Foreign Affairs Committee on Sept. 19th, 2018

[MGen William Seymour]

I expected this question, and it's interesting because, first of all, this is not the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s, when Russian submarines might be lurking behind every corner. These days, based on technological advances, as you're well aware, the Russians can launch weapons against North America from their home bastions within their territory or slightly outside. The notion that Russian submarines, for example in this case, would have to travel underneath the ice in Canada's north to do their business is technologically out of date.

The plan we talk about when we talk work surveillance in the Arctic is Operation Limpid, an all-domain program we have to understand what's going on in the airspace, the waterways and underneath the ocean. Specifically, with respect to the underwater space, that is also a domain for Operation Limpid, as is the cyber domain, which is a part of it.

The key element for us in monitoring what's going on in the north is our relationship with NORAD and NORTHCOM. NORAD has a maritime domain awareness mission in addition to a control mission not in the maritime domain, and it's through that partnership with NORAD that we maintain awareness throughout Canada's land mass and underneath the ocean. It's that information that we share with the Americans and our allies and partners that allows us to be aware of what's going on below the surface on any given day of the year.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Just to be clear, are you saying that we have complete knowledge of everything that's happening below the surface of the ice throughout our Arctic territory?

[MGen William Seymour]

I wouldn't say we have complete knowledge. I don't have complete knowledge of what's going on in the land domain or on the surface on any given day. I have much more complete knowledge in terms of what's going on in the air. Frankly, we look at this as a risk assessment. We allocate resources to understand what's going on in the environment based on the threat that's posed to us. The threat is determined by both capability and intent, and we measure those kinds of things through intelligence and information sharing, and we allocate resources as a result, based on the threat.

I read the testimony from our Global Affairs counterparts, and they highlighted that they don't see a threat in Canada's Arctic. There is no threat. In terms of applying resources to understand what's going on in the underwater domain, resources are applied, some of which I can't talk about, but there are capabilities that Canada and the U.S. have to understand what's going on there.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Do we have maps that could show us the range of Canada's icebreakers? It was mentioned that there are seven. How many are fully functional in the Arctic, and do we have maps that show their range at maximum ice and minimum ice?

[Jeffery Hutchinson]

We normally deploy seven icebreakers to the Arctic, sometimes eight, and this year was no exception. We have 20 icebreaking-capable assets in our fleet, and we would classify 10 of those as being within the normal parameters of icebreaking operations. That's in part due to the addition of the three icebreakers that we just acquired recently. I'm trying to think whether I've seen a map that shows their range. We could certainly provide that to the committee to show....

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

If that could be provided, I believe that would be helpful.

[Jeffery Hutchinson]

Given a couple of days, we can produce that.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. Weldon, when we agree to passage for ships travelling through the Northwest Territories, is there a fee involved? Has the department ever looked at what the costs might be to maintain a presence through the Northwest Passage? Have we done some sort of analysis of that cost, and the rising costs as vessels traverse the passage more often?

[Jane Weldon]

Interestingly, internationally, fees are not charged for transiting through another nation's waters. The right of innocent passage in international law allows, with some restrictions, vessels to transit through other countries' waters.

Fees tend to be applied when you enter a port or require a service from whatever country. At this point, ships that are transiting the Northwest Passage aren't calling at a Canadian port. They're simply passing through our waters. As a result, based on the current international framework, there is not an opportunity to charge for things. In the future that may change as ports become developed in the north, but at this point there is no fee.

Commissioner, do you want to speak to what happens in the case of your having to enter into things?

[Jeffery Hutchinson]

The fee regime is actually administered by the Coast Guard. As Ms. Weldon has described, fees are normally charged when a ship enters a Canadian port.

In the Arctic, there is a fairly far-reaching exemption of fees, particularly for ships that have more than 50% of their tonnage being used for community resupply. That applies north of 60°. There are details and nuances around this that are always under consideration, including ships that go north of 60° for a final destination that is south of 60°, if you think of Churchill.

In terms of the other part of your question, have we looked at charging fees outside of that framework? Yes, we have done some work. The general ethos, particularly as it pertains to search and rescue, is that we don't charge fees for that. We've worked through whether a cruise ship should have a fee structure applied to it when the primary service we might provide would be icebreaking, versus search and rescue, versus environmental.... There are some considerations there.

Internationally, the ethos is that you don't charge for search and rescue because you never want anyone to hesitate calling for help based on whether or not they have their Visa card with them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Just to keep on time, we'll go to Mr. Blaikie, please.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I wonder if you want to finish your thought.

[Jeffery Hutchinson]

Thank you very much.

I would finish the thought by saying that, in addition to the fee regime, we also adhere to the polluter pays principle. If a ship were to discharge hydrocarbons in particular, in the Arctic, we would first seek to recover the cost of our operation from the owner and then from the ship-source oil pollution fund, which is the backstop to ensure that environmental operations are covered from a cost perspective.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

In terms of further questions, you mentioned that right now you have about 20 assets with icebreaking capabilities, and you usually have about seven deployed in the north. A big part of the conversation is about the north opening up and there being a significant increase in traffic.

Is the ship-building program in place right now for icebreakers designed to essentially replace the existing capacity, or have you made projections about the increasing need for ships as traffic increases? Presumably, there's a need for more assets in order to be able to do the same work for more traffic in the same area.

[Jeffery Hutchinson]

Our last public ship replacement plan is dated 2012. It does set out a plan for the replacement or recapitalization of the Coast Guard fleet. We have done further analysis around what recapitalization looks like, and that is under consideration at the moment.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Are there any milestone years when you anticipate that, by a certain date, the overall capacity of the fleet would have to be expanded to accommodate what the anticipated traffic is, or do we not really have a handle on what we think the pace of development would be?

[Jeffery Hutchinson]

I think it's more the latter case, actually. We calculate that traffic has roughly doubled from 2010 until now. That is due, in part, to the mandatory reporting that we talked about earlier that came into place in 2010, so we have a better handle on who's actually in the Canadian north. We're still talking about 350 voyages a year. To put that in perspective, the port of Vancouver would be 3,500 a year.

What the traffic pattern looks like is unpredictable. We don't have a target date. We couldn't say, for example, that by 2030 we expect 500 voyages. No modelling exists right now that could give us that projection.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

We need a bit of a more nimble procurement process to try to respond to those challenges. I'm not asking. I'm just commenting.

One thing that's of interest to me as a member of Parliament from Manitoba—most of what we're talking about is a little further north yet—is that there's been a lot of discussion in Manitoba and across the country of late about the port in Churchill. Is it an important asset in anyone's mind, or something that can be used when we talk about Arctic sovereignty and asserting presence, or is it largely seen as something that has commercial potential, but not necessarily something that would play a role on the defence or Coast Guard side?

[Jeffery Hutchinson]

I expect my colleague from Transport will want to weigh in on this question. I'd simply say that from the Coast Guard perspective, we certainly pay attention to what's happening with the rail connection to Churchill. We have watched the track of patterns change over time in and out of Churchill. We definitely consider it important Canadian maritime infrastructure. We'll be ready to serve should the commercial potential change or develop there, but I think Transport can speak more directly to that.

[Jane Weldon]

As I'm sure you're more than well aware, there have been some challenges with respect to Churchill in the last several years, particularly with respect to the railroad. Unfortunately, a tragic accident happened there over the weekend that Transport's been very engaged in looking at.

Transport is very engaged with our partners in other federal departments, like Western Economic Diversification, but also with the provincial government and various companies that operate or have historically operated out of Churchill. We're keeping a very close eye on that port.

Our forecasts for economic development show the timing is a little off. Some people say global warming can't happen fast enough for certain areas. One might argue that for other reasons. For Churchill, they are in a difficult position right now, because there simply isn't sufficient volume at this time. There is potential for volume, and there's a competitive environment around volume, so we're definitely keeping an eye on that. We have staff up there and are committed to the work that's happening on the railway right now, which will impact how that port can operate.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

From a defence perspective, is there interest in Churchill? Is there concern that due to some of those timing issues the asset might lapse if there isn't sufficient commercial activity happening quickly enough, and that this would be the loss of an asset that has implications beyond its commercial value?

[MGen William Seymour]

Sorry, I can't comment. I'm a force employer, so I use the assets we have. I don't dabble in infrastructure, bases, or those kinds of things, so I can't offer a comment.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you.

Next is Ms. Vandenbeld, please.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you to all of you for being here.

Mr. Hutchinson, you mentioned the oceans protection plan in your statement, and you said it allows for a year-round presence. I believe, Ms. Weldon, you also talked about the oceans protection plan. What is new with this plan? What is it that you're capable of doing now that you weren't able to do before?

Do you want to start, Mr. Hutchinson?