law have appeared in recent years. I'm thinking of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which also applies in the north, because the people, the first peoples of the circumpolar regions, participated actively in the negotiations for that declaration. Do you think this instrument of international law changes the situation for us in our discussions on the Arctic?

[Prof. Ted McDorman]

Thank you very much for the question. I apologize in advance that I'm not going to answer it, partly because it's does not deal directly with international ocean law per se but with the General Assembly's declaration on indigenous rights.

It's hard for me to answer a question as to how that affects the ocean law issues I have talked about. You have had other speakers who are much more familiar with and understand that particular issue better than I do. I'm not going to venture into those waters—no pun intended.

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

Mr. McDorman, you are a lawyer. So I am going to call upon your legal knowledge.

We know quite well that, in law, a legal loophole or poor legislation can lead to fairly large legal battles or legal problems. Do you think the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which also applies to part of the Arctic, is a detailed and specific enough tool to deal with all of Canada's priorities?

For example, we are talking about transport in international waters, oil spills, pollution. We know that the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea does not necessarily apply to those areas that do not belong to any state. Do you think that a single international treaty is, in this respect, the only instrument we need to deal with all the problems that will arise because of climate change?