First of all, it's a very important question. To go back to the beginning of your question about the environment commissioner, I have met the commissioner, with my team, and we at the coast guard certainly welcome his recommendations. We know that there is room to improve and we will implement all of the recommendations that he made just before Christmas.
That being said, you wonder if the role of the Amundsen is taking away something from the coast guard. I'd like to point out that, on the contrary, the Amundsen is an additional asset to the coast guard. The Amundsen was to be decommissioned. It was for sale, actually. From 2000 to 2002, it was a surplus asset that was to be disposed of through crown assets disposal.
At that point in time it was renamed. It was decertified as the Sir John Franklin. It was called the “Old 02” and it was put up for sale. The consortium, through Université Laval, came with this proposal to keep it rather than sell it, and to invest in it and reactivate it, which we did. The ship was put back into service in 2003. I see the Amundsen as an additional asset, and if a search and rescue operation is required...as was the case last year, the Amundsen was the first vessel on site and the Amundsen actually was the vessel that evacuated the passengers from the clipper.
We would do the same thing for an oil spill event in the Arctic. The Amundsen, if it were the closest vessel, would go there. It is equipped with the proper equipment to respond to a spill.
We have also made some other improvements in the Arctic with regard to oil spills. The coast guard has deployed Arctic packs in a number of small communities across the Arctic. We also have a depot in Hay River from where we can deploy large amounts of equipment for oil spills. A number of organizations in Canada can be called on for help in the north, but north of 60, there is a different regime for oil spills.