Foreign Affairs Committee on Sept. 19th, 2018

[Jeffery Hutchinson]

No, we don't.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Would an under-ice capable subsurface asset be one that you would force-employ, through either a modern diesel or nuclear-powered submarine? Would that asset be helpful to operations in the Arctic?

[MGen William Seymour]

From a force employment perspective, it's almost speculative to talk about what kind of asset mix would be ideal to deal with things. From a threat perspective, I would suggest that it's not necessarily something we would advocate at the expense of other capabilities. The kind of mix of capabilities that “Strong, Secure, Engaged” is advocating for and is certainly funded for and is going to deliver is ideal in terms of our sense of what the threats to Canada are.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Let me talk briefly about a much cheaper asset but quite as effective, and that's the UAV. I know from a veteran friend of mine that ING Robotic was trialing a UAV project with first nation use to operate in the Arctic for animal, environmental and a whole range of things.

Has this been a type of technology, at least for observation and surveillance, that any of the departments have engaged? How are plans going with that?

[Jane Weldon]

I guess I can respond to that.

We definitely are making use of an RPAS device in the Arctic that we were piloting this year. We've also made use of it in other parts of Canada. It's been quite helpful from a Transport Canada perspective. We use these devices to surveil for pollution. One of the issues one has is with people dumping things like grey water, or a potential leakage and that type of thing. We have been using the RPAS to more economically get to places that are difficult to get to by plane and have more range.

Definitely that's something we're pursuing. We have a project under way right now. We are actually in the assessment phase, at this point.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Would it be fair to say that between our conventional air assets—I know that the Auroras do northern patrols quite regularly—and drones or UAVs, we have some sort of air presence most days in the Arctic, or is this sporadic?

[MGen William Seymour]

What I would offer, sir, is that under Operation Limpid, we collaborate across the board to bring multiple air assets, certainly from Transport Canada, using Coast Guard helicopters and using contracted air assets, not to blanket but to provide a broad level of coverage based on what it is we want to see in the north.

In terms of questions about RPAS, you know that “Strong, Secure, Engaged” calls for the procurement of a larger UAS that we anticipate will operate up in the north and supplement the capability we're bringing on board with our radar-based satellites, which will allow us to see what's going on in the Arctic. We'll have a better understanding in that the RPAS will simply add another layer of information to have that full and complete picture of what's going on up north.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Is there the possibility of engaging Canadian rangers so that we could have young first nation or Inuit youth as part of that higher-value skill set of operating UAVs? As that presence increases in the north, the value of the rangers, I think, is their knowledge and respect for the environment—as you said, the stewardship piece. Has that been looked at as part of the growth in this space for our more effective surveillance in the Arctic?

[MGen William Seymour]

It's an interesting question, because with the proliferation of UASs from small range to larger, it certainly presents an opportunity. What I can tell you is that for the first time this year we actually incorporated the rangers into our Operation Limpid program. We located them on the shores of certain transit routes and equipped them with radios to connect to the information we're receiving to better understand what's going on in that environment. That's very much a first step.

That's a very interesting proposal, sir. I think that may have some merit at some point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Mr. O'Toole.

We'll have Ms. May, please.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you very much. I thank the committee for their indulgence to let me ask a few questions, particularly Ms. Vandenbeld. Anita has given me the time, I'm guessing, but anyway, thank you.

First of all, I'm very grateful for the briefing. I have a bunch of questions. They fall into a couple of categories.

Let me start with this question. I think that so far it was our Coast Guard colleagues who came closest to acknowledging that we are all operating in Inuit territory when we're operating in the Arctic. Under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it would seem to me—and it may be implicit in what you're saying—that the existence of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and their governance over northern territories is actually a great way of proving our sovereignty.

I want to ask you to reflect on that and also, if you can, on whether there is any role in your work for a reflection of the Arctic Council as the circumpolar governance structure, which also gives a seat for Inuit at the table. How much does that advance our interests? Maybe it's a Transport Canada question more than it is Coast Guard or military, but I'll leave it to you.

[Jeffery Hutchinson]

Perhaps I can start with the first part of the question and then turn to Ms. Weldon for the Arctic Council aspects.

I take that point about the existence of the ITK and the other northern governments. I think that not only those agreements, but some of our southern modern treaties in particular.... As I was saying to the chair earlier, he and I used to work in the area of aboriginal rights. I've spent some time there myself. I don't mean to tread into my old domain, but I certainly personally could see that the existence of those agreements, the very novel things that they do in the maritime space in particular, to me fit on a very long list of things that we do in the Arctic, which shows that Canada has been sovereign there for a long time.

I take that point. We work very closely with ITK leadership on almost on a daily basis. I think that's very well put.

On the Arctic Council, Ms. Weldon...?

[Jane Weldon]

Yes. I'll just add with respect to the Arctic shipping corridor, for example, which is something in which we're deeply engaged with ITK, as the commissioner says, on a very regular basis. Similarly, the initiative we're doing with respect to trying to identify marine domain awareness systems is done completely with local communities and all Inuit hunters and fishers, because there's no point in developing an app that's not completely embedded in community needs.

With respect to the Arctic Council, obviously Canada has an important role in the Arctic Council, and Transport Canada definitely plays a significant role in the policy development role of that council. I guess I would say that from our perspective any work that happens frankly anywhere in the country at this point has indigenous engagement embedded in the beginning of it. Because of the focus through the oceans protection plans on the coast, indigenous consultation and also indigenous involvement directly in developing products are key to making anything successful.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

For my next question, I'm shifting gears a bit. As climate change.... Of course, that's a major focus, but the question may seem a bit trivial given the enormity of the climate threat. We are seeing the Northwest Passage opening up and cruise ship interest increasing, so tourism is an issue.

Normally we were getting 10 cruise ships a year there, and 2,600 passengers, and then in 2016.... I know, Jeffery Hutchinson, that you were directly involved with planning for the Crystal Serenity coming through, with 1,000 passengers and 700 crew. If anything goes wrong.... I know that this ship was particularly well prepared and had its own helicopters on board and so on, but the tendency of human nature is to begin to think that this is a passage that cruise ships can make.

I don't think we have the preparedness as a nation for the emergency response that we would need if a ship wasn't as completely prepared as the Crystal Serenity was. We don't have the capacity. I shouldn't state this. How would we respond to a tourism cruise ship worst-case scenario for hospitalization and reaching people when they're in about the most remote place one can imagine?

It would be a great way to establish our sovereignty to have more emergency response and more preparedness for what's inevitably going to be an increase in tourism.

[Jeffery Hutchinson]

Perhaps I'd start with what is a truism for mariners and I don't mean this glibly, so please know that. There are many places where ships go that are remote and that we're responsible for, including search and rescue taskings to the middle of the Atlantic or to the middle of the Pacific. That's a perspective that we might start from.

I think that our capabilities and our combined capabilities to be able to respond certainly speak to Canadian sovereignty, at one level, but I think there's a broader context there that has to be kept in mind. There was already reference to the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act and NORDREG. These are unique regimes that we've applied, in recognition that Canadian sovereignty in the archipelago isn't exactly the same as the exercise of sovereignty in the Carribean or southeast Asia, for example.

We are alive to the fact that the ITK lead people who have looked out their back doors at solid water for many millennia. All of which is to say that if you start with that framework and then you add in the efforts of the polar code from the IMO, the polar code represents an international recognition that operating in the Arctic is a unique environment.

We then have the framework to say to operators that your cruise ships actually do fall into our principal risks in the archipelago right now, perhaps more so than Russian submarines. You do have to operate responsibly. You do have to be self-sustaining and self-sufficient. The Crystal Serenity set a particularly high mark in that respect. Other operators are paying attention.

When things go poorly and sometimes they do, there's no question that the provisions of the polar code and NORDREG for that matter and the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act are meant to keep that ship sustainable for the period of time that allow the Hercs, the icebreakers and Inuit response teams to get there.

I think we have a robust regime. I think we have a lot of capability. I think we shouldn't underestimate the role of the operators themselves to have to bring the right assets to the table.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Do I have time for one quick question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

The witness would like to respond to your question.

[Jane Weldon]

I just wanted to add that, in addition to all that, in the last year, we have developed a set of guidelines, in concert with both the local Inuit and the cruise ships association. These are voluntary guidelines, but they were very much at the behest of industry, who wanted support from government and local communities to understand better what they needed to do.

These are in addition to the polar code and Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, which speak to things like you don't get off a cruise ship and take 1,000 people and put them on shore at some poor community. They also speak again to preparedness and best practices from Crystal Serenity and other opportunities as they arise. It's just to highlight that industry has been very co-operative.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you.

We'll have to go to Mr. Aboultaif, please.

Thank you, Ms. May.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Thank you.

Thanks for appearing today and thanks for your service to our country.

The word that was most heard today was “sovereignty”. I think that's a key word in our discussion and in the plan of the committee to explore further the Arctic and what's happening there.

The first thing that comes to mind is that in terms of equipment, Russia has 51 pieces of equipment and the rest of the world has 39. Yes, there's major interest in it for Russia that didn't just happen yesterday—it's been there for over 100 years—as well for Canada and the United States and Europe. We know that the Arctic is rich with resources. There's also the well-used term “polar silk road” with regard to the interests of China.

In my opinion, and I'd like you to comment on this, sovereignty is not just a matter of a claim. It's a matter of the ability to maintain what you have. Here's the challenge. There are two ways we can defend our position and at least defend our interests. The first is government policy and government position and activity. On the other side are the forces on the ground.

As you represent the forces on the ground, what's your assessment of sovereignty? Although I heard from Mr. Hutchinson that there's not much of a concern, what's your assessment moving forward in the next 10, 20 or 30 years? Are you ready to present a plan, or rather to advise the government or the political side of this, on the challenges, on how ready we are, and on how we can react if anything unusual happens? We've seen Crimea. We've seen a lot of other places in the world. I think we do have that concern.

As I said, sovereignty is not a matter of a claim but a matter of how ready and able you are to protect.

[Jeffery Hutchinson]

Perhaps I'll start from the civilian perspective.

As was said earlier, there's a good argument to be made, in my view, that sovereignty is not under threat in the Canadian Arctic. The commercial shipping perspective on sovereignty might be something like this. Sovereignty is not so much about excluding somebody or preventing somebody from entering your maritime space. It's ensuring that whoever enters your maritime space does so on your terms, perhaps in compliance with international law as well, because we are a defender of the international rules-based order.

The framework that Ms. May and I were discussing a few moments ago—those are our terms. That is how you come into Canadian waters in the Arctic. In terms of our co-operation, which we have with the Chinese through the North Pacific Coast Guard Forum and with the Russian coast guard through the Arctic Coast Guard Forum and the North Pacific Coast Guard Forum, from where we sit, our rules, our terms, are not a matter of debate, and they're not being raised as a matter of debate.

From a maritime commercial perspective, a civilian perspective, sovereignty is not under threat. I personally would fall into the camp of folks similar to what I think Major-General Seymour was describing. The need for Russian icebreakers and Russian assets is driven by many other factors. To see those assets as being lined up as a threat to Canadian sovereignty in any way—we see no evidence of that, from where we sit.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

What I'm talking about in terms of a plan is going to the department and at least observing that there is a plan that we can see for the next 10, 20 or 30 years that will give us the ability to be ready if anything happens. The reason for that question is that at some point, an American politician was talking about a continent-wide, custom-free zone in the Arctic somehow. We're talking about close to five million square kilometres out there. That could be a matter of co-operation among the international community or the governments or countries with interests in the region.

Again, to get back to us, are we ready? Do we need to employ more forces? Do we need to have more equipment? Do we need to have more infrastructure? This is not to go back to the same question on infrastructure, and I'm not putting all this weight on your shoulders. I just want to know how well we are planning for the future when it comes to the Arctic.

[Jeffery Hutchinson]

Your comments are interesting and well taken. The American Coast Guard finds its very earliest roots as a cutter service to enforce excise tax, whereas the Canadian Coast Guard finds its very earliest roots as a search and rescue and life saving organization. Those differences in where we've come from continue to inform our operations to a certain extent.

That said, with regard to our co-operation with the Americans and with the Russians and with the other Arctic coast guard nations, it must be underscored that we have a search and rescue agreement with the Arctic coast guards. It's a vast area—we all know that—and outside of the archipelago, where ships can get into trouble, we have to work together. That level of co-operation, shared understanding and shared experience are perhaps our best preparation for what you foresee 20 or 30 years out.

It's currently the case that there isn't another coast guard in the world that can put the experience forward in the Arctic that the Canadian Coast Guard can. I don't say that with pride. I say with all humility that we have the most experienced Arctic crews and captains. They look to us for leadership, and that leadership takes shape in the co-operation that we have with those other coast guards.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Mr. Aboultaif.

Mr. Badawey, go ahead, please.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, fellows and ma'ams, for being out today.

My first question is with respect to the task operations that may be elevated due to the fact that we might have added presence in the area. With that, as Mr. O'Toole, I think, was getting to, are the more disciplined infrastructure investments that you're going to have to make to then protect and/or manage a sovereign asset.

Some of the notes here in the binder are about the marine communications and traffic services centre, the MCTS. First of all, is this system in real time?