Mr. Chairman, members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, thank you for the opportunity to share with you my concerns about the potential sale of Radarsat-2 to Alliant Techsystems.
From July 1995 to July 2000, I was the commander of Canadian Forces Northern Area, which encompasses our three territories. During that time I quickly came to the conclusion that the assets Canada had for the security and sovereignty of the Arctic were severely inadequate.
Until the end of the Cold War, the Arctic was basically a no man's land between the Soviet Union and NATO. There was little activity other than military activity. Since then, the Arctic has seen a huge increase in development, which has generated increased levels of human activity. More alarming, in my view, have been the multiplicity of reports about global warming and the speed at which it is taking place in the Canadian Arctic.
On the one hand, the government at that time was reducing the very limited resources required to ensure our security and sovereignty in the Arctic. On the other, I could see signs that the Arctic was opening up like never before from an economic, and more importantly, from an access point of view, which would lead to challenges to our claims regarding our internal waters and would increase significantly the threat to an extremely fragile ecosystem.
One of the challenges that was evident was that global warming was in the process of opening up the Northwest Passage, creating a shorter route between two large trading blocks--Europe and Asia--and improved access for resources exploitation. This would naturally lead to increased maritime traffic and to potential challenges to our sovereignty. The route between Japan and Europe is reduced by 37% if ships go through the Northwest Passage instead of the Panama Canal and by 64% for ships that have to go around Cape Horn because their size prevents them from going through the Panama Canal.
The potential increase in maritime traffic will increase the threat to a very fragile ecosystem, as I've mentioned. The cost of cleaning up the Exxon Valdez accident exceeded $2 billion, and it took place near a very large port facility. Given the value of crude oil, it is only a matter of time before its exploitation resumes in the Arctic. How much would it cost to clean up a similar accident near Resolute Bay? What if it was a ship with a flag of convenience and no assets?
Canada has in place the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, but to date we lack the resources to monitor the situation in the Arctic and the assets to intercept in a graduated and timely manner. It is similar to posting speed limits when everybody knows that the police have no radar or patrol cars. Most people will respect the rules; the bad guys won't.
Back in 2000, I briefed the defence department on my concerns. In 2001 I also wrote a paper on the lack of security assets to protect the Arctic. I understand that a copy has been or will be provided to you. At the time, I recommended surveillance of the Arctic using space-based assets, along with a number of other recommendations. I was very pleased two years ago to see the present government start to allocate new resources to our sovereignty in the Arctic. It is, in my view, a wise investment.
Two systems showed great promise for monitoring the access points to the Arctic archipelago: Radarsat-2 and Canadian-developed high-frequency surface wave radar. Unfortunately, the project to install the high frequency surface wave radar has been cancelled. And now there remains the possibility of the sale to a foreign company of the best asset we have to monitor maritime traffic in the Canadian Arctic.
I can see a number of scenarios in which Canada may not be well served by the sale, depending on the specifics. If the satellite and its controls belong to a U.S. company, it will fall under laws such as the Patriot Act, and the company may be compelled to act in a manner not consistent with Canadian interests. For example, some information of interest to Canada may not be provided if it is not in the national interest of the United States. Another scenario could be that the priority of effort for the satellite will be redirected to support a U.S. situation, leaving Canada with no coverage of the Arctic.
What if, in a number of years, there are compelling reasons to move the controlling facilities outside of Canada? What if the company is then sold one more time, this time to a company from a nation with which Canada has some concerns?
The U.S. recently blocked the sale of a stake in 3Com to a Chinese company for national security reasons. 3Com produces routers and networking equipment. I am of the opinion that to maintain positive control of the satellite, its assets must be based completely in Canada and not be subject to the influence of any other jurisdiction.
We must remember that our claim to the waters of the Arctic Archipelago is not recognized by the U.S. or the European Community. It is a contested area. For Canada to assert its sovereignty over that area, it has the duty to monitor it adequately and enforce its laws upon it. Until Radarsat-2 becomes operational, Canada does not have the means to monitor the Arctic properly.
To effectively monitor surface maritime activity, we must use Radarsat-2 and cross-reference the data to NordREG, the regulatory maritime system in the Arctic. NordREG, unfortunately, is still done on a voluntary basis, despite the improvements to our security regime post-9/11. Making it compulsory would provide a solid database against which Radarsat information can be cross-referenced, allowing us to quickly identify discrepancies and take appropriate action when necessary.
I therefore urge the government to act very cautiously with regard to approving the sale of Radarsat-2 and to continue to block the sale, unless it is absolutely convinced that it will retain full control of this essential asset now and in the future. It is in the security and sovereignty interests of Canada.
Thank you for your attention.