National Defence Committee on May 13th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Mr. Pharand. You may continue.

I believe Mr. Payne has a question for you.

I'll give the floor to Monsieur Payne.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for coming.

And I'll get back to you, Mr. Pharand.

I was obviously very pleased to hear in your presentation, Mr. Iskander, that MDA has a facility in Suffield. Of course Suffield is in my riding. And of course—

[Prof. Donat Pharand]

What is in your riding? I'm awfully sorry, sir.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

MDA has a facility in our riding, in the Medicine Hat riding. The Canadian Centre for Unmanned Vehicle Systems is also headquartered in Medicine Hat. So that, for me, is a very positive thing.

I found your presentation, as well as the one the other day regarding the satellites and the possibilities of getting all the information from those, very intriguing. On that front, could you tell me a bit more about the abilities of Radarsat-2 in tracking ships and possibly other land items and icebergs?

[Mag Iskander]

Radar capabilities are unique, because they operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They are not obstructed by clouds. They are not obstructed by light--that is, the absence of light. The area of interest, of course, is in darkness most of the year, so you can see the advantage of using radar.

When it comes to monitoring waters, because of the nature of the flatness of the water, and because ships are very small objects relative to the size of the ocean, optical devices really do not give the optimum observation value. Radar has capabilities for spotting ships via detecting the wave behind the ship. Radar can understand the angularity of the water and can actually see waves of water and can then detect ships through the wakes behind the ships.

Combined with identification means, such as the AIS of the ship, and fusing other data, you can get timely, accurate information to make a decision and have the enforcement the professor spoke about. The only way you can do that in such a massive area is through radar based in space. That's really the advantage of radar.

With regard to land, actions on land, and information related to land, of course, airborne radar is again of significant value. The same characteristics, again, because of the clouds and the absence of light, whether it is airborne on a CP-140 patrol aircraft or on an unmanned airborne vehicle, give you the same thing. In this case, in the latter case, you can get it near real time. As you're passing over, you can actually get the imagery.

The idea is that it's a phased approach. You have radar that is in lower orbit to give us the overall picture. Radar data is really not that useful if you don't have the techniques and the algorithms to analyze the data and detect the change. Here in Canada we are leaders, without question, in the world. Again, change detection is one of our strengths. So you get the overall picture, and once you spot an area of interest, you deploy more localized radar surveillance to determine the nature of the activities, and you decide, based on that, whether you want to take an action.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I find it quite intriguing that you can determine that a ship is there in terms of the waves. I'm wondering what size of ship would be required to make the waves so that the radar could actually get that image.

[Mag Iskander]

We have capabilities on Radarsat-2 to go down to a one-metre resolution. A one-metre resolution, presented in normal language, means that any object that is more than one metre by one metre in surface will be detected by the radar. This is what we call a spotlight, which is the tight lens. In normal operations, we can go to three metres. RCM is expected to be between three and five metres, which is ample for detection of an average ship or a small ship, for that matter.

Of course, just to add, the CP-140, as you may know, is also used to detect subwater activities as well, as part of their current missions.

I just want to remind the committee that the RCM, although we're working on Radarsat Constellation Mission, is only partially funded. This is not funded through the completion of the program. It's funded only through the next phase. We are in phase B, and it's only funded through phase C.

I also mention the polar communication weather satellite. That is also not funded. These are programs that need to be addressed by the government. They need to be approved. They need to be fully funded in order for this to be realized in the next decade.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Twenty seconds.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I'll just finish up.

You talked about illegal fishing. Maybe you could describe how you could figure out somebody was fishing illegally in the Arctic waters.

[Mag Iskander]

Should I respond to this? I'm not sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Go ahead, please.

[Mag Iskander]

The identification of the ship comes in very handy through matching it with the radar image. One would know whether that ship is permitted to operate in this water or not. Just recently, we participated in certain activities that quickly uncovered some illegal fishing on the coast of Europe. You see the ship but you don't know if it's legal or illegal. So you need to identify the ship through automatic identification system or other means and then fuse the data and by comparison you would know whether it is or is not permitted to operate there.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Coderre.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Professor Pharand, we've talked at length about conventions and treaties. We are trying to grasp the legal complexities and so forth. I'd like to talk about symbolic gestures, for the layman. For example, the Russians arrive by submarine and plant a flag, while the Danes seize control of an island. One can imagine Canada's reaction to these incidents.

Do gestures like these have an overall impact, or are they merely for show? As far as the negotiations are concerned, what do these symbolic gestures mean?

[Prof. Donat Pharand]

They mean nothing, absolutely nothing. The Russians are no fools and they know this very well. It's all for show, for the media.

That said, from a scientific standpoint, I have to say that the Russians are far more advanced that the other four Arctic states in terms of their knowledge of the geology of the Arctic polar basin. It began with the Papanine expedition in 1937 and, if I'm not mistaken, they have now reached station 45. They know the geology of the Arctic polar basin.

In 1974, the Russians published a geological map showing the location of the Lomonosov Ridge. The Americans maintain that this ridge contains approximately 25% of the world's oil reserves. The ridge is a disputed area. Russia is claiming ownership of this shelf, a position disputed by Denmark and Canada.

Generally speaking, from a scientific and legal standpoint, the level of cooperation is fairly good. Not long ago, on Mary 28, 2008 to be precise, the five coastal Arctic States made a declaration in Greenland. These five States get along very well. Despite the Russian flag-planting spectacle, the States do get along.

The Law of the Sea provides for important rights and obligations concerning the delineation of the outer limits of the continental shelf. The protection of the marine environment, which of course is immensely important there, includes ice-covered areas, freedom of navigation, marine scientific research, and other uses of the sea. This is the important part. We remain committed to this legal framework and the orderly settlement of any possible overlapping claims.

It's important to emphasize that although the United States are not yet a signatory to the convention, they have expressed their support for the declaration of the leaders of the five coastal Arctic states.

So then, to answer your question, the gesture is meaningless.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Legally speaking, is this declaration in fact a declaration of intent?

[Prof. Donat Pharand]

I'm happy you brought that up. It's more than a simple declaration of intent.

As it so happens, a decision was reached in 1933 in the matter of a dispute between Norway and Denmark over the sovereignty of the eastern part of Greenland. The court held that when a head of State or a representative speaks on behalf of his government, even if only to make a simple declaration, the government is bound by the declaration, even if it is unilateral. In this case, the declaration was made by five countries, following a special conference the purpose of which was to determine the degree to which the five States could agree.

Some argued that the Arctic Ocean was a very unique body of water and that special legislation was needed, to put the issue into Canadian legal terms. However, the Arctic Ocean is subject to the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Professor Pharand. You've been quite clear.

I will now turn the floor over to Mr. Blaney.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bernier.

My first question is for Professor Pharand.

Thank you for joining us. You mentioned the Russians' feat. You also spoke about the Northwest Passage and the historic and legal dimensions of the actions of Canadian navigator Joseph-Elzéar Bernier. July 1, 2009 will mark the 100th anniversary of Captain Bernier's claim to sovereignty over the Canadian Arctic archipelago.

Do you consider this to be an important gesture in terms of our sovereignty over the High Arctic, Professor Pharand?

[Prof. Donat Pharand]

Excuse me, but what incident are you referring to exactly?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

On July 1, 1909, Captain Bernier erected a plaque on Ellesmere Island.

[Prof. Donat Pharand]

I apologize, but I didn't quite catch the name.

Joseph-Elzéar Bernier made four trips to the Arctic and on one of these trips, he erected a plaque. He was a proponent of the sector theory, which, I can assure you, carries no legal weight. Nevertheless, I'm not saying that his gesture was meaningless.

He proclaimed Canadian sovereignty over the land, not the waters. He explained this in a book that he later wrote. He claimed all of the lands inside this triangle for Canada, that is from longitude 141 degrees to latitude 69 degrees, detouring around Greenland.

If the Canadian sovereignty claim involved only the lands and islands, then this gesture might mean something. However, it has no bearing in terms of our claim to Arctic waters, or especially in terms of the legal status of the routes through the Northwest Passage.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you for answering that question very clearly, Professor Pharand.

My second question is for you, Mr. Iskander.

You stated that you were very involved in air and submarine surveillance and control systems in the High Arctic.

Basically, my question has to do with the difference between what is currently being done and what we would really like to see happen. I think you have a pretty good idea of the type of monitoring that is needed.

You made no mention of costs in your presentation. Could you give us an estimate of the cost associated with the different systems that you develop. You also mentioned that there was a private component and well as a public one. Could you tell us more about that?

[Prof. Donat Pharand]

I don't think I can help you a lot as far as the last two points are concerned. I'm not up on the financial side of matters. My sole concern is the legal side.