The Harper government's promises on Arctic sovereignty have outpaced delivery. For marine security in particular, major gaps remain.

Nobody is challenging Canada's claims to our Arctic mainland and islands, apart from the miniscule sideshow of Hans Island.

The worry comes on the water, where resource exploration, growing tourism and gradually shrinking ice will increase traffic.

Canada sees the Northwest Passage as internal waters where we can set the rules we want, just as on land. Some other countries see it as an international strait, subject to international rules. Control of shipping thus becomes the key issue.

Many Canadians think we've always required that foreign vessels traversing the Northwest Passage ask permission, the only question being whether powers such as the United States and European Union would respect our rule.

In fact, no reporting requirement applied until recently. Any rogue vessel could traverse the Northwest Passage at will, being required to contact Canadian authorities only if it landed. In one case, a vessel aptly named the Berserk II carried armed criminals all the way to Cambridge Bay.

The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in 2008 recommended that ships operating in the Arctic be required to report in to NORDREG, the Canadian Coast Guard's voluntary vessel-traffic system for the north.

There were those who feared that such a move would provoke confrontation with foreign nations. But soon after the report, the government promised to make reporting mandatory. To its credit, it did so in 2010.

Mandatory reporting applies only for vessels over 300 tons, and omits government vessels. Still it buttresses our sovereignty, in principle.

But what about in practice? If we need to enforce environmental or other regulations against some dangerous vessels in icy waters, where are the Canadian ships that will lay down the law?

There are none. No armed ships project Canadian authority in the Arctic, except during summertime exercises by naval vessels from Halifax or Esquimalt - none of which have ice capability.

That is supposed to change, but slowly. In 2006, the Conservative Party promised three armed naval icebreakers. That got changed to six to eight Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS), to cost $3.1 billion.

It now appears the Department of National Defence projects six vessels, to come into operation between 2015 and 2020. Although their ice-breaking capability will be limited, the AOPS will represent a major improvement over the current situation of an unpatrolled Arctic.

But what about the intervening years? What if Canada put some deck guns aboard the seven Coast Guard icebreakers already working northern waters?

The Senate Fisheries and Oceans committee has recommended exactly that, at least until the AOPS start work. After all, fisheries patrol ships on the Atlantic already carry deck guns; one such vessel arrested the Spanish trawler Estai in the 1995 turbot war. For icebreakers, Canadian Coast Guard crews or other personnel could man the armaments.

The government said last year it would review the Senate committee recommendation. Subsequently, the Conservative election platform promised to "give the Coast Guard a law-enforcement mandate" and to "outfit selected Coast Guard vessels with armed capability."

If that includes arming icebreakers, Canada will close a marine-security gap in the Arctic in short order and at low cost. For the first time, reliable armed enforcement will back our Arctic marine sovereignty.

Serious military conflict would obviously involve the Canadian Forces, whether land, sea or air. But for lesser matters, armed Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers would send the message that we care enough about the Arctic to enforce our rules, starting right away.

Closing that marine gap would still leave others open. The NORDREG system imposes no reporting requirement on small vessels, which can carry big threats. And we have no comprehensive monitoring system for foreign vessels in the Arctic. Until something better comes into place, we will depend heavily on Coast Guard sightings - another example of that agency's northern necessity.

Besides its enforcement potential, the Coast Guard demonstrates northern sovereignty by its day-to-day services. With some of the world's best ice navigators, it opens shipping routes and helps re-supply northern communities. (And experts say Canada's Arctic will need icebreakers for a long time to come.)

The Coast Guard also provides vessel platforms for fisheries, oceans and geological research. It maintains our aids-to-navigation system and leads in marine pollution control and search and rescue.

The North needs a well-equipped Coast Guard. But the agency, sometimes called an orphan in government, needs more moral and financial support than it is getting. The icebreaker fleet is aging out, with only one new vessel promised.

For the benefit of sovereignty, citizen security and responsible economic development, the Coast Guard needs a proper icebreaker-building program, including deck guns, and an Arctic strengthening in general.

 

 

 

Bill Rompkey chaired the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans during several Arctic studies. He retired from the Senate on May 13.

Recent Publications