Foreign Affairs Committee on March 19th, 2013

[Dr. Anita Dey Nuttall]

Talking about countries like China and India and their interest in being observers at the Arctic Council—again, in terms of their future activities in the Arctic, particularly in relation to the environmental impacts of their activities up in the north, to have a framework such as an environmental protocol—would help to at least monitor and also maybe limit in some cases what kind of activities can take place, whether they are the Arctic or the non-Arctic countries.

So I think it is important to definitely acknowledge that interest from these countries is only going to increase, but how to accommodate them within an established framework, I think, would be the key.

[Dr. David VanderZwaag]

To respond to that, China probably intends to go through the northern sea route, I would think, given the infrastructure there and the promotion by the Russian government. So they're going to have standards set by the Russian Federation. If they go over the high seas route, the transpolar route eventually, then you're going to need a polar code, obviously, to set the standards in that area. Again, that's a reason why you want to look ahead to a polar code.

In terms of their observer status, again, we have the criteria now agreed on by the Arctic Council, including recognition of the Law of the Sea as the overarching framework, so I have to apply those criteria to the observers. I would say this, though, there perhaps has to be more of an engagement with the Asian states, including the European Union down the road too. One has to think outside the box, I think. It's not just observer status. I've been thinking for many years that we perhaps need some Arctic Ocean forum, some kind of a broader forum for discussion on policy matters, as we have in other marine regions of the world, the East Asian Seas Congress, for example.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

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

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

And thanks to the witnesses for being here today.

It's been mentioned here previously, Mr. Crump, and you mentioned black carbon, which, as I understand, is the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, biofuels, and biomass. With that in mind, do you have any thoughts on how to reduce black carbon, complete the combustion process, considering this planet seems to be so reliant on some of the fossil fuels, such as metallurgical coal?

[John Crump]

I have to admit I don't have many thoughts on how to complete the combustion process. I think there are different ways to reduce black carbon. One example would be proper filtering for diesel engines. You can also redevelop diesel engines to be more energy efficient and to burn more cleanly and burn more of the byproducts. I'm not a specialist in this area.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Hik, you mentioned the change on land has been just as drastic as the change on water. You referred to a plant, I believe. I wonder if you could provide further examples of the change on land, and how it is impacting the Arctic.

[Dr. David Hik]

Sure.

The plant I was referring to is the willow, and there are many species. With warming temperatures they grow faster, and so they elevate the stems and leaves and those persist above the snow.

The second large change is a change in the seasonality of snow cover. Snow melting earlier in the season results in a higher albedo, a darker surface that absorbs more of the sun's solar energy. That ends up changing the depth of the active layer of permafrost, which can cause surface hydrology to change, that's the way streams and rivers and lakes are connected to each other on the frozen ground.

All these things are cumulative and seem to establish a positive feedback. The process of warming accelerates as that land surface changes. It's occurring over a very large area. And because it's changed only within the last decade, we really haven't anticipated the consequences. But, as I said, it's as dramatic as what's occurring in the Arctic Ocean.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you.

Dr. Dey Nuttall, you mentioned paying attention to Greenland. I'm assuming Iceland might be put in that category as well. In examining the effects being felt in the Arctic, do you think we could take some best practices from Greenland or Iceland that they may have seen over the years that we have not seen yet?

[Dr. Anita Dey Nuttall]

I wouldn't be able to comment on what we could draw from Iceland. In a sense, I would turn it around and say maybe Greenland could draw some best practices from Canada.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

What would those be?

[Dr. Anita Dey Nuttall]

Environmental measures, the whole issue of extractive industries and how there is this opportunity to have public hearings and consultation processes. From what I understand, Greenland is now trying to set up frameworks to enable the people to engage more in future discussions on industrial and economic development, and how companies, for example, need to be more open and more inclusive in having these discussions and public consultations.

But, yes, Canada, does have a role to play for an emerging economy or country like Greenland.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. VanderZwaag, you touched on governance beyond international jurisdiction. You touched on aboriginal involvement just recently with devolution to the Northwest Territories and involvement with aboriginals throughout the three territories. Can you give me what you think we need to improve upon or where we need to go next with aboriginals?

[Dr. David VanderZwaag]

You're trying to put it into context of the area beyond national jurisdictions: is that where the focus was?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Yes.

[Dr. David VanderZwaag]

That's a largely unexplored area, I would say. We have the Nunavut land claim, which deals with the Nunavut settlement area and of course includes the internal waters territorial sea. They have management arrangements for that area. When you move beyond the national jurisdiction, then clearly Canada has all the rights under national law to make its claim, which we'll do in December of this year, we hope. Then that claim will eventually become legitimized.

Under a formula under article 82 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, there will be a resource-sharing formula that will kick in for any minerals that go beyond 200 nautical miles, but that would be shared with developing countries, essentially under the structure of the UN system.

I think there are looming issues there. Should there be consideration of Inuit, perhaps, the contribution...? On the Inuit communities, what's their involvement here? I think it's an involvement issue and also an issue, maybe, of some kind of sharing of resources in the future.

Those are very political issues, but under the Law of the Sea Convention it's clearly under Canada's jurisdiction to make the claim, and there's no mention of indigenous peoples under Law of the Sea Convention, so it's a very state-centric document. There was just a meeting here in Ottawa last week with Inuit responding to the “Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment”. These questions did come up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Mr. Schellenberger, please, for five minutes.

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

Thank you.

Sometimes when you're down the line in asking the questions, your most important question gets asked. My most important question has been taken and has been answered quite well, but I'm still going to add a bit to it.

Do you think that Canada should be responsible for protecting the environment and safety in the Arctic for oil spills, tourist ships, and other ships that will find it advantageous and profitable to use the various routes through the Arctic? Should this be a shared responsibility?

It seems that through the Northwest Passage we have a lot more navigable waters and shorelines to protect than the other members of the Arctic Council do. Should this be a shared responsibility? I know that it's going to be the coast guard that will be doing most of the safety and the rescues. Should it be an international coast guard that helps to do some of this?

[Dr. David Hik]

I think we have an opportunity to establish what those shipping lanes will be. Completing the mapping of the Northwest Passage is probably at the top of the list of what's required in order to make decisions about how to manage that. I see it as being firmly within Canada's rights and jurisdiction to complete the mapping. It's going very slowly right now. We need to look at some different technologies that will allow us to do that more effectively.

Then, in terms of your question about how to enforce and regulate, I think there are mechanisms for doing that, but what we should be looking at is establishing the shipping lanes and not just letting free passage through any of the channels in the archipelago.

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

Mr. VanderZwaag?

[Dr. David VanderZwaag]

On that, clearly the major responsibility does fall on Canada in terms of its own jurisdiction to make sure you're prepared to respond. Again, that can be laid on the industry by government as a responsibility, and some of that has been done.

But I think that when you look at the agreement that's being negotiated and that will be finalized hopefully by May, what it's largely going to do is say, look, if you have these really big incidents, you may have to collectively respond. Like what we had in the Gulf of Mexico, it may be beyond one nation's capabilities. Then you will have things like trying to make sure your equipment comes across without all kinds of customs officers trying to tax you extra-heavily and making sure it's all expedited.

Those are the kinds of things you're looking at, I think, under the agreement: the cooperation, the sharing of information, and knowing who to call if there is something that's near the border. Again, it'll probably address the high seas area as well. If there's an incident up there, again, who's going to respond? It will talk about needing to monitor and, again, to give notice to other countries that there is something in the area beyond national jurisdiction, and how do you respond to that?

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

Mr. Crump?

[John Crump]

I want to add that when the Arctic Council was formed in 1996, nobody could imagine having this discussion or even that question. The world has changed much faster than the council has.

In terms of jurisdiction, I obviously agree that Canada has a major responsibility in its own national waters. Where the shared responsibility can come is through, as Anita was saying, a protocol or some kind of instrument established by the Arctic Council that guides shipping—not just in the Northwest Passage but throughout the Arctic—and anticipates what the changes will be and what the needs will be in the future. I think that's an important role that can be played.

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

Would a country such as Canada have the opportunity to put in place any ships that would pass through our waters? Again I'm going back to the black carbon. Do these ships have scrubbers or...? I look at what we've done in the auto industry with catalytic converters. If you went back 20 years, it would take the exhaust of 63 of today's new cars to make the pollutants that were there then.

So for some of those things, the technologies have to be there. It's just that they're a little pricey so maybe these people don't want to spend that money.

[Dr. David VanderZwaag]

I have two quick answers. I think Canada, under Article 234, could do it, as a pollution prevention measure. But I don't think Canada should do it, because right now it is being discussed with the International Maritime Organization. The issue of black carbon or black soot from ships in the Arctic, which is a big issue, is supposed to be five times as big by the year 2030. Again, this is within a bulk liquids and gases subcommittee. They're trying to study whether we need global regulations on this. I think it's a process you want to see working through the IMO first. If it doesn't have success, then maybe Canada should think that way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thanks, Gary. That's all the time we have.

We're going to move over to Madam Laverdière for five minutes.