Senator Rose-May Poirier

Senator Poirier: Thank you, gentlemen and madam, for being here. I have a couple of questions on the same subject.

We've heard several witnesses talk about increased activity in the Arctic area since we began the study, whether it be recreational or commercial. Is it possible for you to provide us with the activity level for the last five years of the ice passage by the members you represent, where ice breaking is needed? Is that something that you could provide to the committee?

Mr. Broad: Not tonight, but yes, we could.

Senator Poirier: The second question would be whether you anticipate the trend of the increase to continue. Have any companies who use these ice passages ever voiced safety concerns due to the lack of icebreakers?

Mr. Broad: On your first question about the traffic levels and the trend, we saw this year the Crystal Serenity that travelled, the passenger ship, and there are more adventure tours going up there. Some of our members were involved in mining projects in Baffin Island, Baffinland. We understand there is a lot of cargo interest for a Northwest Passage going from Asia to Europe through the Arctic. Personally, I don't like that.

There is increased traffic, and it is at a point where Canada is now looking at a polar code and at ways of coming up with particular trade corridors to make sure that environmental concerns and rescue operations are addressed. You don't want ships going all over the Arctic, so the government wants to keep these ship corridors.

What was the other question?

Senator Poirier: Have any companies who use the ice passage ever voiced safety concerns because of the lack of icebreakers?

Mr. Broad: None to us.

Senator Poirier: You also mentioned in your opening remarks — and I also read it in your notes — the free trade agreement, CETA, which is going on right now. In your opinion, if the Coast Guard does not renew its icebreaker fleet in a timely fashion, could it hurt our export and import activities? If so, to what degree do you think it would hurt?

Mr. Broad: It's difficult to say. Obviously, if the icebreaker fleet is not renewed within the near future, it will make passage up and down the St. Lawrence much more difficult, and ports between Quebec City and Montreal will be at risk.

I guess you'd be looking at putting the cargo through other ports, which could increase costs substantially. All water is cheaper than rail and truck, and more environmentally friendly too, by the way.

-------

Senator Munson: But there will be more. I'm curious about the capacity and capability today, each and every time. This will build. Is there a likelihood of one of those ships getting stuck and not having the capability of freeing that ship?

Mr. Broad: If I could ask Ms. Simard to comment.

Sonia Simard, Director, Legislative and Environmental Affairs, Shipping Federation of Canada: In terms of the capacity in the North, looking at it from the commercial traffic angle, at this stage we're still in a situation where the level of traffic is mostly on the resupply for the communities and on the mining side. But even there, we see that sometimes, in terms of the ability to provide icebreaking services — for example, for the resupplying of the local communities — those vessels have to wait because the icebreaker has to suddenly quit escorting to go and rescue, for example, a National Geographic boat that's out there doing some filming. The commercial escort has to stop because there is a search and rescue need. It's happening now where there are priorities and the needs of all the users are not necessarily met. We have seen cases like this in recent winters.

With the increase in traffic, is it difficult to see a scenario where the needs could be challenged? It's not difficult to see a scenario where there may be difficulty in ensuring that there will be an escort for a boat to resupply communities, for commercial, for search and rescue, and for adventure tourism, and the requirement to help those.

If we're talking about the adventure side of it, those ships that come through the Northwest Passage on more of a sports and expedition type of excursion are maybe not as well prepared as one would expect. Right now we may not be monitoring that type of traffic, so it creates extra need at the last moment, whereas the commercial traffic is pretty much well settled and knows the needs in advance.

Yes, conflicts might increase. However, right now, when we look at the trend — you were talking about the increased traffic in the Northwest Passage. We are not thinking right now — and correct me if I'm wrong — that the Northwest Passage will become a highway in the next five years. It is a longer-term schedule. We are not here to tell you there is a need for more icebreakers because we think that tomorrow there will be a highway in the Northwest Passage. We are not saying that.

But right now, in terms of the need to support the resupply, the commercial, the mining projects and all of that, we sometimes see delays in icebreaking escorts because the icebreakers have to be diverted to search and rescue or other types of missions.

Senator Munson: With the exception of air-sea rescue, just for edification, what is the priority for an icebreaker, Coast Guard or otherwise? Is it to have ships come and resupply communities that need food and supplies for their daily living, or is it to cut out the ice for a tourist group with lots of money that wants to come and see our North? What would be the priority of an icebreaker?

Ms. Simard: Personally — and I don't know if my colleagues will be adding anything — in terms of priorities among the commercial activities, I'm not sure that there are fixed priorities. But definitely, if there is a search and rescue mission, the icebreakers will be diverted from the commercial escort to the search and rescue.

When you say "breaking out the ice'' for those excursion vessels, smaller vessels and port vessels going there, if they find themselves in trouble, yes, the commercial side will lose the escorts. It is our understanding that the Coast Guard will do the first mandate, which we understand is search and rescue, and we are not here to say it shouldn't take place. But it is a fact that if those ships are coming into Arctic waters and are not as equipped as they should be to face that type of climate, and the resupplying missions' ships there are well equipped but they still need icebreakers, we lose icebreaking escorts because they have to go and help small vessels in the Arctic. It's happening, and we believe the priority will be if there is an issue with concern for life.

Senator Poirier: How often does that happen?

Ms. Simard: I should qualify. As an association, we do not represent the resupply. Resupply missions to local communities are done by Canadian flag vessels. In Canada, in order to move cargo from point A to point B, you have to do that on Canadian flag vessels. The resupply commodities are done by Canadian domestic vessels. We represent the ocean-going vessels that are going, for example, to the mining projects and are taking the important exports out of south or north of 60.

Senator Poirier: I meant how often would an icebreaker be removed from the commercial to the search and rescue?

Ms. Simard: I was explaining that, because it has happened. I was saying that because, to our knowledge, it happened on the resupply vessels. We didn't experience that directly. It's our colleagues within the industry on the resupply side. We understand that this had happened at least once last year, where the resupply vessel was concerned about losing the escorts because of a need to assist. That's our understanding.

Mr. Broad: We're not experts in Arctic shipping. Most of our work is south of 60. Of our members, I would say 98 per cent of their business is south of 60.