Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 3 - Evidence, May 27, 2009
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 27, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, to which was referred Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, met this day at 6:30 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
[English]
Senator Lise Bacon (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: We have before us Bill C-3, an act to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act.
We welcome Minister Baird to our committee. We welcome also, from Transport Canada, Lysane Durand, Legal Counsel, Legal Services; Donald Roussel, Director General, Marine Safety; and Ross MacDonald, Manager, Special Projects and Arctic Shipping.
Welcome to our committee. We will hear from you, minister, and then ask some questions.
[Translation]
The Hon. John Baird, P.C., M. P., minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities: I am very happy to be here with you tonight. My parliamentary secretary, Brian Jean, will join us in a few minutes.
[English]
I am pleased to have my colleagues here with me tonight to help me answer questions on this piece of legislation. Our government has always believed that the North plays an important economic and symbolic role for Canada. Our commitment to Arctic sovereignty and to our northern strategy has been a major component of our government's agenda since coming into office three and a half years ago. Over the last three years, we have taken serious steps to uphold our sovereignty over Canada's Arctic regions in order to protect the environment, to foster economic growth and to promote development.
On a personal note, my time as Canada's environment minister provided me with an opportunity to protect our northern regions. The conservation efforts that we made in the Northwest Territories and the expansion of Nahanni National Park Reserve will ensure that these precious lands are protected for years to come.
Bill C-3 seeks to expand the geographical limits of Canada's strict pollution prevention rules in the Arctic by amending the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. It would extend our enforcement boundaries from 100 to 200 nautical miles, the maximum amount allowed by international law. Although this seems a relatively simple amendment, changing 100 to 200, it sends the global community a very important message that Canada is serious about protecting our northern regions.
Marine transport has been an essential lifeline to Arctic regions for generations. With few roads or railways linking communities or connecting to the South, shipping is an essential means to transport both people and supplies. Over the past few years, we have seen an increased interest from foreign nations, like the United States and Russia, in the use of our waterways through the North. With that comes a greater risk to the environment. By extending our limit to 200 nautical miles, Canada will be able to enforce our pollution prevention regime out to the maximum allowed by international law.
Right now, limited traffic travels through this new expanded area. This area sees about 24 ships per year. The waters between the coast and the current limit of 100 miles are currently being monitored by the National Aerial Surveillance Program and the Marine Aerial Reconnaissance Team. Transport Canada works with many other departments and agencies to monitor these areas thoroughly. For example, the Canadian Coast Guard ships provide assistance in the Arctic regions should an accident happen. Given the small number of ships in this area at this stage, we do not anticipate that additional resources to monitor the region will be required. Should this bill receive Royal Assent, monitoring airplanes and ships will modify their routes accordingly. Should the amount and type of traffic increase, we will have to consider changes.
In parallel to this bill, we are taking steps to ensure that ships entering Canadian waters report to us prior to their entry. Until now, this reporting has been voluntary. This change is being made via regulations that are currently being developed by Transport Canada. The government's objective would be to have the regulations in place for the 2010 shipping season. Again, this sends another important message about our Arctic sovereignty.
Our northern strategy emphasizes our sovereignty in a very real way. By expanding the jurisdiction out to the maximum limit allowed by law, we will demonstrate our authority in this region to the world. Although Bill C-3 is very short in length, I do not believe its impact is. This bill has enjoyed wide support among stakeholders and I am pleased to see across party and political lines. I look forward to discussing it with you today.
I think that this is an anticipatory piece of legislation. We have seen many mistakes being made over hundreds of years in Southern Canada by successive generations. We do not have a significant amount of commercial traffic up in our far Arctic today, but, with the real effects of climate change that are not just anticipated but are already beginning to be felt and seen in the Arctic, we think it is important not to wait for an accident to happen but to anticipate and expand Canadian law today.
I believe very strongly not only in Arctic sovereignty but also in some of the most pristine parts, not just of Canada but of the world. Canada has a special responsibility, not only to those who call the Arctic their home, not only to all Canadians, but to the world to ensure that its pristine, clean waters be protected for generations to come. Thank you very much.
I am now joined by Brian Jean, who is here.
The Chair: Would you like to say a few words, Mr. Jean?
Brian Jean, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities: I think I would be best to answer questions. You can tell how fast the government is moving. I thought it would be appropriate to come wet today because of the particular bill.
The Chair: Bill C-3 will extend the pollution protection from 100 nautical miles to 200 nautical miles, so this discharge of waste will no longer be permitted in Canada's Arctic waters north of the 60th parallel. Are we currently equipped with staff to enforce this change?
Mr. Baird: I will speak briefly and then I will turn it over to Mr. Roussel.
This issue arose in the House of Commons; I think it is a fair question. Given that today we are seeing only about 24 ships, we can change the aerial monitoring and the reconnaissance teams' routes to monitor. At this time, I do not believe that it will involve significant new resources. However, climate change allows the shipping lanes to stay open for longer periods of time.
I visited Manitoba, and the first Russian ship came over the Arctic to Churchill. We could see changes in the future. Obviously, we will have to respond as conditions change. If numbers did go up and we did not have the resources, the bill would not have the teeth that it would require. We believe we can handle it now, but we must monitor the changes as they go forward.
Donald Roussel, Director General, Marine Safety, Transport Canada: We have a Dash 7 that will be operating in the Arctic this summer. It is newly equipped with state-of-the-art detection equipment. It will be easily be capable of covering those areas. On board the Dash 7 are enforcement agents from Transport Canada, pollution prevention officers, and representatives from Environment Canada. We are capable of doing the reconnaissance and surveillance of those areas now.
The Chair: How many ships are found guilty under the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act now?
Mr. Roussel: Mr. MacDonald may be able to answer that one.
Ross MacDonald, Manager, Special Projects and Arctic Shipping, Transport Canada: Ships that spill oil are charged and prosecuted. It is infrequent. Anecdotally, I know of two spills last year that are being processed.
The Chair: What are the consequences?
Mr. MacDonald: Under the act, we are allowed to fine polluters. The first consequence is that polluters are responsible to clean up their own spill. That is our approach. We find that the traffic is repetitive in that the same responsible operators continue to go North — that is, Canadian companies who take the environment seriously — and the environment is protected because of that regular and reliable routine traffic.
Mr. Baird: The Minister of the Environment recently tabled legislation with respect to environmental enforcement which I think is still being considered in the house. Budget 2007 had additional resources for environmental enforcement officers, who are currently being trained at Algonquin College, and they will bolster the team.
Mr. Jean: There were 46 marine incidents in the Arctic between 1995 and 2004, four of which resulted in spills. There is an insignificant amount in the general scheme. Of course, the data before that is not available, and the data since then has become much better with our satellites and so on that are brought into it.
The Chair: Do you intend to increase fines or to adopt other means to discourage the ships from polluting our Arctic waters?
Mr. Baird: The environmental enforcement legislation by the Minister of the Environment provides for that. Increasing the fines is not enough. When a range is set to a maximum fine of whatever it is, depending on the requirement, you want to ensure that it acts as a sufficient deterrent and not as a cost of doing business.
The Chair: Denmark, Russia and also the United States of America share borders with our country in the Arctic. Has Transport Canada spoken to foreign officials about the proposed change to the act?
Mr. MacDonald: Our foreign affairs department has been in contact with the U.S., mostly to explain the nature of the change. To my knowledge, no concern has been expressed.
The Chair: What is your answer with respect to Denmark and Russia?
Mr. MacDonald: I am not aware of any contact with Denmark or Russia.
The Chair: Do you plan to do so before this act comes into force?
Mr. MacDonald: The nature of the change between Canada and Greenland or Denmark is that the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act now aligns with the international border. We would expect the Danes will be pleased that we are putting our anti-pollution requirements into that sliver. To the north of the archipelago, we do not have a close neighbour. Because the Arctic is essentially a pond on the big scale, the Russians and the Americans are aware of what we are doing.
Mr. Baird: It is allowed for in international law. We cannot go the full 200 miles, so I do not think we need to seek the approval.
The Chair: What about discussion with them?
Mr. Baird: When we are looking at the implementation of the act and are monitoring, I think it will be pretty clear to them. We need to speak by action and not just by talk. This is an important step in that direction.
Senator Johnson: Welcome.
Senator Adams: I have here, before we get into —
The Chair: Senator Johnson wanted to ask a question.
Senator Adams: I understand that. However, we do not have a map or anything, just a bill. We want to see how big the area is up there. What are we talking about? I have a map here. Everyone can look at where the boundaries will be. It will give everyone an idea as to what we are talking about. We are not talking about just the boundaries.
The Chair: Senator Johnson, you have the floor.
Senator Johnson: Could you elaborate a bit on what additional environmental protection the amendment provides for beyond the 100-mile limit, the old one? Have you had to put anything else in place?
Mr. Baird: We will just extend it to the full 200 nautical miles.
Senator Johnson: It will be the same thing; okay. What is the current level of shipping activity in Arctic waters?
Mr. Baird: Twenty-four a year. Am I correct?
Senator Johnson: What types of Arctic shipping? Do you expect this to increase in frequency?
Mr. Baird: That is an unknown. I will ask for the specific anticipations. We have seen two things. With the effects of climate change, the Northwest Passage is traversable for a greater part of the year. We have seen the first Russian ship go to Churchill, Manitoba. We have seen, in some respects, cruise ships. Even extreme tourist attractions are beginning to go to parts. We are seeing increased activity, and with climate change that can only roller coaster and become more extensive.
Mr. MacDonald: If I could add to that, north of the archipelago, ice is still very significant. There is no shipping there today. However, we know that significant oil exploration leases have been sold in the deepwater in the Beaufort Sea right about the 100-mile distance offshore. Any shipping outside of that involved in that exploration will fall under the more stringent requirements of the Arctic act.
Senator Johnson: What is the extent of the licensing?
Mr. MacDonald: In hectares I do not know. In dollar terms I know it is close to $2 billion.
Senator Johnson: That is interesting.
Mr. MacDonald: The traffic we refer to now as being captured under the expanded application is in the area between Baffin Island and Greenland. If you look at your map, there is a sliver of area between 100 miles on the international border that will now be included. That is where the two dozen ships per year that are doing Arctic tourism and Arctic community resupply will be affected, but only very slightly because they already fall under all the provisions of the Arctic act.
Senator Johnson: Some countries regard the Northwest Passage as an international strait, and Canada's claims to part of the Beaufort Sea and Hans Island are disputed. Could you explain the international context of the act with regard to pollution and whether the amendment proposed would be accepted internationally?
Mr. Baird: That area would be less than 100 kilometres, so it would not come into effect. For the most part, you are really talking about, I will not say the coast, but each end of Canada's Arctic, by Greenland and then by Alaska on the other side. It is really the bookends.
Senator Johnson: Did you have any talks with other countries about this legislation?
Mr. Baird: It is an international treaty, so we have the right to do the full 200; we are just exercising our right under international law.
Senator Johnson: Thank you, chair.
Senator Cochrane: I want to tell you how happy I am to have this legislation before us, and I will tell you why. Last June I joined my colleagues on the Fisheries Committee and we went up to Nunavut and Pangnirtung and some other places. While we were there, one of the key issues people raised was NORDREG, Canada's Arctic traffic system, and that was voluntary. This bill will now make it mandatory. It is, of course, the shipping safety control zones. Transport Canada will be responsible for the regulations, but the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Coast Guard will administer the system. Can you tell us how that will work?
Mr. Roussel: Transport Canada is the regulator that makes NORDREG mandatory. The operational arm of this activity is under Department of Fisheries and Oceans Coast Guard with what they call vessel traffic systems, which are based on either the East or the West Coast. Under the new NORDREG, they will get the appropriate infrastructure and equipment to be able to monitor the North and what is happening up there. That is why it is a two-pronged approach with the two departments.
Senator Cochrane: Will they have constant communications on board?
Mr. Roussel: Yes. The vessels themselves have the equipment in order to do the communications, but they will have mandatory obligations to declare prior to re-entering the area — I think it is 96 hours prior to arrival in the area — where they will go and what route they will use. We will be in a position to know at all times where vessels are in the Arctic. This is an additional safety feature. Also, those vessels will have to declare the type of certificate they have, the way they are constructed, the type of equipment they have, the protection of life and also the protection of the environment.
Senator Cochrane: Explain to us why you chose to make it mandatory at this time and what impact it will have, especially the extension to 200 miles in terms of boosting the protection of these Arctic waters. I understand that will be very important in the future.
Mr. Roussel: The decision to make it mandatory, of course, is a political decision. It is establishing our sovereignty. By making it mandatory, we are saying to people coming into our territory that they have to declare they are there. It is time to do it. It is long overdue we think, and it is happening now. Like the minister mentioned, it should be fully in place by next season, the 2010 season.
Mr. MacDonald: If I could add to that, it is probably useful to know that the voluntary subscription to the system has been in place for 20 years or more and has been very high because ships are given ice-breaking support and ice reconnaissance information if they participate. If they do not, they go to the bottom of the list.
Senator Cochrane: Will more people and more infrastructure be needed to handle this large geographic area?
Mr. Baird: I believe it will require changes to the reconnaissance team and changes to flight routes. In the current estimation, I do not believe it will require a substantial amount of resources. If traffic increases as climate change is felt, as tourism expands, depending on what happens off the coast of the Northwest Territories and Alaska with respect to the Beaufort Sea and oil exploration, if volumes increase substantially, increased resources would be required. At this time, we can deal with it internally. That could change.
We all have to be vigilant, 5 years out, 10 years out, to increased volumes. This will be only one of many concerns as shipping volumes increase. In Antarctica, there is more tourism on cruise ships. Last year one vessel sank. That causes me huge concern because it is difficult to get there and the area is far more pristine than anything in Southern Canada. That will be one of the many concerns as traffic volumes increase. As well, it depends on who the traffic volumes are. Some classes of shipping would cause us greater concern and would more likely offend than others.
Senator Cochrane: We know.
Mr. Jean: If I may, one plane has a complement of two to three ships from the Coast Guard per year or anytime in the Arctic doing reconnaissance there. As the Arctic thaws 3 per cent to 4 per cent every decade, that will have to be expanded to some degree. Certainly, this government, through the investment in the new icebreaker, will be able to participate there as well.
Mr. Baird: The John George Diefenbaker.
Senator Cochrane: Thank you.
Senator Housakos: Minister, congratulations on this initiative.
My question is on the international marine pollution convention that exists to protect waterways around the world. How does this legislation go the extra mile in that respect?
Mr. Roussel: That is a very good question. There are significant numbers of international conventions. The ones we are looking at are related to marine pollution and garbage, air and oil emissions. This legislation and its regulations propose to go beyond the minimum requirements of international conventions on water pollution and the disposition of garbage. Naturally, the details of that will come in with the supporting regulations to the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, which we will be working on this year and next year. The regulatory regime must go through a set of consultations with stakeholders.
Senator Housakos: The opposition has questioned whether this proposed legislation is more focused on the development of natural resources than on protecting the environment. Can you please clarify the purpose of Bill C-3?
Mr. Baird: First and foremost it is about environmental protection. Obviously, we are seeing in all three territories increased economic development opportunities, whether the Mackenzie Valley pipeline or licences in the Beaufort Sea. There are growing populations. The Northwest Territories, for example, has a huge GDP increase that any other province or territory would dream of having. There is increased economic activity. As a result of climate change, the potential increased opportunities for shipping are immense, in particular in the Northwest Passage and getting to and out of it. This bill is first and foremost about the environment.
It is also an important vehicle for making our claim with respect to Arctic sovereignty. We can do that in a range of ways, such as economically and militarily. Environmental aspects complement the overall strategy. It shows a level of engagement with the region. We are affording it high priority. As well, research and scientific exploration have been significant and Natural Resources Canada is mapping the seabed. All of these things go to a simple phrase: Use it or lose it. We are showing a presence with significant activity in a variety of areas. The military is a great way to do it, but it does not necessarily have to be the only way.
Mr. Jean: The minister told me to jump in when I had something to say; I hope this is relevant. The committee found the long-term scientific findings on oil spills in areas like the Arctic surprising. To give you some examples, it takes 10 times longer for the biodegradation of oil covered by gravel in temperature zones such as that. Also, the toxic impact of residue oil on the reproduction of certain fish species lasts more than 15 years, and the social and parental behaviour of marine birds and mammals has been disrupted for more than 10 years as a result of contaminated prey. These are some of the basic findings that we received in evidence. It is quite frightening when you think about the length of time that the damage lingers. The international community of scientists thinks that Canada is overdue to take this step. We heard that recently.
[Translation]
Senator Fox: Most of the questions I intended to ask have been asked by our chair. However, I would like further information. Are there a lot of differences between Canadian regulations on waste, regulations under the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act and international standards? In other words, is there consistency between international regulations and what we are proposing?
Mr. Baird: There are numerous international conventions relating to the marine sector.
Mr. Roussel: The current regime preventing pollution in our Arctic waters is already better that the one they have at the international level, because we have a zero tolerance for waste. However, our regulatory environment applies only up to 100 miles. Bill C-3 will increase this limit to 200 miles. We will need some realignment regarding pollution prevention, mostly with the MARPOL convention, and in particular with appendices 4, 5 and 6, which concern oil pollution and air pollution. However, we are working globally on these projects. The Arctic regime is already better in terms of water pollution.
Senator Fox: As for the realignment with the regulations of neighbouring countries, do we have here more or less the same standards as Denmark and the U.S.?
Mr. Roussel: Our current standards are better.
Senator Fox: Better than the American standards? And what about the Russian standards?
Mr. Roussel: They are better than the American and Danish standards, that is for sure. We have a zero tolerance in the Arctic. I do not know about the Russian standards.
Senator Fox: The Russian standards, is it because there are none or is it that we simply do not know?
Mr. Roussel: I do not have this information, but we could get it.
[English]
Mr. Baird: I have my attitude and philosophy on this. For example, in the province of Ontario, there are added penalties for speeding in a school zone and added penalties for speeding in a road construction. It is a matter of safety. We should have added penalties, redundancy requirements and additional strength in our laws and regulations for the Arctic because it is a more sensitive ecosystem. Given that it is so pristine and that it is such an important responsibility, we do not want to allow the mistakes that we saw in the 1800s and 1900s. We are spending so much money on brownfield reclamation across the country for the things that were done between the 1890s and 1920s. We do not want to see that. We want to learn from our mistakes and be more aggressive in the Arctic. This is a small step forward in that regard, but we need to be increasingly vigilant in the future. Canada can play an important role.
Senator Fox: Are we moving toward international norms in this area?
Mr. Baird: I am more concerned about what we are doing domestically. We are not good to speak with our voice; we are good to speak with our actions.
Mr. MacDonald: I would add to that response that the world standards are moving closer to Canada's. Canada has led. Canada and Russia are the only two countries that have enhanced requirements for ships to protect from pollution in Arctic waters, as allowed for under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS.
The international community has recognized that extra requirements are necessary in ice-covered waters. There is movement now at the International Maritime Organization to upgrade international standards to what Canada and Russia have.
Senator Zimmer: I apologize for being late. Minister, it is always nice to see you and your officials.
I noticed on television the other day there was a clip about your birthday party. You are a big deal when your birthday is on national television. To you, from all of us, happy 30th birthday.
Mr. Baird: Thank you very much, senator. There is much wisdom in the upper house.
Senator Zimmer: It is now enhanced that you are 30.
Can you explain to this committee the enforcement plan for those ships that do not obey this bill? Can you tell me the number of cases per year where legal action has been taken toward the ships that have not abided by the current act?
Mr. Baird: I think there were two this past year.
Mr. Roussel: There were two cases of pollution. In general, on the vessels, we do not deal with rogue industry people. The folks that are going up there are usually thorough. From the Canadian vessel perspective, we require an Arctic pollution prevention certificate that we give to each of the vessels before they go to the Arctic. This is on the Canadian side.
When it comes to the international voyages, it has been on a voluntary basis. I do not recall any vessels plying the waters that did not meet our requirement. Mr. MacDonald can add to this.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Roussel is correct; the record is very good in the Arctic. We like to give credit to our own regulations for that, but I think it is largely because operators are responsible.
The information from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada that we heard Mr. Jean speak of, regarding the number of incidents or damage reports from the Arctic, is not the same count as pollution incidents. Where ships might get a dent or a cut in the hull, those often do not lead to pollution, but we take them seriously.
The rules require every polluter to report in, so a spill of half a litre is recorded in the system. That is why you see a significant number; but to date, we have not had a large spill in the Canadian Arctic.
Senator Zimmer: Why were these areas not included in the original act?
Mr. Baird: It was years ago. I can only assume, because I was not there.
Mr. Roussel: I can answer. The UNCLOS was adopted in 1982. The original Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act was prior to that, in 1970. This is why we never had the 200-mile limit. I think we ratified the UNCLOS a few years ago, in 2003.
Mr. Baird: Like many things in the North, we just kept getting stronger. We are doing Nahanni National Park Reserve. It was a great thing that was done in the early 1970s, but it was not big enough. We are doing a massive expansion there, going from 100 to 200 miles, which shows the progression of the expansion of environmental objectives and goals.
Senator Zimmer: Thank you, minister, and happy birthday again.
Mr. Baird: It was actually the 10th anniversary of my 30th birthday.
Senator Wallace: Back to the issue of environmental protection, as was pointed out, all vessels that are in the North have to be certified that they have a spill-response capability. I think they normally contract that with spill-response providers.
Considering the extended area that will now fall within Canadian jurisdiction, and with more of the North being opened up for shipping because less is ice and more is water, the chance for incidents increases as time goes on. Over time, will there be an increased requirement for the actual response equipment, the amount of response equipment and person power that would be required to respond and protect those northern areas?
Mr. Baird: In the short term, no, because you are talking about the same number of ships but just a larger area, from 100 to 200 miles. As we realize the effects of climate change and the effect on the shipping and marine industry, we will have to take that one step at a time.
Again, we will all, as legislators and as Canadians, have to be mindful of this in many respects, this being a small part of it. If the Northwest Passage becomes traversable for an extended part of the year, the potential marine traffic is almost limitless. That is a huge concern for those of us who care about this. There is also the fact that not everyone acknowledges Canadian sovereignty in this passage, which causes us even more concern. We will have to be vigilant on that.
Mr. Roussel: I will explain a little bit of the response regime in the Arctic. First, every vessel that goes up there has a self-contained capacity for a limited amount of spill, but they have to have it on board. That is the first level.
The second level of response in the Arctic is with our Canadian Coast Guard fleet. They have a significant amount of capacity on board the vessels. Then, of course, in each of the communities where there is known traffic with the potential for oil spills and so forth, there is a shore spill-response capability in the Arctic.
This type of program will be enhanced as the traffic increases with time.
Senator Wallace: Each of the vessels in the North has to file a plan that shows that if something should happen, those resources are available to respond.
Mr. Roussel: Those procedures are on board the vessel.
Mr. Baird: If the vessel sinks, as we saw with the tourist ship in the Antarctic, any bunker fuel on the ship is on the bottom of the seabed. That is why we need to have a greater focus on this, to stop the thing from happening in the first place rather than looking at mitigating problems after the fact.
Senator Wallace: Different means of recovery are needed in those waters. It is quite different than in the South.
Mr. Baird: Your capacity to reclaim a large vessel on the bottom of the ocean in the High Arctic is pretty limited.
Senator Wallace: Or even to recover oil.
Mr. Roussel: One element we are working on — and Mr. MacDonald can add information to this — is the standards for the construction of the type of vessels that go to the Arctic, and also to be able to impose standards for Arctic ice. This is the main concern. We are looking at the prevention level. Of course, we have to look at the response, but first making sure that appropriate vessels go there.
Mr. Baird: To put it into perspective, I visited Pearl Harbour, which was an interesting experience, and the U.S. Department of the Interior has a site of commemoration. At the memorial of the Arizona, there was oil clearly visible, the rainbow, right above the remnants of the ship. The ship sank in 1941 and there is still oil every single day leaking out into the harbour.
That puts it in perspective. The Arizona is not as big a ship as they build today and yet you can see, 60-plus years later, it still has 40 per cent of the fuel on board. Obviously, they do not want to disturb the resting place of many veterans who perished that day, but it shows you the amount of damage that can be done over a long, protracted period of time in a harbour in Hawaii, let alone in the pristine Arctic.
Senator Adams: We were mostly talking about the pollution. People live up there, too, and I think we have to be concerned about that in the future sometime. I was just down in Halifax about two months ago, and there was a disaster where the ship sunk up there in the Arctic, and how long it was kept up there, and the survival of people — there were 150 people in the ship. In the meantime, we are looking at it, since it was a land claim, you can see all the yellow is all Nunavut, and 26 communities are there.
Living up there, out on the water and the land, mostly I have been on and off since those two communities in Resolute and Grise Fjord located up there for Arctic sovereignty in 1953. Those people up there, between Americans, Russians and the Danes, they do not recognize Arctic sovereignty in the adjacent territory between Greenland and Baffin.
In the meantime, I have been up there on the Fisheries Committee and we had a lot of former working retired people from the Coast Guard who have been travelling up there in the Arctic for over 50 and 60 years. Those people up there are concerned about whether it is our land or whether somebody else will take over. Right now, we talk about just a boundary between 200 and 100 miles between Greenland. How will we resolve it in the future between the Americans, Russian, Danes, Norwegians and Icelanders — those people who are interested in the water and the land?
We are protecting it now. We have a boundary now and no one claims it. Other countries can ask, ``Do you have a boundary now between the water and land?'' That is a future agreement with the United Nations. I think there was a meeting in Greenland last summer. It was about the boundary between Greenland and the Americas in the future.
How will we do it? We are Canadian. We live up there. We want to control it. There are oil and the mines up there and we want to get that ourselves. We have lived up there for thousands of years. Now somebody just comes along from another country and companies go up there and take the oil and the mines out. How will we resolve that?
Mr. Baird: That is a tough one. The healthy environment has a direct influence on the health of the people there, particularly people who are dependent on caribou, Arctic char and seals. As Mr. Jean said, the effect on the ecosystem can be felt for 10 or 15 years.
Senator Adams: We have up to 85 per cent of the people unemployed, and we will protect our property. People should be able to handle it. A new ship is coming out in 2027. We live up there. We want to protect it.
How do we do it? In the future, we are talking about other countries. How will it be resolved with Foreign Affairs? They will say it is our land. It does not belong to others. With climate changes in the future, other countries want to come through up there and it belongs to Canada, just like any other country.
How will we do it?
Mr. Baird: If you look on the map, we are talking about ships going down. Parks Canada is supporting an expedition off the southwest shore of King William Island to find the two Franklin ships. There was an example. They sunk and it has been 170 years, and we still have not found them yet.
Mr. MacDonald: They did not report.
Senator Adams: Madam Chair, we have been up there, travelling and seeing the water and everything. Right now, we still go through the ice. People from Yellowknife can see it. We went up there by snowmobile a couple of years ago and we travel on the land and the water.
Between Indian and Northern Affairs and Foreign Affairs, let us talk about it and how they will be able to settle a land claim. In the 1993 agreement, Nunavut came up to the government in 1999 and we have no control up to 12 miles. Right now we have fisheries up there between here and close to Grise Fiord. Foreigners are coming up there and taking the fish out. You can go up there and between the fish and the shrimps, $50-million to $60-million worth of fish is going to Europe and not staying in Canada.
Mr. Jean: That is why we are making the investments announced by the government, why we are building the icebreaker and why we have announced eight Arctic offshore patrol ships and why the construction of the Arctic deepwater port has been announced. The rangers are doing a great job up there with local employment, and the local culture does a great job for Canada with a lot of the patrolling. This government is investing heavily in the Arctic. You are familiar with our government strategy in the North and how aggressive this Prime Minister has been on it. I think we are taking big steps towards that, as is Foreign Affairs with our neighbours to the North.
Those are the types of relationships that we need to forge in order to move forward as you want us to do. I think we are doing that; this government is doing it aggressively and doing a great job. We have heard that at our committees, as well. We want to make you aware of that.
Senator Adams: We have been waiting for Arctic sovereignty for 50 years, since 1953. People up there are wondering what the effects will be on our land, between the mining and the oil and stuff like that. If we get all the oil and everything, we do not have to worry about anything in terms of the economy. The people who live up there will have an income. Right now, they do not.
The Chair: You made your point, Senator Adams.
Are there any other questions? Minister, we thank you very much for your presence here with us, and we thank the people who have come with you.
We have not had any requests from stakeholders to appear before us, so is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report? No.
Is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I will do so tomorrow. Thank you.
This meeting is adjourned until Wednesday. We will not sit on Tuesday morning because one witness cannot come, so we will be working hard on Wednesday night.
(The committee adjourned.)