National Defence Committee on Nov. 15th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Ms. Gallant.

Ms. O'Connell, you have five minutes.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses who are here today.

I want to follow up on Ms. Normandin's question and the answer around the free passage for—now I forget how you phrased it—innocent passage or fair passage. What does that mean with regard to China's interest in building shipping routes through the polar silk road? What is Canada's role, or what action can Canada take?

If you can't convince China not to do these things and if you can't prevent some of that passage, is there a way to make sure that they can't build the infrastructure or industry along the way that they would need to be partners there? What is the thinking around the attempts to build China's polar silk road?

[Stephen Randall]

I think I'll respond first to the question of innocent passage.

As I mentioned previously, Mr. Chair, the territorial sea is beyond our 12-nautical-mile baseline, so it's not the internal waters of Canada, but it's something we have a great deal of sovereign rights over. However, there is the right of innocent passage for every state to move through the territorial sea if it's considered innocent passage. The way they define that in the convention is that the passage is innocent as long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state.

Obviously, you can't use weapons when you're in the territorial sea. That's not considered innocent passage. You can't carry out unlawful acts or serious acts of pollution in the territorial sea. You can't carry out research or surveying activities without the permission of the coastal state. Basically you're told that you have the right of innocent passage to just pass through. That's something that all states under the Law of the Sea Convention adhere to quite strictly. Canada takes advantage of that in other places in the world.

With respect to Chinese ships, we have noticed in the last few years that they do carry on research, marine scientific research. They haven't done it in our internal waters. They have done it a few times in our territorial sea, and they have asked for permission, and we've granted it. In one case, we in fact had scientists on board.

As for some of the infrastructure, I think I'd better defer to Mr. Hamilton about that.

[Kevin Hamilton]

I can speak to China's polar silk road. As I understand it, and as they have articulated it, that route is actually closer to Russia's northern sea route than any Canadian territorial waters.

A lot of comment has been made about a nascent or ongoing strategic partnership between Russia and China. This is one area where there is friction. I think it is evident, and it has been widely reported. The Russians have a great deal of concern about this Chinese polar silk road concept because it comes so close to Russian territory. There is concern around Chinese predatory tactics surrounding precious commodities and so forth in that region.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Keeping in mind northern or Arctic sovereignty issues, whether it's Russia's concerns over China and the silk road or innocent passage, I think the concern is that if China builds into these routes, it becomes much more difficult than when they no longer respect international treaties and the international order in terms of asking for permission and things like that.

How closely are you monitoring this? How much work is being done with our allies, for example, in Europe? You spoke earlier on Mr. Fisher's questions around Norway. What work is ongoing in terms of our allies in Europe? Again, it's that connection in making it across that would be concerning. What is the conversation there?

I know you can't necessarily get into threat assessment, but what is the mood and anticipation, given that this is building?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Unfortunately, Ms. O'Connell has left you no time to answer the question, but it is a very interesting question, I have to say. I would like it to be answered, but I can't....

We have to go on to Ms. Normandin for two and a half minutes, please.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Hamilton, I would like to hear your point of view on critical minerals. It wasn't that long ago, a week or two at the most, that Canada took away the right of Chinese companies to extract critical minerals in the north. A few days later, we learned that the Americans are very interested in these kinds of projects, which they may want to fund with big government subsidies.

Between you and me, I would much rather have the United States operating in the north than China. That said, isn't there a risk that this could jeopardize our ability to take advantage of these minerals, in a context where supply chains are very dependent on them?

Is there a risk that the Americans will want to take over the mining resources of the north to ensure their own security in the supply chain? Are we a major player in this sector or are we letting our resources go to a much bigger player?

[Kevin Hamilton]

I'm not aware of any specific investment plans, but I know they certainly do exist.

Concerning China, first of all, we have this legislative instrument, the Investment Canada Act, which has very broad powers to deny certain kinds of investments throughout Canada, particularly in the Canadian north and with respect to critical minerals, when the security and intelligence community assesses that it would be a risk to our national security. I know that this was exercised very recently with respect to a prospective Chinese investment.

With the United States, as the member says, we are much more comfortable with their investments. Of course, the United States is bound by all the trade rules and regulations that exist between us through our bilateral and trilateral agreements, which bring Mexico on board, as well as broader global standards of international trade.

I am confident that the rules-based international order as it applies to trade and investment applies particularly well to Canada and the United States. Every prospective investment will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We are going to have to leave it there.

I think Ms. Normandin was referring to an article in The Globe and Mail last week about the U.S. Army having a particular set of funds available for investments in projects of national security concern—I think that's what you were referring to—and I'm not alarmed, but it's important to know. Am I correct?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Actually, I was referring to a CBC article.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

It was a CBC article. Thank you for the correction. If it's a CBC article, my friends over here will not appreciate it, but if it's a Globe and Mail article, they may appreciate it.

Ms. Mathyssen, you have two and half minutes, please.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

When there was the discussion—I think it was you, Mr. Randall—about the innocent passage, I think you had mentioned that it was China that asked for permission to come into our waters for research, and we allowed it. In terms of access to other international waters, Canada, I assume, does the same. Are we always given that allowance as well, or were there any specific instances when we were not? I would imagine it would be in Russian Arctic waters, or something like that.

[Stephen Randall]

The provision under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea that allows states to conduct marine scientific research sets a very high bar for saying "no". You have to have a particular reason, because under the convention, people are encouraged to conduct marine scientific research. One of the ways to ensure that it takes place is to invite the coastal state scientists on board to take part in it as well.

You also have the obligation, if you're the state doing the research, to give the data to the coastal state, so you have to give anything that you find as well.

Canada does take advantage of that, although not as much as some places in the world. We do much scientific research in our own Arctic. We have done some scientific research on the Alaska side, which requires permission from the United States, and on the Greenland side, which requires permission from the Kingdom of Denmark.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

There's nowhere else that you're aware of?

[Stephen Randall]

Not to my knowledge. I'm more of the Arctic person, and to my knowledge that's the only scientific research that Canada has been carrying on recently.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Often we've heard in this committee that a lot of the issues we are currently contemplating in terms of the security of our Arctic are governed by those international laws. Are there things that this committee should take into account in terms of strengthening some of those laws? Where would we go with that?

A lot of the academics who have come to this committee have said that they are insufficient and that instead of dealing with a lot of these issues in a military sense, we need to do it through that international law basis.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Answer very briefly, please.

[Stephen Randall]

The most important one is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which sets out all of the different marine and maritime territories, and all coastal states in the Arctic are adhering to that—even Russia.

It's a rules-based order that actually works in the Arctic up to this point, and the more that we follow those rules, the more they are strengthened for all the coastal states involved.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Ms. Mathyssen.

We have Mr. Bezan for five minutes.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank our witnesses for appearing.

I want to follow up on the discussion around the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Of course, everyone in the Arctic has been making territorial claims to the seabed of the Arctic Ocean, Canada included. There's a great deal of overlap, especially from competing nations. The United States has a different view of where their territory lies in the Beaufort Sea versus Canada. We know that Russia is trying to claim everything right up to the continental shelf of North America.

I'm wondering where that process is at, Mr. Randall, as to those claims, and when final decisions will be made at the United Nations.

[Stephen Randall]

Thank you.

This is about the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea provision that allows coastal states to have sovereign rights beyond 200 nautical miles if you can prove that the seabed and subsoil is actually an extension of your land mass, and because the Arctic Ocean is an enclosed ocean, which was once all together and pulled apart, almost all of it is continental in nature. One of the five coastal states will have sovereign rights over some part of it.

As a result, there are also lots of overlaps. The process is a scientific one. You're proving to the commission responsible in New York that it's continental in nature. They're not deciding on boundaries; they are only deciding whether it is continental in nature or not.

The question is correct: There have been some pretty expansive submissions to the commission in New York, showing a large area of territory that they say is continental shelf, but it doesn't mean that they own it.

Because of the boundaries involving a lot of overlaps, all the coastal states will have to sit down someday and arrange among themselves where the boundaries are. All of the coastal states continue to adhere to the Ilulissat Declaration, which says that they will do that in a peaceful way and in accordance with international law.

As for how long that will take, the commission in New York is terribly backed up. They have more submissions than they ever thought they'd get when they created the convention, so right now it's taking many years, once a state files, for them to review the submission. That's something we're working on in New York to try to speed up the process, but unfortunately, right now it takes a very long time.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Knowing that the Christmas season is coming, I hope that at the end of it all we can still say that Santa Claus is a Canadian.

Mr. Hamilton, you said that you hadn't had a chance to view the Auditor General's “Report 6—Arctic Waters Surveillance”. However, there is an interesting note in here in exhibit 6.3 on page 4 that says....

Just so you know, in 2020 the navigation season in the Arctic was restricted. No pleasure craft or others were allowed to come into northern communities because of possible exposure to COVID-19, but some vessels tried to breach those restrictions.

In the exhibit, it says:

For example, during that summer, a foreign sailing vessel entered the Canadian Arctic without approval or exemption. It was identified in the vicinity of Cambridge Bay by an Inuit monitor.

Our systems of surveillance missed it completely until it was almost at shore, where somebody actually saw it, probably a Ranger.

My question to you is this: Do we know the nationality of that vessel?

[Kevin Hamilton]

Mr. Chair, our system knows the nationality of that vessel. I'm not sure that I'm permitted to discuss that in an open-facing forum. However, we do know the nationality of that vessel, and my understanding is that very large fines have been applied against the owner of that vessel.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, because I think this report is germane to our study that we're doing right now on arctic surveillance, I would move that we invite the Auditor General to appear to discuss “Report 6—Arctic Waters Surveillance”.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay. The motion is in order. It's relevant to what we are discussing. It's on the table. I'm assuming that you don't want to debate it just yet and that we can defer the debate. Can we?