National Defence Committee on Oct. 27th, 2009

[Capt Christopher Hearn]

The Northwest Passage is typically across the top of North America, either direction.

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

Okay.

[Capt Christopher Hearn]

East or west, it's always the Northwest Passage. It's termed the Northwest Passage. It's an historical reference. It was from the British Admiralty and other groups trying to find their way to India and Asia. It's the fabled Northwest Passage. There was never much thought of coming east through this passage. They were simply trying to find a way round to go to India.

The northern sea route is across the top of Russia.

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

Okay. Is there is an eastern northern passage?

[Capt Christopher Hearn]

No, no.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much, Monsieur Bachand.

I will give the floor to Mr. Harris.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your presentations.

There are all kinds of questions that come to mind. You're talking about charts from Captain Cook's era, which I gather, if my memory serves, is 1770s or thereabouts. You were talking about vessels of opportunity. Perhaps you could tell us what they are. I gather they not Arctic-strengthened vessels that are there regularly. Maybe you could elaborate on that a little bit.

If we have cruise ships and other vessels going into the Arctic, what would you think about that if they don't have the training or experience themselves? You referred to the Russians having icebreakers. Is there a possibility of putting pilots on board, or ice navigators or something like that? What kinds of expectations would you have there, or is there some sort of training you would expect these captains or masters to have, and who could provide that training?

[Capt Christopher Hearn]

Your first question, about the vessels of opportunity, that's primarily an industry term for vessels that are available for charter. If I'm a mining operator and I need my ore to get out, I'll either have engaged a company who owns ships to do that--that's a liner service--or I'll engage a vessel that's outside of that to come in for one or two loads. That's a vessel of opportunity, a vessel that's available to be chartered and available immediately to come in and do the work.

To answer your second question, I think the training should be mandatory for ice operations. It's a very specific niche and requires specialist training.

If you look at what should be done for vessels such as cruise ships or things like that, in the Russian context they have 75 icebreakers, 16 polar class, four of which are nuclear-powered, and six icebreakers dedicated to the northern sea route itself. That's a remarkable capability, but they've made it their practice and they've made it something they're primarily interested in, so they have a lot of capacity there.

If you look at the immediate Canadian context, obviously we'd like to see dedicated icebreakers assigned to parts of the Arctic. The coast guard is obviously tasked with search and rescue, as well as providing ice-breaking services. So if companies can provide and can prove they can bring in icebreakers that are capable, that meet Canadian standards, that operate with a Canadian crew, then maybe they can use an icebreaker-for-hire to assist. But I think that for any vessels that will be transiting or operating in the Canadian Arctic, Canada should endeavour through either Transport Canada or a similar agency to ensure that there is ice navigation expertise on board, whether it's provided by a third party like an ice pilot, which right now is only voluntary--a company doesn't have to take an ice pilot if they don't want to.... It should be mandatory that this expertise comes on the vessel and assists the master with making decisions to enable the vessel to navigate safely.

In terms of training, we feel very strongly at our facility that training is a key element. The human factor is almost always the underlying element in any marine accident. We are heavily involved in developing, promoting, and expanding our current scope of ice navigation training. A facility like ours, which is currently the only one in Canada that provides ice navigation training, deals primarily with the oil and gas industry. We also deal with some liner services that are operating into the Arctic.

So around the world, primarily you're looking at the northern countries. There is training available in Russia, in Sweden, in Norway, in Finland, and ourselves. We're basically it for training properly in ice environments.

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

Thank you, Captain Hearn.

This is the defence committee, and we're interested in matters of that nature. This summer many of the manoeuvres and operations in the Arctic had to be cancelled because of ice conditions. Should we have ice-capable patrol vessels, some purpose-built vessels for operating in the Arctic as defence vessels? Is that the best way for us to have a permanent presence in the Arctic? Or is there another way? What do you feel about being able to operate naval vessels in the Arctic, given the Canadian government's capabilities as they exist right now?

[Capt Christopher Hearn]

I've been watching the story of the Arctic offshore patrol vessels with a great degree of interest, because in my own opinion I'm a little bit skeptical as to the design of the vessels. An icebreaking vessel is purpose-built and specially designed for just that, for operating in ice. They do not make effective offshore vessels or vessels for operating in no-ice conditions because of the nature of their hull and how they're designed. The thought that a vessel can be built to operate both in ice and in an offshore environment has been tried. There was some success, but generally the vessels from a cost perspective are not overly successful.

If we're looking at an expanded naval presence or operating presence in the Arctic, then another icebreaker or more dedicated icebreakers are what is required. That's what you need up there. Those are the vessels that are designed to be up there. If you're looking at maybe something that's more cost-effective, maybe a coast guard vessel with a naval presence, or a naval presence with a coast guard special operating group on board, however that works. But that's at a larger scale.

Immediately, I think that enabling Transport Canada to carry out dedicated inspections of vessels moving into the Arctic is important--that we say whether an operator has the ability, whether their crew is sufficiently trained, whether the ships are officially able to operate in an Arctic environment, and also ensure that we have a Canadian ice pilot on board.

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

Since you've come here from my constituency, I have just one question. You could do a little advertising. You were talking about an ocean technology cluster in St. John's. You're the head of the Centre for Marine Simulation. What else is available in that area?

[Capt Christopher Hearn]

The cluster is made up of approximately 50 companies and growing, all dedicated to harsh-environment technology and the development of marine technology. Apart from our centre, there's also the entire Marine Institute, and the National Research Council's Institute for Ocean Technology, which has the largest ice and wave tanks in the world, where a tremendous amount of research is going on in terms of really looking at evacuation and survival in the Arctic. There are companies that are designing specialist radars that are high fidelity and designed for primarily operating in ice, which are very good products. You're looking at companies that are also interested in monitoring systems for ships in the Arctic for continuous tracking of where they are. I think that's also something that's vital for ensuring Canada's primacy in the Arctic, that we know who's there, we know where they are all the time.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much, Captain Hearn.

Now I will give the floor to Mrs. Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you.

If Canada chooses to open up the Canadian Northwest Passage for commercial traffic, what length of time do we have before our country's opportunity becomes obsolete, or another country seizes the opportunity from us?

[Capt Christopher Hearn]

Do you mean in governing who goes through or enabling who goes through?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

In governing and enabling, from a commercial standpoint.

[Capt Christopher Hearn]

Well, the oil companies that were undertaking exploration in the Beaufort Sea came to the government and said they weren't going to wait, that they had the ability, and that they were going to advance the science. If government would meet them halfway, they said, they would provide their own icebreaking services and advance the technology. This happened, and it happened in partnership with the government. Overall it was very successful. Beaufort Sea was a success. It was an economic factor that eventually closed out operations there.

In my visits to other jurisdictions, I have been looking primarily at what's happening in Finland and at Finland's cooperation with Russia. The Finns and the Russians together provide a pretty formidable pairing. You're looking at Russian industrial capacity combined with Finnish technology. The Finns are pointed completely at making themselves the best at producing Arctic or Arctic marine technology. They're very good at it. They're excellent.

If we continue to wring our hands over what we want to do and how we're going to do it, eventually these other countries will completely pass us by. We'll be left behind with an aging fleet of icebreakers, no pursuit of technology, and limited capability to police our own Arctic waters. The companies might take action themselves.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

We've heard testimony that Canada has ample time to procure its own icebreakers, manufactured in Canada. But it could take decades, as we've seen with the Sea King replacement, before they're ready. Realistically, how long does Canada have before the lack of icebreakers puts us at a disadvantage commercially?

[Capt Christopher Hearn]

Our largest and most capable icebreaker is something like 30 years old—the Louis S. St-Laurent.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Should our Arctic coast be capable of dealing with nuclear-powered vessels in the Northwest Passage?

[Capt Christopher Hearn]

That's a good question. The primary reason that the Russians became so involved in nuclear energy for their icebreaking vessels was that, like us, they were dealing with a remote area, a limited infrastructure, and difficult supply routes. This is why they went with the nuclear approach. These vessels could operate year-round, continuously, without ever needing to resupply, apart from food, victuals, and crew.

Whether there will be nuclear vessels operating in our Arctic, I don't know. American submarines that nobody knows about might be transiting there. It's a question of whether there are nuclear-powered vessels. Right now there aren't any commercial vessels powered in that way, but vessels operating in our Arctic would be coming over from Russia. Those are the only ones right now.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Are any of the Russian icebreakers, or any icebreakers, nuclear-powered?

[Capt Christopher Hearn]

Yes, the Russians have four, and they had plans for four more.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

So based on the ability of the oil sector to supply its own icebreakers, it is conceivable that we would have nuclear icebreakers leased out, perhaps, from Russia and in our waters.

It's my understanding that international commercial ships are required to have an identifying transponder. Is that correct?