Hon. Bill Rompkey:

Honourable senators, I know that Senator Comeau has the adjournment on this motion and he indicated that I would probably make some remarks and I was probably remiss in not making some remarks. If he permits me, I will make comments today and if he agrees, he can respond to the comments at a later time.

I do not want to take up too much time, but I think previously I moved that the report be adopted. Can I simply continue for a few moments? Running through the recommendations is the best way to approach the report.

Our first recommendation clearly says that Canada must assert its sovereignty in Arctic waters. We heard Senator Lang speak to that recommendation today, and I agree with Senator Banks that this bill is an important move. I have some "buts" and "howevers," but the bill is important, even if, as Senator Lang said, it is symbolic. We have to make sovereignty more than symbolic but the bill is a good symbol.

Second, we must have a stronger year-round national presence and enforcement capability in the Arctic. The key word is "control." Who is controlling the Northwest Passage? At the present time, no one controls the Northwest Passage. We have to be there with people and equipment. We have six icebreakers operating in the Arctic right now: two large ones and four small ones. They are all reaching the end of their useful life. It takes about 10 years to build an icebreaker. The government has announced it will replace the St. Laurent with a better ship called the Diefenbaker, which is welcome. It is a good start, but we need to do more than that. We need strong, polar-capable ships in the Arctic year-round to enforce our presence there.

If the Canadian presence is not there, it will signal that we are not serious about sovereignty. If we do not control it, someone else will. If we do not control it, there will be chaos. I will not go through all the things happening in the Arctic right now — the receding of the icecaps, and Senator Lang referred to the resources there. People will not go up there only to see the icebergs and wonderful scenery. Many countries will go to the North after the resources, and we will be among them, but we have to exercise control. To do that, we have to be there and show a strong presence.

Our third recommendation is dear to my heart; that Goose Bay be considered a sub-Arctic staging area for the coordination and support of the Coast Guard. Goose Bay is the only port in the Arctic or sub-Arctic that is connected by road to mainland Canada. In that sense, it is much like Vancouver and the Canadian Pacific Railway. The CPR was built and suddenly a new life opened up for British Columbia. I make the comparison because that port on the eastern end of Canada could serve the same sort of useful purpose; as a staging area for the Arctic. Goods and materials come over the road and they are shipped. Goose Bay could be a search and rescue port. It could be there for marine surveillance. It could serve a number of functions. The infrastructure is there; we built it. Goose Bay has the resources, the capability and the history.

We recommend further that Canada assume a leadership role in promoting international cooperation. We are part of the Arctic Council, but our intent is to assert ourselves and to provide leadership in the Arctic Council, particularly with the United States. The Northwest Passage begins, from west to east, in the United States. It comes past Alaska. There is every argument to be made for sitting down with the U.S. and working out some sort of cooperative effort in the Arctic. We should not relinquish sovereignty but should point out that we are residents of North America and we have a history of working together. We have a history in North American Aerospace Defense Command, NORAD, in the Great Lakes and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. It makes sense to us to sit down with the United States and ask how we can cooperate in enforcing our presence in the Arctic. One recommendation is that we re-establish for the purpose of negotiations and consultations the position of ambassador for circumpolar affairs, which we used to have but do not have at the present time.

Our seventh recommendation is that the Canadian Rangers be made an integral part of the reserves of Canada, and that they be equipped with a marine capability. The Rangers are there. They are Arctic people. They are Inuit people. They live in the Arctic.

They know the Arctic. As a matter of fact, we can make the argument that people who grew up in the South could not survive and function in the Arctic if it were not for the Rangers. We believe they should be made an integral part of the Canadian Reserves and continue to function, that the function be enhanced and that they be provided with a marine capability. We need a strategy in the Arctic not only for oil spills but for search and rescue as well.

When we were in the Arctic, we talked to John Amagoalik who is known as the "Father of Nunavut." He was in an air crash in Nunavut and the plane went down in the middle of winter. The Aurora was able to locate him. I do not know where the Aurora took off from, but I do know he was not rescued until the helicopter arrived, and the helicopter had to come from Trenton, Ontario.

Our position is that one really cannot manage the Arctic from the south. One must have a presence in the North, and that applies not only to helicopters but to other issues, as well.

We believe the Canadian Rangers can be part of that presence; they can be used for search and rescues as they are now. However, in addition to a land capability they must have a marine capability. The reason we want to bring them into the reserves, too, is that we heard testimony that, sometimes, they feel at risk. For example, if a man goes out and uses his own skidoo or boat, he is not insured as a regular reservist is and, if something happens to him, what happens to his family?

There must be consideration for examining the status of the Rangers at the present time and considering bringing them into the reserves for their own protection and for the further enhancement of their function.

We believe the Canadian Coast Guard needs a long-term strategic vision and it is our position that the Coast Guard, and not the navy, be the sharp end of Canadian sovereignty in the North.

We believe that NORDREG, the shipping regulations in the Arctic, should be made mandatory. There are shipping regulations on the Atlantic coast, Pacific coast and in the Arctic.

If you sit in Halifax at the dockyard and look at the screens, you will see the RCMP, the navy, the Coast Guard and, sometimes, the Americans. They know what ship is out there. If a ship comes into Canadian waters, 90 hours before she enters Canadian waters, she has to identify herself. They know what flag it flies, they know what cargo she carries and they know where she is going. They track that boat. It is mandatory — she has to do that. The same thing is true of the Pacific coast, but it is not true of the Arctic coast.

To give the government its due, it has said it will make NORDREG compulsory. However, it has not yet happened and our recommendation is that this is important and it should happen. We have to know what ships are operating up there in order to enforce our sovereignty.

As Senator Lang indicated today, we recommended that the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act be extended to 200 miles. We obviously think it is a good idea and the government is acting on that now. I would like to say more on that at a future time. I have already mentioned the acquisition of heavy icebreakers.

To summarize our position, the Coast Guard needs a long-term vision; it needs to be the sharp end and protector of Canadian sovereignty in the North. We need those ships, we need them built in Canada, which would in fact, provide a lot of work for shipyards across the country at a time when we need to put people to work. If these things are done, Canada can preserve its sovereignty and protect it in the Arctic.

Honourable senators, those are our recommendations.

Hon. Tommy Banks: Honourable senators, I have a question for Senator Rompkey.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Will the honourable senator accept a question?

Senator Rompkey: Yes, I will.

Senator Banks: My question concerns the Coast Guard, which I think you called sharp end of the stick in the Arctic. That is supremely logical, since they are the only people who can be there in the winter time because the navy does not have, and is not likely to obtain, the capacity to actually to be present in the Arctic in winter.

At the moment, in respect to enforcing anything, I think most Canadians may be unaware that the Coast Guard cannot actually guard our coasts. It does the things it does very well: Aids to navigation, search and rescues, et cetera.

However, it has no capacity in terms of enforcement of law, let alone protection of sovereignty. The Coast Guard does not even have constabulary capacity. If you were smuggling drugs to the West Coast, for example, and you saw a white ship with orange stripes coming at you — the United States Coast Guard — you would be in trouble because they will stop you, if you have a deck loaded with drugs. However, if you see an orange ship with white stripes coming after you, and you have bails on your deck marked "heroin," there is nothing the Canadian Coast Guard can do, unless there is a Mountie on board; they cannot stop anyone.

This leads to the question of giving constabulary, if not additional enforcement capacity and powers, to the Coast Guard.

In your report, and when you were discussing these questions with the Coast Guard, did the honourable senator address that question?

Senator Rompkey: Yes, we did and it is our recommendation that the Coast Guard be a constabulary force.

As I said, the Canadian Coast Guard should be the sharp end, which is the front end, of guarding Canadian sovereignty in the North. If we are to do that, they need to be armed. That is not new. There is nothing new in Canadian ships being armed.

As a matter of fact, if you think back to the Estai incident off the East Coast when Brian Tobin was Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and Jean Chrétien was Prime Minister of Canada, a Spanish ship was caught fishing illegally. That ship was seized and brought to port, the cargo was impounded and the captain was charged. However, before that ship could be brought to port, a shot had to be fired across the bow of that offending ship. The shot was fired and it came from a Canadian Coast Guard vessel. Therefore, vessels have been armed in the past. That is nothing new. We simply think it should be a little more widespread, the Coast Guard should be given a constabulary role, and that those ships should be armed.

Recent Statements from Liberal Senators