Evidence of meeting #10 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was arctic.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
I want to thank the witnesses from the department for coming.
I've actually got a couple of questions around resources. I just thought it was interesting that you were reading all of the ways by which we're going to be protecting the north. I think the unfortunate reality is you can have all the legislation and regulations you want in place, but if you don't actually put resources into it, they are meaningless.
I know that there have been a couple of cases where.... For example, in Cambridge Bay two years ago, there was a derelict vessel there for over a year--and for all I know it may still be there--and there was no mechanism to deal with it effectively. And I believe that there was a Chinese vessel that ended up in Tuktoyaktuk, a couple of decades ago, mind you.
I think the key concern--and you've heard it before--is enforcement. So I wonder if you could comment on whether, in your opinion, the resources were in place to actually enforce the legislation and regulations that we already have.
Legal Adviser, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Thank you for that.
Clearly, my caveat before I answer this question is that this is not really in the purview or the mandate of the Minister of Foreign Affairs; therefore, I would bow to other ministers and other departments. But in case it hasn't been answered--and I haven't seen all the transcripts from your discussion--certainly Mr. Borbey or others from Transport Canada and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development would have indicated to you that this government has committed itself strongly over a number of Speeches from the Throne to a northern strategy, and they've probably spoken to you about the four pillars. You've probably heard them a million times; I will not repeat them. But clearly, this government has indicated not only a commitment of resources, but also a commitment to dealing with some of the serious issues within Canada in the north. Not only that, but it has reached out--and that's why we use the Department of Foreign Affairs--to our neighbours and other Arctic states to work on similar problems together.
In terms of the enforcement aspects, I have indicated to you the litany of enforcement regimes that we have under the AWPPA. Of course, others would have probably described the new military initiatives that will be going up into the north. Others will have talked about other investments in infrastructure in the north. Others will have spoken about the Rangers we have in the north. And in terms of search and rescue, we've had discussions with our neighbours, and future infrastructure is building from that.
So without going into details on domestic policy, from the point of view of the Department of Foreign Affairs, we're satisfied that our domestic departments are taking seriously the development of our north.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
On that point, I'm just going to make a comment, and then I have another question.
In the Auditor General's report of February 2007 she is talking about the icebreakers, and she says “...although the estimated useful life of an icebreaker is 30 years, the current plan shows the Coast Guard will replace icebreakers when they are between 40 and 48 years old”. It's that kind of comment that really doesn't lead us to have faith that just because you pass a piece of legislation, you're actually going to assign the resources.
Again, you can have all the regulations you want in place, but we've seen it in other departments. The Department of Agriculture is currently having a listeriosis study because of the shortcomings in CFIA. So we have too many cases where we have had the inability to enforce what may be very good legislation and regulation. That's my comment.
I want to come back to Mr. Huebert's comment about the Russians proposing similar legislation. Have you had an opportunity to take a look at that proposed legislation and determine if there's any impact on Canada or on the legislation that's currently before the House?
Legal Adviser, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
I can't imagine it's going to impact on our legislation. We would carry out our legislation in any event.
It seems that the Russians have taken a page out of our legislative handbook and are trying to emulate much of what we are doing. As I see this, what they have here is that these regulations--and many of them I see here I think were also adopted from 1990 through 1996--allow navigation in the Russian northern sea route on a non-discriminatory basis for ships of all states. They impose various conditions for the use of the northern sea route. For example, in order to navigate those waters, an application to Russian maritime authorities has to be made. They would give careful consideration to navigational safety and environmental concerns. A ship inspection is required, and at least two pilots need to be taken on board. Crew size must be sufficient to allow for a three-shift watch, and the master should have at least 15 years of experience.
That's what the Russians are doing.
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I hate to interrupt the proceedings, but we have bells ringing and lights flashing.
We appreciate the department's coming forward today. I'm sorry for the limited time, but it was certainly invaluable information. Thank you.
Again, for the committee members, submit amendments to the clerk, hopefully by noon tomorrow, and on Thursday we will deal with the witnesses that we talked about earlier today and hopefully get to clause-by-clause before the meeting's over.
Thank you.
The meeting is adjourned.