Evidence of meeting #20 for National Defence in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was question.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Emeritus Professor, University of Ottawa
To answer your second question, the fact that the Inuit have occupied the land since time immemorial is an important consideration, but it's not connected to the issue of the establishment of the outer limits of the shelf. Nevertheless, it is a major consideration and could prove extremely important for consolidating Canada's rights, specifically its sovereignty over the coastal waters delimited in 1985. Norway took similar action when it determined in 1951 that Norwegian fishers had exclusive fishing rights over two of the country's bodies of water.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you both for your presentations.
Mr. Iskander, can you tell me whether there's currently a planned launch date for the RCM satellites? Is that something that's already been decided or planned for?
4:25 p.m.
President, Information Systems Group, MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates Ltd.
The initial plan right now is for 2012. These are going to be firmed up, based on the studies we're doing right now. In these projects you typically assess your situation as you go along. That's the idea.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Is Radarsat-2 now fully operational? If it is, when did it become fully operational?
4:25 p.m.
President, Information Systems Group, MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates Ltd.
It is fully operational. It has been fully operational since April of 2008. As I said, it's providing a significant amount of radar imagery, not only to the Canadian government but to other neighbouring governments in the Antarctic as well.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Okay. Won't there be significant overlap with the RCM, if it does become operational in 2012?
4:25 p.m.
President, Information Systems Group, MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates Ltd.
Correct.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you.
Professor Pharand, I'm sorry that we didn't get your notes. I hope you're not insulted by our committee--
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I'm very interested in your comments.
First of all, what level of confidence do you have in the fact that the so-called Northwest Passage is part of the inland waters of Canada, and therefore not subject to innocent passage, notwithstanding the Polar Sea? What level of confidence do you have about that?
4:25 p.m.
Emeritus Professor, University of Ottawa
I am, I think I would dare say, at the highest level of confidence. I have written that in a 65-page article, for which I can give you the reference if you're interested.
4:25 p.m.
Emeritus Professor, University of Ottawa
I'll give it to you later, so as not to lose time.
To summarize very briefly, Canada did that, as I indicated a moment ago, not under the Convention on the Law of the Sea, but under customary international law as applied by the International Court of Justice in 1951.
4:25 p.m.
Emeritus Professor, University of Ottawa
Corfu Channel is on navigation rights. No, it was the Anglo-Norwegian fisheries case of 1951. Corfu Channel was in 1949. It had nothing to do with that, but it is important in relation to the Northwest Passage nevertheless, on another point.
The reason I am very confident is that it was only some 20 years later--eighteen and a half years, to be exact--that Canada, after drawing the straight baselines, became party to the Convention on the Law of the Sea, so it was not by virtue of a provision of the law of the sea convention, but by virtue of customary international law. In other words, what I'm saying to you is that in 1985, when Canada drew the straight baselines, there was no right of innocent passage, and therefore after 1985, after the straight baselines were drawn, there was none either.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Okay.
I want to go back to that in my third question, but first I want to give you an opportunity, if you haven't had sufficient time, to tell us what measures Canada should be taking, because I think that was your last point.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Did you cover all the measures you think Canada should be taking to ensure that we have--
4:30 p.m.
Emeritus Professor, University of Ottawa
No. I think I list twelve here. I'm not sure. I had limited myself—you would have seen on my outline—to six of them. The first one I think is the most important one; that is, to make the present voluntary system of northern regulation compulsory, but particularly to enforce it.
What Prime Minister Harper said in August 2008 was that he intended to make northern regulation compulsory, which some of us have been advocating ever since the beginning, some 25 years ago. That's all well and good. It's a good intention. He's expressed a number of good intentions. But first you have to do it. Secondly, you've got to have appropriate regulations in order to support your enforcement measures. And as I understand from an officer of Transport Canada, it is expected to have the regulations in place by 2010. So good intention and good expectation are the only things I can say that are good about this.
You see, it's no good to know that a ship is there and you might not have given it permission to enter. By the way, the northern reulation presently is not actually a permission that is given; it's an acknowledgement. And the distinction is made very specifically that Canada says “Yes, okay, fine, here are the regulations. We will inspect your ship.” It's an acknowledgement that you've notified us, but not that you've asked permission and that we gave you permission. It leaves very much to be desired when one thinks of the requirements for the effective exercise of control over navigation.
Another matter, of course, is that of the polar icebreaker. As you know, in 1985, shortly after the baselines, Mr. Clark, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, decided and a firm decision was taken to have a class 8 icebreaker. It was better than nothing at all. It's not as good as a class 10, but it was a good class 8. And then the next government said it was too much money and we didn't need it, so it was cancelled. So we have none. We have three moderate icebreakers, the old Louis S. St. Laurent and a couple of small ones besides that.
So certainly with that you cannot control the multi-year ice. Even though it's not quite as thick and not quite as extensive, the multi-year ice, which comes down the McClure and down the McClintock.... We were stuck there for two days just because of the polar ice that came down. So it's all well to say that it is melting, but the huge pieces of ice resulting from the melting constitute a very considerable hazard, so that you have to be prepared with the adequate polar icebreaker.
