National Defence Committee on May 13th, 2009

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I would add my voice of welcome to our witnesses, the same as my colleagues have.

I have a question for either of the witnesses to answer. It seems to me that a lot of time and effort has been dedicated to the question of sovereignty. And I think there must be some economic issues around that in terms of who gets what and who's entitled to what. Then I think of the environmental issues and the harsh climate and building requirements and all those things that face developers in this day and age, and the north is no exception.

Do either one of you think that in five years to ten years from now the north will be in such a developmental position that it will be a real money producer, a real economic driver of our economy overall? Do you have any feeling on that?

[Prof. Donat Pharand]

The expert on the financial side tells me to go ahead. Well, it's going to be very short, because I really don't know.

I suppose I could say that insofar as the exploitation of natural resources, it is a very, shall we say, delicate matter to deal with. I am pleased, however, to say this: Within the Arctic Council, which Canada helped create in 1990, I believe it was, or 1992, the five Arctic states together are developing a polar code. It was changed to “guidelines”; somebody objected to “code”. Those guidelines are specifically intended to protect the marine environment in case of either a spill from a ship or, eventually, a spill from the exploitation of the continental shelf resources.

It is a very important matter. How long is the damage going to last? We don't know. All we know is that it's going to last a hell of a long time. To clean up there, it's not like.... Even for the Exxon Valdez, as you know, it took years to clean up. This is much worse, insofar as it's a difficult environment.

I couldn't say any more than that. I'm sorry.

[Mag Iskander]

My sources for my position are probably a little like yours, which are newspapers and so on, both local and European. Maybe the one light I can add is that I do deal with agencies from Europe, and particularly space agencies in Russia. I can tell you that there's a significant interest by the head of and the rest of the space agency in Russia in cooperating with Canadians to understand the Arctic and to develop the Arctic and, based on the information I read, the resources. There's going to be an economic conflict around resources and the amount of resources in the Arctic. Whether it's going to be developed to be habitat for millions of people, I don't see that. But certainly for resources, I can tell you that the interest from the space guys in Europe is significant.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to Mr. Hawn, please.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, to Mr. Iskander, you talked in your briefing about developing comprehensive Arctic situation awareness solutions for the AOPS and how they need to be linked with Radarsat-2, RCM, JUSTAS, and CMA. When you envision that command-and-control communications infrastructure, how complete do you see our coverage being for air, land, sea, and undersea surveillance? And do you see any missing links in there that we need to think about?

[Mag Iskander]

Do you mean currently, or as we implement these projects?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I mean as you implement the projects.

[Mag Iskander]

If we do it the proper way, if we define our requirements, properly considering all the inputs from all angles, I believe that with these four or five projects we will have sufficient coverage to provide information in a timely manner, in an accurate manner, in near real time or real time, for proper decision and action, given that we do this right and if we get the funding required.

I was asked a question about funding before. As I said, the funding for RCM is incomplete to the tune of $400 million. Polar communication is not funded at all. These may appear to be huge numbers for Canada, but let me assure you, sir, that given what we know about other countries, if Canada intends to buy this from other countries, it's going to cost an order of magnitude more.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Are you talking about government funding when you say that figure?

[Mag Iskander]

The government funding required for these projects, if we do them through Canadian capabilities and through our Canadian technology, which is world-leading, is a significantly lower number than if you entertain buying them from outside the country.

But again, these are not funded yet.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Professor Pharand, I have two questions. You talked about the number of transits you've observed over the last 100 years. How many transits would it take to make the Northwest Passage an international strait--i.e., one with a right of passage without permission? That's one question.

The other question is about the requirement for infrastructure to protect foreign shipping, which you mentioned earlier in your remarks. What kind of infrastructure are we talking about there?

[Prof. Donat Pharand]

On your first question, you cannot determine in advance how many transits are necessary in order to say it is now an international strait and therefore that the new right of transit applies. I can only tell you—and somebody mentioned a moment ago the Corfu Channel case—there is no definition in the convention for what is a strait that's used for international navigation. The expression is used, as I have just stated.

There is only one case, the Corfu Channel case of 1949 in the International Court of Justice. In that case, over an 18-month period, there were close to 2,000 ships that put into the Port of Corfu. Those were the only ships that were counted as transits.

Now, of course this is not an area like the Port of Corfu. We're talking about a remote area, and we have to take that into account.

The Permanent Court of International Justice in 1933 in the East Greenland case did take that into account, insofar as determining what acts of occupation were sufficient, either by Denmark or Norway. In that case, Denmark won.

What I'm saying to you is that I don't know. Nobody knows how many transits are necessary. But I can tell you that over a period of 100 years, 69 transits are certainly not sufficient.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

So somebody just makes a claim and we fight it out in the international court, or what?

[Prof. Donat Pharand]

I'm sorry...?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

So does some other country then just make a claim at some point, and then we fight it out in the international court?

[Prof. Donat Pharand]

Well, sure, certainly. I believe that Canada has already said to the Americans that if they wish to take the matter to the international court, that's all well and good. Yes, absolutely, that is the way to go.

I'm awfully sorry, but you had a second question, I believe.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Could you define what you meant by the infrastructure to protect foreign shipping?

[Prof. Donat Pharand]

Oh, yes, I can.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

You have one minute.

[Prof. Donat Pharand]

Shall we say that I have many things to say here, but there are two things I should perhaps mention.

First, I do think we should do the best we can to conclude what I would call a transit agreement, not a right of transit, with the United States. It would provide for two things. It would provide for the United States to recognize Canada's sovereignty over the waters, including those of the Northwest Passage, on the one hand. On the other hand, we would conclude a sub-agreement, insofar as the passage of American ships is concerned, which of course would have to comply fully with our regulations under the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act.

Mr. Chairman, I have a second thing to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Yes, but you just have 30 seconds.

[Prof. Donat Pharand]

We have to make more use, if I may insist, of the Inuit. We must not only say, “Oh, you've been there a long time, thank you very much”, and we're going to invoke that. No. I think we have to do a little more than what we're doing now.

As you know, you have the Canadian Rangers there, and they're equipped with the Lee-Enfield rifle, which we used to have during the last war. I remember it very well. It's a good rifle, but I do think they need more than that. As well, they need to be better equipped generally and better educated insofar as defence matters are concerned. I would generally involve them more.

I know you're not concerned with icebreakers, but certainly I would do some recruiting for the coast guard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Could you wrap it up, please?

[Prof. Donat Pharand]

I want to bring to your attention this declaration, about three or four days ago, by the Inuit Circumpolar Council. It's a two-and-a-half-page declaration entitled “Declaration on Arctic Sovereignty”.