Transport Committee on March 31st, 2009

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

But my point is that this is the right first step. At this stage we can't go back in time, but is this the right first step, as far as you gentlemen are all concerned?

[Dr. Robert Huebert]

Absolutely.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Ms. Hoeppner.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you very much.

I want to say, Mr. Huebert, that I appreciate your Manitoba connection. I as well have a Manitoba connection. I represent a riding in southern Manitoba and was born and raised in Morden, Manitoba. It's good to have some family around the table.

I want to build on something you mentioned. You said this should have been done 20 years ago. I think we can see that it's very easy for governments to stall on momentum. There are a lot of issues that are included in this bill and in Arctic strategy, and I think that governments have to have a lot of fortitude to move forward on these issues. Some would say that maybe this is politically advantageous. I don't see that, necessarily. I see that this is the right thing to do for Canada and for the Arctic region

But what I'm wondering is, can you tell this committee how we can avoid getting bogged down with some of these issues and some of these components? How do we keep the momentum going while still addressing and working with the challenges we have? How do we keep this momentum going and not get bogged down?

[Dr. Robert Huebert]

I would argue that the Arctic is as important to us as our response to 9/11. If you recall, the events of 9/11 caused a fundamental reorganization of the cabinet structures and the very way that cabinet itself approached the issues of internal security.

I believe the time has come that we treat the Arctic the same way, because what my research has told me is that we respond to crises. Well, we are past the point of crisis, because the Arctic is transforming.

The only way I see that we can keep the momentum is that, literally at the prime ministerial level, we need to have the commitment that one of the first things he or she gets briefed on in the future is the Arctic. That has to be in a cabinet format and it has to have a bipartisan buy-in. I think the time has come for it, in terms of the institutional structure by which we approach it, and this is the only way we're going to be ready.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Then what you're saying is that this committee has to be committed to moving forward on first steps. This bill is a first step, and so we need to be committed to moving forward, finding solutions, but again, not getting bogged down, not getting stalled and putting it on the back burner once again, because of the challenges that are being faced. Is that correct?

[Dr. Robert Huebert]

Absolutely.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you very much.

I also want to ask Mr. Reimer something about the people who live in the north. Can you tell us a little bit about how some of the natural resource exploration and development will help the people in the north? You've talked a little about their traditional ways and food, but I'm wondering about economic development: jobs, how development applies to young people, moving forward for the people of the north.

[Chester Reimer]

Thank you very much for that question.

A population pyramid, if you know what one looks like, is very different for the Arctic from what it is for down south. Some Inuit have children or marry at a young age, and they'll be having children soon, so people in their twenties need jobs; you're right.

How do you take economic development and juxtapose it with the need to have a safe and clean environment? If you look back 20 or 30 years to when Justice Berger did his quite well-known study on the Mackenzie pipeline and at other studies since, you see that economic development won't work if you don't include the Inuit; it just won't work. And if you include Inuit at the free and prior consent levels, you're going to have a much better outcome in terms of protecting both the environment and promoting jobs.

Inuit are not at all against economic development that is promoted in a safe and sustainable manner. The important thing they stress—again, this is through consultation and being part of the plan—is to make sure that you don't have what I think is called “the Dutch disease”, wherein you have people come from the outside and there's an economic boom and they leave. It's really important; there are conditions on economic development.

I'll refer to Greenland. Just last week there was a uranium mining seminar in south Greenland. It could have happened in Canada too. People there said they don't want economic development if it means bad health for them or means that they have problems.

So there's a trade-off, but absolutely the Inuit are in favour of economic development. Coming back to my Justice Berger example, now, 20 or 30 years later, the Inuvialuit and others are part of the Aboriginal Pipeline Group. There's communication, and if it's done in a sound manner, it's important and it's necessary. Jobs are necessary.

Thank you.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Great. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

As I stated earlier, Mr. Volpe has an issue, so I'll thank our guests for joining us today. We appreciate your input. I know we have a new group that is going to move forward in the next hour, but thank you again for your contribution today. We appreciate your time.

We have guests coming forward from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Development. They can move in, but Mr. Volpe had an issue that I think we should just address and then we can move forward.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to do it in the spirit of moving along.

I realize that what's happened is that Ms. Hoeppner has said this is a good first step and nobody wants to stand in the way of a good first step. As you know, you've received notice from me of a notice of a motion. I've given the 48 hours' notice and it will be dealt with, I guess, on Thursday.

In anticipation of that, the context that we've been provided by all four witnesses is as follows. First, there appears to be a lack of coordination or a requirement for greater coordination by several departments of government in order to do the job right. Secondly, there are implications for each of those departments that need to be addressed, and they have some diplomatic consequences that will impact on whether this bill will actually accomplish what it was intended to accomplish. Thirdly, there are financial implications for this that need to at least be aired so that we have the appropriate ministers come forward and say “This is what we are prepared to do as part of our planning for this legislation”.

I suggest--and you will find it in the motion before you when we come to it--that we have the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and International Development, National Defence, Environment, and Indian Affairs and Northern Development come before this committee to at least give us an indication of where they are.

I know, Mr. Chairman, that you wrote to each and every one of them, because I asked you to do this a week ago, and only one of them has responded. I think if we want to proceed with this legislation, despite the fact that it's only one paragraph in length, you can see from the witnesses we have before us today that the implications for us to consider are a lot more serious than what we initially thought would be the case.

Some of the questions that I read in the Hansard, as I acknowledged earlier on from a couple of my colleagues from the Bloc, suggest that they are also viewing these things with the same kind of--I don't want to say profound consideration, because I don't want to attribute anything other than good--serious parliamentary work on the part of everybody. I think it's important for us, Mr. Chairman, to make that one last effort to get these ministers or their representatives.

I see you have some DFA officials coming up in a few moments. There's no reason that we can't get some of the others at the table so that we know exactly what it is they are doing in this and that it wasn't just a piece of legislation that came forward because the Minister of Transport wanted to do something. I think the Minister of Transport, judging from the transcripts, indicated last week that it's not his jurisdiction here and that this one would be better equipped to answer the question. I don't mean to be critical. I take him at his word. Let's get those other ministers before us. Let's get their senior officials in the event that those ministers can't come forward and let's at least put the issue out on the table before we go into the one clause-by-clause that we were going to have to consider.

I think the committee would be well served—and I'm hoping all colleagues will see this—by having the appropriate departments through their ministers or senior officials give us an indication that they've gone through some of the thinking that these witnesses, who are actually in the private sector or in academia or as private individuals, suggest should take place, ought to be taking place, or is taking place. I haven't heard that from the government's side yet, so I'd like to do that before we proceed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Before I take any representation, I will advise the committee that we agreed at the last meeting that if we couldn't get the minister, particularly for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, we would ask a representative. We have that today for the second hour. As the chair, I am certainly prepared—and I suspect that most of the departments are listening to the conversation, or at least will follow it up—to provide a very strong recommendation both verbally and in writing that we would have a representative from the Department of Environment, the Department of National Defence, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for one hour on Thursday.

I'll throw that out there. I think that's what Mr. Volpe's asking for. I think it's what we've kicked around here before. We did contact two of the three that I mentioned. We have not contacted the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and I would be prepared to do that.

Mr. Jean, I have you on my list.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

From the government's perspective, I don't think that's an issue to be able to hear from all sides.

Mr. Volpe, you mentioned four items the witnesses brought forward. They actually brought forward a fifth, that this particular step the government is taking is the right thing to do and it's the right first step to take. And I think that's very clear and very important.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

And I indicated that in my preamble.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I would suggest that we set aside, as a committee, the first hour on Thursday and deal with them at that time. I certainly would have no difficulty with written submissions, if we received them from the departments, depending on time and schedule, as far as how it would impact them in that particular department. I think that would be appropriate, given the circumstances. But certainly the government would support you in that, Mr. Volpe.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Kennedy.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

As Mr. Pelletier already said, it is a very small step.

I think the main benefit we can add, as this committee, is to put this in context. The DIAND representatives weren't able to do that for us. They say they take a coordinating role.

For the benefit of witnesses who haven't gone, we want to know how this fits into a plan. And there are some very firm recommendations there that maybe we can try out with the different departments. An international conference--do we have enough of an integrated position, where the pieces fit together, that we can hold an international conference, which is what we're being recommended to do by a number of the intervenors, and make sense? Talk about all government efforts, talk about bipartisan—I think you mean multipartisan, which is the nature of our particular Parliament—and I think this is what has struck us as we look at extending a 100-mile limit over what isn't very much activity right now, but it does bring all these other questions.

Mr. Volpe, if we can extend some of our outlook to maybe push some of that forward, I think that's the kind of theme we're getting. I'm not sure we're going to be capable of doing it justice in the time we've got, but I think you can't take this bill simply as an isolated measure, because it frankly isn't that consequential by itself. It has meaning. Its meaning is, does it fit; do we have it as a piece of a puzzle that we understand and are prepared to get coherent on? And that's the curiosity I'd like to see, how far we are and how far away we are from having that.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I cannot disagree with what Mr. Volpe says. This is probably the shortest bill there is—it has only one clause—but it will have a very great impact on other countries. I understand what the government wants to do. It wants to make a point.

But we do not even have the equipment to get around our own territory, as Mr. Pelletier says. That means that we cannot provide the protection this bill is intended to provide. Consequently, I agree with Mr. Volpe to a certain extent.

I understand that we want to go to 200 nautical miles and mark our territory. That is fine. However, that has an impact on other communities. That is more or less what we discussed the last time.

Have you communicated with the other countries? Have discussions been held? We are far from where we want to be. We would like to have an environmental agreement, but there have not even been any diplomatic talks. We will see with the representatives of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I hope some talks have taken place.

That means that we just want to mark our territory and stand up to our neighbours. I have no problem with that. I am used to doing that in politics. But we need to be very aware of what we are doing. That is what Mr. Volpe means.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Okay.

Ms. Crowder.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

I just want to make one comment. I apologize, because I haven't been a regular committee member, but I think, from what we've heard from the witnesses today about the number of different departments involved, it's critical that we do hear from the ministers on what their role will be in this new initiative.

I think it's absolutely essential that there is this coordinated approach, and that the people who can actually answer the questions about the potential impact are here at the table. Whether it's fisheries or the environment, those are all important aspects of this bill. So I would argue that the committee needs to hear from them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Watson, be very brief.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I think my colleague Mr. Jean is far more generous than I would be. While I find the policy discussion of the integrated northern strategy fascinating, and certainly worth looking into far more deeply, I wouldn't want it to hang up this particular action. I don't think anybody disagrees with this particular action.

If we want to study the northern strategy, I would submit that the proper committee to do that is the lead committee, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, rather than the transport committee. I think we have a number of things to get on to, and that would be my preference; but we'll see how the committee addresses this one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Well, I know we do want to hear from the Department of Foreign Affairs. They have been waiting patiently.

I will send a request to those three departments, asking them to appear before this committee on Thursday for one hour.

Thank you, witnesses and guests. We appreciate it.