National Defence Committee on Oct. 27th, 2009

[Capt Christopher Hearn]

Yes. Under present IMO regulations, there are several layers of identifying technology on board. There is long-range tracking and a technology called AIS, automatic identification systems. With AIS, when a vessel is interrogated by another ship's radar, a brief snapshot of the vessel—what it is, where it's going, what it's carrying—appears to the other ship. It's a vessel-to-vessel technology. So when one is operating near another, rather than call on the radio, “Blue vessel with the white superstructure”, they can now call each another by name. This technology is being activated. Coastal states now have the ability to identify vessels at long range using this same procedure. So yes, there are several layers of identification on board a ship.

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

Is it possible to transfer this identifying transponder from one vessel to another without detection?

[Capt Christopher Hearn]

That's a really good question.

For search and rescue purposes, which was the main driver behind this.... This was obviously to identify a vessel through its transponders for search and rescue purposes. So there was no reason to transfer them.

If you're talking about a security point of view, it's possible. It is possible. Whether it can happen or not, I can't comment. There are multiple layers built into the system to prevent that from happening, but it is conceivable, in this day and age, that somebody could possibly do it.

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

Has your organization run simulations on ice conditions and how projected changes could affect maritime traffic?

[Capt Christopher Hearn]

We've done them for some analysis for planned or possible facilities.

We have two types of simulations that we engage in. One is primarily for operational purposes, the immediate purposes of learning how to navigate in ice, using technology, and things of that nature. The other one is more of a large-scale industrial response. We'll actually create an entire facility, and create vessels, and then run them in under varying conditions to study the effects. Can they actually get in there? Can they not get in there? How many tugs are going to be needed? They're things of that nature.

We haven't undertaken anything of the scale that you're talking about there. It's possible to be able to create ice conditions and see what vessels can get through or not, but we haven't done it so far.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Braid.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Captain, for your very informative presentation before us this morning.

Just out of curiosity, is there an institute similar to yours in Russia, and do you collaborate with them?

[Capt Christopher Hearn]

The Russians have several, but the largest one that would be similar to ours in terms of operating in ice is the Admiral Makarov academy.

We don't so much view each other as competitors; we are now starting to actually look at working together. I've met with several of their officials, and I intend on going over there this spring.

The Russians are part of this working group that I mentioned, that is at the IMO level now trying to come out with a dedicated series of guidelines. In typical Russian fashion, I suppose, they have their own idea for what should be done. The rest of the working group--Norway, Canada, Denmark, and a host of other nations--have all kind of said, “Okay, that's fine, but you need to incorporate these with the overall goals.”

Our plans for the future are to create a little bit more of a partnership. We're all silos of knowledge--if I can use that term--and we're all looking to achieve the same goal, which is to ensure the safety of the environment, the safety of the people, and the safety of the operation in ice-covered waters or of any operation. We're all doing the same thing.

At this recent meeting we sat down and decided that we will be working together. We intend to; we intend to try to find ways. Their operational considerations are a little bit different from ours. Our main focus right now is dealing with our offshore oil and gas clients, and they're dealing with, in a way, glacial ice, which the groups in Russia are not dealing with. What I mean by glacial ice is the icebergs, the growlers, the ice that comes off the Greenland cap and makes its way down onto the offshore fields. That causes considerable trouble for operations in the east coast oil operations.

We're dealing primarily with those factors now, and as the Russians move into areas where they will come in contact with this kind of situation, they're very interested to gain knowledge from us. And they're doing some things that I'm very interested in. So we both have things that we can trade.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

So you can leverage each other's areas of expertise?

[Capt Christopher Hearn]

That's right.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

And there are some unique areas?

[Capt Christopher Hearn]

That's right.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Okay.

Can you describe the differences in terms of technology training simulation?

[Capt Christopher Hearn]

What I mean by marine technology is the design of the vessel and how it's able to do things.

I'll give you an example. The Finns have come up with a very clever design whereby the vessel actually turns around and goes backwards, or sternways, through the ice. It's excellent technology for vessels that have to make transits through continuous-coverage ice. This is called a double-acting hull. It enables a ship to break the ice through weight, but in addition, the propeller system is designed to actually crush the ice while the vessel is going sternways. This has some manoeuvring advantages in terms of being able to manoeuvre the vessel. Rather than pushing my way through the ice, I'm pulling my way through. That's why they go stern-through. That's a Finnish technology. That's what I mean by marine technology.

The simulation side is purely to assist in the evaluation of an operation before it happens or to train the people. It's a tool to assist with the training of people by placing them in situations that are immersive, that are realistic, and that are repetitive. We can re-create the same situation over and over again, which is not possible in the real world. You can't undertake that. We can do that in our facility.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you.

I'm changing gears now.

As Arctic waters are opened up and as transportation increases, what are your primary environmental concerns, and how do we mitigate against those?

[Capt Christopher Hearn]

There are very good legislative tools that have been put in place to govern operations in the Arctic. Canada's fantastic Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, and the legislation that goes around that defining legislation, is very good. Right now, vessels operating there are required to carry some standard form for controlling a spill and must at least start the cleanup of a spill if a spill happens.

I think the release of pollutants through an incident, a collision, or a sinking is probably the largest problem to deal with in the Arctic in terms of the dispersal of oils, chemicals, or pollutants. If we're going to build a presence in the Arctic in terms of infrastructure, whether it be bases or enhanced dedicated facilities that deal with either search and rescue or spill cleanup, that's what has to happen. We have to enable certain vessels or certain boats to respond very quickly to an event like this. Either develop the technology to do it or do the research into how we can contain the spill. Significant work has gone on. I think it's a worthwhile pursuit.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Captain Hearn.

You are the last speaker, Mr. Paillé. You have five minutes.

[Pascal-Pierre Paillé, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Thank you for being here. You can see that when you are the last to speak, many of the questions have already been asked. I have a question on immigration.

Do you believe that it would be realistic, at the warmest time of the year in the Arctic, for there to be illegal immigration from the north, that our present stations there could not detect?

[Capt Christopher Hearn]

That's a complicated question.

International shipping is governed by what's termed the ISPS--international ship and port facility security--code or regulations, which is governed by the IMO. Of course, Canada is a participant, so we have the same security protocols in place. This is to protect the ship but also to protect the port from people or harmful substances or things of this nature.

The issue with the Arctic in terms of an unwanted presence is that there is very limited capability or facilities in the Arctic. Let's take an example of a vessel that wants to enter Canada's Arctic. There are very few places, if any, where it can actually stop and be vetted before it enters. Under the procedures and protocols of this ISPS, vessels have to maintain a state of security and then pass along crew information and information on who they are and where they are coming from. I don't know where they would be going or what they would be doing, but there is no presence, no dedicated area or facilities or places, apart from an agreed-upon place, such as Churchill, Manitoba. If I had a ship coming over, between me and Transport Canada, or the agencies that govern that, we would say that when the vessel stops in this particular place, we'll dedicate the local member of the RCMP to come on board, as part of our security procedure, to look over the documentation, such as who's on board and things of that nature. That's really it. Where they decide to do this, if at all, is usually between the ship operator and the government.

[Pascal-Pierre Paillé, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Thank you.

You mentioned Russia, Finland and Canada a lot. In your experience, do you see an increasing interest in the northern passage from the United States, given that Russia is very interested? I have already asked the question to another witness who came to see us. Without speculating too much, does that put us in a delicate position?

What can you tell us about the United States?

[Capt Christopher Hearn]

The U.S. is now starting to realize the same things we're grappling with now. There is significant activity in their sector in terms of oil exploration. Also, the world's largest nickel mines and I think North America's largest coal mines are in Alaska. The U.S. is dealing with the export and the transit of those kinds of resources out of ice-covered waters. Currently, there is no dedicated arm of the coast guard that deals with icebreaking services. They have two icebreakers, which are very capable but they're quite old. They've built a third one that does mostly research. They are actually behind Canada in terms of icebreaking capability and a presence.

Without getting into the whole issue of the United States' view on the Northwest Passage, which they view obviously as an international strait, you will see increasing interest on their part, especially if you look at the whole scope of activity surrounding the UNCLOS II surveys that are going on in the Arctic now and where each country's continental shelf actually ends and who owns what.

I think the U.S. is very interested in ensuring that their slice of that pie is what they want it to be. If Russia hires vessels or builds vessels to do that, then the U.S. will.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

I'll give the floor to Mr. Payne for five minutes.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for coming today, Captain Hearn.

I would like to ask a follow-up question to Ms. Gallant's, in terms of the automated tracking devices on the ships. You gave some explanation in terms of the ability to potentially transfer those. There is also another aspect to that. I'm wondering if in fact these devices could be counterfeited and somebody could make something that would potentially take the place of or substitute on a ship.

[Capt Christopher Hearn]

Again, it's possibly feasible. But this technology and these systems are governed by various international bodies. In order for the manufacturers of this technology to even use it on board, they have to pass very rigorous testing. The classification societies that govern the construction of vessels and the equipment that's on board are well aware of this risk. They have enabled very strenuous testing to be sure that what you have on board your vessel cannot be duplicated.

Having said that, if some group or somebody were to dedicate some amount of time and money to trying to create a duplicate system whereby they could trick or possibly pass false information, it's possible.