National Defence Committee on Oct. 6th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

I'll give the floor to Mr. Bevington, please.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate most of your point of view on the direction that's most likely to be a success in asserting Arctic sovereignty. However, there is one issue that is starting to percolate, and I want to get your opinion on it.

I had a chance last year to attend the parliamentary association meeting in Fairbanks, where I talked to the U.S. admiral in charge of the coast guard there. We talked about fishing, and he assured me that the only places they were concerned about fishing were the Bering Strait and the Tchouktches Sea. They were concerned that they were going to see some movement into that area.

In the spring of this year, the U.S. announced that they would impose a moratorium on fishing in the Arctic waters, including the Beaufort Sea, and of course including the disputed area with Canada. Our government protested, but to no avail. On August 27 the U.S. initiated that moratorium.

My question to you is this. In international relations between the U.S. and Canada, should we be concerned with the U.S. taking a move like this when there's no on-the-ground requirement to protect the fishing stock? Canada stood up and said that we don't like this, it's not appropriate in our waters, and yet the U.S. moved forward with this action. To me, it kind of fits with what we did with the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, where in Parliament last year we said that we want to pass this act because we want to extend our jurisdiction; we want to ensure, by taking environmental care of the waters, that it's clearly understood where our jurisdiction in the Arctic is.

Do you sense that there's something going on here, that there's movement on the part of the U.S. towards this very valuable piece of the territorial waters of Canada?

[Prof. Franklyn Griffiths]

There is a problem here for sure. How big it is I don't know. To be really truthful, this is an issue on which I am not as fully informed as I would like to be. That said, the United States does things its own way. If they go too far, it's only up to us to push back. I think that in this one, if it is our wish, for instance, not to have a moratorium or not have any regulation on fishing in the Beaufort Sea, including the contested waters, then we should go back to the U.S., and tell them this is our view. At the same time, we should make clear that if there is a land claim dimension to this, it should allow Inuit, the Inuvialuit, free right to fish. It should also be made clear to the U.S. that we have treaty obligations to our own people. The U.S. position should be changed.

Nonetheless, I think this is all a little premature in that nobody's ready to fish. There's still ice, I believe, and the commercial fishery is not ready yet. This is good precautionary politics, and the way I would go further on this is I think something that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has already suggested in passing. That is that Canada and the U.S. should cooperate on an ecosystem study in the Beaufort Sea, so that we understand the ecology of it together—the two of us—and that we understand how to manage this area, including the contested area. That would be my thought to move ahead with the ecosystem management--

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Adopting the analogy of the Prime Minister, use it or lose it. What the U.S. is doing is using it. They're setting up their moratorium in our waters. They're establishing another claim over that water. Is that not correct that this is what they've done? In light of the protests that Canada put forward this spring, saying we don't accept a moratorium in our waters, they're unilaterally putting in a moratorium on waters that are in dispute.

[Prof. Franklyn Griffiths]

They are acting unilaterally, yes. We should push back.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Right now, we have a situation where sovereignty is being challenged in the Arctic, in my riding. Territorial waters are part of the Inuvialuit claim as well. They're extremely valuable waters as well. They represent potential for oil and gas in the immediate future, not just when the ice goes off the North Pole, but they're well within the technology that exists in the region right now.

[Prof. Franklyn Griffiths]

I'm not sure what you would like me to say. We should declare war on the U.S., or--

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I'm not suggesting that at all, but where's the push-back? How do you push back on it? You've suggested we need to push back. What would you say is appropriate action?

[Prof. Franklyn Griffiths]

We would talk to them in great detail about our objections. We would tell them. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade would do this first of all, and we would go public after that doesn't work. I think quiet discussion would be the first route, and if that doesn't work, then you go public.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

We'll give the floor to Mrs. Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Chair, through you to Mr. Griffiths, I thank you for the presentation. It was most enjoyable hearing about it from the standpoint of your being a young man and going up there for the first time.

Quite apart from the point that your being a fire-breathing sovereigntist perhaps contributed to the opening of the Northwest Passage, I would like to focus on that. First of all, you mentioned that you had been a strong sovereigntist, but now you're not so much of one. What converted you from the strong sovereigntist point of view to one that's different at this point?

[Prof. Franklyn Griffiths]

Actually, I can't really give you a good answer. I found it didn't work, that sovereignty as a basis for getting new capabilities, new hardware, put as simply as that, did not seem to me to work after a period of time, and so I started to think, is this a good way to proceed, and how far can you rely on it when it seems so cyclical? That is, there would be peaks of great interest, usually provoked by the U.S., in Arctic sovereignty in this country, and then it would dissipate and you couldn't get far with it.

Now, that's not to say we don't pay attention to what is ours—and I agree we should—but it is to say that a policy built on fear rather than confidence is going to lack energy, lack drive, and in the case of Arctic sovereignty will lack consistency. Somewhere in there I learned this, or I decided this was it as far as I was concerned, that we should find a new way.

The alternative way to me is stewardship. Stewardship, I came to see, is a way of ensuring the quality of sovereignty. That is, if you have a lot of good stewardship cooperation with other countries, they are not going to be polluting our waters, because there will be rules and arrangements in place. They will not be sending ships through in reckless fashion, because there will be rules and arrangements. They will not come fishing in our waters, because there will be rules and arrangements that we all agree to. Being a steward, it seems to me, is the way to see to it that others respect what is ours. So we, as it were, snag them in cooperative stewardship agreements that see to it finally that they respect us.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Conversely to what you described as exaggerated and unnecessary concerns over Arctic sovereignty raised over the opening of the Northwest Passage, the Russians are embracing the opening of the Northeast Passage and are poised to reap the economic benefits of new traffic. In your opinion, aside from the stewardship and the measures you've already described, what does Canada need to do from the standpoint of national defence so that we too can concentrate more on the economic development, while at the same time preserving the natural environment?

[Prof. Franklyn Griffiths]

It's a good question. I'm not sure there is a defence answer to this, or a defence need.

We could encourage ships to come through the Northwest Passage, but we're choosing not to. The passage is open to anyone who comes through under Canadian law and regulations. We say, come ahead. We do not lay in icebreaker support, nor do we propose to convoy ships through. Ships, as they come, commercial vessels, will be self-sufficient and able to operate on their own. That's the Canadian way, as opposed to the Russian way. The Russians want people to come through. They have not been very successful in this because they charge immensely high rates, there is unbelievable bureaucracy, and they don't really have their act together, but one day they probably will. They've decided for themselves that they want the ships to come.

We've not really had this discussion yet in this country, and it's not a matter of defence; it's a matter of saying to ourselves, “Do we actually want ships to come?” Instead, we're saying, “The ships are coming, the ships are coming,” and there's this exaggerated worry, because they're not coming any time soon. We could talk about that. We might make them come a little sooner if we wanted it.

The question is, what's the benefit of ships coming through for Canada? It would cost us a certain amount to look after these waters if there were more and more ships, intercontinental voyages coming through. We would need to lay in more capability, and we would be liable too, perhaps, in some ways for certain mishaps that might happen in a manner that we're not now. Do we want this to happen? What is in it for us?

I don't think there's a lot in it for northerners, because if ships are coming through, container ships for instance, they want to come through lickety-split, as fast as they can. They're not going to stop and give any benefit on the way. They will, when the time comes, if it ever comes, want to be liner ships on a really rigorous service, highly economic. If there's old ice, if there's fog, if there are high seas wending through the labyrinth of the archipelago, I don't think they're likely to do it.

There's not a defence requirement here, as I see it. We could decide to encourage shipping and make use of the passage, but we have not so far even broached this discussion. We've been instead, I believe, rather passive, worrying about ships that will come, rather than thinking about what we want. What we want has to do with constabulary capabilities--that is, satellite surveillance and some capacity to police shipping--which we don't have. I would think the coast guard is the prime agent, though, in all of this, rather than DND.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

You had mentioned icebreakers.

[Prof. Franklyn Griffiths]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

You have 10 seconds.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

One of the northern countries, Finland, built a fleet of four state-of-the-art, new technology icebreakers. But by the time they were ready, they no longer had the necessity to use the icebreakers. In fact, they're leasing them out to other countries. Do you see the thickness of the ice dissipating to the extent that, by the time we had a chance to build icebreakers, we would still have a need for them?

[Prof. Franklyn Griffiths]

No, I think we will have a need. Every winter there's going to be ice up there—thick ice, rafted ice—and no way can you expect that not to occur. If you want to be up there early or up there late, you're going to need icebreakers. Maybe in due course, one day, we'll want to operate icebreakers in December or January, but I don't believe that will be the case.

There is a changing requirement for icebreakers. I don't think Canada will ever buy or rent icebreakers—I hope not. We should build them ourselves. And that comes back to the problem of the government, right today, about getting a shipbuilding capacity together.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

Now I will give the floor to Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

It's great to see you again.

You started by saying you were happy there were two broken promises of very expensive things for the military in the north, because we didn't need them. You'd be happy to know there are many more of those. Ice strength in supply ships, three armed icebreakers, planes for Yellowknife, a search and rescue fleet, and underwater sensing are all unfulfilled promises, so you'll be happy to hear that.

I've a question about our legal claims in the Arctic waters.

[Prof. Franklyn Griffiths]

Sorry, which claims?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Legal.

There's not too much push-back right now, as you said, but I'm just wondering about the future, with the ice melting. Part of our rationale in our defence for invoking our pollution laws to 200 miles is that Canada clause in UNCLOS. I think it's article 284, but it says in ice-covered waters we can enforce our environmental laws. I'm wondering what you think, as the ice is melting, about whether we're going to lose that defence and that authority to implement those laws.

The second example is the American and European claim of an international strait in the Northwest Passage. To make that claim, they have to prove there's frequent international, useful, commercial use, which, as you've said, is not practical right now. But as the ice melts it may be practical, so will they have a better claim, and will that impose a threat that we don't have right now on our sovereignty in that passage?

[Prof. Franklyn Griffiths]

On the first question, let's take article 234 and what happens if there's less ice. This is the article in the Law of the Sea Convention that allows coastal states to regulate shipping, commercial shipping, in their ice-covered waters. Is this going to be a diminishing source of strength for us as the ice recedes? I think it probably will to some degree, but again, there will be ice every winter and that ice is not going to go away entirely. There will perhaps--and it's an interesting question--be multi-year ice in the archipelago for quite some time as well. That is, there will be old ice, which is, as I'm sure you know, much stronger than one-year-old ice, seasonal ice. This old ice has lost its salt. It's like floating steel, and you need strengthened ships if you're going to be anywhere near it. This I think is a condition that is going to persist for quite some time, but in terms of the legal claim, I think you'd have to say--I would, without being a lawyer--practically speaking, if there is less and less ice, then article 234 is less strongly in our favour. So there is a worry there.

At the same time, we have an agreement with the United States to disagree about the status of the Northwest Passage, and I guess this comes to your second question.

The United States says it's a strait and we say these are internal waters, no question about it, which they are. The United States and Canada, the two of us, have found a way to live together with this contretemps. We've found a way to work together with icebreakers in the 1988 accord that we have. We could expand that to other kinds of ships, if we wished. The U.S. State Department, for its part, has said that it regards U.S. commercial vessels as bound by Canada's Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. So U.S. commercial shipping companies are not going to get any support from the State Department if we charge them with some violation under article 234.

So one way or another, we and the U.S.A. can work things out, I think, and in my view we should maintain and strengthen the agreement to disagree that we have with them. We should surround the agreement to disagree with a bodyguard of bilateral cooperation in defence, on NORAD, in surveillance, on asymmetrical threats, but also on the whole agenda of stewardship in the Arctic waters of North America. We should not fear the United States but actually work with them--push back when we need to, but try to work out a management for the Arctic waters of North America that could then perhaps be projected into the Arctic region more generally. That is, we would have broken the ice, charted the way for good stewardship.

I'm sorry if I'm going on too long.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

That's all right.