Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 28th, 2013

[Jody Thomas]

There are multiple parts to that question. I'll start, and Transport Canada will jump in.

We see a gradual increase in traffic, although we're not responsible for monitoring those kinds of trends. But as natural resource extraction increases and as eco-adventure tourism increases, there will be an increase of traffic. We've seen it with the number of cruise ships in the Arctic over the last few years.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Do you think it'll be on a scale of 5% or 10% a year? Can you give us any guidance in that regard?

[Jody Thomas]

I wouldn't want to speculate.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Okay. But I think you said that last year 23 pleasure craft transited—

[Jody Thomas]

Yes.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

—and two cruise ships—

[Jody Thomas]

Yes.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

—and I've forgotten how many commercial cargo vessels.

[Jody Thomas]

There were two.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Okay, so it's a relatively small number.

[Jody Thomas]

Yes.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

In your view, is the Northwest Passage more likely to see an increase in commercial shipping in the near term, or is that more likely on the other side of the Arctic Ocean, along the Russian coast? Is there a difference between the two?

[Jody Thomas]

There is a difference because of where the ice is and how the ice moves. The discussion about the Arctic being ice free...there is a breakup of ice earlier, there's no doubt, in the Arctic, but it is all moving south, which has made the Northwest Passage inherently more dangerous.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

So, in fact, there's more ice in the Northwest Passage today?

[Jody Thomas]

There is more ice. Last summer, for example, there was significantly more ice in the Northwest Passage and in Frobisher Bay it was iced in for quite some time due to the winds and the breakup of the ice. Therefore, the need for icebreakers is actually increasing as the Arctic ice breaks up. It is not less dangerous.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

That's to service the communities in that area and also any potential resource extraction issues that need to be developed in the—

[Jody Thomas]

Right, or any vessel that goes into some area of the Northwest Passage, if the weather changes, the ice changes, then they need an icebreaker.

About 10% of the Arctic is charted to modern standards. It needs a significant amount of work, but, as I said, we don't think it is reasonable or feasible to think that we can chart it to the same standards as the south throughout, which is why we are pursuing a corridors approach, where we will have safe, predictable, transitable passages that are charted and the information is available to mariners so that they can safely transit, weather notwithstanding.

In terms of aids to navigation, they're mostly in Pangnirtung and Mackenzie River. The aids system that you see throughout southern Canada and the Great Lakes, as an example, doesn't exist in the Arctic.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I assumed it did. Thank you very much for that.

I'd like to ask a question of Transport Canada. You mentioned the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act and its aim to protect Canadian Arctic waters. Can you give us a little more detail about exactly what that act says and how effective you think it is in protecting the region from any pollution?

[Laureen Kinney]

I'll start with a bit of a generality and then drill down a little bit more in detail. Sylvain may have something to add to that as well.

The act applies to Canadian territorial waters and also out to 200 nautical miles. The act itself was developed in 1970. It was extremely robust. It was much ahead of its time and probably still may be, to a large degree, the most comprehensive and rigorous set of requirements in the world for the Arctic.

The associated regulations with that speak to areas such as the equipment required and the requirement for ships operating particularly in areas of pollution and other areas. It requires in the act zero discharge, for example. There are a number of areas along those lines. It's quite rigorous. It's applied by our inspectors in the north and we do make that fairly onerous within the normal level of inspection processes.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Excuse me for interrupting. Does it include standards for the construction of the ships or the design of the ships?

[Laureen Kinney]

I don't think so, no.

Then there are specific areas such as our NORDREG reporting and the vessel reporting that we made much more rigorous and mandatory. They previously were voluntary. We made them mandatory a couple of years ago and they allow us to know who's operating where and what they're doing, which is part of the regime of understanding what your risks are and what your response is.

It's quite rigorous, but it is getting out of date. Technology has changed considerably. It was done in a time when a certain pattern of traffic and living was anticipated. Obviously, that's dramatically changed. It also was established before the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea had established the kinds of provisions that states could establish outside their territorial waters and out to 200 nautical miles. We put those provisions in place ahead of the international convention, which normally you link to, so we need to look at the requirements and how they should perhaps be updated to look at that.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Are you planning to do that update?

[Laureen Kinney]

We're looking at what's required and we're having those discussions. We're also looking at areas like the risk assessment that was published recently to guide us in some of the areas that we should look at.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I guess I'm almost out of time. I have one short question; I hope it's short.

You talked about the proposal for a mandatory polar code, which I think you said would entail more stringent environmental standards for shipping. How would that differ from the act that you just described?

[Laureen Kinney]

The point that I was making was that our act and regulations apply out to different ways, out to 200 nautical miles. The polar code would be for the high seas, outside our territory and area.