Thank you very much.
I realize that the time is probably limited to the six minutes that you have. They're excellent questions, and I thank you very much for those.
Certainly, on the safety side, because of the remoteness of the region and the lack of infrastructure, we know that we have some real challenges if we have a need for humanitarian assistance for users of the marine environment in remote areas. Our capacity to intervene, the farther north we go, is significantly limited. There is safety from the angle of search and rescue and also safety for those who provide search and rescue services. There is also the dimension of safety for those on board ships.
We're beginning to see more and more interest from cruise ships and also small pleasure craft. What we have to consider here is that we do have international standards for equipment to enable survival until rescue services reach those in distress. What we know now through research is that those standards are insufficient. They are essentially aimed at ensuring survivability for up to five days, in terms of clothing, supplies and so on. However, because of remoteness, we might need more than five days to reach somebody in distress. In the meantime, their equipment and the levels of nutrition they need would not be sufficient to enable them to survive.
With the current standards that we have, there is a real danger that we could have—God forbid—a situation with major casualties. We could be looking at very serious risks to human life. Clearly, we need safety on board ships—safety standards for surviving, but also safety for those who work on board ships.
With respect to the second question—in particular, with respect to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act—the committee will recall that this important piece of federal legislation has committed Canada to implement UNDRIP and essentially to review federal legislation to enable its implementation.
Essentially, the commitment there is generic, basically, to any legislation that is relevant. I would argue that this would include maritime legislation. Indeed, that includes the legal frameworks we have for the regulation of shipping right across the country, including, of course—because we have an interest in the Arctic—in the north.
That would mean, for instance, that we would need to take another look at the Canada Shipping Act, 2001; the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act; and a range of other statutes. Indeed, we have a long list of statutes and maritime law that apply in the north, and we need to see how UNDRIP can be implemented through these statutes.
I'll give you an example of the relevance of UNDRIP here for informing federal legislation. There is a duty in UNDRIP for states to protect the environment in a manner to enable indigenous peoples to exercise their rights. We have to be particularly cognizant here of the range of risks to the environment we are seeing from potential industrialization in the north, which may therefore adversely affect the interests of indigenous peoples. More ships, for example, will mean more noise. More noise will have impacts on a range of species and ecosystems. Plus, of course, more ships may require more icebreaking for the shoulder seasons and so on, which means there's the potential of disrupting Inuit ice routes, the movement of animals on ice and so on.
There is a range of potential environmental impacts here that we can anticipate. Therefore, it would be important for us to have the legal framework that anticipates these potential risks.
I hope I've answered your questions.