Transport Committee on March 24th, 2009

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

But what I've seen so far in our brief time here together is that basically four other departments are needed to interact with this legislation. I wonder if perhaps we shouldn't see witnesses from Environment, Natural Resources, Northern Development, and Foreign Affairs in order to actually understand the direction this government is taking. Do you think that would be useful for this committee?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I'll leave it to your wise judgment.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Okay. Well, as you pointed out to my colleague from the Liberal Party, some of these answers we're not going to be able to get from you guys. We're going to need to explore it a little further.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

We're certainly pleased to get any and all information for you, whether it's from us or another department within the government. Or if you feel it necessary to call them before the committee, I'll leave that in your hands.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Was there any sense, in producing this bill, that there should be a reporting structure back to...? Quite obviously, there will be a lot of unanswered questions here, but we need to understand. In order to support the extension of the boundaries, we should see the planning effort that goes into that, and perhaps that is something that should be in the bill.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I'll certainly make the offer, independent of this bill or above and beyond it. This committee has in recent years done a lot of very good public policy work on transportation matters. It has tended to be one of the more constructive, results-oriented committees, and if this is an area where the committee wants to give its advice and counsel, we're certainly pleased to work with you. We're certainly pleased to offer you a full briefing on any and all information you're looking for, in terms of us and the Arctic.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Well, certainly. And you know, my concern is right today, and I think we recognize that we have a less than adequate pollution prevention or pollution control system in place, let alone pollution enforcement.

But getting back to just cleaning up the problems that may occur, we don't seem to be there yet, and I'd like to see some more planning forthcoming in that regard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Ms. Brown.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for your presentation.

I'd like to go back to the issue of patrol, if I could, because I think that's the area where a lot of people are going to be concerned. I have people in Newmarket—Aurora who are very concerned about the environment and how we're going to protect it. This issue of the Arctic is not new. The issue has been surfacing, if I may use the word, for quite a number of years. Previous governments have done studies on it.

My first question is this. What did the previous governments do to prepare for this? Has there been any preparation? My understanding is that the last ship that was built, the last heavy icebreaker, was built in 1983. So we're behind the times in preparing for this, I would suggest.

Have you any comments on that?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Certainly Mr. Diefenbaker and Mr. Trudeau did a not insignificant amount of work in Canada's north. I think it started, frankly, with Mr. Diefenbaker, but as my colleague from Yukon said, Mr. Trudeau's government did a good amount in this regard. Having said that, a significant amount of work went in during the eighties and the early nineties with respect to the creation of Nunavut, and there was a bit of a lost decade there.

One of the things we have to do a better job on, whether it's involving armed forces or coast guard, is planning well in advance for capital acquisition, particularly for the larger size.... You don't build an icebreaker overnight. Even a small ferry used, for example, between Toronto and Toronto Island by the Toronto Port Authority can take a full year to build, and you have to make sure you get it built in time to get it out before the ice goes.

I think we have to do a much better job in planning and foreseeing what equipment is going to be needed, so that we don't scramble to play catch-up. That has certainly been the case with a lot of major equipment.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Can you give us, then, some idea about the Diefenbaker, its capacity, and where it's going to be stationed? We talk about the east Arctic and the west Arctic. How are we going to handle the patrol of those two areas? It's a vast amount of seaway that is going to be available, so how are we going to set out the patrols so that we know the areas are covered? Do we have a strategic plan for that?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I'd probably have to refer to the coast guard for that sort of operational issue.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Do we know the capacity of the Diefenbaker?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I'd trust the coast guard on that one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Kennedy.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Minister, I think what Canadians would probably would like to know, and I'm sure you can share with us a bit, is some of the government's integrated strategy here. I understand you're responsible for only parts of this, but in opening up a new transportation waterway, one that seems to be in part occasioned by climate change—but this is now also not only a firm policy intent to extend jurisdiction, but there's a corresponding building of a deepwater port, and so forth—the issue the member opposite mentioned was about control.

Is there an integrated plan—and can the committee access it—that will show us that we are currently or will shortly be capable of exercising control? Are there outcomes and standards that we would aspire to in the enforcement of the pollution regulations we now seek to extend? In other words, it's not just a question of numbers; surely there must be an assessment of what we're taking on. If we were to fail in that task, what are the risks, in terms of the regard of the international community, for our claims in this respect?

Again, Minister, I'm not asking you to draw on other ministers' expertise, but I am wondering whether you could give us, with your undoubted access to the overall direction of the government, some idea of the integrated plan we can expect to see--what you can share with us and what is existing in the government. Presumably we're not just making a hollow declaration here; we're going to be following through. I'm wondering what the standards are that we have to achieve and what the resources are to meet those standards.

Does the government have something it can share in that regard?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

There are no disputed claims in extending an extra 100 miles. That's—

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I'm sorry, disputed...?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

You talked about a disputed claim. There's no disputed claim with respect to extending another hundred nautical miles, involving environmental legislation.

I'd be very happy to report back to you with anything we have in the three areas you've identified.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

So there is no integrated plan? In other words, when you do your part, which is this piece of legislation, it isn't in the knowledge that the government has an overall set of goals?

In taking this on—it is a vast expanse of area that we are going to assume new responsibilities for, and there are other contestations in terms of the economic zone and overlapping jurisdictions with other countries and so on—I'm assuming there is an integrated plan in place for what the various ministries would do. I'm wondering about at least the main outlooks of it—the cost associated with it, in broad strokes; the overall outcomes we would measure ourselves by; whether we would be able to provide, for example, exactly the same level of protection to the extended area as we do to the current 100-mile limit; and if so and if we know that, how we can be persuasive on that point so that Canadians can know we're taking this step in a prepared fashion?

Can you share what you're aware of on the integrated plan the government must have for this?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

A considerable amount of work has been done. I think it's a reasonable request. We'll provide all and everything we can. Obviously there's been a significant amount of work done with Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Canadian Coast Guard, the Department of National Defence, and Transport Canada. Sometimes it involves relations with international organizations such as the International Maritime Organization, so Foreign Affairs and International Trade plays a role.

We'd be very happy to provide you with any and all of the information with respect to that request. It's a reasonable request.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

So there are no broader pieces that touch yours. But I'd be happy to get it and I'm sure the chair will enjoin me to share with everyone.

In terms of the transportation, what do we have by way of projections for traffic? For example, I come originally from northern Manitoba, and Churchill has struggled for years to be an economic port. I guess we can make certain assumptions around climate with what's happened, especially in recent years. Can you give us an order of magnitude of what the shipping is going to look like? I guess with that, we may infer what some of the risks and challenges of enforcement might be.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I'll turn it over to Mr. Santos-Pedro.

[Victor Santos-Pedro]

On average, there are some sixty ships that operate in Arctic waters, which may represent something like 130 to 150 voyages altogether. In the area we are extending beyond the 100 miles, in the eastern side, most of that area actually is very small patches that make it equidistant from the coast of Greenland. So there is actually not very much of an area on the east coast, and the need for any addition, because there is already a regime in place.... For example, the Canadian Coast Guard radio stations are already covering it in one way or another.

The biggest part is indeed in the Beaufort, so it's already 100 miles in the north of the Beaufort, and that area has no shipping. There may be a ship there once in a while on research, but it is not a traffic route. And as I heard mentioned, there is the possibility of a project that is near the 100-mile offshore limit that is in effect now.

Any increase in traffic will very much depend on what projects are to come forward. Right now, although there is always something on the horizon that is being talked about, there is a certain amount of exploration in the Beaufort. There is talk of an iron mine on Baffin Island. But we have no specific increases that we could say, well, there will be that many in the next while. It will depend on the resource development.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We're over time.