Hon. Bill Rompkey:

Honourable senators, I laid down this inquiry so we could have a discussion in this chamber about the Arctic. There is a significant amount of talk about the Arctic in the country but we have not had a discussion. I hope that as many senators as possible will participate.

The Prime Minister has said of the Arctic: ". . .use it or lose it." He is right. However, how do we use it and how should we use it if we are not to lose it?

First, we must acknowledge that the Inuit have been using the Arctic for thousands of years. It is their home and, largely because of that, Canada has sovereignty in the Arctic. That is all the more reason, I think, to ensure that the Inuit and other Aboriginal groups in the Arctic are involved in policy-making. Whatever Canada does or does not do will affect Aboriginal groups more than anyone else. That is why recommendations that come from Aboriginals in the North should be responded to quickly and fully.

There was a recommendation within the past few years for the building of seven wharves or breakwaters in Nunavut. Thus far, only one, at Pangnirtung, has been announced. As an Atlantic Canadian, I was dismayed to discover there are virtually no wharves and breakwaters in Aboriginal fishing communities in Nunavut. Where I come from, every fishing community has its wharf and/or breakwater, which is essential to the industry and to the way of life.

The Inuit, too, are people of the sea, people who have harvested the resources of the sea for centuries. Yet, in 2009, the Inuit of the Eastern Arctic have nowhere to land their catch even if they had adequate access to stocks off their shores, which is another issue.

Let me hasten to point out that this neglect of Arctic infrastructure did not start with the present government. This is an ongoing issue. Nevertheless, the government has said "use it or lose it" and we should act quickly to provide the necessary fish quotas, wharves and breakwaters in the Arctic. The Inuit deserve the infrastructure and need it. It would be a signal of our determination to defend our sovereignty there.

There is no question in my mind as to whether the land and the waters of the Arctic are Canadian territory; they clearly are. However, not everyone agrees with that. The Americans, our continental neighbours and our Arctic neighbours, declare now as they always have that the Northwest Passage is an international strait open to the passage of ships from any nation, including their own. The U.S., of course, is afraid that, if they concede that the Northwest Passage is not international waters, other straits such as Hormuz, Malacca and Gibraltar will not be open to them.

Therefore, in order to enable their ships to move freely in all international straits, the U.S. insists on moving freely through the Northwest Passage and the inland waters of the Canadian Arctic.

How firmly would the Americans proclaim this position if there was adequate control in the Canadian Arctic? I believe the real question for the U.S. is not who owns it, but who is in control. We own it, but do we control it? Not really.

Let us examine that lack of control more thoroughly. Reporting regulations off the East Coast of Canada are mandatory. Every ship entering Canadian waters must report to us and be tracked to her destination. If you go down to the dockyard in Halifax and watch the computer screens, you will see that they know of every ship coming into Canadian waters — what the flag is, what the cargo is, what the destination is.

The same thing is true off the West Coast of Canada. Every ship entering Canadian waters off the West Coast must report to us and be tracked to her destination.

This is not so on the third coast. NORDREG, the regulations governing passage through our Arctic waters, are voluntary. You can report if you want to, but you do not have to.

The Coast Guard tell us that 90 per cent or more of the ships passing through report, but how do they know? How do we even know what ships are there? We only have satellite observation. We do not have the ships or the planes stationed in the Arctic to do anything about it if we wanted to.

In the Eastern Arctic, Coast Guard ships are ordered north from Halifax, from the Coast Guard headquarters in Sarnia, Ontario. The headquarters for the Coast Guard in Iqaluit is in Sarnia, Ontario.

Planes have to be tasked from Trenton, Ontario. Regular fixed-wing overflights have been scaled back and helicopters just take too long to get to the Arctic for interdiction or for search and rescue.

In the meantime, I hasten to point out that a great facility at Goose Bay, Labrador, in the sub-Arctic, sits virtually unused with empty hangars, under-used surveillance capability, excellent weather and some of the longest runways in Canada.

Arctic surveillance and Arctic search and rescue could more effectively be done out of Goose Bay, and yet excellent infrastructure owned and operated by Canada sits underutilized. Fisheries surveillance for the Arctic could be done from there as well.

If ships and planes from the Arctic were controlled in the Arctic, rather than from some point in Central Ontario, perhaps we could show that we are serious not just about sovereignty, but about control.

That, I submit, is the main concern of the Americans. They want to know that someone is in charge, that someone is aware of the increase in shipping through the Northwest Passage, and is doing something about it.

Perhaps the U.S. would agree to be a partner in controlling those waters. After all, much of the shipping that would traverse our waters will pass first off Alaska; and they do have adequate resources stationed in their Arctic waters.

Without conceding sovereignty, could we not fashion a joint effort to control the Arctic waters? We share the continent with the Americans, and there are a number of models showing how we could work together and have worked together with shared resources. NORAD is one; NATO is another. The Arctic Council is a third.

We do not cede Canadian sovereignty in airspace, but we share control over the skies above the continent with the Americans. If we can do it from the air, why can we not do it on the sea?

I am not talking about sovereignty; that is unquestionable. I am talking about control. If there is not control, every country will be able to use the Northwest Passage — not just the Americans, but the Russians, the Chinese or anyone who wants to use it for either legal or illegal shipping. South Korean shipyards, driven by oil and gas markets, are constructing new ice-strengthened and double-bowed icebreakers that can operate efficiently both in open water and in ice cover up to one metre thick.

We have a good legal case for sovereignty in our Arctic, but we need put our money where our mouth is and establish control. That is what other countries are waiting to see.

We have to show them that we are serious. We must not just promise but actually construct ice-strengthened ships for the Coast Guard. We must do that so that they can be our first line of defence, not just in name but in fact. One ship is not enough if we are serious. There must be fixed-wing aircraft that can fly patrols over the Arctic waters. However, search and rescue in the final analysis can best be done by helicopters operating from bases in the North or the near north.

The Inuit should be at the forefront of control of our Eastern Arctic waters. Not only must they be intimately involved as a partner in policy-making, but they must be brought more and more into the execution of control and surveillance and research in the Arctic.

Personnel in the Coast Guard are declining, either through attrition or other causes. Why not have a special recruitment program among Inuit communities to bring new men and women into the Coast Guard? After all, the Arctic is their homeland and no one knows it better than they do. I always feel more comfortable in the air and on the sea in the Arctic when I know I have a pilot that knows the land and the water intimately because in addition to the skills they have acquired, they know the country so well.

The same thing can be said for recruitment in Fisheries and Oceans Canada. It is far more likely that these newly-acquired personnel will stay in the area longer and not see it just as a posting to lift them to another step on the ladder.

In the same way, the Canadian Rangers should be expanded, both in personnel and mandate. To give them their due, the government has promised this. We will be watching closely to see how the policy is implemented. They should be made permanent members of the reserves, with appropriate pay and benefits. Some members of the volunteer Coast Guard are weary of offering their personal equipment to operations because it was not properly insured, nor were they. Yet, if we were able to provide them with the necessary equipment and benefits, they would be clearly our best lifesaver, simply because they know their country so well and are used to travelling across it.

The whole question of search and rescue in the Arctic must be examined to see if the response to incidents there is ready enough. There will be more incidents. There will be more traffic — illegal or otherwise — coming through the Northwest Passage and Canada's inland waterways. There will be oil spills, there will be destruction of marine habitat and all of this will require a ready response.

As I have said before, right now the headquarters of the Coast Guard operations in the Eastern Arctic is in Sarnia; and if a helicopter takes off on a rescue mission, it is tasked from Trenton, Ontario. Does this make sense in 2009, when ice is receding at an increasingly rapid rate and the incidence of lost people is bound to occur?

I would recommend again that the government consider utilizing those facilities at Goose Bay for use in the Eastern Arctic.

Canada is well on the way to establishing our case for jurisdiction over the territory beyond our Arctic headlands. Other countries are putting together their cases, which will be adjudicated by an international tribunal. This is not so much a race against each other as a race against time.

The government allocated $70 million to the mapping of the seabed shelf in 2004, and an additional $20 million was made available in 2008. Again, to give it its due, the government has pumped funds into this research operation and taken it seriously. As a result, we are probably well on our way to establishing our hegemony over some of the most resource-rich areas in the world.

The government also announced that they would double the area covered by the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act established by Pierre Trudeau. That is a welcome move, but how will we control what goes on over 200 miles when we cannot control what goes on over 100 miles? We do not have adequate control and we must, if we are to be taken seriously.

Again, this just did not start with the present government. It has been going on for far too long. However, sweet talk and avoidance are no longer options for any government.

We must keep in mind that this territory has been inhabited and used by the Inuit for centuries. It is they who should benefit primarily from the extraction of those resources, not only because of the likely impact on their homeland but because it is the right thing to do.

By the way, some our research in the Far North has been done jointly with the U.S., even though we have conflicting claims regarding the border between Yukon and Alaska. If we can cooperate with our neighbours and largest trading partner in the area of research, why can we not do that in the area of control? Professor Michael Byers and former Ambassador Paul Cellucci in their model negotiation over the use of the Northwest Passage proposed a new Canada-U.S. Arctic navigation commission to address the common interest of the two countries in navigation, environmental protection, security, safety and sustainable economic development. The proposed commission would follow the model of the International Joint Commission by acting as a recommending body.

Honourable senators, now is the time for effective action. Let us discuss with the Americans how effective control of the Arctic waters can be managed. We know that this area is Canada's, largely because proud Canadians of Inuit and other Aboriginal origin have used it as a homeland for centuries. How do we make this de facto and not just de jure?

It will be easy and quick to make the NORDREG system mandatory, which the government has said it will do but has not done to date. Let us continue our research on the geopolitical issues in our Far North. Let us look at establishing effective search and rescue and surveillance for the Arctic, manned more and more by Aboriginals. Let us always remember that it is their homeland and they must be fully involved in policy-making and in operations. It is not enough to say that the Arctic is an integral part of the Canadian soul. It is time to start using our heads.

Recent Statements from Liberal Senators