Evidence of meeting #35 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 ships.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Christopher Hearn  Director, Centre for Marine Simulation, School of Maritime Studies, Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier

Good morning, everyone.

Let us get the 35th meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence underway. As we decided last week, the first part of our session will be in camera.

The session continued in camera.

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier

We are now in public session.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, February 23, 2009, we continue our study on Arctic sovereignty.

From the Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland we have the pleasure of having with us Captain Christopher Hearn, director of the Centre for Marine Simulation, School of Maritime Studies.

Captain Hearn, thank you for being with us, and I'm sorry for the delay. I think you are going to receive your note as soon as possible.

You have the floor.

9:45 a.m.

Captain Christopher Hearn Director, Centre for Marine Simulation, School of Maritime Studies, Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland

They say if you can't tie knots, tie lots.

I'll start by saying that I would like to take this opportunity to thank this committee for giving me the chance to come in and provide a kind of industry-based opinion on matters of Arctic sovereignty, and indeed operations in Canada's Arctic, with an insight into operations in other jurisdictions and other operations in other areas.

My career at sea has led me all over the world. It has also led me to transit and operate in many of the waters within Canada's Arctic. I suppose from that point of view I can certainly offer some opinions as someone who has stood on the bridge of a ship, responsible for the operation of a ship in ice-covered waters in the remote and distant parts of Canada's Arctic and the issues that surround that.

I'd like to start by possibly giving you a tale of two cities, or a tale of two passages. This past summer, as you are probably all well aware, two German container ships transited Russia's northern sea route. This is particularly interesting because it was the first time outside commercial interests have been allowed through this route that the Russians had developed over probably the past 40 years. They have significant resources in that sea route. There are several large ports and much infrastructure along that route.

As a point of interest, if a ship were to sail from Japan to Europe by travelling the northern sea route, it would sail approximately 8,500 miles, as opposed to 13,000 through the Suez Canal. So there is a significant commercial interest to operating through that kind of route.

The ships themselves were ice-strengthened, and they were escorted the entire time by two Russian icebreakers. They sailed from Japan and ended up in Rotterdam. This is interesting. The company that owned the two ships was very impressed by the service. They were extremely pleased with the trip overall. It was a very good money-maker for them, and they are actively now soliciting further business through this route again. So that is the northern sea route through the top of Russia.

In the Northwest Passage—or as I read in the paper this morning, the Canadian Northwest Passage—approximately 200 vessels are operating in the Arctic at any one time. The number of vessels that actually transit through the Northwest Passage I don't have off the top of my head, but it's not a lot. In my opinion, I don't think we'll see dedicated, continuous traffic through the passage. I'm not going to dispute that the ice cap is receding or that some of the passages are open. There is more than one passage in the Northwest Passage. There are several.

If you look at sailing from the Far East to Europe through the Northwest Passage you are approximately looking at 8,000 miles, versus 15,000 through the Panama Canal, but you won't see vessels transiting that route like you will possibly in the northern sea route in Russia. The trade pattern is just not there. Most traffic that sails from the Far East and ends up in Europe is through the Panama Canal. The canal was built for that reason. They are currently expanding their capability. They're adding in a second set of locks to handle larger vessels, and unless there is a direct commercial or economic advantage in attempting to move into the Northwest Passage, I don't think you'll see many operators looking that way—again, unless it's economically viable. If companies look at sailing their vessels through that route and can prove it's a cost saver and they can increase on their freight rates, then they'll do it.

Then they have to look at the capital costs of building vessels to do that, or whether they can even get up there and pass through, with the ice conditions as they are.

The problem with the receding ice cap is that it's flooding the channels with multi-year ice, and it's unpredictable. The ice coverage changes from year to year. If you pass through a route one year that is relatively ice-free, there is no guarantee that the next year it will be relatively free of ice. In the past you could almost count on continuous ice coverage there. You knew it was there; it was a given. It was something you had to deal with.

If you don't see large commercial interests there, like container ships or cargo ships using it as a passage from one place to another, you'll see an increase in minerals coming out of the Arctic, and oil and gas exploration moving into the Arctic. The one that concerns me is the cruise industry increasing its visitation to the Arctic now, especially with the receding ice levels. This is worrying because of the unpredictability of the ice and ice coverage. There are also some other factors that I will try to explain.

In my experiences in the Arctic, sailing as a master of vessels operating in ice, what always concerned me, apart from the ice itself, was the lack of infrastructure and the remoteness in terms of being able to be rescued should there be an issue. There's also a lack of dedicated, good charting, soundings, and imagery. The Arctic has roughly 20% coverage in terms of charts, and only 10% of those charts are up to standard levels. I had the pleasure of using a chart, when I travelled the Labrador coast and into the Arctic, from what was originally surveyed by Captain Cook. There has been no change to that chart since then, apart from some additional information. The original baseline data is that old.

Lack of charting data and infrastructure really places a lot of emphasis on the ability of the crew, the master, or the senior officers on the ship. If you look at the cruise ships or vessels of opportunity that might be moving into these waters, that's a concern. They sail into particular waters that weren't ice-covered before, and they might sail in there again. If they don't know the area and don't have an ice pilot engaged, if they are using charts that do not have adequate soundings, and if they have no ice navigation experience.... I can conceive of no greater tragedy, apart from an oil spill in the Arctic, than a cruise ship sinking in the Arctic. If even a small cruise ship of 500 to 1,000 passengers were to founder or sink in some remote area, you would have to look at the evacuation and escape of the people and the time it would take to muster an adequate response and get to them. And you'd be dealing with people of various ages.

The centre I work for and represent is heavily engaged in operating in ice because of the offshore oil and gas industry. Our main clients are the offshore oil and gas industry. These are the people who are continuously looking farther north. There are plans to explore in the Davis Strait, the Beaufort, and maybe even the Greenland straits and off the coast of Greenland. There's an economic driver for this, so as long as the price of a barrel of oil stays high they will look that way. You will see them start to move into those areas. On what they have going for them, they have significant dollars to put toward research to enable them to do that.

That's what facilities like ours and the ocean technology cluster that exists in St. John's are addressing. We're looking at how we make the ships safer and how we make people safer. How do we train them? How do we make them aware of the operational issues? As I say, ships fit for the purpose and people fit for the purpose--this is something we are heavily involved in.

We haven't seen a lot of interest from cruise line industries, or the vessels of opportunity, as such. But the oil and gas industry is considering these issues very heavily, primarily because they are involved with oil, which is a nasty thing when released, and nobody wants to see that. They definitely don't, so it's very much in their favour to engage with groups like ours.

If you look at the Russian context and the Norwegian and the Finnish, there is currently in operation in the Russian Arctic one oil field that is completely ice-covered. The Varendey field is a successful operation using specifically built vessels with a specifically designed platform. That's completely ice-covered. This technology could possibly make its way over here.

St. John's, earlier this month, was the host of a major international Arctic shipping conference that saw groups from primarily shipping companies, classification societies, the shipping industry as a whole, that deal with the issues of how to operate safely in the Arctic, and indeed how to exploit opportunities that arise. While they were there to examine and look closely at Newfoundland's challenges in pushing an oil industry into an ice-operating environment, they were also very interested to know what Canada is doing, what Canada is preparing for. Does it have the ability to respond? What kinds of situations will you get involved in? So it was a very good discourse by lots of groups to present and to discuss these matters.

I will get back to the point of infrastructure. I remember one time when we were supplying a particular place in the Arctic, we actually had to use a bulldozer as one of our mooring bollards for the vessel. There was no facility there whatsoever to do anything with. This is pretty much the same throughout the entire Arctic for the towns, the communities that are there. This is what I mean by lack of infrastructure. For the vessels that are operating in those areas, that are providing the sea lift, the cargo, the staples of life that those communities need, what have you, there's nothing there for ships to be able to tie up to or to be able to operate from or to be able to do anything safely.

Friends of mine who are involved in transporting oil--heating oil and fuel oil--around the Arctic are continuously having to deal with the fact of the tides and the fact that they have no good area to tie up. They typically anchor and then try to run their hoses to the beach, to the facilities. They have really made a success out of it, but it's continuous vigilance. At any time they will have to stop and retrieve the hose. If something happens, then we have a problem. We have a spill or something going on that's not very good.

So you're looking at this all across the Arctic in many of the communities and in many of the places that are being developed. In the mining interests that are operating there, if you look at what's planned for Baffin Island--

10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier

Captain Hearn, you still have one minute.

10 a.m.

Capt Christopher Hearn

Well, I guess I can certainly wrap that up. I can get going.

What we have to look at is what does Canada want to do in the Arctic? How do we want to make our presence felt? I would say mandatory requirements under NORDREG--or the northern reporting system for ships--inspections of vessels of opportunity or cruise ships that are going to move into the Arctic. Canada, under its transportation agency, Transport Canada, is doing great work involving the International Maritime Organization's guidelines for ships operating in polar waters. This should be strengthened, and it should be really pushed that in order for vessels to operate in what we're considering to be our Arctic, then we should ensure that the people are fit for the purpose, as well as the ships. We should certainly engage with the people who are in the Arctic because they know it best and they know what they need best. They are probably more valid than me to talk about what should be done.

10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier

Thank you very much.

Now I will give the floor to Mr. Wilfert.

10 a.m.

Liberal

Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for coming.

You could respond to a couple of things, the first being the need for the federal government to consider a strategy that is coherent, rather than something on a sectoral or fragmented basis in dealing with the Arctic. It would seem to me it's something we should be very much focused on. There's also the fact that we need, particularly for Canada's internal waters in the Arctic, to pay close attention to having a marine authority in the Arctic to deal with these issues.

If my memory serves me correctly, there was a cruise ship--I think it was the Frontier, but I'm afraid I may have the wrong ship--that went north and sank. It was designed for the north, and it actually sank. There were 150 on board. Fortunately, there were other ships in the area, so no one perished. But there's the fact that just as we have vessels that tour the Caribbean or tour the Mediterranean, we have vessels that go north. And when there is a response.... I've been told that regardless of whether it's Canada or whoever, it would have taken up to 24 hours to respond. You're not likely to last more than three minutes in the water.

How would you respond to those kinds of issues in terms of a maritime authority, a coherent approach to dealing with this issue?

10 a.m.

Capt Christopher Hearn

It's a very good question, one that I would say many departments within the government are trying to wrestle out. I guess you have to look at the groups that are interested in what happens in the Arctic. I'm talking about Transport Canada, Environment Canada, the Department of National Defence, and probably several more that escape me. It's a matter of one taking primacy and using the others as deputy organizations.

It's a very good question. I think the answer would be to have one group that is appointed to form a special committee of these varying groups, which would sit together and decide on what is required to be done in the Arctic for vessels entering there.

On your point about the cruise ship, I'm not really familiar with that one. I know the one that sank in the Antarctic, which is outside the scope of this question. They were lucky; they were rescued because there was another vessel there. If you look at our Arctic, a small cruise ship or a vessel of opportunity that's moving into this area to either take something out or back to the cruise ship story, it is distance and presence that are going to be required, whether it be the facility in Nanisivik, whether it be another facility that's primarily dedicated to only search and rescue in some other part of the Arctic, so that it can at least get to where the issue is.

I think whatever body would be created, this organization, whether it be Transport Canada, a naval Transport Canada that deals primarily with Arctic issues, I think it would be tasked with having to identify this problem: where do we place our resources?

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON

Could you comment on how we could strengthen the mandate of the Arctic Council in terms of providing tools--you were mentioning some of the issues before us today--that might help us in responding to these issues?

10:05 a.m.

Capt Christopher Hearn

I think the Arctic Council are doing quite a good job. They're dealing with an onerous task because of the issues that are being faced in the Arctic now as to who owns what and who has responsibility over what. In my humble opinion, more teeth need to be put into this kind of committee so that this group has the ability to enforce what it sees as best practices.

The International Maritime Organization has been hammering at trying to come up with a widely accepted standard and guideline for ships operating in polar waters, known as the polar code. It's been quite a long process and a long task, and I think this group--and there is a group from Canada that is on that working committee at the IMO--should probably sit at the same table and bring over some of the results of the things the polar committee has been dealing with. I think the recommendations coming out of that committee should be requirements--for example, for ice navigation, for ships operating in ice, for search and rescue ability, for equipment on board, for date and time of entry, even to the establishment of some sort of permanent presence in the Arctic for search and rescue security.

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON

It would seem to me that legislative tools are absolutely essential at the territorial, provincial, and certainly at the national level in dealing with a certain set of principles with regard to the Arctic, with certain objectives, and that we need to be working in concert with our neighbours, particularly the Danes and the Russians.

Again, I think there is some concern that events are moving much faster than we can respond to—particularly the notion that the Northwest Passage may be open within ten years, ice-free. And the fact is that winds are changing. Over Greenland, you don't see any dirt on the top, but when the ice breaks off, you see very dirty ice. But this is now changing, and the concern now is that in Greenland, in fact, it's receding so quickly.

Are there any specific tools you might want to suggest, either now or in writing to us in the future, that could be helpful in terms of a legislative approach for maritimers that would strengthen the issue of passage? Again, you talked about that company, which was very pleased about the implications, obviously, for that kind of travel in the north.

10:05 a.m.

Capt Christopher Hearn

It's a good point, a good question.

Again, going back to the company that sent its vessels through the northern sea route, they have been able to take advantage of a willing and capable Russian ice ability. They're, as I said, actively engaged in trying to bring in more interest in this route so that they can start an actual freight route through this run.

If you put this in the Canadian context, there are several large companies—Fednav being the largest—that are operating in the Arctic in terms of taking out resources, mineral ore. They've done quite a lot of good work in preparing and ensuring their vessels are good. But I think what needs to happen is that any kind of a committee that's assigned or tasked with—I'll put it roughly—sheriffing or policing the Arctic would need to sit down with the companies that are operating there, because they have the wealth of experience. They're there; it is their monetary reason to be there; they will want to be sitting at the table. If I am making money in the Arctic now, if my ships are operating, if I'm coming out of the Arctic carrying ore, then I want to be at that table with any group that is going to decide anything about the Arctic in terms of operating procedures, facilities, or infrastructure, or indeed who can go in, who can't go in, what kind of people have to be aboard the ships, and what the ships are going to be made of.

That's what I would suggest. There is a wealth of expertise and a wealth of experience that can certainly be tapped into. I'm not talking about on the defence side of things; I'm talking on the purely commercial side. These are the groups that will say that in order for vessels like cruise ships or vessels of opportunity that have no experience operating in ice to come into this environment, they're going to have to reach this level.

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON

Thank you, Captain.

For the record, Mr. Chairman, my memory isn't as good as I thought. It was in the Antarctic, and it was the Frontier I was thinking of. But the same principle applies. They were in waters where there was no ability to respond effectively. There was a response, but in normal cases that could have been quite tragic.

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier

Thank you.

Now I'll give the floor to Mr. Bachand.

10:10 a.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Hearn, you said that you have sailed the seven seas. Do you have a lot of navigation experience in the far north? How many times have you been to the far north? Are you able to tell the committee that?

10:10 a.m.

Capt Christopher Hearn

I have crossed the Arctic Circle 16 times.

10:10 a.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

You have been there 16 times. In your presentation, you seem to be saying that vessels will not be able to use the passage year-round any time soon. If I understood your presentation, it is far from certain that vessels will be able to undertake that passage at any time of the year with no navigation problems. You say that there are navigation problems and those problems will continue into the future. Is that what you are saying?

10:10 a.m.

Capt Christopher Hearn

Well, you're looking at an area that's completely under-developed in terms of enabling shipping activity. Probably I should clarify that there won't be any dramatic increase in shipping activity in the Arctic overnight. It just won't happen.

I guess the main issue that causes a lot of concern, when I compare it to the northern sea route in Russia, is that with a transit through an area--I'm sailing from this place and I'm going to this place, and I'm going to sail a particular route that gets me there quicker--I'm only going to do it because it's economically feasible. If ice is going to prevent me from doing that, then I'm not going to do it.

What I'm concerned about, or what I was trying to mention, was that despite that fact, there will always be some operators who think that maybe we can establish a route through here. Also, there are groups who are moving into the Arctic. They won't move there overnight. The oil and gas industry is moving ever closer toward operating in the Arctic; the cruise line industry is now moving into the Arctic, but they're not—

10:10 a.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

You seem to be saying that cruise ships are taking a risk. Your fear is that a cruise ship could find itself in a very bad situation.

I have a problem with that. It seems to me that companies that insure cruise ships, should, without necessarily prohibiting anything, warn cruise lines that their vessels may not be insurable if they sail in an area that they may or may not be familiar with. I also know that, at the moment, the whole government search and rescue operation is not yet up to speed. I share your reservations. If a vessel were ever in distress in the far north, it would take an enormous amount of time before search and rescue operations could get underway. If I owned a cruise ship line, I would not be inclined to send my ships into the far north at the first opportunity.

10:15 a.m.

Capt Christopher Hearn

Of course they will. In the very Byzantine world of marine insurance, you are defined by what's called your warranty limits, where your vessel is insurable to sail. There are specific regimes, we'll call them, within the insurance industry for vessels that are moving into the Arctic. But that only limits you in terms of latitude, how far north you can go.

The cruise ship industry--apart from the occasional one that will make the Northwest Passage or one of the passages--is primarily interested in going places where there isn't anybody else, where there are no ships. They are going to be heading into areas where they can disembark their passengers, where they can put them ashore in a remote, stark, but amazing landscape. So they're moving into areas where there isn't anybody else, and that's the issue I'm concerned about: given the lack of really good charting and navigational information, some of these vessels, with probably crews that have not been in these areas before, could find themselves in trouble very quickly because of a lack of experience and also a lack of a prompt rescue capability.

10:15 a.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Could I ask you for a favour? A few years ago, I was talking in the House about the Northern Passage, and the House people called me to ask if I meant the Northwest Passage or the Northeast Passage. On our maps, unfortunately, this fabled passage is not shown. You generally hear about the Northwest Passage.

Could you help us by showing us the passage on a map? If I come in from the Atlantic and sail into Davis Strait, am I in the Northeast Passage or the Northwest Passage?

No? I am not in either?

10:15 a.m.

Capt Christopher Hearn

The Northwest Passage, as I say, is not just one single passage. There is a main Northwest Passage. If you were going up the Davis Strait, and you're going to head west, then you're in the Northwest Passage.

10:15 a.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Can we go to Baffin Bay?

10:15 a.m.

Capt Christopher Hearn

No.

10:15 a.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

I think I might see you afterwards, then, because I think it's going to be a complicated business.