[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, May 2, 1996
.0912 
[Translation]
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
The purpose of today's meeting is to examine the possibility of circumpolar cooperation.
[English]
In recent weeks in Canada we had two meetings - one in Yellowknife and one in Inuvik. The first one was attended by parliamentarians from seven or eight circumpolar nations, and the second was attended by ministers of the same seven or eight nations. The two were intended to flow into one another - namely, to permit parliamentary recommendations in Yellowknife in mid-March to flow into the event in Inuvik the following week.
Several of our colleagues attended the Yellowknife meeting. The ambassador to the ministerial meeting in Inuvik was John Finlay, who is here with us. He delivered the parliamentary message to the convened ministers.
This is a rather unique practice that Canada adopted this year. In the past - I'm referring to 1991 in Norway, and 1993 in Iceland - the parliamentary and ministerial meetings were held some time apart. In so doing, the transmission of the substance left much to be desired - not that the ministers in Inuvik could be accused of having listened to every word from parliamentarians, but nevertheless they did listen. And Mr. Finlay made sure they would, so we couldn't have had a better ambassador.
The meeting this morning is to quickly review what happened there. The meeting in Yellowknife was chaired by Clifford Lincoln, who is a witness today. We also have the parliamentary secretary, Madam Kraft Sloan, who was the head of the Canadian delegation. They will briefly report their observations and conclusions, and then we will decide how to proceed with them.
Mr. Graham, perhaps you have some words of wisdom to give us on this subject matter.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Graham): Wisdom might be too strong a word. I think it's worth pointing out that this is hardly precedent-setting to have a joint meeting, but in this area of our circumpolar study there are many issues that overlap with the work of other committees, and I think the members of the foreign affairs committee have expressed a strong wish to work with other committees in these various areas.
.0915
I think this particular study of ours will take us into many overlapping situations, so I'm pleased that we're able to meet with the environment committee this morning. I think it will be very stimulating to hear from Mr. Lincoln and Mrs. Kraft Sloan, and added to that the foreign policy dimension we're going to hear about from the expert witnesses who have come from McGill University and the Inuit Circumpolar Conference. I'm pleased we're doing this and I think it will be an enriching experience.
Thank you very much.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Thank you.
Shall we hear first from Mr. Lincoln, who was the chair in Yellowknife, and then fromMrs. Kraft Sloan, who chaired...?
Mr. Clifford Lincoln, MP (Lachine - Lac-Saint-Louis): In the reverse order, I think.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Fine.
Would you like to proceed?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan, MP (York - Simcoe): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is certainly a unique position I'm in today. I beg my colleagues to ask me only gentle questions.
I'm going to be giving a quick overview of the Yellowknife conference, as well as the Inuvik one.
Two internationally recognized conferences took place in the Canadian Arctic in March - the Second Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region in Yellowknife, and the Third Ministerial Meeting of the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy in Inuvik.
The Second Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region was held in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, on 13 and 14 March 1996. The Canadian delegation was comprised of parliamentarians from all parties - Liberal, Bloc, Reform and Conservative - and two outstanding Canadians - Dr. David Shindler and Ms Cinday Gilday.
The conference was attended by parliamentarians from seven of the eight circumpolar nations, including Canada, Denmark, Greenland, Iceland, Finland, Norway, Russia and Sweden. Only the Congress of the United States was absent. Also in attendance were representatives of the Sami Parliaments, the Nordic Council, the West Nordic Parliamentary Council and the International Arctic Indigenous People's Organizations.
The discussions were frank and productive. The valuable participation of the indigenous peoples from around the circumpolar Arctic on each theme added relevance to the discussion, as it allowed for true representation of the needs and concerns of local people.
The conference focused on four themes of importance to the Arctic: first, achieving sustainable developent in the Arctic region and use of renewable and non-renewable resources; second, environmental contaminants in the Arctic; third, challenges for Arctic governments; and finally, security issues.
The Canadian delegation articulated a definition of sustainable development that included elements around the environmental, social, economic, spiritual, cultural, historical and political. Throughout the discussion of the themes I indicated above, we used these elements as a way to talk about each of the themes.
I was pleased to note the Canadian delegation put forward special recognition of the role women in northern communities play in light of development in those communities, and it made it into the final statement.
A presentation on each theme raised unique characteristics of the Arctic region and the need for broader cooperation among Arctic countries. It was noted that the Arctic was a globally important region that presented parliamentarians, governments and northern residents with environmental, cultural, socio-economic and political challenges and opportunities. As we are all becoming aware, the Arctic environment and its peoples are extremely sensitive to both activities within the region and activities far from its borders.
The parliamentarians were particularly struck by the number of speakers who raised the immediate and critical issue of toxic contaminants being deposited in the environment through long-range, transboundary air pollution and their effect on the Arctic environment and its peoples. The immediate and urgent threat of radionuclide contamination to the Arctic environment from various sources, including nuclear tests, scuttled nuclear submarines and icebreakers, and radioactive waste material, was stressed. All governments were urged to cooperate and address the issue with haste.
.0920
Importantly, unanimous support from all delegations called for the immediate and expeditious establishment of the Arctic Council. The council is seen to be the most effective way to harmonize the many diverse bilateral and multilateral activities and initiatives currently being undertaken with regard to Arctic issues.
The final conference statement made eight specific recommendations and asked each respective government to carry out fourteen suggested actions.
The Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region will continue its work by following up with organizations, governments and international bodies on the implementation of the recommendations from this conference, and will support the preparations for the third conference of parliamentarians of the Arctic region to be held in Salekhard, Russia, no later than 1988.
Following Yellowknife, the third ministerial meeting on the Arctic environmental protection strategy was held in Inuvik, Northwest Territories, March 19 to 21, 1996. This was a meeting of the executive body of the AEPS, and it concluded with the signing of the Inuvik Declaration on Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development in the Arctic. The signing of the agreement represents a significant commitment to cooperation among Arctic countries.
One of the key decisions of the AEPS ministerial conference addressed the establishment of the Arctic Council, an initiative led by Mary Simon, Canada's ambassador for circumpolar affairs.
Canada's ministerial representatives to the meeting were the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Ron Irwin, and the Minister of the Environment, Sergio Marchi, both of whom expressed the wish that the Arctic Council be established this summer. Mr. Irwin stated:
- The Arctic Council will strengthen the circumpolar cooperation and bring political focus to the
wide range of critical issues faced by our governments and northern people. I truly believe that
we have a unique window of opportunity to create a legacy that we could all be proud of.
Mr. John Finlay attended the Inuvik conference on behalf of the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region and reported the progress and outcome of the Yellowknife conference.
Many of the recommendations put forward in Yellowknife are reflected and reiterated in the Inuvik declaration. Perhaps most importantly, the Yellowknife conference made a strong and unanimous stand on the immediate establishment of the Arctic Council, a recommendation that was carried out in Inuvik with the unanimous declaration that the Arctic Council would be established in the summer of 1996. Further strong recommendations were reflected in both final statements on the critical issue of contaminants in the Arctic environment and the need to act now, locally, regionally and globally, to manage these substances in the environment and prevent their deposition in Arctic latitudes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Thank you. Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak about the role of parliamentarians within Arctic issues. But before I do, I would like to express the thoughts of Mr. Geir Haarde, who is the chairman of the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region. He wrote to me recently to express his warm thanks to the Canadian delegation and to Canada for what he termed an excellent conference.
I would be remiss in not especially thanking Mrs. Ann Marie Sahagian, who is here with us from Environment Canada, who was a spearhead of the whole organization of this conference, which was a massive job. She and Helen Anderson and Stephanie Meakin, who is also here today, provided tremendous service and assistance to us. I received many, many comments from the various delegates saying how efficient and kind they were to them.
.0925
I would also like to thank my colleague, Karen Kraft Sloan, and those of the Canadian delegation - Madame Guay, Keith Martin and John Finlay - who I think made us very proud of the conference. I think it was a really successful conference.
For those members here who are not too familiar with the standing committee of Arctic parliamentarians, I'll just give a brief description of what it is. It's a bit of a hybrid body started by the Nordic Council a few years ago. I was appointed to be the Canadian delegate, so to speak, purely by accident. I don't know to whom I owe my appointment, except maybe Mr. Charles Caccia, who one day detailed me to from the committee here to attend the first meeting. I then became a fixture on it for a while.
The way it works is that it is composed of three members from the Nordic Council countries, one each from Canada, the United States and Russia, and a representative from the Sami parliaments. It meets on a very flexible basis. There is no particular framework for it, except that following the first conference of parliamentarians in Reykjavik, and the second one in Yellowknife, it meets as necessary to try to tie in the agenda of various parliamentarians of these eight Arctic countries, to coordinate the work of parliamentarians to try to have an effect and influence on the larger and broader decisions made by Arctic nations in various international bodies, such as the International Circumpolar Commission and the Arctic environmental protection strategy. It has also been very active in pushing the idea of an Arctic Council.
The last meeting of the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region took place in the United States, to prepare the Yellowknife conference. The next one is going to take place in northern Russia sometime this year, because Russia has now accepted to be the host of the next conference of parliamentarians.
One of the main thrusts of the standing committee was to push very actively for the formation of the Arctic Council and to ask that when the Arctic Council is established, as we hope it will be this year, the standing committee will have an effective voice within the Arctic Council, not just be an ally, not just be a sidekick, but be a component part of the Arctic Council, and have it inscribed within its charter so that the parliamentarians will have a clear input into the work of the Arctic Council as it unfolds.
With this in mind, Mr. Haarde, the chairman of the standing committee, asked me two or three weeks ago to attend the meeting in Ottawa - obviously it was because I am here in this town - to present our recommendations from Yellowknife to the Arctic Council officials from various Arctic countries who were meeting in Ottawa to work on the draft of the new Arctic Council. I did this, asking for a specific voice of the standing committee into the Arctic Council.
The reception was very passive from all countries. To my great amazement, the United States was the only country that spoke up. I expected the United States to turn down our request, because the United States, oddly enough, has been completely absent at standing committee actions and meetings. It has never turned up. In fact, in Yellowknife the U.S. was sadly absent. So to my great surprise, the United States delegate expressed great support for the idea of the standing committee having a voice within the Arctic Council.
.0930
The latest information I've gathered in terms of the Arctic Council, which is not official by any means, is that things are proceeding very well. There is a strong hope that between now and the summer the Arctic Council will be a reality and will be launched.
So it's very important for us here, as parliamentarians, to make sure that between now and June or July, when the Arctic Council is launched, the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region be inscribed, so to speak, within the charter of the Arctic Council so that we have a definite input in there. I would strongly suggest that we work very actively here on this to make a strong recommendation in that sense.
I will leave you with this thought. At the last meeting of the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region, which took place in Yellowknife at the same time the conference was taking place, the Russian delegation made the recommendation or suggestion that an Arctic Council parliamentary association be formed. I think we should pause to reflect on this, because what happened at the last conference that took place in Yellowknife.... We don't have a parliamentary association of Arctic parliamentarians within our House of Commons, so we are a hybrid. The standing committee is a hybrid. It has no home.
So when we want to raise funds, as we wanted to do for the conference, there is no way to do it. The House of Commons doesn't know us officially. We have no home. It was due, thankfully, to then Minister of the Environment Ms Copps, who asked the environment ministry to extend money to fund the conference - a substantial investment. If it hadn't been for that, we were stuck. We were in the embarrassing position of being the host country without being able to find regular funding because we're not a parliamentary association.
The Russians feel very strongly about a parliamentary association. I think this is something you should know. The problem with this is that if we establish a parliamentary association, as we can recommend doing, the Nordic Council countries are not very keen on a parliamentary association. It means much more funding for them. Instead of sending one delegate to a standing committee, as Norway or Sweden - or Iceland, a much smaller country - would do, they would have to have a fully fledged delegation of all their parties and so forth. It would be very expensive for them. So they're very reluctant.
Some of the Nordic Council countries also expressed the thought that if you start a parliamentary association, the Americans traditionally have been very reluctant to join these things. They feel it would be another hindrance for the Americans to take part. They feel there's a much better chance the Americans will take part in the more flexible standing committee than in a fully fledged parliamentary association.
So this is our dilemma. If we don't start a parliamentary association - and I would suggest to you that in view of the feeling of most countries, except the Russians, we shouldn't at this time - then we have to find another type of mechanism to enshrine the standing committee so that it has a life of its own, it belongs to something or somebody or some ministry that shelters it and provides funding for meetings and so forth.
I will now let Karen talk to the first set of recommendations. Then I will make recommendations with regard to the standing committee.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much, Mr. Lincoln.
I just want to add my voice on the importance of establishing a way to have parliamentarians involved with the standing committee. All of the delegates spoke strongly of the need for parliamentarians to be involved in the Arctic Council in some way, mostly as a means to put pressure on their government, because parliamentarians have a different relationship than members of the government. I just wanted to add that thought.
.0935
As Clifford stated, we're coming forward to this committee with two sets of recommendations. Mine deals with the statement from Yellowknife, which we're asking the committee to adopt. We're particularly interested in areas of the statement, and I'll go over them quickly for you. They are:
1. to coordinate and promote cooperation among parliamentarian and governmental bodies whose actions may affect the government;
2. to adopt the broader definition of security as proposed at Yellowknife;
3. to promote the full participation of indigenous peoples at national and international negotiations and decisions;
4. to continue to support AEPS monitoring activities and scientific research in Arctic and sub-Arctic areas;
5. to recognize the important role and voice of indigenous peoples of the Arctic on all issues, including culture, history, spiritual and human values, and social and economic considerations, and to recognize the special role and contribution of women in the Arctic;
6. to move promptly on the critical issue of long-range transport of atmospheric pollution; and
7. to support strong and clear international controls or bans on nuclear testing, civilian uses, and radioactive waste.
I'm putting these recommendations forward for the committee's consideration.
Mr. Lincoln: In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like add the following recommendations with regard to the standing committee itself:
1. that the government establish a mechanism that would formally recognize a standing committee of parliamentarians of the Arctic region;
2. that a parliamentarian be appointed to represent Canada on the standing committee;
3. that adequate support for Canadian representation be assured; and
4. that the standing committee have a substantive and permanent role on the Arctic Council.
The Canadian parliamentary member for the standing committee of Arctic parliamentarians would be responsible for:
1. following up on parliamentary circumpolar initiatives;
2. working towards the advancement of the resolutions made at conferences such as that at Yellowknife;
3. monitoring the progress and action of such resolutions; and
4. ensuring participation of parliamentarians and the standing committee of parliamentarians of the Arctic region in circumpolar initiatives, including the Arctic Council.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): May I ask in which document these recommendations are embodied?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: This is not a statement that the committee has.
The recommendations that I read off are taken from the Yellowknife statement. It's not exactly the way they were written in the Yellowknife statement, but they are the key points from that statement.
I apologize, but I'm not aware of exactly what the committee has this morning. Do you have a copy of our statement? No.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Are your recommendations taken from the conference statement of Yellowknife?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Can you identify them? Are they on page 3?
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest something? Unfortunately, these are notes that
[Translation]
have not yet been translated into French. These are notes that we had prepared for ourselves. Could we translate the document, update it and then send them to the clerks of the two committee? I don't think that this will be ready today.
Ms Kraft Sloan's recommendations are for the most part based on the Yellowknife resolution. Those that I made are additional recommendations with respect to the Committee of Parliamentarians.
We could perhaps update all of this for you, in both English and French, and send it to the clerk as soon as possible. You do not seem very pleased, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Is this agreeable?
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Graham): Yes.
.0940
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): We are opening a brief round of questions for members who would like to ask questions.
Mrs. Guay, please.
[Translation]
Ms Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Chairman, this is simply a question of information. We will not be able to adopt anything whatsoever today if we don't have the documents. We're going to have to wait until we get these documents so that we can read them and then we will have to have a meeting.
I have a concern with respect to the United States. We know that they were not present, they did not go to Yellowknife nor did they go to the other conference with the ministers.
Mr. Lincoln: They did go there, but not at the ministerial level. They sent senior bureaucrats to Inuvik.
Ms Guay: What was their reaction? You spoke to me earlier about how the United States delegates had reacted with respect to the Arctic Council.
Mr. Lincoln: When I met with the officials from the Arctic countries in charge of preparing the text which will be used to found the Arctic Council, the United States were represented by a very senior official from the State Department. This person was accompanied by a full delegation and now the United States are playing a very active role in the work of the Arctic Council. The Americans said that they supported our recommendation that the Committee of Parliamentarians be represented within the Arctic Council. Paradoxically, this is the only delegation that spoke about this. The other delegations were very passive, but the Americans asked to speak in order to give us their support, which is a good sign.
Ms Guay: You referred to a special committee for the Arctic. Are you referring to an Environment Committee sub-committee or are you talking about a brand new committee? And who will be sitting on this committee?
Mr. Lincoln: Up until now, this has been a type of hybrid committee. I can tell you that the countries that belong to the Nordic Council were the first to express an interest in establishing this committee. A few sectors have been defined, but I believe that Canada did not send any representatives because we were not prepared. When it came time for us to host the Yellowknife Conference, Canada found itself in an embarrassing situation and, two years ago, at Mr. Caccia's request, I went to Stockholm, at the expense of the Canadian Department of the Environment, to discuss the Yellowknife Conference. This is how we participated in this council without having any real structure.
I am continuing to participate, but it is essential that we make this official. This is a solid committee now. Should this committee be appointed by the Department of Foreign Affairs? I think that it should be. We are recommending that we participate actively in this committee which will be appointed by the Canadian government authorities.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): We understand your intervention very well, Ms Guay. As soon as we have the French translation of the document, the committee will meet again. Perhaps we could hold two separate meetings to discuss the proposals and to adopt them. We will therefore wait for the translation. Thank you Ms Guay.
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a recommendation. We will have to send this to the clerk before your committee has its next meeting on another topic so that we will be able to discuss this resolution. Once people have the documents, this should not take very much time.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): The clerk has told me that he has a text in French. This is the text for the declaration made at the second conference. The recommendations are based on the declaration. But we will proceed as you have suggested.
.0945
Mr. Steckle.
[English]
Mr. Steckle (Huron - Bruce): For the betterment of the understanding of all of us here this morning, would you give us some definition of the Arctic Council, some idea of the composition and mandate of this council?
Mr. Lincoln: The council is not yet formed.
Mr. Steckle: I realize that.
Mr. Lincoln: There are a number of international initiatives regarding the Arctic. The broadest one right now is the Arctic environmental protection strategy, AEPS. It was actually started by the Nordic Council countries and is now an international body that looks after items relating to Arctic issues such as Arctic security, the environment, and development in the Arctic on the basis of the technical work dealing with these issues. It is mostly a regrouping of senior officials and experts.
At the political level there are different interventions taking place at different levels. The countries felt that to coordinate all these various activities relating to the Arctic at the policy and political level, especially as it's becoming more and more complex and much more globalized now, a council of the eight Arctic nations should be formed. It would be represented by ministers of the various countries and would coordinate the work of the various bodies at the political and policy level.
This was a recommendation made by Canada in 1989. It was endorsed again in the meeting of parliamentarians in 1993 and endorsed again this year. In between, there had been the Cold War between the then Soviet Union and the United States, so for military and geopolitical reasons the United States and the Soviet Union didn't want to enter the Arctic Council. They didn't want any part in the idea of it. The idea was more or less dormant, pushed by the Nordic Council countries and Canada.
Lately, with the Cold War ceasing and the advent of the Russian federation, the Russians have endorsed the Arctic Council very strongly. The Americans were reluctant at first for the same reasons, military and geopolitical and their own independent polices with regard to Alaska. But lately under the Clinton administration they've really pushed it, I suppose due to the influence of Vice-President Gore, and now they are supporting it. Chances are that the Arctic Council will see the light of day this year.
Our circumpolar ambassador, Mary Simon, has been perhaps the mainstay, the catalyst, in pushing for the foundation of the Arctic Council. At the meeting in Yellowknife, followed by the ministerial meeting in Inuvik, the idea was endorsed very strongly. So I'm sure it's going to happen.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Graham): I wonder if I could interrupt here. Sorry, Mr. Steckle, I don't mean to drop your question.
The members of the environment committee might like to know that on Tuesday we had Ms Simon and we devoted a whole morning to studying the Arctic Council. So we have all the most recent documents and there will be a transcript of that. If members of the environment committee would like to get that, it's all available. We've had a whole session on the Arctic Council as recently as this week.
.0950
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I wanted to point out for those members who may not be aware that some of the programs Clifford was talking about include an Arctic monitoring and assessment program; a program on conservation of Arctic flora and fauna; the program for protection of the Arctic marine environment; the program on emergency prevention, preparedness and response; and the task force on sustainable development and utilization. So you can begin to see some of the areas they're involved with.
Also, I had mentioned in my recommendations that we adopt a broader definition of security, which probably gives greater comfort to Russians and Americans being involved. I will just read that definition for the benefit of the members of the committee: "that security reflects not only military security but environmental, human, social, cultural, historical and economic security, and it's implicit in our vision for sustainable development". That's what we are putting forward for the Canadian delegation. So we're not setting up a confrontational relationship that only deals with the military aspects. It has very wide implications for all kinds of human security needs.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Just a word of caution before I move on to the next....Mr. Steckle.
Mr. Steckle: What I was asking for was the composition of the bodies. Is this going to be composed of the first ministers of the eight countries? Are they going to be on this council? That was part of my question.
Mr. Lincoln: I think the representative ministers will be there, the ministers of foreign affairs and others, and I would think the environment as well. It will be up to Canada to decide that. I would say that the senior ministerial representative of the Arctic Council will be the foreign affairs minister. For us, the parent ministry will be the ministry of foreign affairs. It will be an international body.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): I would like to offer you a word of caution on the Arctic Council. If you compare the text of the parliamentary declaration in Yellowknife, which is before you right now, with the ministerial declaration in Inuvik, you will notice a considerable degree of political delusion in the text of the Inuvik declaration compared to Yellowknife. In other words, the Yellowknife declaration is strong, very action-oriented and very little process-oriented. It has a very precise sense of mandate, so to speak. The ministerial instead, you will see, is very much process-oriented. Also it speaks about environmental protection of the Arctic and that's all it says, nothing more, very little.
In the creation of the Arctic two things could happen. Either the thing goes more and more into process under the auspices of a council that will be larger and perhaps heavier. Or, if the parliamentarians are present and effective and influential, it becomes more action-oriented, with specific initiatives. This is why this period leading to the formation of the Arctic Council has a certain significance. The intervention and participation of parliamentarians therefore becomes important, because it could go either way. It is there in this undefined balance between the two roles.
It is worth while to compare the two statements to see the difference in content. We are running the risk that if we don't watch it, the Arctic Council will become a well publicized and most desirable institution that will be launched, but because of its broader composition it may become even more process-oriented and less on implementation.
I have particularly in mind, of course, the question of transboundary pollution, which is crucial and on which we we have made virtually no progress. Since the first Rovaniemi meeting in 1991 there have been beautiful declarations but no progress. Now the recent issue is oriented to the use of plutonium in the disarmament process.
So compare the two texts and watch it very carefully, particularly in this period between now and the next meeting of two separate committees when we will examine the recommendations.
.0955
I am sorry for this long intervention. Mr. Flis, Madam Debien, Mr. Dupuy and Mr. Adams.
Mr. Flis (Parkdale - High Park): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It's already been mentioned that Ambassador Mary Simon appeared before the foreign affairs committee and brought us right up to speed. I would urge everyone from the environment committee, if they haven't done so, to read the transcript, because I think it will prevent a lot of repeating the same thing.
One thing that shocked me and perhaps most of the committee members was how few resources Ambassador Simon has to work with. She has one adviser and one secretary. Most ambassadors who represent Canada work with one country, but Mary Simon will have to work with seven other countries. How can she do that with one secretary and one advisor?
I am pleased we're meeting here jointly, because rather than throw more money perhaps we can recommend to our respective ministers and the government a restructuring of what we have. The Department of Environment could assign one expert on the Arctic to the ambassador, and one person from Defence could be assigned to Ambassador Simon. They would be responsible to the Arctic ambassador, not to their respective ministries. Whatever we do up there, first and foremost let us not forget the family that's there.
As I mentioned in the foreign affairs committee, I stayed two days with an Inuit family and heard that the oldest son committed suicide. The second son is not going to school because the father is teaching him how to survive in the Arctic. His argument is that when he and his wife get old, they want one son to look after them - very sound thinking. The four other children he's sending to school. He says there are no jobs up there, so he will have to send them to Yellowknife or wherever to get jobs. So when we are developing the national policy and the foreign policy, I hope we don't forget that family.
I already see western values tossed. Someone mentioned women in the Arctic. Let's do something different. Let's concentrate on the whole family in the Arctic. Why did that son commit suicide?
So as a suggestion, I toss out whether a recommendation couldn't go to the government about restructuring with existing resources rather than putting out more money.
My other comment and question is to Clifford Lincoln, and I'm glad he cautioned us about the Arctic parliamentary association, because some of us have already talked about that. Is it time to form a parliamentary friendship group, as we have with other countries? That idea was thrown out because it has no teeth. A parliamentary friendship group has no teeth, no resources, etc., so I think we have to go with the Arctic parliamentary association.
My concern is that some member of Parliament from either party is going to send a sheet around. If you want to join such a parliamentary group, please sign here, and a meeting is called in its form. You already cautioned us that we could be moving prematurely there, because if that will hinder the U.S. and the Nordic countries, who are opposing it....
So I'd like further views. Should we hold back on the Arctic parliamentary association? The other side of the coin is that Canada has always shown leadership, so let's form one. Let's start leadership.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Thank you, Mr. Flis.
Are there any comments by the witnesses?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Jesse, just to clarify the statement about women in the Arctic, one of the members of our delegation, Cinday Gilday, is a first nations woman and we consulted with her on this. We also consulted with other first nations and aboriginal women at the conference.
Part of the problem in the Arctic is that when western economic development comes into a community, the effects are felt by families. Often it is women who have to deal with the social and other kinds of impacts. We felt it was very important to include in our statement that the kinds of work women do in keeping their families together and dealing with interventions from people in the western world are taken into consideration. That's why this was put in - for the very reasons you stated.
.1000
Mr. Lincoln: In regard to the association, I agree with you. I get the feeling from the Nordic countries that for them it would be very premature. They are certainly the leaders in this group. They have the largest number of countries - five out of eight - and they don't see it for the time being. They feel the standing committee gives enough flexibility for now, and that the key item is to try to get a voice within the new Arctic council for parliamentarians. That's what they should concentrate on.
So I would suggest, for reasons of cost, flexibility and everything else, that we adopt an interim measure to give some sort of official life to representation on this standing committee. As time unfolds and we see where we're going, if a parliamentary association becomes necessary in two or three years, let's look at it again. But for now I think it would be counterproductive.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): We have other distinguished witnesses before us today.
Rosemarie Kuptana, Marianne Stenbaek, John Hannigan and Harald Finkler, would you like to comment on what has been discussed so far?
Mr. John Hannigan (Individual Presentation): I would like to pick up on something you said about the Arctic Council and the importance of having a council that is action-oriented as opposed to protest-oriented.
From the very beginning of the discussions on the creation of an Arctic council, which asMr. Lincoln said go back a number of years, I've been something of a skeptic about the Arctic Council, and from the sidelines I have watched it evolve to a point where it's on the verge of being formed.
I would like to reiterate what you said, that there should be some mechanism to inject life into this organization and not have it simply be one of process, because I agree with you, there is that danger.
Professor Marianne Stenbaek (Centre for Northern Studies and Research, McGill University): I want to comment on what the honourable member sitting opposite me said.
Mary Simon is a circumpolar ambassador because she's ambassador not only for the eight Arctic countries, but also for the Antarctic, which is an added responsibility.
On the question of women in the Arctic, I believe the new Nunavut territory that will come into being in 1999 will be the only entity in the world that will have a rule that each riding will have two members, one male and one female. This is very unusual and has drawn a lot of attention.
Ms Rosemarie Kuptana (President, Inuit Circumpolar Conference): My name is Rosemarie Kuptana. I want to comment with respect to two issues that have been raised this morning.
The first issue is on the role of women and their participation in various institutions in the north. As Karen stated, women are not properly reflected in many of the institutions that now govern Inuit and aboriginal society in general in northern Canada.
.1005
Consider our land claims agreements, for instance. As you know, the Inuit have land claims agreements in the Inuvialuit region or the western Arctic, in northern Quebec or Nunavik, and in Nunavut. The agreements that have been signed between Canada and the Inuit make provisions for business ventures and hunter assistance programs, but women's issues are not highlighted in the agreements. I think it's a reflection on who negotiated those land claims agreements - men. Now women are starting to voice their opinions and say wait a minute, women have to be involved.
As Marianne highlighted, the notable exception is the gender equality proposal for the legislative assembly for Nunavut. But this has been a very controversial and contentious issue in Nunavut, and it is still a proposal. It has not been finalized yet.
I also want to comment on the issue of including the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region as a component of the Arctic Council. First of all, I support the notion of a closed dialogue with the standing committee, but I don't believe that formalizing such a relationship in the structure of the Arctic Council is necessary. I believe the interests of the general public can be met by the state representatives. There is also a category for observers, and perhaps this could be used by the standing committee if they wish to formally participate.
The Arctic Council negotiations have been very difficult. Everyone who has an interest in the Arctic Council wants to participate. We've had many NGOs and aboriginal peoples from around the circumpolar region who want some kind of status within the Arctic Council. I think we have to be very diligent that we have an Arctic Council that is workable and finite in number.
With respect to the issue of Ambassador Simon's office, I have not had formal or informal discussions with Ambassador Simon about her budget and operations, but I would like to state for the record that she has a very large portfolio. There are many sensitive issues surrounding the Arctic, particularly with the agenda Canada has with respect to the Arctic Council, the environment and AEPS. I think Canada should give serious consideration to the number of requests and recommendations to have the office of the ambassador properly financed and staffed.
Thank you.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Thank you.
Mr. Harald W. Finkler (Director, Circumpolar Liaison Directorate, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): My name is Harald Finkler. I'm with the Department of Indian Affairs.
I have just two points to make on the Arctic Council. First, it is a governmental forum and the permanent members are the governments of the eight Arctic nations. As Rosemarie mentioned, the second category of membership is permanent participants. The eight Arctic nation members have voting status. Permanent participants recognize the legitimate role of northern stakeholders to participate in the deliberations and discussions of the Arctic council.
.1010
Currently they represent the three international indigenous organizations, the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, the Sami Council and the Association of Indigenous Minorities of the North, Siberia and the Far East of the Russian Federation. The final category, of course, is the status, as Rosemarie mentioned, of observers.
I think what's critical to the understanding of this issue is that what we're talking about creating we'll be creating through a charter, through a declaration, but the Arctic Council will be created through a non-legally binding instrument. Its activities and deliberations will focus on consensus and in the spirit of cooperation. It is very much in that sense that it was the thinking that the permanent participants in all categories of people participating have access to discussions and suasion and influencing and shaping the policy and deliberations and decisions of that organization.
I just wanted to say that. Thank you.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Thank you.
[Translation]
Ms Debien, please.
Ms Debien (Laval-East): Ms Kuptana has responded partially to the question that I wanted to ask her about the parliamentary side of the Arctic Council.
I do not know if there is a translation problem or if I'm having trouble understanding. Mr. Flis referred to a parliamentary association. Was Mr. Lincoln referring to the same thing when he talked about a standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic region?
As far as I'm concerned, these are two very different things. I think you were referring to an association, Mr. Flis? Very well.
Why would someone not like to see the creation of an Arctic Council parliamentary committee when the Arctic Council is established?
[English]
Ms Kuptana: To briefly answer your question, the Arctic Council as it's now conceived is fundamentally an organization of Arctic governments or Arctic states and Arctic indigenous peoples. I don't think it's appropriate to formalize a standing committee of parliamentarians within the structure of the Arctic Council, although I do believe there should be an ongoing dialogue between a parliamentary standing committee and the Arctic Council.
Perhaps a better way of having that kind of a relationship is to have regular joint meetings between the parliamentarians and the Arctic Council. The way the Arctic Council is now conceived is that it's eight member nations as well as three permanent participants and observers.
So I think there's a lot of room for ongoing dialogue, but right now, I believe, the Arctic Council is at a very critical juncture in terms of when it is realized.
Mr. Lincoln: If I may say a word on this, Mr. Chairman, I really think we have a very good chance here to do something different, novel, that goes beyond the established patterns. The Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region has insisted that it be a component part of the Arctic Council, not to have a big say in the Arctic Council. We realize that the decision-making will always be with the states and their governments. At the same time, we realize that if we are left in the category of the observers, with the so-called promise to have regular meetings, in practice these things do not happen.
.1015
We're insistent that somehow there be a role for parliamentarians - in the interests of the Arctic Council itself. The greatest proponents of the Arctic Council have been parliamentarians. Parliamentarians in Yellowknife, in fact, had a big influence at the meeting in Inuvik. If we look at the conclusions of the meeting in Inuvik, much of the work, much of the statements, came out of the Yellowknife conference and were used by several of the Canadian participants at Inuvik.
Mrs. Dahl and Mr. Haarde and others on the Nordic Council are so keen to have some sort of a registered role for the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region because they know full well if this is not done at this time, it will never be done afterwards. We will be observers at the whim of the Arctic Council as it evolves.
We feel it would be a tremendous opportunity for the Arctic Council to get the support of parliamentarians from eight countries, who are, first of all, as you say, action-oriented, and who will be an independent voice in many ways. They'll be able to point out sometimes that the official policies may not really be what is best for the Arctic. At least it will add a little bit of fire in what otherwise may be a very process-oriented council.
To my great surprise, the Americans backed a recommendation the other day when I appeared on behalf of the standing committee. Admittedly, the other nations stayed very quiet. I sense it's not the feeling of the people who are working on the Arctic Council foundation; they want parliamentarians in there.
We are not seeking the role of disturbers. We are not seeking the role of decision-makers. We realize our position. At the same time, we think we have much to offer. If the Arctic Council would want to take advantage of it, then I don't think it should see this role as being a disturbing one, or a contrary one. I think it should see it as being very important allies and partners, representing a huge body of people.
So I would strongly urge that this committee make a recommendation to the House that the standing committee have a say in the Arctic Council, by definition.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.
We now have to move ahead so that we can have a three-minute break and move on with the next group of distinguished witnesses.
Could I ask Mr. Dupuy, Mr. Adams and Mr. Finlay to make their interventions, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Dupuy (Laval-West): First of all, I would like some clarification. Is the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region a creation of the International Conference of Arctic Parliamentarians? Does this standing committee represent the Conference on a permanent basis?
If so, why should we ask the Arctic Council to recognize the standing committee without referring to the Conference itself?
My second comment supports the observations made by Mr. Lincoln. After reading the French text, I was struck by the fact that the standing committee's position is that it simply feels that close communication is desirable.
I was an official with Foreign Affairs for many years and I'm very well acquainted with the way that these texts are written. That means that this presence will be marginal.
.1020
We heard Ambassador Simon tell us that this Arctic Council would be an innovative, dynamic and new organization and that several types of participation would be possible. Consequently, I'm quite surprised to hear Rosemarie Kuptana tell us that it would be very good to have the governments and their bureaucracies as well as groups representing the Arctic all play a major role, but that members of Parliament should be marginalized.
I fully support the comments made by our colleague Clifford Lincoln. It is the members of Parliament who, along with the representatives of various groups from the Arctic, will be the driving force in the organization.
Rosemarie Kuptana appears to be suggesting that, if we were to request status as participants, the establishment of the Arctic Council will be jeopardized and the whole thing may very well fall apart.
I am perhaps exaggerating somewhat, but the last thing that I would like to see is an occasional departmental presence - because we know that the ministers will not have a great deal of time to devote to all of this - , an essentially bureaucratic organization that would not have the weight and the vitality of a parliamentary presence.
Mr. Lincoln: This is a hybrid committee that was set up by the Nordic Council. This Council had suggested that the parliamentarians meet parliamentarians from the Arctic. They therefore created an organization that reports to the Nordic Council. Then they decided that three nordic countries would represent the Nordic Council and they invited the Canadians, the Americans and the Russians to send a representative.
This is how this whole thing came about. There was no permanent structure; in their eyes, the Nordic Council is a permanent structure. They are the ones that provide the secretariat and cover the costs. Mr. Lindström from Finland, who is associated with this Council, is responsible for organizing the committee.
We have been invited. The whole thing is up in the air. This is why Canada wants to make this official by giving this responsibility to a department such as Foreign Affairs.
Your second comment is very pleasing to me.
[English]
Ms Kuptana: I believe there was a question asked or a statement raised by Mr. Dupuy with respect to what I was saying. Having been involved in the Arctic Council from its very inception stage, with a working group of concerned Canadians for the Arctic, what Mr. Lincoln has raised today with respect to the issue of parliamentarians being a fixture on the Arctic Council.... I just want to state that I see the issue of ensuring regular contact between the Arctic Council and the Arctic parliamentarians as a separate one from what the structure of the Arctic Council should be.
.1025
The issue here is one of regular contact. As Mr. Lincoln was stating, if parliamentarians would be marginalized in this structure, then perhaps we should address the issue of regular contact and meetings through some kind of a process at regular intervals between the two bodies.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Thank you, Madam Kuptana. Would you like to conclude briefly?
Ms Kuptana: Furthermore, I wasn't stating that the issue of the participation of Arctic parliamentarians would break the negotiations. This is not what I was saying. I was saying that the Arctic Council negotiations have been very sensitive and difficult. We've had to deal with some big issues with the other states, such as an open agenda and the issue of sustainable development. There has been a major concern with respect to the participation of indigenous peoples as permanent participants. All of these issues are finally coming to a resolution, and hopefully we'll be able to see the inaugural meeting of the Arctic Council sometime this summer.
So if the issue of some kind of contact between the Arctic parliamentarians and the Arctic Council really is an issue, then let's formalize it.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Fair enough. Mr. Dupuy.
Mr. Dupuy: I think we should be very grateful to Rosemary Kuptana for bringing to our attention what is a fundamental issue that obviously the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade will have to look at. There are two visions here that are divergent. One is to create a consultative procedure and the other is to have the form of participation. Obviously it is not the place and time now to discuss this, but I think we have to put it on our agenda as a major issue we should address.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Merci, Mr. Dupuy.
Mr. Adams, followed by Mr. Finlay.
Mr. Lincoln: If I may interject, Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Dupuy has hit the nail on the head. What we really have to decide, what we're asking for, is not to be informed through contact meetings. We want to have a say by one parliamentarian representing the Arctic countries so that we have a say before the decision is made, which is a very different point of view.
Mr. Adams (Peterborough): I think one of the purposes of this joint meeting is to give momentum to the process towards the Arctic Council and also to give continued momentum to the Arctic environmental protection strategy.
I was pleased to see, and I thought Ms Kuptana might be interested in this, that either yesterday or the day before, Sergio Marchi, our Minister of the Environment, in his speech in New York to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, carried forward the message from Inuvik stressing transboundary pollutants and their impact on the communities of the north and that kind of thing, as I recall. I thought it would be useful for us all to know, on the record, that there is some momentum out there.
I would like Ms Kuptana to comment on something else. The Antarctic has been mentioned once. I noticed in the Inuvik document that the Antarctic treaty is mentioned. We all know thatMary Simon is our ambassador for circumpolar affairs and the Antarctic. It seems to me,Ms Kuptana, that if you look at the history of the ICC and of the Sami Council, for that matter, a lot of the initial drive was environmental. There were local and then more general environmental concerns.
I know at the moment we are putting our minds to getting the Arctic Council established, but I like to think it will encourage us, as the second major presence in the north polar regions, to take a more systematic interest in the Antarctic. I know it sounds obscure, but it seems to me we have enormous expertise - our communities in the north, for example, have expertise on cold-environment sewage, cold-environment construction in an environmentally sustainable way and so on - and we have a great deal to offer in terms of the proper management of the Antarctic.
.1030
As well - and I mentioned transboundary pollutants - the Antarctic is such a huge drive on the whole global system that in fact there are very clear environmental links.
I wonder if you'd care to comment on the extent to which you see that the Arctic Council - and I know at the moment you're struggling to get it established - once established, will encourage us as a nation to be more formally involved in the Antarctic treaty.
Ms Kuptana: I'm not sure if I can give you the kind of response you may be seeking. However, the Arctic, and perhaps the Antarctic, regions really have been two regions in the world that have been neglected and void of any policy development or activities by those nation states that have an interest in the Arctic and Antarctic. These are two very sensitive regions of the earth, and I think it's timely that nation-state governments around the world began paying attention to them.
For instance, I'm very well aware that 30 nation-state countries are conducting scientific studies on various issues in the Antarctic, including such issues as ozone depletion, global warming and the effect of transboundary contaminants and pollutants. We have the same kinds of issues in the circumpolar Arctic.
So I'd like to see more agreements of this nature take place in both regions. This is one of the reasons why I think it's important to properly finance Ambassador Simon's office. I'm not sure how much time she's had to devote to the Antarctic region. The circumpolar region is a big enough region in itself.
Mr. Adams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Mr. Finlay.
Mr. Finlay (Oxford): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a vision about the Arctic Council. I don't think it's been enunciated here yet. I want to say I agree very much with what Mr. Dupuy has said. Having worked for some time with Mr. Adams, I know he's aware of many issues.
I suggest that the Antarctic region is not at all like the Arctic region we're talking about. I know we have to study it.
But with respect to Ms Kuptana's comments, I wonder whether she doesn't feel that parliamentarians who started the Nordic Council are probably the ones who have to be responsible for the open agenda, for the sustainable development initiatives and for indigenous people's place in this, because they are also citizens of Russia, Canada, the United States and the Nordic countries.
The vision that Mr. Finkler suggested is going forward frightens me quite a bit. We're going to have ministers, we're going to have bureaucrats and we're going to have indigenous people, but we're not going to have those people who are responsible for the overall policy of the countries responsible for the Arctic region.
We have an opportunity here, it seems, to move an agenda forward for an important part of the world without making some of the mistakes of the past. We have included the indigenous people, and parliamentarians are sensitive to that. I'm not saying bureaucrats can't be, or shouldn't be, but they have a different agenda. I think it's very important that the parliaments and all the circumpolar countries are parliamentary democracies. Here is an opportunity for eight of them to deal with a sensitive area of the world that's important to everybody on the planet, and to do it in a reasonable, common-sense, cooperative and visionary way.
.1035
It isn't going to happen that way, I suggest, unless we have at least the acknowledgement that parliamentarians carry the policy and the direction of the countries that must be concerned and that must cooperate in sustainable development.
We've talked about the fact that the Arctic has a lot of minerals, that the Arctic has oil and gas. The Arctic also has indigenous people who want to live on the land and from the land in the way they have always lived. I don't think we're going to have metropolises springing up on Ellesmere Island, but we're still going to have indigenous people there.
So I hope we can do the appropriate thing here for the future and make sure that people who can speak out for action, for a vision, and for the people of these countries, get a say.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Thank you, Mr. Finlay.
Would you like to comment, Ms Kuptana?
Ms Kuptana: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to get into a debate here with respect to the issue of the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region being participants in the Arctic Council. I think I stated quite clearly what I envisioned, that there should be ongoing dialogue or some kind of contact between the Arctic Council and Arctic parliamentarians.
With respect to this notion of the Arctic Council being headed purely by bureaucrats, it's not one of fact. The heads of delegations are ministers of environment, or other portfolios, of a government. So in effect, parliamentarians are a part of that process. I think I've stated quite clearly that there should be contact. I'm not saying I'm against any kind of dialogue or contact between parliamentarians and the Arctic Council. I'm saying if you want to be so involved, then what's the best means of doing it, considering the vision of the Arctic Council and its current structure and what it's supposed to do in terms of Arctic and circumpolar policy?
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Are there any other comments?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I think the important thing to remember here is that the recommendation we'd like to put forward is that there is some kind of a formal recognition. A formal recognition means something has to happen, and if something has to happen, it means we have to resources to do that. Part of the difficulty we've faced in the past is that it's been so ad hoc.
Mr. Lincoln was volunteered to go to a meeting, and all of a sudden he had a pile of work on his lap. It's, you know, don't go to the washroom when they're discussing the chair, because guess what happens - that's what you get to do.
I don't think this is any way for a government to operate. I think it's necessary that there is a formal recognition of the role of parliamentarians vis-à-vis the Arctic Council, because that then makes it very clear that something has to be done and we get the resources to support it.
There is another issue here as well. If you're a member in a parliamentary system, and you're a member of the government side, it still gives you an opportunity to advocate the things you believe in and to push your government. But on the other side, if you're a member of the opposition, it gives you an opportunity to participate as well.
.1040
So it's not just the government that is speaking or is speaking through the government side of the House. It also gives members of the opposition a chance to put forward their influence and agenda. Some of the delegations were headed up by people who were not members of the governing party. So I think this is an important comment. We had representation from the Bloc, the Reform Party and the Conservative Senate. It allowed for dialogue and for a diversity of interests, but it also brought us together as different parties in this House. It helps us to better understand and work toward a common goal of protecting the Arctic and doing what we can to preserve the culture of the Arctic. I think those are important things to consider too.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Thank you for this input. It was very valuable. It will certainly guide our deliberations when we meet again, either separately or together, to finalize a set of recommendations and points. We will have to decide whether or not to go for a membership in this standing committee of parliamentarians, keeping in mind what Mr. Lincoln told us earlier about the Scandinavian opposition to it. We will also have to discuss the role of such a committee. And finally, we would want to finalize the action this committee, jointly or separately, wants to take on the Yellowknife conference statement. This is something that we will continue to elaborate on when we have a break.
We will take a three-minute break before contining with the other half of this meeting and listening to our witnesses.
.1042
.1055
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Graham): Order. I'm going to start, although two of the witnesses and a couple of members are absent. We have only one hour and five minutes left, so let's try to make it count.
My understanding is that there has been a discussion between the various witnesses, but there hasn't been an opportunity for them to deliver their opening statements.
I would ask you, witnesses, if you could make a statement and if you could try to keep it to about ten minutes, or even shorter. It's up to you. I don't want to rush you, but just bear in mind that questions are often the best part of these events, and we don't have that much time.
We have with us at the moment Mr. Hannigan, consultant and an expert on Russia, andMr. Finkler, director of the Circumpolar Liaison Directorate at Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We'll start with Mr. Hannigan and then go to Mr. Finkler.
Mr. Hannigan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interests of trying to keep my presentation as brief as possible, I will skip over part of the written presentation I've given to the clerk. Perhaps you can go to that later on. I'll basically give you some of the highlights and the conclusion of my report.
There are of course many aspects of the long history of Canada-Russia Arctic relations that I could talk about this morning, but I thought it would be useful to try to put it into a historical context, giving you an idea of what it has meant for Canada over the past 25 to 30 years and then how it has evolved into its current status.
To skip over the historical part, I just want to say it has a long history. It goes back to the mid-fifties, when Canadian ministers and then Soviet ministers started to discuss both cooperation between the two countries and Arctic issues. A momentum was built up during the sixties and early part of the seventies, and negotiations took place through the seventies. They didn't come to fruition immediately. It didn't in fact come to any kind of agreement until the first part of the 1980s.
I'll pick up the story at that point, but mention to you, as some preliminary information, that the main interest during this period of time on the part of both Canada and Russia was in scientific cooperation. From the Soviet side it was exclusively scientific and very much in the form of physical sciences where they wanted to cooperate.
.1100
The Canadian government at this time was also interested in social, cultural and environmental issues relating to the Arctic. In fact, this was made very clear from 1972, when Mr. Chrétien, who was then Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, announced a northern policy for Canada that clearly put people first. From the Canadian standpoint, the social and environmental sciences had to be reflected in the bilateral exchange program. The Soviet side, however, balked at Canada's insistence on including subject areas dealing with northern indigenous people, and negotiations ground to a halt at that time.
When they resumed in the early part of the 1980s, it was only when the Soviet side agreed to consider social and environmental issues as part of the overall Arctic science exchange program. After that, a cooperative scientific exchange program was worked out and signed in 1984. This program had elements of pure science, technology, policy-related issues and culture. Two separate themes dealt with the environment and social and cultural topics. The other two dealt with geoscience and construction.
The program was very active during the latter half of the 1980s, and by the end of that decade, as a result of a lot of visits going back and forth and discussions about the kinds of things the program could do, there were signs of change. They wanted to open up some new possibilities for northern cooperation. I'll mention three. They wanted to have a broader thematic focus, bring new actors into the agreement, and explore the possibilities for multilateral relations.
In brief, the program of cooperation was expanding to include questions of northern economic development and more direct contact among indigenous peoples of the northern regions in both countries. Moreover, it was not just the national governments involved in the program. Increasingly there were direct contacts between subnational governments and privately sponsored projects. There were also several sets of negotiations on multilateral Arctic agreements that dealt with science and the environment. It was around this time that Canada put forward its proposal for an Arctic Council.
The present situation is one where there still is a formal government-to-government relationship. It is handled under the 1992 Canada-Russia agreement on cooperation in the Arctic and the north. But Canada-Russia Arctic cooperation has lost momentum in the past three or so years largely because of financial constraints in both countries, and uncertainties and change in Russia. The government-to-government bilateral relationship is therefore at a point where it should be closely examined with regard to its benefits and its relationship with multilateral forums, such as the Arctic environmental protection strategy and the Arctic Council.
With all of the changes in Russia over the past four years, combined with the move toward multilateral cooperation and joint northern-related projects happening outside of the formal bilateral agreement, there is a fundamental question to be asked at this time. That is, is it time to end the formal bilateral agreement with Russia on Arctic cooperation and concentrate efforts instead on multilateral Arctic initiatives?
To answer that question, one would have to weigh carefully the consequences of a decision to end the relationship. It would require input from many of the people who have participated in the program and who are still deriving concrete benefits from the cooperation.
But in looking back at some of the reasons for entering into a formal agreement with Russia, it is apparent that many of them are no longer as apposite as they once were. In the days of dealing with the Soviet Union, a formal government-to-government agreement was necessary to undertake joint projects. Now the formal agreement is less important insofar as personal contacts can be made, and joint projects initiated by individuals and institutions without any reference to the agreements. In the 1980s an agreement was necessary to initiate contact among northern indigenous peoples. This is also now happening outside the agreement.
.1105
This is not to say that the agreement is moribund; it still facilitates contact and provides funding. It may also be more important on the Russian side than it is here. Depending on what the Canadian priorities are in international Arctic relations, there may now be a better way to pursue our northern interests at the international level than to retain a formal bilateral agreement with Russia.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Graham): Thank you very much, Mr. Hannigan.
I'm sorry, Madam Kuptana and Madam Stenbaek, we started without you because of the question of time, but what I asked was if each person would make his or her introductory remarks, as you might have done earlier, and then we'll go back to questions. But since we're due to break at12 o'clock, we wanted to get going.
Thank you very much.
We'll go next to Mr. Finkler and then I'll go back to Madam Kuptana and Madam Stenbaek.
Mr. Finkler.
Mr. Finkler: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I was here on Tuesday for the discussions on the Arctic Council. I feel that for discussions today on international cooperation, one of the major geographical areas or one of the major Arctic nations is Russia. I guess what I thought would be very useful, following and pursuant to Mr. Hannigan's presentation, is to give you a bit of an overview of what, to date, has been the scope of the federal government's involvement vis-à-vis Russia within the context of bilateral relationship on Arctic cooperation, where we are going, and where this all fits in in terms of the big picture of international cooperation and linkages with the Arctic Council.
I should just point out, as Mary Simon indicated on Tuesday, she reports to two ministers, also including my minister, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. And the minister, of course, by his responsibility domestically for northern development...there is a circumpolar dimension of that responsibility. So there has been, as Mr. Hannigan pointed out, since the fifties, this circumpolar international dimension within our department. It's in that regard that our group has the responsibility for the Canada-Russia bilateral. Also, we provide policy support and advice to Ambassador Mary Simon and work actively with her on the Arctic Council initiative.
[Translation]
I had a text in French. Unfortunately, it will not be available until tomorrow, but the English version is not ready yet either. I thought that it would be useful to point out the basic issues to the committee.
The question that Mr. Hannigan raised this morning is very important, particularly in the context of the Arctic Council. What are we going to do? What is the future of this agreement on Canada-Russia Arctic cooperation?
[English]
I should just say that since the 1960s we've been interested in having cooperation with the Russian north. It is very similar to Canada geographically, and there are concerns for relationships with aboriginal peoples. But I must say - which is very important and was grounded at the northern foreign policy - that this initiative and other international initiatives very much must be within the context domestically and grounded in our northern development policy and aboriginal agenda. And I believe that they have been.
We are presently operating within the current agreement, which was negotiated post-U.S.S.R., in 1992, as John mentioned, the Canada-Russia agreement on cooperation in the Arctic. The coordination falls within our group and our counterpart agency of the Russian federation, being the state committee for northern development. Our major role in terms of coalescing and working to ensure Canadian participation under this agreement is promoting and supporting Canadian involvement in cooperative and assistance projects and enhancing the working relationships with Russian and regional authorities.
I think, as John clearly indicated, the initial context of the negotiations of the agreement, as negotiated in 1984, was strictly more within the scientific context. Thematically, it fell within the dimensions of geoscience, construction, and the environment. And of course initially it dealt with ethnology, education and the social dimensions.
.1110
I think the unique part of the new agreement was really the emphasis on and perhaps also the greater effort to nurture and enhance direct contacts with regions and to foster direct contacts between aboriginal peoples.
So, yes, there is this existing government-to-government framework. But it's a broad framework that also enhances or provides the context for NGOs, sub-national involvement, or whatever. For example, a lot of work has been supported within the context of this agreement. This work has been with the government of the Northwest Territories and with the Republic of Sakha under existing MOU.
If you recall, last Tuesday Mr. Jack Stagg talked a lot about some of the commercial spin-offs of this initial work. In fact, the group on construction was initially supported within the theme of construction and significantly resulted in some commercial spin-offs. This included the building of a Canadian prototype village in Yakutsk, an airport and other things. What is unique is that presently within this construction there's a northern management training program going on.
Also supported is IRC, the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, plus ICC and their cooperative activities, Chukotka in particular.
This is not to say this bilateral has not had its problems. This bilateral was entered into and there was an agreement. But there were not resources attached to it. They've been very modest resources within our department and have basically been for interpretation, travel and some of those things. But these were very modest. There were no major resources. In other words, wherever there was an initiative, the individual wanting to carry it out had to identify resources.
Having to find this element of reciprocity resourcing within the social, economic and political turmoil of Russia became increasingly problematic. It was also a very difficult context in terms of doing work. But, given our own involvement, we see the benefits for Canada in terms of this bilateral or in a sense this venue opportunity. It enables Canada to contribute to its northern development experience, particularly in the areas of aboriginal, socio-economic and environmental issues. I also think this provides us a legitimate venue and an opportunity to utilize this bilateral cooperation and supportive involvement with multilaterals such as the Arctic Council.
Environmentally, I understand, there will be, as required, some expert witnesses who will be able to speak more in terms of some of the environmental work going on in Russia, more within the multilateral Arctic environmental protection strategy. But I think all people have recognized, whether it's through Parliament, the conference in Inuvik, or Arctic Council discussions, the very serious situation vis-à-vis the environment in Russia. I think we can say it's envisaged a lot of the work that perhaps will be undertaken within this multilateral of an Arctic council will focus on Russia.
When you see the presentation I think it's important to get a bit of a sense of what the situation is in the Russian north. And I do give this in the paper you'll see. I won't go into this. But I think it's important to get the sense of the crisis situations in terms of socioeconomic and political turmoil and changes, in particular the changing power relationships between the centre and the regions resulting from decentralization. There is a void in terms of any kinds of coherent northern policy vis-à-vis future direction for the north and in particular the precarious and vulnerable situation of northern aboriginal peoples.
The situation in the north is very acute. Given our involvement and within the bilateral context and discussions with ICC and counterparts, there is a great interest on the Russian side, from the government and also by their associations, in what they can learn from Canada. They are interested in what the elements are and in how to proceed in terms of a coherent and comprehensive policy for the Russian north.
.1115
It is very important that Russia, in some macro long-term visionary way, have some clear understanding of all the issues around where they want to go. We are looking at going into that as well as the issue of institution-building. This has been clearly recognized at the Arctic Council. It is important for Russian aboriginal peoples to have the effective capacity to intervene internationally as well as domestically.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to give some indication of what is going on with Russia within the context of the bilateral.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Graham): Thank you very much. I'm sorry to rush you, but you can appreciate we only have 40 minutes left and we want to hear from the other two witnesses. We'd also like to have an opportunity for questions.
I'd like to ask Madam Kuptana if she could give us the benefit of her observations. Then we'll go to Madam Stenbaek.
Ms Kuptana: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Inuit Circumpolar Conference, or ICC, is the international organization representing 130,000 Inuit living in the Arctic regions of Alaska, Canada, Greenland, and Chukotka.
By the way, we do have copies of our presentation, but only in English. So if you want, we can also distribute them.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Graham): I think maybe later that would be very helpful. Perhaps you could just draw our attention to the parts of it you think are particularly important.
Ms Kuptana: The principal goals of the ICC are to strengthen unity among Inuit of the circumpolar region; to promote Inuit rights and interests on an international level; to develop and encourage long-term policies safeguarding the Arctic environment; and to seek full and active partnership in the political, economic and social development of circumpolar regions.
The importance of the distinctive characteristics of the northern circumpolar region and the existence of Inuit as a distinct people dependent upon the integrity of the Arctic are fundamental premises upon which the Inuit Circumpolar Conference is founded.
From its inception, the Inuit Circumpolar Conference has worked for recognition that our Arctic and sub-Arctic homelands constitute a distinct region of the world transcending political boundaries.
This fact is explicitly stated in the charter of the ICC, in addition to the following: that the Inuit homeland and its resources are of critical importance to the international community; that the international and national policies and practices should give due consideration to the protection for the Arctic and sub-Arctic environment and to the preservation and evolution of Inuit culture and societies; that our right of self-determination must be confirmed and Inuit participation in policies and activities affecting our homeland assured.
The most notable and recent developments in Arctic awareness by governments are the Arctic environmental protection strategy and the international negotiations to establish an Arctic council. Both of these developments signal a significant increase in awareness in Canada and internationally of the unique needs and interests of the Arctic and its peoples.
The Arctic environmental protection strategy, which began in 1989, represents the beginning of circumpolar policy development among governments and in partnership with Arctic indigenous peoples. This program of international cooperation is devoted to identifying environmental threats to the Arctic and proposing means of addressing them.
.1120
There is a growing international awareness of the importance of the Arctic to global environmental health. There is also a growing awareness of how pollutants from outside the Arctic migrate and remain within our Arctic homelands and in our resources and ultimately in our people.
We cannot overstate the importance of our future. We cannot overstate the importance to our future of the AEPS program and of the federal Arctic environment strategy. Very important work is being done to add to our knowledge about Arctic contaminants and their affects on people and the land. There is no greater threat to the wellbeing of Inuit than this one.
Overall, the outlook for the AEPS appears to be good. However, within Canada, AEPS funding expires as of March 31, 1996. We are now negotiating to continue as partners in this work.
Through this program, ITC has participated in the various working groups and the various ministerial meetings. We are hoping that Canada will maintain the same level of commitment to the AEPS and Inuit participation in it consistent with the Inuvik March declaration.
With the passing of the chair of the AEPS from Canada to Norway, following the Inuvik meeting, we do have some concerns that Canada may weaken its commitment. We hear reports that Canada's enthusiastic promotion of co-management regimes in recent years in the area of environment and wildlife management appears to be motivated at times by a desire to offload federal responsibility to those states but really without applying any of the resources that are required to act upon that responsibility.
In the Inuvik declaration, the circumpolar governments also expressed their full commitment to the establishment of the Arctic Council. Inuit have worked hard with the Government of Canada over the past four years towards the establishment of the Arctic Council to continue the work of the AEPS and begin new work in the area of sustainable development.
Inuit view the Arctic Council as a potentially important mechanism for circumpolar cooperation in many areas and in many fields. For example, ICC wishes to work on strategies for the revitalization of the Inuit sealing industry, its harvesting and marketing of marine mammal products in general. As you know, since the early 1970s, our whole sealing industry has collapsed and our Inuit economy has been further restricted because of the imposition of the Marine Mammal Protection Act in the United States.
The Arctic Council could also be an important forum for coordinating cultural exchanges and exchanging information and views on a range of social and economic issues.
We are expecting that the structure of the Arctic Council will reflect the distinct role that Arctic indigenous peoples have to play in northern policy development. As you know, three indigenous peoples organizations are accepted as permanent participants of the Arctic Council, and one of these is the Inuit Circumpolar Conference.
In summary, the Arctic Council provides an opportunity for the circumpolar nations to establish a model of partnership and cooperation with indigenous peoples on the most vital, northern policy issues. The positive experiences from the AEPS program have no doubt inspired this development and made it possible.
.1125
Twenty years ago environmental threats to the Arctic were a prime motivating factor in the establishment of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference. Today the same realization by governments and the need to exchange information and cooperate on sustainable development issues are leading to the development of this new circumpolar body of Arctic states and Arctic indigenous peoples.
The AEPS and the Arctic Council are important mechanisms to advance circumpolar cooperation. However, within these processes indigenous peoples do not view themselves as simply stakeholders or as mere interest groups. Our right to participate flows from several different things, including our status as a people with the equal rights of peoples, including the right of self-determination, and our expertise and proven track record of substantive contributions to circumpolar policy development.
Further, as indigenous peoples we have relied on and cared for the Arctic for thousands of years. Our future survival is dependent on the Arctic. We therefore have the greatest stake in the future of the Arctic and any policy-making affecting the Arctic.
Within Canada the establishment of the office of the circumpolar ambassador really suggests a new commitment at the federal level to become informed about northern issues and to deal with northern issues from a circumpolar perspective. ICC recommends that the work of the circumpolar ambassador be properly supported by staff and resources.
Strengthening ties among Inuit and other indigenous peoples of the circumpolar north should be regarded as an important element of Canada's foreign circumpolar policy and the work of the Arctic Council. ICC and other circumpolar indigenous peoples have done much to promote circumpolar cooperation over the past nineteen years and have worked with the Government of Canada towards this objective. For example, in 1993 both the Inuit Circumpolar Conference and the Government of Canada participated in a UN consultation at the invitation of the Russian government to examine the situation, needs, and objectives of Siberian indigenous peoples. ICC is currently exploring means of efficiently and effectively providing humanitarian aid to Inuit in Chukotka. Initiatives such as these require not only coordination by the ICC but support from the federal government as well as funding.
There are many other areas where there should be close cooperation between Inuit and the Government of Canada, such as to explore new mechanisms for managing whaling in the circumpolar Arctic, the removal of trade barriers affecting trade products from circumpolar regions, and the development of a program to promote trade in marine mammal products. We currently have a proposal before the federal government on this issue.
Other areas are promotion of international wildlife co-management agreements and participation in the UN processes relating to indigenous peoples, particularly the UN draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples.
The ICC is also carrying out ground-breaking work in the area of indigenous-to-indigenous trade development through some initial exploratory projects in Central America as well as in the South Pacific. We are operating on the principles of sustainable development and local capacity-building in guiding the work we are undertaking in Central America and the South Pacific.
.1130
For these and other reasons, Canada should seriously consider funding the ICC's international office, which is now being hosted by Canada.
The positive and constructive relations between Canada and indigenous peoples on the AEPS and the Arctic Council files stand in stark contrast to the often negative relations and lack of progress on a range of international indigenous issues, notably the International Decade of the World's Indigenous Peoples and the draft UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples.
The International Year for the World's Indigenous People was held in 1993, Mr. Chairman, and Canada's efforts to mark the year within Canada were negligible. It appears that the International Decade of the World's Indigenous Peoples, which began in December 1994, is heading in that same direction. At this point, 16 months into the decade, there is no Canadian program for the decade. We know that DIAND and the Department of Foreign Affairs would like to initiate a program of action involving all federal government departments, but for some reason the government has been unable to mobilize the necessary financial and human resources to recognize this or to bring this about.
The international decade will not be meaningful, Mr. Chairman, without some quick action within the next few months to get some Canadian programs and activities started. As far as we are aware, there is literally no Canadian program for the International Decade of the World's Indigenous Peoples, apart from Minister Irwin's plans to establish an aboriginal awareness day - I believe that may be on June 21.
Canada was a sponsor of the UN experts seminar of indigenous land rights and claims this past March in Whitehorse. And while that contribution was really appreciated by Inuit around the circumpolar region, it must be realized that this kind of contribution to the international program for the decade of the UN doesn't really address the issue of a Canadian program to mark the decade in Canada.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, Inuit are committed to working with Canada and our circumpolar neighbours towards the development of effective policy and action on circumpolar issues. Cooperation with the states in which we now find ourselves is important, but our cooperation will only be effective in ensuring sustainable development, environmental protection, and stable and constructive relations with our Arctic neighbours to the extent that governments reciprocate. Governments must cooperate by acknowledging indigenous expertise, by acknowledging our equality and rights as peoples and by incorporating indigenous peoples as part of Arctic policy development at the regional, national and international level.
Mr. Chairman, I have a few recommendations to make, which I will highlight now:
First, that Canada maintain the same level of commitment to the AEPS, and to Inuit participation in the AEPS, consistent with the March 1996 Inuit declaration.
Second, that Canada continue to insist on an Arctic council that is composed of more than the existing programs of the AEPS - that is, that the establishment of an Arctic council that is mandated from the outset include sustainable development complementary to the environmental protection initiative.
Third, that Canada provide the necessary financial and staff support to the office of the circumpolar ambassador and the Inuit Circumpolar Conference.
.1135
Four, that Canada include promotion of cooperation and of exchanges among Inuit of the circumpolar north as an integral part of its foreign policy work and of its work under the Arctic Council as part of a program of action on the international decade of indigenous peoples.
Five, that Canada assist the ICC in its efforts to coordinate the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Inuit of Chukotka, Russia, from the Inuit of Canada and elsewhere in the circumpolar world.
Six, that the Minister of Foreign Affairs commit himself to an ongoing process of meetings with aboriginal leaders in Canada on the draft UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, supported by meetings of officials and financial support to indigenous peoples for research and technical advice.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that this is a very important recommendation and an important step that the Liberal government can take, particularly in light of the fact that in the six years I've been involved in national and international issues there have never been formal meetings between indigenous peoples and Foreign Affairs. Canada seems to have one policy with respect to indigenous peoples, such as the inherent right of self-government, yet others at the international level. So I would like to see some kind of dialogue beginning with Lloyd Axworthy.
Seven, that Canada recognize the equality of indigenous peoples as peoples and our right of self-determination.
Eight, that Canada act quickly to develop a Canadian program of action to mark the international decade of indigenous peoples, which began on December 10, 1994.
That concludes my presentation.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Graham): Thank you very much, Mrs. Kuptana.
I would like to make two very brief comments about your presentation.
We in this committee certainly hope that the process we're now engaging in to study in the Arctic will involve directly consultations with indigenous peoples, and this is just beginning. That is our intention for when we will travel to the north. The committee will be travelling to the north, and we won't be staying just in the urban areas; we've arranged to try to meet as widely as we possibly can with representatives of the indigenous peoples.
Secondly, two of us, Mr. Assadourian and myself, will be going at the end of next week to the Canada-United States parliamentary association, where we'll be meeting with various senators and congressmen. On the list of issues that will be discussed at that conference precisely is the Marine Mammal Protection Act of the United States and the way in which it serves as a barrier to entry of indigenous people's goods from Canada whereas it doesn't apply to the indigenous peoples of the United States. We are certainly following that up.
Thank you very much for your observations.
Ms Stenbaek.
Prof. Stenbaek: My name is Marianne Stenbaek. I am from McGill. I'm the director of the circumpolar media lab in the cultural studies program.
[Translation]
At the outset, I would like to apologize for not having my text in French, but it should be coming.
[English]
I will just read some excerpts, because I realize that the time is extremely short.
Canada is an Arctic country and a northern country - and, one could be tempted to add, a Nordic country, for the similarities between the six countries far outweigh the differences.
In my text I go on to talk about the fact that they share many key economic activities and environmental concerns. It was pointed out earlier that they are parliamentary democracies that share a somewhat unique northern mixture of capitalism, social democracy, and some version of the welfare state. The Scandinavian countries and Canada also share the fact that they are among the last countries in the world to have monarchies.
Many of the main industries and businesses in Canada and the Nordic countries are therefore quite similar: fisheries, aquaculture, oil and gas development, mining industries, highly skilled manufacturing, and tourism. All six countries are highly developed countries with a very high standard of living. Many international statistics, including those of the UN, place these countries consistently in the top ten countries in the world in terms of economic development, security and standard of living.
.1140
The Inuit and the Sami residing in five out of the six countries have already developed very close links and exchanges over the last fifteen to twenty years. There are economic development partnerships, cultural exchanges and shared policy development among them, just to name a few of their interactions. In other words, there are very solid and extensive common grounds on which to build future cooperation.
The six countries, however, also face several very important common challenges as well as opportunities at the present time, which policy-makers and decision-makers will have to address. I have a list in my text. I will not read all of them, but there are, for example, the economic catastrophe caused by the disappearance of the northern cod and other fish species in the northern oceans; the devastating impact of the European Parliament's band on sealskin products and on fur from trapping; and the potentially significant physical, biological, social and political impacts of global change and warming, which some scientists warn will be greater in the northern latitudes. Here we have to look at the whole role of Arctic and northern science in policy decisions, and as Peter Adams pointed out, the Antarctic is an important component here also.
Another thing the Nordic countries and Canada have in common at the moment is the development of the already either established or emerging self-governments of the indigenous peoples within the respective nation-states and the pressing need to settle outstanding land claims. They also share the social, moral, and legislative demands to assure the safeguarding, sustainability and promotion of indigenous cultures' social structures, languages and occupations.
A new talent is the productive and innovative uses of the new information technologies, which certainly has the potential of drawing the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions right into the global economies and concerns. In Canada, the federal government's Information Highway Advisory Council's reports on the emerging technologies, and their implications, amongst others, for the north, might well be looked at. Many of these issues, concerns and challenges could be addressed through a sustainable development strategy or policy. It should be clear that the time has now passed that these issues can be addressed by themselves. They need to be addressed in relationship to each other and in relationship to the same concerns in the other northern countries. In fact, you could say you end up with a three-dimensional paradigm of interconnected parts that have to relate in harmony. This is the great promise but also the incredible complexity of sustainable development.
As I understand it, the Arctic Council will have two main thrusts: the Arctic environmental protection strategy, which we've already heard about and which has been in force for a number of years; and the new sustainable development initiative.
The sustainable development initiative has the potential of playing an important and productive role, especially since Canada has a very comprehensive and inclusive understanding of what the term sustainable development means and understands it to include the interrelationships not only of the environment and the economy, which some countries appear to believe is sustainable development, but also the relationship of these two predominant factors to the social, cultural, political and human environments.
To sum up, the Nordic countries and Canada have a long productive and successful history of cooperation. With the advent of the Arctic Council, the emerging information technologies and the shared interest in many issues addressed by sustainable development, these links may well become closer, more productive and economically beneficial for the citizens of these six nation-states.
.1145
The recommendations I would put forward would be to see the establishment of the Arctic Council as soon as possible, to support its sustainable development initiative, to expand and support Arctic science and technology, and as well as the new information technologies and the opportunities they afford. Thank you.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Graham): Thank you very much, Ms Stenbaek.
We only have about 15 minutes for questions, so I would ask the members to bear that in mind. Mr. Paré.
[Translation]
Mr. Paré (Louis-Hébert): I am very interested in what I've heard this morning and what we have heard at each of our meetings over the past month with respect to this vast issue of circumpolar affairs. However, something is bothering me. I am concerned about the economic development of the northern regions, which is based on mining, oil and marine resources. Will the winds of deregulation, which are blowing over the planet, and the reduced financial resources available to governments jeopardize sustainable development, despite the wonderful rhetoric that we hear and which we will continue to hear?
[English]
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Graham): Who wants to start? It all depends on who gets to do the regulating. Ms Stenbaek.
Prof. Stenbaek: I think you've put your finger on one of the main problems, and I don't think there are any easy answers at the moment. I think that is one of the tasks the Arctic Council might look at in looking at sustainable development. I think certainly many people now understand that it has to be looked at in this larger relationship but it's not an easy task and there are no easy solutions.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Graham): Ms Kuptana.
Ms Kuptana: The north, as you know, is probably one of the most economically depressed areas in Canada. One of the projects we wanted to initiate that is sustainable in nature is to establish a marine mammal products marketing program between Canada and the United States.
As you know, the sealing industry was really hurt by the European ban in the 1970s. Canada has never really done anything to either provide some kind of transfer agreement to the Inuit for the loss of that economy or provide any kind of support. In the rest of Canada, if you are a farmer or a forester or a fisherman, you're automatically granted some kind of support by virtue of being Canadian.
This issue of sustainable development, if given half a chance in the Arctic, I think could take place, but it has to have the participation of indigenous people.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Graham): Thank you. Mr. Assadourian.
Mr. Assadourian (Don Valley North): I will address my question to Mr. Hannigan. The G-7 countries placed $400 million to the Russian federation to remove nuclear weapons. Lots of those nuclear weapons are in the Arctic area. Are there any conditions attached to this grant or to this money? Because two G-7 countries are members of these Arctic organizations, namely U.S. and Canada, were there any conditions put on this money at the time to make sure that it would not affect the Arctic region when they started removing the nuclear weapons from there? If it is yes, what are they; if it is no, why not?
Mr. Hannigan: I can't answer that in specifics. The summit that just took place a couple of weeks ago in Moscow talked a lot about these issues. I don't know for certain whether or not conditions were put on in any of those protocols or agreements that dealt specifically with the Arctic.
.1150
There certainly is a lot of concern about the disposal of nuclear reactors, for example, from Russian submarines. That was part of the discussions in Moscow; but, I'm sorry, I don't have the specifics on whether there are conditions.
Mr. Assadourian: Because Russia again is a member of this group, could we find out if there are any conditions attached for the protection of the Arctic? Three out of eight, more or less, are in the G-7. I would think that maybe we could have some input on this matter of it being a condition on them, when they dismantle nuclear weapons, to consider the situation in the Arctic so they will not pollute it more than it is polluted now.
Mr. Hannigan: This is not a direct answer. I'm sure that information would be easily attainable, especially through Foreign Affairs. Perhaps Mr. Finkler even has some information on it.
I would just point out that there's always going to be overlap in a lot of these multilateral efforts. If you have an ongoing multilateral effort - for example, the nuclear summit within the G-7 context - then prior to those negotiations and discussions that take place there's a lot of opportunity to make recommendations. Certainly, organizations like the AEPS or the Arctic Council or others should always be putting forward recommendations, within the context of those meetings, prior to those meetings taking place.
That could in fact be one of the most positive things of an Arctic council: that it brings together an Arctic position on a lot of these issues that are dealt with in other multilateral fora.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Graham): I wonder if I could go back to Ms Stenbaek's comment. She used the term "the devastating effects of the European Union ban on furs", and of course this is an issue we've been discussing for a long time.
I was recently in the European Parliament when they were debating the issue of leghold traps. My understanding was that there was the ban on seal products but that in respect of other fur-bearing animals there's not a ban, that we've been able to prevent that from taking place, and that we hope to be able to get a satisfactory resolution of that issue with our European colleagues.
Could somebody on the panel comment? Maybe you don't have the answers here. Is there anywhere we can get an actual handle on the amount of trade that's been lost and what is threatened? Secondly, are we proceeding with our efforts in that respect satisfactorily?
I know there's an intense effort in the Department of Foreign Affairs. I know there's an intense effort on behalf of parliamentarians. Mr. Caccia has raised it regularly at the meetings with the European Union parliamentarians when we have seen them.
Nellie Cournoyea has told me that when she was the premier of the Northwest Territories she practically spent more time going to Europe to try to deal with issues there than she did travelling around her own constituency.
Should we be doing something else?
Prof. Stenbaek: It's a hard issue to deal with, because so much of it in Europe certainly appears to be emotion and public relations rather than, as you quite rightly say, no outright ban on the trapping. Certainly in Greenland over the last ten years they've mounted a number of public relations campaigns concerning sealskin products. No doubt you also met Mr. Finn Lynge when you were in Brussels. He represents Greenland there and is an outspoken proponent of indigenous rights in the area. It's hard to say.
I think that quite rightly, as you say, certainly a number of representations are being made in Brussels all the time. For example, last week or two weeks ago the Makivik Corporation out of Montreal was there to make presentations.
Ultimately it might lie in the public opinion, and therefore in some sort of public relations campaign.
.1155
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Graham): Yes, I was somewhat encouraged, although, to see that in the discussion - it was one of the committees of the European Parliament that I attended - there certainly was some pretty vigorous dissent within their own communities and certainly people pointing out that it's crazy for Holland to be behind this when in fact what they do with all the ferrets, or whatever, that get into the dikes and things like that.... So as usual, we don't practise what we preach in those areas, but I suppose we'll just continue on.
Mrs. Kuptana, did you have anything to say as to whether or not we should be using the indigenous peoples themselves perhaps more effectively in carrying our message to the Europeans? Do you think we're doing enough there?
Ms Kuptana: It's not only the indigenous people, but what they have to offer and the products they have to offer.
I spent a lot of time in Europe on the fur issue making representations to various parliamentarians and whoever was willing to listen. I made a lot of public appearances. I did a lot of press conferences. I think we were successful in at least delaying the implementation of that ban for one year.
But I think as a government we can do more, not only to support the indigenous peoples and their economy, but also assist that economy. For instance, ICC and ITC have put forward proposals to the IUCN, which is holding its world congress here in Canada in October 1996, that the document cases be made of sealskin leather.
We have a number of proposals now before the federal government to promote the use of fur as a renewable resource. For instance, we want to see the revitalization of the sealing industry in Canada, utilizing the full seal - the furs, the meat, the oils. We'd like to see an opening of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. For instance, Canada can support the idea of the Canadian Olympic team wearing sealskin hats. If Canada is really committed to indigenous peoples and their economies, we have to start demonstrating it.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Graham): I own a sealskin hat, but the only town I dare wear it in is Ottawa - and you need it here.
Ms Kuptana: Now you can have sealskin that looks like fake fur, with new technologies that have been developed.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Graham): I hope you aren't going to develop a sealskin leopard-lookalike coat, or something.
Thank you very much. Unfortunately, we've run out of time.
I'm sorry, Mr. Caccia wanted to say something.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): It seems to me that Mr. Paré's intervention is one we should reflect upon, when he spoke about the lovely rhetoric surrounding the words "sustainable development" and drawing our attention to the richness of resources in the Arctic.
In developing what Mr. Paré said, I would like to add - and then ask you a question, Madame Stenbaek - that we had better be clear about what we mean by sustainable development in the Arctic, and we had better know what is the tolerance level for sustainable development in that fragile ecosystem before we get carried away with a concept that may have different meanings at different latitudes. I'm glad you also mentioned the words "lovely rhetoric", because there is a lot of it around us. We don't really seem to be able to grasp what we actually mean by sustainable development once we attempt to translate it into policy decisions.
If I remember correctly, Madame Stenbaek, among your recommendations you mentioned support for sustainable development initiatives. Could you give us some concrete examples?
.1200
Prof. Stenbaek: Could you rephrase that question? I didn't hear your second-last sentence.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Among your recommendations earlier, you indicated one to the effect that there ought to be support for sustainable development initiatives, I suppose in relation to the council. Can you give us some concrete examples of sustainable development initiatives that you have in mind? Or is that another general statement?
Prof. Stenbaek: Yes. It's my understanding of the Arctic Council discussions that, as you quite rightly say, there are very divergent views of what sustainable development actually means. I think that even amongst Canadians there are very strong divergences. However, it is my understanding that what might separate the Canadian position from those of some of the other countries is that it isn't looking at just the relationship between economics and environment but also all the human aspects, as somebody here also said - maybe it was Ms Kuptana - including spiritual aspects, social aspects, and so on.
When I say "support sustainable development initiatives", one thing I would say is that it is important that this should really become one of the main thrusts of the Arctic Council, that it should not become watered down and just become a subset of the AEPS, for example, or a minor issue. This is a very important issue, and sustainable development, in its complexity and three-dimensionality, in a sense also maybe reflects indigenous peoples' way of looking at the world, whereby things are looked upon as being interconnected. They have a much more holistic view than that with which the rest of us sometimes look at the world.
Research projects, projects to look at what are the conditions for sustainable development, what are the criteria.... It's a term that is very fluid and of which many people have very different views. For example, under the auspices of the International Arctic Science Committee - which also, by the way, was a Canadian initiative and was founded here a number of years ago - they certainly are trying to address, from a scientific point of view, what some of the conditions are. So that might be one. Certainly it has a high priority within the Arctic Council.
Ms Kuptana: The ICC has a number of projects that it terms as being sustainable development, including the Sachs Harbour musk-oxen video project. We have a number of publications and reports on various aspects of Arctic policy development with respect to sustainable development. I can pass those on to the committee if you wish. They include Circumpolar Sustainable Development: Agenda 21 from an Inuit Perspective, The Arctic Sealing Industry, which really is a retrospective analysis of the collapse of the sealing industry, and Options for Sustainable Development in the Sealing Industry, as well as the participation of indigenous people and the application of their environmental knowledge in the Arctic environmental protection strategy. Those are just some examples of reports of the initiatives that Inuit have undertaken.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Graham): Thank you very much, Ms Kuptana. Our very efficient research director tells me that he's already been over and raided your files and taken your reports.
We must close now, because members and others have obligations elsewhere. Thank you very much for coming.
This is a study that the foreign affairs committee will be doing over a considerable period of time. I don't think the final report will be done until next October or November. So if something comes up that you think is important for us to be looking at, please write us, or just contact us. I'm sure we'll have an opportunity to explore these further. Any written materials you wish to send to us will be gratefully received.
.1205
Thank you all very much for coming today.
We're now adjourned until Tuesday at 9 a.m.