Foreign Affairs Committee on March 19th, 2013

[John Crump]

I agree with David, but the thing to always be conscious of is that the indigenous peoples' organizations at the Arctic Council are not NGOs. They're not lobby groups. They represent people with sovereign rights, regardless of what the particular arrangements are in each country. That's very clear and they will cite the UN declaration on indigenous rights to back up their arguments, all the time.

David is right. I think the agreement with SAON is very important but it's on a case-by-case basis where you'll get them to say, okay, this group can go. If it's a technical issue, yes. If it's a political issue, it's going to....

[Dr. David Hik]

It should be their decision and not necessarily ours to force that.

[John Crump]

Yes.

[Dr. David Hik]

It's a possibility of efficiency anyway.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

John, you talked about your work and the effects of climate change and having indigenous input. You looked at it for the first time a couple of years back. Having cited that, it would be interesting to see that method continue in terms of the issues, writ large for the Arctic Council, for indigenous voices to not only be seen to be heard, but heard. I think that might be something for us to build on as a country.

[John Crump]

I don't want to undervalue what is happening because indigenous voices are heard and there are a number of working groups and a number of the studies—the “Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment”, etc.—that have had important indigenous contributions.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

We've heard that from everyone and it's something to be lauded. I don't think there's any dispute with anyone about that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Van Kesteren.

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

Thank you all for being here. It's a very interesting discussion this morning.

You touched on the black dust and we know the source of that. I think there's even some implication that coal from power plants in the upper part of the hemisphere might be re-drifting there as well, too. But I was surprised that you didn't mention—and maybe it's just oversight or nobody's brought it up—natural gas. We have incredible reserves of natural gas. We do, the Americans do. Actually, they're finding more and more natural gas and we have the capacity to get it out.

I chair a natural gas caucus. I'm big on natural gas. When we talk about the north, they say the two primary needs for development in the north are people and energy. We have the capacity through liquefied natural gas to service the north. We also are able now.... There's more talk and I think in the next few years we'll see ships being powered by natural gas. I wonder what are you feelings on that as an alternative fuel?

I guess Mr. Crump, because you brought it up first.

[John Crump]

I replaced a dirty oil furnace in my house with natural gas and saw immediate economic benefits and emissions benefits.

I think that fossil fuels are on a continuum. There are some that are dirtier than others. With natural gas, at least the use of the fuel is less polluting than, say, oil or certainly coal. I guess it's also a question of how that natural gas, if you're looking at the life cycle of the product, is developed.

I think it could be an alternative for some Arctic communities. I'm not sure that it would be an alternative for all of them. We're doing some work through the Many Strong Voices program, where we're bringing people from the Arctic and the small island states together next fall at a big conference to look at some other sustainable energy alternatives that may be applicable in these two regions, given their remoteness, given their differences, of course. So I think you need a number of conversations about the energy mix.

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

But realistically, we're not there yet. If we're going to look at alternative sources, I think it's going to be some type of fossil fuel. Would you agree that natural gas would be the best solution for a fossil fuel?

[John Crump]

I don't really have an opinion on which is the best—

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

Mr. Hik, you're looking like you want to jump in.

[Dr. David Hik]

It's interesting. John indicated that we need different solutions in different places and I think that's the experience of communities as they've undertaken these energy sustainability audits over the last few years. I think you're right. In some places, natural gas would be the right solution. In other places....

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

I say that because there's a real willingness from the industry now to partner with governments. I think as a strategy for us as a nation it just makes a whole lot of sense. Anyway, I'm getting on my pulpit and I shouldn't do that.

We talked about the Chinese. I'm going to share something with you. I went to China in 2007 along with three other members, I think. Mark, you weren't there. I think there were two Liberals, an NDP, and myself. They just invited us to China. When we got back, they called me up and said they wanted to talk. Sure, great. So we had a conversation. What did they want to talk about? They wanted to talk about the environment. That's wonderful and we talked about the environment, but in the course of our conversation, they made very clear to me that they didn't do all the polluting that has caused all the atmospheric problems that we have. As a matter of fact, they're about 200 years behind us, so they figure they have lots of catch-up time and they really weren't too interested. So I get a little annoyed maybe when I hear people getting all gushy about their intentions because I'm a little more cynical.

What's going to stop the Chinese if they want, quite frankly, to start to plow through the North Pole? David, realistically, we can put all the laws we want, but the Law of the Sea.... If somebody wants to just plow across that thing, how do we approach that? How do we deal with an issue like that?

[Dr. David VanderZwaag]

There are a couple of issues there. One is the whole pollution issue—and I don't think that gets enough attention—where a lot of the sources of pollution are from Asia. Of mercury, we know that well over 50% comes from the Asian region. We do have a global instrument that will be finalized this year on mercury, so we're making progress there. Then, of course, it's making sure the Asian states actually live up to their commitments, and we actually, also, in North America, live up to our commitments. So there are huge implementation issues.

On the shipping one, again, there's probably not a lot one can do if China decides to go through the northern sea route. Over the top—again, that's maybe where you need some discussion, engagement, in the future and maybe forward, to allow that happen. Again, that can happen in many ways. It can be delegations from Canada, it can be delegations from China here, informal; there are many ways that can happen. Observer status within a council may be another way that one would get some dialogue going. But I think it has to be dialogue in the future.

My sense is it's not going to be over the top in the next decade. The latest studies that just came out say somewhere around 2040 to 2050 maybe over the top. Then we hear the latest predictions. Predictions are very difficult to track.

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

If I can just interject, we've also heard testimony here that it's not going to happen through the Northwest Passage either because there's just too much ice jam. What I'm hearing more than anything is that, if we're going to see circumpolar shipping, it's going over the top.

I don't know if you're hearing the same thing. John? David?

[Dr. David VanderZwaag]

It's a shorter distance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Van Kesteren, that's all the time.

Go ahead, if you want to make a quick response.

[Dr. David VanderZwaag]

It would be a shorter distance, for one thing. Then, of course, you would also have probably different standards applying, which might be attractive, although you're still going to have to go through some national zones. So it's a bit of a tricky issue there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're going to finish up with Mr. Eyking.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'm going to go back to the activity in our northern waterways. It's a given. It's been presented so many times. People said it's going to happen.

Just following up on Mr. Schellenberger's question on that, what we see in some of the western United States is they have rules and regulations when ships come into their waters. We also have them here. Oil tankers coming into our waters have to have a bond of some sort.

David, you are well aware of what's happening on Scatarie Island. We have a ship there that nobody has taken responsibility for. We're only lucky that there's nothing in it. What if it was filled with contaminants or whatever? It shows that we're not really...I don't know, ready for this.

Should we have some sort of protocol in place, that when these ships enter our waters, they automatically have a bond in place? I've seen it at the Panama Canal. The ships come in, electronically money is transferred, and it's done. If there's any damage...they get it on the way out. Shouldn't we have something in place? The activity's going to be increasing. The approach to our waters is going to be there. Instead of all of a sudden fighting with who's going to clean it up, how it's going to be cleaned up, who is going to tow it away from some sort of land mass, shouldn't we start now with some sort of protocol? Ships are coming into our waterways, going up north, there's going to have to be a bond in place, and when you go out the other side the bond will be released.

[Dr. David VanderZwaag]

That's a very difficult and complex question. My response would be this. For shipping we already have international conventions that deal with oil pollution from tankers. You do have strict liability of shipowners up to a certain amount. Then there's a fund convention that has contributions from the oil industry globally that would also kick in. There's another protocol to that. The total coverage would be around $1 billion. There is a lot of money there already. And Canada is party to these conventions, including the supplemental protocol.

I think for shipping we're in pretty good shape. It's more with the oil and gas field that you might be more concerned. There, again, liability is a lot less, in terms of under our national law. Then again, if you look at the National Energy Board, which does regulate oil and gas activities in the offshore, a recent report—about a year ago or so—talked about, again, how they are going to work out case by case the financial security that oil companies would have to have in place.

It seems to be quite a case-by-case basis, as I understand it. There's no global convention that deals with liability from oil and gas spills. There's no regional convention that deals with liability and compensation from oil spills from rigs when they're in the offshore.

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

But would we be allowed to have some sort of system in place so we have an entry point and an exit point where they have to have...? Is it doable?

[Dr. David VanderZwaag]

On the oil and gas, clearly, Canada can do that, because we regulate under our national law.