Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 9 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 16, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 5:16 p.m. to study on issues relating to the federal government's current and evolving policy framework for managing Canada's fisheries and oceans (topic: northern challenges facing the United States and Canada).
Senator Bill Rompkey (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I welcome everyone to this session of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. We have just concluded a visit to, and a report on, the Eastern Arctic, and it is our intention to travel to the Western Arctic in September. In the course of that travel, we are hoping we can go on to Alaska because we have a neighbour called the United States of America, and we should be sitting down with them and listening to them and consulting with them and seeing how we can enhance the situation in the Arctic.
To that end, we have today Betsy Baker. I will read her short CV into the record for those who are listening. We have had a copy, but people who will see this committee later will not have had a copy. I want to go through it because it is significant for us in our study.
Betsy Baker is associate professor of law at Vermont Law School, a visiting fellow at Dartmouth College with the Dickey Center Institute of Arctic Studies in Hanover, New Hampshire, and a member of the U.S. Coast Guard ship Healy science crew for extended continental shelf mapping of the Arctic Ocean in 2008 and 2009. Her weblog, Arctic Mapping and the Law of the Sea, is consulted internationally. She teaches "The Arctic, the Law of the Sea and the Environment," comparative law, property, international law and international organizations. Her CV goes on to list her various degrees, which are too numerous to go into, but it is interesting to note that her current writing projects include proposals for Canadian-U.S. cooperation in maritime issues and examining the law-science interface in environmental treaties and legislation. That is what we want to talk about tonight as well.
I will ask Ms. Baker if she would make a presentation to us, after which we will go to questions. Ms. Baker, welcome, and the floor is yours.
[Translation]
Betsy Baker, Associate Professor, Vermont Law School: Mr. Chairman, Deputy Chairwoman Cochrane, I wish to thank you for having invited me to come and discuss the Arctic with you. Before I begin, I love the French language, but I am more comfortable in English, and I will therefore be making my presentation in my mother tongue.
[English]
Let me congratulate you on your excellent report Rising to the Arctic Challenge: Report on the Canadian Coast Guard. I hope today to complement the wide-ranging information there by focusing on steps taken and steps still urgently needed by the U.S. government to respond to the tremendous changes already underway in the North American Arctic.
I speak as a professor of international law and the Law of the Sea and, on a personal level, as someone whose heart has been captured by the astonishing power and vulnerability of the Arctic Ocean. In the last 10 months, I have had the privilege of working on a Coast Guard icebreaker to map the continental shelf, of consulting with Nunavut and Canadian government leaders in Iqaluit, and most recently of traveling for three weeks in Alaska to meet scholars and scientists at universities and agencies throughout that state.
How our countries choose now to manage and protect the Arctic Ocean and its resources will affect our citizens, our common environment and our energy economies for decades to come. Given their historic and strong friendship as neighbours, I believe that Canada and the U.S. have the potential to strengthen our respective sovereignties through cooperation, while offering models in collaboration to other circumpolar states.
Given your evident familiarity with the thinning ice and other environmental conditions in the Arctic Ocean, I will not speak to these, other than to report a very consistent message at a symposium held just last week at the U.S. Naval Academy on the impacts of an ice-diminishing Arctic on naval and maritime operations. More information and research are urgently needed, both from scientific studies and traditional Inuit knowledge, to better understand the changes and potential for adaptation in the Arctic. The U.S. Arctic Research Commission has rightly stated that the Arctic is the least studied and most poorly understood area on earth, and that the Arctic Ocean is the least understood of all the world's oceans.
I will proceed, taking about five minutes, to highlight my written testimony as follows: First, by outlining recent policy statements of the U.S. government, and then by suggesting policy priorities for continued cooperation between our two countries.
Let me highlight three relevant policy statements issued this year by various branches of the U.S. government.
First, the U.S. national policy for the oceans signed by President Obama just last week on June 12 establishes an interagency ocean policy task force. The task force is to develop two documents: a national oceans policy as well as a framework for policy coordination of efforts to improve stewardship of the U.S. oceans' coasts and the Great Lakes; and to develop by December a recommended framework for effective coastal and marine spatial planning. This framework specifies that it shall be consistent with international law, including customary international law as reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS. I include mention of this non-Arctic-specific document because it mentions three things: policy coordination, marine spatial planning and integrated ecosystem- based conservation.
Policy coordination has the potential to help to address what I believe is a major impediment to effective management in the Arctic Ocean, and the U.S. Arctic generally. Overlapping and uncertain, if not conflicting, jurisdictional responsibilities between federally governed agencies for related resources, this problem is multiplied when one adds in the various state, native and local authorities' very legitimate interests in exercising jurisdiction as well.
Marine spatial planning with its ecosystem-based approach has the potential to complement the Fisheries and Oceans Canada concept of large ocean management areas, such as that established for the Canadian Beaufort Sea. I have a particular interest in exploring this and how our respective national regulatory systems might learn from each other and possibly even develop best regulatory practices for the Beaufort Sea based on Arctic Council and other international guidelines. If successful, such a bilateral study and harmonization might serve as a model to other Arctic neighbours.
Second, you mention in your May 2009 report the U.S. Arctic region policy signed by former President Bush in January. I would simply emphasize the calls for international cooperation in addressing environmental, resource and security concerns. I have highlighted in another document from my blog that the policy emphasizes science-based decision making and calls for improving scientific understanding of the Arctic Ocean, including through international cooperation.
Third, the fishery management plan for the U.S. Arctic adopted in February 2009 prohibits commercial harvests of all fish resources of the Arctic management area. Basically, if you take a line up the middle of the Bering Strait and follow our Russian treaty line and the EEZ, exclusive economic zone, of our country, you will see the area in question through the Beaufort Sea. It does not preclude the possibility of fisheries developing later in the Arctic, but it does implement the precautionary approach to fisheries management, which the policy describes as applying:
. . . judicious and responsible fisheries management practices based on sound scientific research and analysis, proactively rather than reactively, to ensure the sustainability of fishery resources and associated ecosystems for the benefit of future as well as current generations.
It is important to note the rarely mentioned fact that the plan is still open for public comment until the end of July. The plan will be the subject of an international conference in Anchorage, Alaska, in October. I know that they are anticipating good Canadian participation.
Fourth, the Arctic marine shipping assessment of the Arctic Council, which you also mention in your report, lays out specific recommendations in three broad areas: enhancing Arctic marine safety, protecting Arctic people and the environment, and building the Arctic marine infrastructure.
I will be glad to elaborate this afternoon on any of these documents. I did not mention in my written testimony that last week one of the Alaskan congressmen introduced a bill called the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment Implementation Act. This bill is in debate and calls for increased icebreaker capacity and for cooperating internationally under the legal framework established by UNCLOS and the International Maritime Organization.
An important theme common to the four instruments just mentioned is the need for greater understanding of the region in question. In the face of the lack of baseline scientific data about the Arctic, the different approaches of two different U.S. federal agencies is striking. In the Arctic fishery management plan just mentioned, a division of one U.S. federal agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, adopts a precautionary approach to operations in the Beaufort Sea and the Chukchi Sea. It calls for more scientific data before developing anything, if at all. At the same time, the U.S. federal agency responsible for oil and gas leasing in the same two seas, the minerals management service, has engaged in lease programs for exploration and exploitation rights. The latest round brought in a record U.S.$2.7 billion. This lease and permitting process does require environmental impact assessments to which legal challenges have been partially successful, but it proceeds on the assumption that development can occur even without broad baseline data.
I will turn briefly to the policy priorities and areas for cooperation for the United States to ratify the Convention on the Law of the Sea, as well as the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants for the U.S. to expand its ice-breaking and other Arctic vessel capacity and for the U.S. to coordinate better its federal policy on the Arctic. The U.S. Arctic Research Commission has proven especially effective in focusing attention on Arctic science as has the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee. However, there is still no overarching body to coordinate federal policy and strategy on all aspects of the United States Arctic. Increased funding for Arctic research is something I would be glad to elaborate on.
There is a need to train Arctic scientists and leaders for any range of Arctic challenges from social scientist, who can study the effects of and adaptation to global change on Arctic populations; to ship pilots who know ice; and to researchers able to unlock new alternative forms of energy.
On three areas suggested in my written remarks for continued cooperation, Senator Rompkey has already mentioned the continental shelf mapping that we did jointly last summer and will be doing again for at least the next two summers with the HMS Louis S. St-Laurent. I spoke with the commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard at the ice forum last week. He pointed immediately to the Canadian-U.S. cooperation in both the North Pacific and North Atlantic Coast Guard fora as examples of excellent cooperation with his Canadian counterparts. As you know, Canada chairs the emergency prevention, preparedness and response working group in the North Atlantic forum, which holds some potential. Oil spill preparedness is nothing new to you but I would emphasize that as one of my own top choices for a policy priority.
All of the activities I have touched on demonstrate that the reality of the North American Arctic is one of cooperation, not conflict. I echo Alan Kessel and urge you to look behind the attention-grabbing headlines of the worldwide media as they mischaracterize as conflict what is a legal and rather dry orderly process now underway whereby coastal states submit data to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. Each state is doing precisely what it should be doing — collecting data, often in tandem with other countries, and basically abiding by the rules established internationally.
I was chatting with the chairman about your upcoming trip to the Western Arctic. All the entities with whom I met in my last three weeks there have extended enthusiasm for your visit and have offered to help plan in that regard. I extend those as well.
I thank you for this opportunity to speak with you about our common future in the North American Arctic. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Before I go to questions, I will point out that our report made it into Ms. Baker's blog.
Ms. Baker: It is a weblog.
The Chair: I will read a couple of pages from the site:
The Canadian Senate Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has published a comprehensive report on maritime issues in the Canadian Arctic: "Rising to the Arctic Challenge: Report on the Canadian Coast Guard".
While focusing on the Canadian Coast Guard, the 73-page report provides a thorough overview of issues ranging from continental shelf mapping to shipping, NORDREG registration, Resource Canada's Polar Continental Shelf Project and its support of international arctic research, search and rescue, continuous Inuit use and occupation of the Canadian Arctic, and environmental response in the Arctic.
Therefore, we did not make it to The Globe and Mail but we made it to Ms. Baker's blog.
Ms. Baker: Also, you made it to mention last week at the National Ice Center meeting.
The Chair: That is great. We are making progress.
I am looking for questions.
Senator Baker: Welcome, Ms. Baker, to the committee.
The Chair: You two are not related at all, are you?
Senator Baker: Don't I wish we were. For me to get that kind of a reputation would be quite something, chair, as you can attest.
Ms. Baker, Senator Manning and I have been interested in a particular subject over the past few years. It was addressed in the last line of your formal presentation. Your last words were about the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.
Senator Manning and several other Newfoundland politicians have been searching for ways to use article 76 of the Law of the Sea to maintain ownership of the soil and subsoil of the continental shelf out to approximately 350 nautical miles, I believe? Is that your standard?
Senator Manning and I have been interested in this because dragging is being done by foreign nations in that zone from 200 to 350 miles on Canada's continental shelf — the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, and the Flemish Cap. Some of it is not regulated. We are searching for ways to stop it.
Therefore, we thought we would get ownership of the soil and subsoil out to 350 miles and that would do it. However, we are told by certain legal experts that we still could not stop the foreign nations from dragging the soil and subsoil even if we owned it under the UN convention. We cannot understand that.
Can you tell us in simple terms why, if we extended jurisdiction, we could not stop dragging by rogue foreign nations?
Ms. Baker: The answer is because the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea establishes two different regimes. One is for the continental shelf which, as you describe, is the seabed and subsoil and the resources of said seabed and subsoil. The other is the fisheries regime.
I would not say that the answer is definitive in that it cannot be prevented. I would say that the proposal Senator Manning and you are making is one that is worth pursuing — that one certainly may consider the sedentary species of the seabed to be living resources of the continental shelf.
Senator Baker: Would you take that to be a good legal argument, if you were to go to an international court with it?
Ms. Baker: I would take it to be a plausible, but debatable, legal argument. There is no definitive answer.
Senator Baker: It is certainly worth investigating, would you not say?
Ms. Baker: I would believe so, yes.
Senator Baker: Ms. Baker, I have one final question. Canada, the United States and Denmark are in conflict. Well, we are not in conflict. However, as Senator Adams will attest, we border each other. There seems to have been a cozy agreement between the three nations not to ratify the Law of the Sea years ago. Could you tell us whether that appears to be the case on the face of it, and why Canada only ratified it a couple of years ago?
Second, do we stand to be in a disadvantageous position from not ratifying the Law of the Sea, given the procedure that one has to go through to extend jurisdiction over the ocean floor? Does it matter, for example, that Russia applied in 2001 to extend jurisdiction, and that the U.S. has not even ratified yet and may apply in two or three years' time? Does it matter?
You are saying that all the nations are together and it does not really matter. Everyone has a common purpose. However, in that process of getting control over your own continental shelf, does it matter if you ratified the Law of the Sea in 2000 or if you ratified it in 2010?
Ms. Baker: The date of ratification is critical in that it sets the 10-year clock running from which the state has then to submit its data to the continental shelf. People have read various things into the United States' failure to ratify, one of them being even thinking it might give them more time to collect the data for the article 76 submission.
That is reading far too much organization and planning into any U.S. efforts there. The simple explanation as to why it has not been ratified has been politics on the Senate floor.
In terms of recognition of submission or of data, I do believe that it is a much stronger legal basis for the United States to publish what it determines to be the limits of its continental shelf based on recommendations from the commission. It cannot obtain those recommendations unless it is a party to the convention.
The convention and article 76 leave up to every state the final determination of what it includes in national legislation describing the extents of its continental shelf. However, if that national legislation is based on a recommendation of the commission, it is then considered final and binding, which is an important-sounding term, but leaves any number of questions open, as well.
Senator Baker: Mr. Chair, I have one final point for you.
The witness has said that the door is open for us to extend jurisdiction out to 350 miles, and it is not set in stone that we cannot prevent foreign or rogue nations from dragging the ocean floor, but that exercise runs counter to what has been expressed here on another occasion by someone not as experienced and educated as Ms. Baker in this particular subject. However, this is truly great testimony for us to think about.
The Chair: It is indeed. Thank you for putting it on the record.
Ms. Baker: As a lawyer, I would add a technical distinction that the 350 nautical mile cut-off is one possibility. The other relates to the 1-kilometre isobath and the 100 nautical miles beyond that. Therefore, there are two different possible cut-off points.
Also, I have a technical clarification. As fisheries are defined, I would interpolate from your comments as to previous witnesses that they are looking purely at how fisheries are defined, what is contained in or what can be trawled, if you will.
Senator Baker: We call it "dragging" but your submission is that, if we owned the soil and subsoil, then certainly we have a case to stop people from taking it away from us.
Ms. Baker: It is a case to argue.
The Chair: That is good information and we have made note of it.
Senator Cochrane: Thank you, Ms. Baker. I know we will get a lot of information from you and this is wonderful. I seem to have the feeling that we have cooperation here between the U.S. and Canada in regards to this region. Am I right that we have a great cooperation happening?
Ms. Baker: That is my belief, yes.
Senator Cochrane: That is good. I will go back to the Law of the Sea. Do you really think we will see ratification by the U.S. to adopt the Law of the Sea?
Ms. Baker: It is the best opportunity we have had in terms of the makeup of the Senate.
It really is a question of parliamentary procedure and the chair of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Senator Kerry, trying to find sufficient time on the Senate floor for the convention to be adequately debated. Of course, first, it must come out of the committee and there is a change there in that, in 2005, it came out of the Senate foreign relations committee unanimously, and in 2007 there were, I believe, four dissenting votes. Depending on how you stack up the votes this time, there may be as many dissenting votes, but that does not prevent the convention from coming to the Senate floor. What does prevent it is parliamentary manoeuvrings, basically.
Senator Cochrane: What impact would the U.S. ratification have on future claims in the Arctic?
Ms. Baker: It would strengthen the assertion of the United States of the extent of its continental shelf. As I have indicated, any country may assert the extended continental shelf beyond the 200 nautical miles regardless of what the limits on the continental shelf says, but I believe that those assertions are greatly strengthened in terms of recognition by the rest of the international community if the imprimatur of the commission is also provided.
Senator Cochrane: You have heard recent claims about the EU, European Union, and their interest in the Arctic, of course.
Ms. Baker: Of course.
Senator Cochrane: The flag being placed there and so on. Knowing your expertise, do you think the EU has a legitimate interest in the Arctic? You may have an opinion on that.
Ms. Baker: Certainly the European Union has an interest by virtue of certain states, but even if no states in the EU were part of the Arctic I believe that there is an interest in the preservation of one of the world's last wild places. There is an interest in being able to research up there. A problem that I see, coming from my perspective as someone interested in the science and law interface, is that the current regime under the Law of the Sea Convention does not provide adequate access to research in the Arctic for non-Arctic nations. Indeed, let us say the United States is interested in performing research in the waters of the Russian Federation, without approval that cannot happen, which is fine. However, approval has been a bit problematic. We need to consider a research regime not parallel to the Antarctic Treaty, but something that addresses the specific conditions of the Arctic that would allow scientific work to proceed there with a little bit less impediment than is currently the case.
Senator Cochrane: Is that in the U.S. purview as well? Did you say they were not doing much scientific work?
Ms. Baker: They are indeed, and I would point to the joint mapping cruises of the Louis S. St-Laurent and the Healy as an excellent example of joint scientific work but basically now, under the Law of the Sea Convention, any state with a coast and an exclusive economic zone may require other states to seek permission before granting it for research in their waters. The extended continental shelf will basically extend that particular permission requirement.
Senator Cochrane: To seek permission from whom?
Ms. Baker: From the coastal states.
Senator Cochrane: Okay.
Ms. Baker: If the United States wants to pursue scientific research in the exclusive economic zone or continental shelf of the Russian Federation, it must first seek permission, and that has been granted sporadically.
Of course, one answer is joint research projects, of which I would be a great proponent.
The Chair: It is worthwhile pointing out, first, that the EU is not a state; second, it has no border on the Arctic. None of its member countries, I think it is fair to say, has a border on the Arctic. The third point, without belabouring it, is that we have some experience with the EU off the Atlantic Coast and our experience has not exactly been salutary.
Ms. Baker: I would note what perhaps is a bit of tea leaf reading, but to me the fact that the European Commission in effect corrected the statement by the European Parliament about the Arctic is worth noting. The Parliament's statement that preceded the commission's report or statement was much more aggressive in terms of the European Union's rights in the Arctic and the commission corrected that and pointed to the Ilulissat Declaration and to the Law of the Sea Convention. I would see some hope there.
The Chair: We have also had some recent experience with the European Parliament.
Before I go to Senator Adams, because Thursday will probably be the last meeting that we have and Senator Adams, we hope, will be at that meeting, but not to take any chances, I just wanted to underline that we are saying farewell to the dean of the Senate. This committee has been one of those that he has been most faithful to and contributed to in a very special way because this house has a number of Aboriginal senators. Senator Adams has been here for a long while. He knows his territory very well. He can speak on behalf of his people and speak from personal experience, and we as a committee have benefited from his knowledge and his experience. I just want to say to him thank you for being here. We wish you well. We know you will not go away, you will come back and we will still have the benefit of your knowledge and experience. Thank you very much and good luck.
Senator Adams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the committee, to all my friends.
Thank you for coming, Ms. Baker. You have been up in the North with the people there and you have knowledge of what is going on there. We have been pushing for help and have been concerned about climate change, and you have done some work with the Government of Nunavut. I believe you also have an idea of how much the land claims agreement between Canada and Nunavut means. It covers 2 million square kilometres between the land and water. That is a big piece of land, especially all the way down to the tip of Hudson Bay and right up to James Bay. It is a big part of our country.
I believe you were up there a couple of months ago and have worked quite a bit with the scientists. Right now, they have picked out three communities to study what is the best in terms of equipment and what future work the scientists will do in the Arctic. They have picked out Resolute Bay, Cambridge and Pond Inlet to see what is the best location for future study.
I talked to some of your colleagues who have been up there. I think they have more equipment than the Canadians and have done a bit of study on the effect of climate change and the ice movement and such things. In terms of the best equipment to install in the future, they talked about a cost of a little over $60 million.
In Resolute, they have been working with scientists for a long time. It seems their working budgets are cut every year. I believe there was somewhere between $9 million and $10 million to do the research and studying.
I wonder how it will affect Canada for the future if we put that new technology in one of those three communities. I believe it should be at Resolute. What do you think?
Ms. Baker: In terms of the actual location, I regret that I would be speaking out of school to make any choice between the locations you have mentioned.
I am not in a position to offer anything other than that. I apologize.
Senator Adams: It is closer to the permanent ice, too. Senator Comeau and I traveled from Resolute to Copper Mine five or six years ago. It is a very important area, especially for the mammals.
My concern in about the future of Nunavut and the water when there is more development of mining and oil and gas exploration. Before it is too late, there should be more studies done on mammals, whales and seals. We need to learn where polar bears will migrate in the summer and the winter. Some people are saying that, in the future, they will come down Hudson Strait and go all the way up to Igloolik for the entire year.
A person living up there who wants to hunt walrus can do so and come home for lunch, because the open water is so close. There was a lot of current between Igloolik and Hall Beach.
The government should look at the environment and transport with regard to travel up there in the summer and the winter, and it should also study the mammals.
Ms. Baker: The symposium that I mentioned which took place last week was sponsored by the National Ice Center and the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, and it took place at the U.S. Naval Academy. I would wager that about three-quarters of the audience were scientists, most of them involved in ice research, and some in marine mammal research. The Canadian research station was mentioned more than once with some envy. There is discussion of funding for that type of facility.
In terms of the issues that you raise, now that I have had a chance to read the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment almost in its entirely, I am struck by how much it focuses on all the areas you have mentioned and that these issues are inseparable from what I think is currently the greatest threat to the Arctic — that is, increased shipping. It is here; it is now; and I think that direct policy responses from both of our governments to the shipping assessment would be a very helpful way to address some of the concerns that you raise.
Senator Adams: Just over a week ago, the Senate passed Bill C-3 to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. The transport minister appeared before us on that.
There is a boundary between the Arctic islands to the Alaska border 200 miles out. The eastern part passes between Greenland and Baffin Strait 100 miles out.
The minister was not clear on how these boundary issues have been resolved between other countries such as the United States and Denmark. He talked mostly about Arctic pollution in the event of an oil spill.
Those of us who live up there would like to have a boundary like any other province that goes up to 12 miles.
There was a meeting last summer about that boundary. It was never really clear to me. We did not have a boundary before, but if have a boundary we should have an agreement with the other country.
Ms. Baker: Building on your comments, I would encourage the committee to think a bit about new boundaries that will be created by the article 76 process in the middle of the Arctic Ocean, and how we might think about creatively managing situations that arise from those.
Senator Raine: I agree that the expansion of shipping could be problematic. Could you expand a bit on how Canada and the U.S. view the Northwest Passage? I think that Canadians would like to see a lot more control with compulsory registration of shipping through the North and the Northwest Passage. However, the national security presidential directive identified freedom of the seas as a top national priority.
Perhaps you could give us a bit of information on that.
Ms. Baker: I commend your May 2009 report for setting out the respective position of the United States understanding the passage to be an international strait as opposed to the internal waters view. I assure you that this matter was debated extensively at the Law of the Sea conference I just attended in Seward, Alaska, at which, I should point out, there were almost more Canadian academics and experts knowledgeable about the Law of the Sea than Americans. Canada was well represented.
I think the positions will not be changing any time soon, but I do look with encouragement at the recommendations from the mock negotiation that your committee hosted. If the message can be conveyed to this administration — and I, of course, speak only in my personal capacity as an academic — the practical, realistic solution of whatever dispute there is, is to be commended. I mentioned earlier possibly harmonizing our legislation in certain areas.
If the United States were to contemplate similar registration requirements, that might remove, as your report points out, some of the conflict around NORDREG becoming a mandatory program.
Efforts that can be made to convey to the United States that our security concerns are perhaps better addressed by Canada having a strong presence in the Northwest Passage, in terms of the requirements for environmental and other protections, might be to our advantage.
Also, at all the meetings I have attended, there has been Canadian diplomatic representation. That is to emphasize how well managed I think both sides at the diplomatic level consider these disputes to be, whether the disagreement is over the Beaufort boundary or over the Northwest Passage.
Senator Raine: With regard to the Northwest Passage, although I am a neophyte, it seems to me that the eastern entry could be controlled best by Canadians and the western entry could be controlled best by Americans. You are right — having one system where everyone works together would make a lot of sense.
Ms. Baker: Again, I think the potential for the U.S. and Canada to show cooperation in the Arctic would be a valuable model to other circumpolar nations.
The Chair: This is an interesting line of questioning and I welcome it, but if I could clarify, the mock discussion you refer to was not within the committee structure but hosted by Professor Michael Byers from British Columbia.
Ms. Baker: Thank you for the correction.
The Chair: He led the Canadian team and former U.S. Ambassador Cellucci led the American team. They did debate and discuss and came out with a position, but the position was the same one Senator Raine is leading to and that you have commented on, that we are probably better off working towards some sort of joint cooperation, not just for the benefit of our two countries but for the wider community in the Arctic.
Ms. Baker: Thank you for the clarification. I am sorry to conflate the presence of the enthusiastic support of those recommendations with the sponsorship.
Another point mentioned in those recommendations is one I had individual conversations about with various groups in the last few weeks, and that is the possibility of shipping lanes and thinking of where the routing of certain types of vessels might take place. The International Maritime Organization, IMO, is a robust platform.
I did not include in my written testimony, but would like certainly to add to the record, the existence of the joint application of both our countries to the marine environment protection committee of the International Maritime Organization for a protective zone for sulphur dioxide and other pollutants from ships. This would be under the MARPOL Convention, International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. It is expected that, in July of this year, there will be approval for a joint protective zone basically around our respective EEZs, excluding the Arctic for now because they are looking for more data up there, but requiring very stringent cleaning mechanisms on the smokestacks of ships that are, as you know, producing much of the black soot and other problems. This is not a routing mechanism, not to confuse the two, but the fact that the countries have been able to work so well in the IMO on that kind of very specific problem and come up with a joint proposal is encouraging to me.
The Chair: Could you explain more about the IMO? I do not know about others, but I am not totally familiar with it.
Ms. Baker: Certainly. I believe the membership of the International Maritime Organization is now 168 states. It is the repository for a number of treaties that deal with pollution to the marine environment — whether through oil pollution, sewage, land-based pollution, pollution from ship propulsion such as smokestack pollution — and under the MARPOL agreement, there is an annex six that I understand Canada to be very near ratifying which deals precisely with the problem I just addressed of pollution from the ships' propulsion means.
The Chair: Is the IMO under Law of the Sea?
Ms. Baker: It is a separate treaty and has been amended twice.
The Chair: Canada has signed on to it?
Ms. Baker: You have signed on to the MARPOL Convention, and I understand it is expected that Canada will ratify the sixth annex. I have not researched that up to the minute, but some reports are talking about this upcoming July 2009 meeting and that Canada is contemplating ratification in connection with that, because this special zone for sulphur dioxide protection around both our countries' borders out to 200 nautical miles is premised on Canada also having ratified that particular annex to the convention.
Senator Raine: I have one other question. We have the International Joint Commission that serves as a model in the Great Lakes. Do you see a similar commission to deal with the Arctic waters as being valuable?
Ms. Baker: That has great potential.
Senator Raine: The commission has a long track record of actually dealing with issues in a timely way.
Ms. Baker: I would agree. Also, in conversations with various individuals in the Coast Guard, that is a suggestion I have heard informally, that they find it works tremendously well. They have also pointed to the Great Lakes and to the St. Lawrence Seaway as possible models, not that any of those could be a precise basis, but you could take elements of some of each and come up with a new hybrid. There is much research project potential here looking at this as an academic and thinking of things on which to set students out.
On the research proposals, I would also point again to the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment, AMSA, as one that suggests various ways we might respond to that. They do not refer specifically, to my knowledge, to that type of joint commission but certainly make evident that we will not be able to solve or address challenges in the Arctic without international cooperation, formal and informal.
Senator Raine: What is the Arctic body that is there now called?
Ms. Baker: The Arctic Council.
Senator Raine: That does not have a lot of teeth in it; it is more just a forum for discussion; it is not as formal.
Ms. Baker: It does not produce legally binding documents; that is correct. The documents it has produced have had a great impact. Looking at the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment from 2004, I believe, and the policy response that generated, and now as I anticipate, the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment is really just a very thorough document that, without going into unnecessary detail, clearly lays out the challenges for areas such as infrastructure, as Senator Adams mentioned, and environmental protections. The beauty of the Arctic Council is that it is not a binding forum and states feel as though they can participate in such a way that will not tie them to things.
I would point out that every single word of the AMSA, of the shipping agreement, was negotiated — so it is not as though these are just being written and we will see what happens, but it is understood that they are setting these documents out there as baselines, if you will, for future national, binational or multilateral action.
Senator Raine: Was the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment produced by the council?
Ms. Baker: That is correct, and a Canadian contingent made a major contribution to the section on the legal structure for shipping, and they are to be commended for their excellent work. Professor David VanderZwagg of Dalhousie University headed up that effort. There were 185 individuals who participated from all the Arctic nations, so it is truly an international document.
Senator Manning: Thank you for your presentation. I want to touch on something almost at the end of your opening remarks in regard to oil spill preparedness. Certainly, we have had discussions in Canada for quite some time now with regard to oil spills, and coming from Newfoundland and Labrador, it is always a concern for us with our new industry that is evolving each and every day. As a matter of fact, I live in a part of Newfoundland and Labrador, Placentia Bay, where back in 1990 a report was commissioned named the Brander-Smith report. That report cited my home area as being the greatest opportunity for an oil spill in Canada. Of 365 days a year, we have 200 foggy days with a lot of marine traffic back and forth.
In your comments regarding the Canada-United States Joint Marine Pollution Contingency Plan — we will refer to it as JCP from now on — including the Atlantic Coast, the Pacific Coast, the Beaufort Sea and the Dixon Entrance area, you talked about 2003 as the last time it was updated.
What concerns have been raised since then and what needs to be addressed? If we are talking about opening up the Arctic to development, much of that development is centred around oil and gas, and discussions have been ongoing in the past couple of years with all countries when it comes to jurisdiction over certain parts the Arctic. I guess that is where we will draw the lines in water, not necessarily in the sands. I would not say there is a whole lot of sand in the Arctic. What concerns need to be addressed from a committee and a government standpoint in relation to oil spill preparedness in the Arctic?
Ms. Baker: The biggest change is the dramatic decrease of sea ice, not that this will have an immediate effect on new exploration and certainly exploitation in the Arctic. I would say it is a safe bet that all the folks I have spoken to in the last month or so in my travels say, realistically, we are talking 30 years off when we talk about actual drilling, but exploration will be taking place, and perhaps increased transit.
The primary thing to be addressed would be looking at expanding the coverage of that agreement beyond the contiguous waters, because currently that is the territorial coverage. In terms of the technology, certainly the research and cooperation on practising responses can happen independent of that contingency plan, but it would be more to think about the coverage because of the melting ice allowing travel further out.
Senator Manning: On the expansion of the scope beyond the contiguous waters, can you enlighten us on some of your thoughts around that? Exactly how much expansion do we need, for those of us who may not know exactly what is covered now, versus what you think should be covered?
Ms. Baker: The contiguous waters are up to 24 miles, and certainly we see the effects of the oil spills closest in. We are less aware of them the further out they occur. If anything was made very clear to me in my time on the Healy in looking at the continental shelf as a whole, this tremendous feature of the Arctic Ocean, it is that something that happens on land will have impact not only closer in on the contiguous water but, eventually, also following down the continental shelf into the ocean floor. I know we are talking long term and diffuse, but we need to think a little more broadly about the potential detrimental effects of a spill. Extending the reach of the contingency plan beyond the contiguous waters could have a beneficial effect to waters beyond the 24 miles, not only the waters but the shelf underneath.
Senator Manning: Senator Adams touched on port infrastructure and the lack thereof. We all understand the remoteness of the Arctic. In Newfoundland and Labrador, I have had the opportunity to be on the beaches when the oily birds wash ashore. Waste disposal is a major issue with ships that travel back and forth to our province. How do we address that, given the remoteness and lack of port infrastructure in the North? Can you give us any suggestions on how we should deal with waste disposal from the ships that are plying the seas there?
Ms. Baker: I will point to the International Maritime Organization and treaties specifically about sewage from ships and other sorts of pollution from ships. One of the recommendations of a World Wildlife Fund report on gaps in legal governance in the Arctic was to look specifically at how the various circumpolar states are enforcing their obligations under the International Maritime Organization. That is at more of a regulatory level. The other aspect has much more practical effect, and that is that the infrastructure is simply not there, and I do not have an answer for how you build that.
I would observe, not as a lawyer but as sort of a casual observer at some of the science meetings I have been at, how only now are we raising the alarm bells that this is a problem when populations other than the Inuit are being affected. I guess that is really more of a passing comment than anything else.
It is a problem that there is not the infrastructure. Let us say you have a ship distressed at sea that happens to be nuclear powered. There is the traditional and customary duty to give harbour to a vessel in distress. If we have no port that is able to do that, let alone willing, what happens to its cargo? It is a big problem.
The Chair: I want to clarify the contiguous zone expansion. Senator Adams reminded us that we have just expanded the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act to 200 miles. I do not think we have an Atlantic waters pollution act or a Pacific waters pollution act. Is 24 miles as much as we can have jurisdiction over off the Atlantic Coast?
Ms. Baker: The contingency plan itself now only goes so far as to cover the contiguous waters as long as it is within the exclusive economic zones of the two countries, and this is somewhat similar to this protected area under the International Maritime Organization. If it does not affect waters beyond those, it would be possible to extend that protection beyond the 24 miles. At a practical level, perhaps my recommendation will not make a lot of difference immediately, because the effects of oil spills are recognized and felt most harshly by the coastal communities within the 24 miles. Thinking of our ability to respond to a spill in the Arctic, we do not have vessels that can get to a spill far out quickly.
The Chair: Either country?
Ms. Baker: Either country.
Senator Johnson: I am curious to know what is happening with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, POPs, that the United States and Russia have not signed. Can you fill me in on that, and the agreement itself?
Ms. Baker: The United States has signed but not ratified the Stockholm agreement on persistent organic pollutants. I would point to that particular treaty as a shining example of what the Inuit Circumpolar Conference was able to accomplish in a relatively short period of time. Forgive me for a little bit too much technical history, but the problem of persistent organic pollutants was initially only covered by an annex to a much older treaty, the Convention on Long- range Transboundary Air Pollution. Through the efforts of Sheila Watt-Cloutier and others, they moved it from being an annex on an older, independent treaty, which is fairly well enforced, into a treaty of its own right that basically requires states to regulate the emission of persistent organic pollutants.
Senator Johnson: Was that successful? Did that treaty achieve something?
Ms. Baker: Yes, the long-range transboundary air pollution treaty is pointed to as a model of a mid-1970's, early environmental treaty getting wide international participation. I cannot speak to the Russian status of ratification of the POPs treaty, but it is on the list of President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton in terms of priorities for ratification in this Congress.
Senator Johnson: Do you think this administration, under President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, will show a difference in terms of the American approach on the Arctic issues and problems? Do have any insight on that to share?
Ms. Baker: Generally, the approach for environmental concerns is notably different. For example, the precautionary approach mentioned in the fishery management plan that I touched upon was certainly in discussion prior to President Obama being elected. However, the ease with which those restrictions will become regulations is different now.
In terms of specific Arctic preparation, we have not seen much direct action. For example, the U.S. Arctic Research Commission is a political appointment. There has been no indication whether the President intends to act soon on that. My sense is that he has other priorities. We would like to see more focus on the Arctic, but we have not had specific statements.
Senator Johnson: Is there any sense in the United States about being an Arctic nation? Do people think of their country as an Arctic nation?
Ms. Baker: Certainly they think that in Alaska.
Senator Johnson: Our country is physically much closer to the Arctic, and many consider our country an Arctic nation.
Ms. Baker: We do not think of ourselves as an Arctic nation. If anything is drawing our attention to it, it is the mapping process and some of the "gee whiz" science that is drawing attention.
Senator Johnson: What about the melting of the ice cap?
Ms. Baker: The polar bear is having some sort of poster effect. My message to every American audience is to get the message of the Arctic to whomever you are speaking that Alaska is living the effects of climate change now and that Florida will be living them in the not-too-distant future.
Senator Johnson: That is very interesting.
Ms. Baker: It is the global change connection, but I do not think we are at the point of considering ourselves an Arctic nation.
Senator Johnson: In terms of shipping, Scott Borgerson talked about the joint Canada-U.S. leadership at the IMO for a mandatory polar code with respect to shipping. Should there be such a code?
Ms. Baker: Yes, there should be a code.
Senator Johnson: Is there nothing on that now?
Ms. Baker: There is a nonbinding guideline and progress is being made in that regard. Initially, the polar code was designed to apply to both poles but then, for various reasons, was split between the two. Now, we are back on track moving toward a mandatory code for vessel construction, regardless of where the vessel is constructed if it operates in the Arctic or the Antarctic. I will not put a timeline on it but we are hopeful that there will be mandatory standards, driven in part by what the insurance industry is willing to sponsor.
Senator Johnson: It is all connected. I come from the centre of the country, where we have the Port of Churchill, where a Russian ship entered last year. They wanted to prove to us that they could get to Churchill so that we could ship goods across the province. Of course, we have CentrePort now, which will be a big national transportation hub in Canada because we are the centre of the continent.
How do you see that? Are we dreaming in Technicolor to think that could happen? Certainly, it would solve many transport problems with the constant north-south and east-west travel. Have you thought anything about the other ports?
Ms. Baker: I will draw on the expertise of the scientists from the National Ice Center symposium last week. If anything is clear about the patterns for ice in the near future, it is that Canada will be the iciest portion of the Arctic Ocean. That would present challenges anywhere along Canada's northern coast. The Beaufort Sea circulation patterns are such that they push the ice toward the Canadian archipelago. Even in summer, it would be the thickest ice.
I would also point out, although I probably do not need to, that when we speak of an ice-free Arctic, we are not talking about an ocean that is open year-round for shipping. Instead, we are talking about a sea that is more perilous because of the uncertain conditions of the ice.
Senator Johnson: Thank you, Ms. Baker.
The Chair: For clarification, in your discussion with Senator Johnson you talked about ship standards. What about shipping regulations? Our NORDREG is not mandatory but is voluntary. Is it the same in the United States?
Ms. Baker: At this point, we require people to report, for research purposes, vessels coming into our inclusive economic zone. That is a different type of requirement than the NORDREG requirement.
The Chair: What about the others? Do they have to report? You say they have to report for research purposes.
Ms. Baker: That is right.
The Chair: Do ships carrying cargo have to report?
Ms. Baker: Certainly, before coming into ports, we need to know.
The Chair: Is it mandatory?
Ms. Baker: I do not know the answer to that question.
The Chair: That is something we could explore together.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Welcome, Ms. Baker. In your written and oral presentations, you talk of the Arctic Maritime Management Plan. At present, you are prohibiting any harvesting of fishery resources. Is there any research being done at the present time to evaluate these resources, to determine how the communities might participate and benefit from this resource, if there is such a resource?
Ms. Baker: I will answer in English.
[English]
Very interesting research was done. When the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration deals with fisheries, it needs a fishery in order to close down a fishery. Given that there has been no commercial fishing to speak of in those waters, it became a matter of taking minimal baseline data and modeling and extrapolating as to kinds of stocks in those waters, and speculating as to what the fishery might look like in order to say: For now, we will not fish.
This does not affect subsistence fishing. As I understand the process, there were consultations around the region with various communities. For communities not interested in pursuing commercial fishing, the ban is not a concern.
There has been some concern expressed by some native communities who wonder what will happen if they want to engage in commercial fishing. I anticipate such concerns being presented in the public comment period that is open until the end of July for various groups to express their concerns. I hope that I have understood your question.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: In Canada, when new zones are opened up to the fishery for certain species, the Fisheries minister grants licences for exploration. You have perhaps read our report in which it is mentioned that experimental permits were granted to interests that were not native to the region and that these later became permanent licences. This has created some problems and Senator Adams never misses an opportunity to remind the Fisheries Department of the situation. Could the same problem arise for you, on the Alaskan coast?
Ms. Baker: I do not know.
[English]
I do know the ban extends in that particular region. To my knowledge, there is nothing about exploratory or research permits. I would again be speaking "out of school" to address fisheries policy in other regions.
If I may, however, your comment does allow me to express one possible downside of something that I am generally in support of, which is open access to the Arctic waters for research — more open than is currently the case.
That would be precisely this problem on an international scale. Let us say any fishing nation is interested in doing scientific research on fish stocks. How do we draw that line? This is a problem in any waters, ice-covered or otherwise.
I would encourage you on your trip to Juno where you will be, as I understand, meeting with representatives of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to raise this issue with them. They can certainly provide much more detailed information.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I also see that an international conference dealing with this matter will be held in Anchorage.
Mr. Chairman, it would probably be a good idea for us or at least for some of us to go there as observers, to see what happens at that conference.
I would like to come back to the issue of the Northwest Passage. It has been suggested that there be established a commission similar to the one we have for the Great Lakes. If Canada were to agree to the creation of such a commission, it would be completely different, would it not, because the Great Lakes are shared by both countries whereas the Northwest Passage, to my mind, is an internal waterway? If it were envisaged to set up such a structure with one nation, how would the other countries of the circumpolar region react? Would they not demand the same participation? Would they not have the same right to sit on this commission?
[English]
Ms. Baker: I think that problem could be avoided if one were to model the commission in a certain way. Again, it would not be an identical copy of any of the commissions that we now have. However, if it would somehow be a body — I am almost thinking out loud here, which is dangerous.
Senator Robichaud: Go for it.
Ms. Baker: I mentioned earlier the need to study best regulatory practices. If there were a way to allow Canada to assert its best regulatory practices over what Canada views to be the internal waters, and for the United States to assert its best regulatory practices over what are clearly its waters beyond the passage, that might be the job of the commission to work in that direction. As someone mentioned, an entryway to the Northwest Passage through the Beaufort necessarily requires passage through U.S. waters as well.
If we might bring those regulations together so that they are harmonized, if not identical, it might be the job of the commission to work in that direction, as I mentioned. It is an interesting project that I need to think more about. However, your concern is well taken.
I would venture to say the concern is shared by the United States. While, from the U.S. view, it should remain an international strait, it should not become an international commission. It should remain a binational control.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I am certain that there are other nations that would like to see this passage remain a waterway where harmless navigation is allowed. They are not saying anything for the time being, and they are in fact counting on the United States, using the argument that they have a right of passage, is that not the case?
Feel free to comment. You are an academic and you are able to respond to hypothetical questions. You are not like ministers or politicians who are embarrassed when hypothetical questions are put to them.
Were we to call upon your expertise to help us prepare ourselves for defending Canada's position that these waters are internal, might you provide us with some arguments that would be defensible internationally?
[English]
Ms. Baker: It is arguable. Whether it is defensible is a different question. However, certainly the arguments could be made plausibly in an international tribunal. There are differing views on historic uses, for example, but those are not to be completely disregarded.
I think there is a reason this matter has not been settled more easily in that, were one view clearly right, then there would be perhaps more willingness to come to a resolution. I hope I have answered in good academic and vague fashion.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: The fact that the Inuit have for a long time inhabited this region, way before us, and that they have used the ice covering these regions as a platform for their lifestyle, for hunting and fishing: what weight might that argument have to justify that these are internal waters that should remain under Canadian control?
[English]
Ms. Baker: At this point, I will cite a book I would highly recommend to the committee members, if they are not already aware of Professor McDorman's new book Salt Water Neighbors. It is a wonderful book about the maritime relations between Canada and the United States.
While he does not answer that question directly, he does point to the fact that every dispute is unique, so that how historic use has been used in the past will be an indication, but not a definitive answer. Again, these arguments are certainly worth raising.
I would refer you to Professor Byers' arguments as well, and I am sorry not to know the details of certain treaty commitments that were made by Canada to the Inuit — those treaty commitments, perhaps, being a stronger basis than the more amorphous historic use argument. Perhaps a combination of those two arguments would be stronger.
The Chair: We just had a notice that the bells are ringing for a vote at 7:02 p.m. It will not take us that long to get across the street, but we should be cognizant of that vote and be there for it.
Senator Adams had a brief supplementary, but Senator Campbell wanted to ask a question, too, and he has not been on.
Senator Adams: It is just a short question. I do not know what the agreement between the boundary and the water was for the Nunavut agreement. Some people at DFO, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, told us once that, as long as the ice is frozen, we can hunt, even over 12 miles. I do not know if that really is in the agreement, or whether we only have a 12-mile limit for commercial hunting.
Even if the ice up there melted, we should be able to use it for the commercial kind of fishing. Right now in Nunavut, as long as the ice is there, we can go out. As soon as the ice is gone, we can only go out to 12 miles. That is a good question for Senator Robichaud.
Senator Robichaud: I hope you did not destroy my argument.
Ms. Baker: No, I hope not.
Senator Campbell: I think of straits such as the Georgia Strait, Strait of Juan de Fuca, Strait of Belle Isle. Are these international straits in the same manner as the Strait of Gibraltar? If a ship comes into those straits, they do not have to notify Canada that they are going through there, or do they?
Ms. Baker: I would again be speaking beyond my expertise. I am not as familiar with those particular straits as I would like to be.
Senator Campbell: Gibraltar, the English Channel, Strait of Hormuz, these are international waters and yet they are very narrow but just do not have the same country on both sides. I guess that is the problem I am trying to come at. I agree with Senator Robichaud. Canadians always think of the Northwest Passage as ours.
Ms. Baker: Yes.
Senator Campbell: I am trying to come to grips with that when we have Vancouver Island and the Mainland, when we have Newfoundland and Labrador. Those are the same straits — are they international waters, and if they are not, what makes them specifically Canadian and what would then rule out the Northwest Territories?
Ms. Baker: In part you would need to look on either side. Is there another country involved on the opposite side?
Senator Raine: There is Georgia Strait.
Senator Campbell: Well, A piece of it. The Strait of Juan de Fuca is Canada and the U.S. However, the Georgia Strait is Canada; it is Vancouver Island and the Mainland. Belle Isle is Newfoundland and Labrador, so it is Canada on both sides as well. What makes that different from going through the Northwest Passage where we clearly have sovereignty on the land? There is no question about that. What would make that different? I do not understand what the argument would be.
Ms. Baker: As I understand, without having the strait physically in my view, the waters on either side are Canadian waters, and that is not the case with the Northwest Passage. Eventually you are leading into internationally navigable waters.
Senator Campbell: You are doing the same thing in that. You are coming through John de Fuca, U.S.-Canada, up through the Georgia Strait. The argument is no matter where you come from, you will be coming from international waters. My only question is that I do not think there is any question about our sovereignty with regards to the islands that surround the Northwest Passage. They are Canadian. I just do not understand why the waters, therefore, would not be Canadian and why they would have to be an international strait.
Ms. Baker: To state the classic view, the usages coming from either end of the passage are open to more than one country's vessels.
Senator Robichaud: If I may ask a supplementary to that, with the disappearance of the ice, this passage is not going to be as practical because the ice will be packed against the Canadian part of the Arctic, so there will be another route. They will not have to come through the Northwest Passage.
Ms. Baker: The northern sea route is certainly viewed as a more feasible option, or one that will be available sooner.
Senator Robichaud: There, you just made our argument, or my argument.
Ms. Baker: Of course, the optimist stream for eventually just the northern route, directly across.
Senator Baker: All of the political parties in Canada proclaim that their policy to get rid of foreign fishing outside of 200 miles, and on Canada's continental shelf, can be accomplished through what they call custodial management. Have you ever heard that term, and to your knowledge does that term represent anything in law?
Ms. Baker: Nothing binding. It is a management concept and can be viewed as such.
Senator Baker: When we get to the point of applying to extend our jurisdiction over the ocean floor out to include the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap that goes before a commission, a committee made up of I think 20 people —
Ms. Baker: Twenty-one.
Senator Baker: There are 21 people on the committee. Half the people on the committee are from the very nations that we want to get rid of who are dragging the ocean floor out there. Will we not, in your estimation, have some difficulty passing something before that commission?
Ms. Baker: No.
Senator Baker: Why not?
Ms. Baker: Because it is a commission of hydrographers and geophysicists. I will not deny that there is perhaps some political interest, but it was structured specifically to have scientists and not lawyers and diplomats serving on this to avoid that problem as much as possible.
Senator Robichaud: We have a chance.
The Chair: I want to thank you, Ms. Baker, for being here. You have been very patient and full in your answers. You have helped us immeasurably understand what we are about to be looking at. We hope we encounter you again in the course of our deliberations.
Ms. Baker: Thank you for having me.
(The committee adjourned.)