Foreign Affairs Committee on March 19th, 2013

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would also like to thank our four witnesses this morning for their highly insightful presentations.

My first question may sound a bit strange. Organizations or mechanisms, such as the Summit of the Americas, often work on a troika basis. That is, the current chair country works very closely with the previous chair country and with the incoming chair country. I think that's how the Scandinavians did it with the Arctic Council.

I was wondering what your take on that approach was. Do you think that, in your respective areas specifically, it would help, as far as long-term planning goes, if Canada worked closely with its predecessor and its successor?

Thank you.

[John Crump]

My personal feeling is that the answer would be yes. Given the program that the Nordic countries implemented—and every two years there's a negotiation and a discussion amongst all of the Arctic Council countries, of course—some progress has been made that's useful to build upon. Canada has very good relations. I've been to a couple of sessions at which the foreign minister of Sweden has talked about the Arctic. So there is that cooperation already in existence.

I think, looking ahead, it makes a lot of sense to have not a North American chairmanship but certainly close cooperation with the United States. The U.S. State Department is already out talking to people in Alaska and other places about what their program is going to be two years from now. There are no surprises in that.

I think there are some definite—I hate the word synergies, but I'll use it. That's what we could do here. I'm afraid I don't know what the word is in French. Sorry.

[Dr. David Hik]

The Arctic parliamentarians have discussed a recommendation to the Arctic Council that there actually be a much longer planning window, of perhaps a decade, so that there's sort of a rolling set of priorities. I think there's a model that needs to be explored as we come into this second round of the Arctic Council.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you very much.

I envy you to have had the opportunity to hear the views of the ambassador from Sweden. I think that maybe we could ask you to report on that, because we think it would be of interest for the whole committee. Sorry, that's kind of an aside.

Mr. Hik, you also spoke about the research capacity and the need for an Arctic science strategy, maybe built a little on the model of what the U.S. is doing. I'd like you to expand a little on that: who it would involve and the broad framework of such a strategy.

[Dr. David Hik]

Thank you.

The United States is set up a little differently. It's useful looking at how they organize their affairs. But I don't think it's a model we could adopt or should adopt.

The issue for me is not just the sustainability of the resources—and I don't just mean financial resources but the human capacity and the relationship among organizations, the infrastructure and logistics to work in the Arctic—it's also about the way that we allow those organizations to coordinate their own priorities. That can come through discussion and dialogue. We're hopeful that the Canadian High Arctic Research Station initiative could provide a focal point for that to take place but that will evolve over a longer period of time.

I know you heard from the Canadian Polar Commission in December. Perhaps there was some discussion of the role that an organization like the Polar Commission could play in helping to facilitate the discussion among departments, not just federal departments but with other academic, northern industry partners, as well. That's the need: to make sure it doesn't just stay within government but includes other stakeholders as well who are very active in Arctic research in different ways.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have.

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

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Allison.

I'm going to follow up on some questions that have already been asked.

Mr. VanderZwaag, you mentioned a polar code. I assume this is something that would apply to the area beyond Canada's waters. Could you talk about that a little bit. How would that differ from the Law of the Sea?

[Dr. David VanderZwaag]

The polar code is supposed to be basically an add-on kind of code. You have existing conventions like the MARPOL Convention, which deals with standards for pollution from ships. You have the SOLAS Convention, the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, which sets general standards for construction of ships, but they're not Arctic-specific. They're not polar-specific. The idea of a polar code is to add in all kinds of things such as extra survival gear that you need if you have an accident and certain kinds of life-saving equipment. Right now, this environmental chapter is being discussed, about what kind of special pollution standards should we set.

One of the big questions is what happens if you negotiated at the end of the day...and it will clearly apply to all the Arctic. Again, they have guidelines that apply pretty well to most of the Arctic. It goes down close to the Barents Sea, for example, in one part. But one of the big questions is going to be what happens if Canada doesn't agree with some of the standards? Maybe they're not Canadian standards, they're lower standards than Canada's.Then it's going to be an interesting question because Canada could still stay with its own national regime saying that the code is not good enough for us and we'll apply it to the high seas area but not to our national waters. There could very well be a Canadian regulatory regime under article 234 under the Law of the Sea Convention that may have higher standards than the global standards under the polar shipping code.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

This is for Anita Dey Nuttall.

Did you also talk about a protocol? Do you have anything to add to this?

[Dr. Anita Dey Nuttall]

Yes.

It's really just reinforcing the point that David just made. Whatever code is established it needs to be brought into context with all the other countries involved. It is definitely needed, both a code and possibly an environmental protocol in terms of activities that are currently taking place in the Arctic.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Thank you.

Mr. VanderZwaag, you mentioned something in your opening remarks, and I didn't know if you were serious about it or if you were throwing an idea out there, regarding Canadian waters and restricting heavy oil. I wasn't sure if you were suggesting that or you were just musing on that.

Can you elaborate on that a little bit?

[Dr. David VanderZwaag]

Yes.

My point was that the heavy fuel oil is an issue right now for discussion within the Arctic Council. They have Norway undertaking a study under the PAME working group auspices and they're at phase two of this study. They're trying to sort out what the use of heavy fuel oil is, where it's used in the Arctic, and possibly moving on to some suggestions for further measures. Again, we don't have that report yet from Norway through the council so there's the issue. Of course, they basically banned heavy fuel oil from the Antarctic under the MARPOL Convention a number of years ago in 2011. I think they allow for some search and rescue and there's at least one minor exception there for allowing it. Again, you have to look at why do they do that in the Antarctic and why wouldn't you do that in the Arctic? There may be different industrial interests. That's what the Norway study is supposed to bring out.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Your bottom line is that more study is needed. You don't really have a position on it?

[Dr. David VanderZwaag]

Yes.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

I ask because, right now, fuel is going into various communities in the north. Obviously that poses a big logistical challenge. Plus, with the melting of the ice that we're seeing, we might eventually have a situation—again when you're talking in a 10-year or 20-year generational timeline—when tankers are beginning to use the north. I'm trying to kind of pin you down here a little bit, to get a little more clarity for this committee so we know what's on the horizon. If it's more study, that's fine, or if it's specific at this point.

[Dr. David VanderZwaag]

I'm never in favour of studies and studies.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

No. Call it planning.

[Dr. David VanderZwaag]

But in this one, I would like to see it happen because it's through Norway; they've been working on this for a number of years. I'd like to see what the study shows in terms of the needs and the issues. Then I think a decision will have to be made through the Arctic Council process under the PAME working group.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Gentlemen, do you have anything to add?

No?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thanks, John, that's all the time you have.

We're going to start our last round, fourth round, with Mr. Dewar. Then I've got Mr. Van Kesteren and we'll finish up with Mr. Eyking.

Mr. Dewar, go ahead.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I want to comment on Mr. Schellenberger's comments about navigable waters. We certainly appreciate his input. I think we should do more to strengthen the oversight there. At least the fact that they exist and we should probably have oversight into it. I think he knows what I mean.

Maybe we'll see it in the budget, who knows.

With regards to indigenous peoples, I want to nail this down. Maybe I'll start with you, Mr. Crump. We're hearing different things. We hear that we're supporting them; we know the challenge in Russia, I'll say. What do we have to put forward here? Do we have to have all parties in, with the stable funding, with criteria about who should be at the table? Obviously each nation-state is going to bring its own sensibility and its own concerns. From the Canadian perspective, what should we be doing to lead by example?

[John Crump]

There are a number of things. The Government of Canada has funded the Canadian offices of the permanent participants for many years. I don't know what the state of that funding is these days. One of the things that the permanent participants, the indigenous peoples' organizations of the council, have always faced is not only financial but also, as David mentioned, a capacity issue: to have access to experts and resources and research they may in their small offices not have access to. There should be a way for the Canadian government to provide information to the organizations as well—

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Sorry, do you want to finish that? What David was talking about in terms of collaboration—is there something happening there that we should hear about?

[Dr. David Hik]

As the Arctic Council takes on more and more activities, it's very difficult for the permanent participants to be involved in all of those, for the reasons John just mentioned.

One of the examples I can give you is with SAON with the observing networks. There was an agreement for one of the PPs, the Inuit Circumpolar Council, to represent the other five in that body and report back to them. It may be possible. I still think new resources are required, but for the PP organizations themselves to agree that perhaps one or two of them could represent the others. It doesn't always work out but there are times when it might be appropriate. We do have one example now.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Do you want to comment on that?