National Defence Committee on April 27th, 2009

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Bachand.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If I understand you correctly, Ms. Labonté, it is the Department of Indian Affairs that coordinates all the departments. You used the word "coordinate." If the Minister of Foreign Affairs attends a meeting at which the Arctic is discussed, or if the Minister of National Defence speaks about the Arctic in some kind of forum, are they obliged to submit their presentation to you? Is it the Department of Indian Affairs that ensures that everyone shares the same strategy?

[Danielle Labonté]

That's what we try to do on the communications level, and it works quite well most of the time. Some issues are more sensitive than others and require security clearance. We are not always involved, but when Minister Cannon went to Norway... We don't always see the final version of the speeches, but we have many opportunities to make comments and influence what they do.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I believe you said that the government had set your timeline. Do you have certain phases to go through in the next little while and if so, what are they?

[Danielle Labonté]

It varies from one initiative to the next. Several initiatives have already been announced or are already underway. Some of them are short-term and others, long-term. There is no overall deadline by which we must have achieved certain things. It's more on a case-by-case basis.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

What do you mean by initiative? Who takes these initiatives?

[Danielle Labonté]

For example, it takes much longer than one or two years to build a new icebreaker, because that requires a great deal of planning. It's an initiative that is spread over some 10 years. When this project is submitted to cabinet, we discuss the timeline. The same applies to the delimitation of the continental shelf. That is something that must be done in time to meet the 2013 deadline. So certain timelines are set for this project in particular. Each project must be examined based on its merits.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Why haven't you told us that the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf of the United Nations has just recognized an additional 235,000 square kilometres because of their underwater continental shelf? Why don't the members know what's going on? Are they behind?

I know that there is a Canada-Denmark commission studying the seabed under the Lomonossov ridge. Is it normal that we haven't been made aware of this? Would we have to be federal bureaucrats to know more? Is it normal that we have to continually ask you questions on every subject? I feel like I'm being kept in the dark. Is it normal that I must react this way as an elected official and spokesperson for my party concerning what the public really wants to know?

[Danielle Labonté]

I can give you some information, but I'm not an expert in this area.

When a country signs the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,

when a country becomes a signatory, it has ten years, basically, to do the analysis and to submit its claim under the clause on the continental shelf. So that's the work Canada is doing right now. We have until 2013. Each country will have a different timetable, because it depends on when they signed the convention. For instance, the U.S. hasn't signed yet, so its clock hasn't started to tick. Russia signed before us. Each country is going at a different pace.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Was Norway the first one to sign? That's why they brought it forward and they were given the 235,000 square kilometres?

[Danielle Labonté]

I don't know if they've been given anything yet. They've made a claim. Based on their analysis, this is what they are putting forward as their legal case, and then the United Nations body will have to review it, as they'll have to review every other claim. Then at some point if there are conflicting claims, the legal system at the UN will have to figure out how to resolve those issues. So we're doing our work, and we'll be well prepared by the time we have to submit our claim.

There is a lot of cooperation with countries. I do believe Canada--and I'd have to verify that with Natural Resources Canada--is cooperating with Denmark in some parts of the Arctic. It is very expensive to gather this information, so when there's a ship, people from different countries try to cooperate and work together in the collection of data. That may be what you're referring to with Denmark.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Are we working with Denmark on this study? That's what the article appears to say. Does it go higher up at the political level? Are there ministers participating? You seem to do a lot of work with government officials and their subordinates. Does it go higher up than this? For example, is there some kind of inter-ministerial coordination at a higher level that you know of?

[Danielle Labonté]

Yes, we have fairly regular cabinet meetings on Arctic issues. We submit reports to the Priorities and Planning Committee about twice a year. Other committees oversee other projects. There is thus coordination between the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office. There is no cabinet committee specifically on the Arctic, but the coordination is good.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Da Pont, did I understand that the Louis S. St-Laurent is currently studying and mapping the seabed in order to develop our claim to the continental shelf? Is that what I understood?

[George Da Pont]

Yes, that's correct, it's what we've been doing for two years. Last season, we worked part of the time with an American icebreaker; we shared tasks. As Ms. Labonté just explained, the conditions in the Far North, as you know, are very difficult. In the area north of the Beaufort Sea, the conditions were very harsh and it was virtually impossible to do the work required with only one icebreaker.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to ask the representative of the coast guard a few questions.

I should let you know I'm from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and this year we're celebrating the 100th anniversary of Captain Bob Bartlett's explorations in the north with Mr. Peary. I'd recommend his book, which I just read, called The Log of Bob Bartlett , which was written in 1927. It is a fascinating study of the voyages to the north. It was actually around the time Canada was starting patrols in 1903, so it was a few years after that.

Can you tell us, Mr. Da Pont, whether or not the coast guard has any independent mandate within the north? I know you've talked about support activities here, but what I'm getting at is this. Do you say, “We need this kind of asset to support our mandate”--i.e., we need more icebreakers, we need more patrol vessels, we need more of this or that--or does someone else say, “Well, we'll give you the job based on the tools you already have”?

Just tell us about your mandate. Do you have any independent mandate in the north?

[George Da Pont]

There's only one aspect of our mandate that's a little bit different in the north from what it is south of 60. We basically deliver the same range of programs in the north as we do in the south, and we have the same responsibilities. The only difference is that under the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the coast guard in the north is the primary responder to pollution incidents. That's the only area of our mandate where there is something specifically different.

The other thing is, obviously, the role of supply to some of the northern communities, which is something we don't do south of 60. But we would be the ones to assess what assets we have and what we need to deliver the mandate, and we would put forward from time to time requests to government for either additional assets or renewed assets. We've had some significant success, as I'm sure you're aware, in the last couple budgets. One Madame Labonté mentioned, for example, that an announcement has been made and funding provided to replace the Louis S. St-Laurent, which is our largest and most powerful icebreaker.

A second is that we received several million dollars--I believe two or three million dollars--a couple of budgets ago to increase our environmental response capacity in the north.

So we assess that, and we put forward proposals into the various processes, and the northern strategy process was one example of that.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

You mentioned during your remarks that the northern vessel traffic service's own regulations are in place requesting that vessels report their intention to enter Canadian waters—although reporting is not mandatory at this point. Is this your program? If the vessels were going to report to anyone, would it be to you they would report?

[George Da Pont]

Yes, the reports would go to our marine communications and traffic control centres. We have seasonal ones in Iqaluit and Inuvik.

The overall regulatory responsibility is with Transport Canada, but we're the operational end. The reports come to us and we process them.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

What has the record been like with their so-called voluntary reporting of their presence? Can you give us a run-down on that?

[George Da Pont]

It's been our general impression that the vast majority of vessels going to the Arctic do report voluntarily. It is in their self-interest, obviously, to do so if they run into difficulty and require assistance of any nature. But given that it is voluntary and not mandatory, from time to time there have been vessels that have not reported.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I am a little surprised, Mr. Da Pont, with the vagueness of your answer, saying that it's your “impression” the vast majority report voluntarily. Are you telling us you don't know? Do we have any way of knowing? Can you say, for example, that 10 vessels went there in 2008 and didn't report?

It would seem obvious that it may be in someone's interest, if they're going into dangerous waters, to let someone know they're there, just like if you're going hiking in the mountains where you might encounter difficult circumstances. But do we have a way of knowing whether someone is there or not?

[George Da Pont]

At the moment we don't have a way of knowing this in a way that could give you the precise numbers or information you're looking for. Certainly when vessels operating in the Arctic have voluntarily notified us, we've been better able to track them.

One of the things that will greatly enhance our ability to do that, as I mentioned in my presentation, is that when we begin this year, and into next year, to roll out the long-range identification tracking system, it will give us for the first time a very good capacity to track vessels in the north. It's satellite-based, rather than relying on land infrastructure. So once that system is fully implemented next year, it will significantly improve our ability to do the type of tracking you're referring to.