Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 6 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 12, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 5:33 p.m. to study issues relating to the federal government's current and evolving policy framework for managing Canada's fisheries and oceans.
Senator Bill Rompkey (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: We are being broadcast tonight. I want to introduce myself. I am Bill Rompkey from Newfoundland and Labrador, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. We have other members around the table. We have Senator Robichaud from New Brunswick; Senator Hubley from Prince Edward Island; Senator Adams, the dean of the Senate, who, unfortunately, will be no longer with us soon — he has made his final last and great contribution; Senator Cook from Newfoundland and Labrador; Senator Manning from the same province — my goodness, there are so many of us — and Senator Cochrane. However, there is quality from B.C., too. We have with us Senator Nancy Greene Raine from B.C.
We welcome our guests tonight from the Coast Guard. I will ask Commissioner Da Pont to introduce the people appearing with him.
We will want to ask questions on a number of topics. We have just produced a report that has been distributed and makes a number of recommendations for the Coast Guard and for the Arctic. We hope to get some response to some of those recommendations tonight.
We are planning a trip to the Western Arctic; we visited the Eastern Arctic last spring. We have a budget for that trip that I believe will be approved tomorrow, but we have not planned where we will go. If members of the Coast Guard could tell us where to go, in the best sense of the phrase, that would be great.
One of the things we had intended to do was to go to sea on a Coast Guard vessel, which we have not done. I do not know if there would be an opportunity to do that, but I throw that on the table for consideration. If there was an opportunity to do a small part of the Western Arctic, or even a one-day cruise and we could fit that in, it might be very useful for us to experience a period of time on a Coast Guard vessel.
We will want to ask questions on those issues. As I said, we have not gone to the Western Arctic, but we are planning on doing so. Whether we will make it this spring or next fall remains to be seen. We will end up in British Columbia. Thereafter, we are hoping to pursue the fisheries questions in British Columbia under a separate order of reference.
I now ask Commissioner Da Pont to make some opening comments, and then we will go to questions.
George Da Pont, Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to be back with you tonight. I would like to start by introducing my colleagues from the Coast Guard. On my immediate left is Wade Spurrell, Assistant Commissioner, Central and Arctic Region; beside him — and I know he is someone that a number of the committee members already know well — is Burt Hunt, Regional Director, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Central and Arctic Region.
[Translation]
To my left, Mimi Breton, Assistant Deputy Minister, Oceans and Habitat Sector, and Sylvain Paradis, Director General, Ecosystem Science.
[English]
Two of us are from the Coast Guard and three of us are from other parts of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and we would be happy to deal with any questions that you may have.
In preparing for today, I was told that you were also interested in how the Coast Guard is doing in relation to recommendations made by the Auditor General. If you are, I prepared a brief opening statement, which I would be happy to go through, with your indulgence.
The Chair: I neglected to mention that. We did meet with the Auditor General, and as a result of that meeting we did have some questions. We would like to add some questions from the Auditor General as well.
Mr. Da Pont: I will proceed, then, with a few opening remarks that touch mostly on how we are doing in relation to the Auditor General's comments.
I know that all the members of this committee are already familiar with the concerns that had been raised by the Auditor General in 2007. In fact, she appeared before this committee not that long ago. I do not think there is any need for me to summarize for you the points that she raised. However, I wanted to underscore, as I am sure and hope you are aware, that the Coast Guard accepted fully all of her findings and recommendations.
In response to the recommendations, our then-minister at the time, the Honourable Loyola Hearn, instructed us to develop a realistic plan for responding to the Auditor General's recommendations and to assign clear responsibility and timelines for the follow-up actions. He also asked that we provide regular progress reports.
The Coast Guard has done this through the development of an integrated and comprehensive business plan that establishes our priorities. It does set, I hope, clear accountabilities and time frames, and it allocates the resources required to ensure that the commitments are implemented. These were all key issues that had been raised by the Auditor General. The business plan does so for all of the Auditor General's issues and also for the full range of Coast Guard programs and services.
We have also regularly been preparing two annual progress reports on how we are doing in relation to our business plan: one at the mid-year point and one at the year-end point. The business plan and progress reports are provided to various parliamentary committees, including this one, and are posted on the Coast Guard website; they are publicly available.
In the next few weeks, this committee should be receiving the year-end progress report for last year's business plan, along with our updated business plan for 2009-10.
[Translation]
In addition, last spring, the Coast Guard provided the committee with its public accounts and a detailed status report about our progress on the Auditor General's recommendations. That report was also provided to you. Another status report, describing our subsequent progress, will be produced before the summer and provided to the committee as well.
We will continue to produce reports of that kind until we have implemented all of the Auditor General's recommendations.
When I have appeared before various parliamentary committees to discuss the Auditor General's observations, I have indicated that we need probably three or four years to correct all the problems she identified. I feel that we have made good progress, but we need another year or two to finish the job.
Here are some examples of our main tasks. We have taken steps to make sure that our service levels are well understood and uniformly applied throughout the Coast Guard. That exercise was conducted in close consultation with our clients. Later this year, it will include the publication of a document describing our current levels and standards of service.
We have put considerable effort into developing common management and administration practices and a standardized organizational structure. The work is progressing well, but we will need more time to finish it.
[English]
We have reviewed our vessel maintenance practices and have begun to make changes to establish clearer accountabilities, to improve our overall management and to ensure that our staff have the tools to do the job. We will also increase the number of people devoted to this activity, as insufficient resources were part of the problem. Again, it will take us another couple of years to complete the work and have all the new people in place.
Finally, I believe we have made better progress on fleet renewal. In the past few budgets the government has invested $1.4 billion to acquire up to 17 new large vessels, 12 of which will replace existing vessels that will have to be taken out of service and 5 of which will be additions to the fleet.
All of these procurement processes are underway, albeit still at fairly early stages. Frankly, while progress is certainly a bit slower than I would like, and I do find the process complicated, this is the most significant investment in fleet renewal in over 20 years.
Of special interest to this committee is that one of the new vessels will be a polar icebreaker that will replace the CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent. In addition, as part of the government's recent Economic Action Plan, the Coast Guard received $175 million for some much-needed small boats and to conduct vessel life extensions and additional repairs on our larger vessels. These investments will make a big difference. They will add a number of years to the life of these vessels and will be a good bridge until we are able to replace them.
Mr. Chairman, that briefly touches on how we have approached dealing with the recommendations of the Auditor General in a systematic fashion. I have touched on three or four of the main points that the Auditor General made. We would be happy to respond to any questions.
You indicated in your opening remarks that you would be interested in visiting a Coast Guard vessel while the committee is in the Western Arctic. Subject to operational requirements, we would be very happy to try to accommodate that request. Timing may be an issue. I was told that you may be there in the third week of June.
The Chair: I do not think we can be certain of when we will be travelling. There is a question of the budget, which should be resolved tomorrow. There is also a question of the sitting of the Senate. I do not think we can say with any certainty that we will be going in June. It will probably more likely be in early September.
Mr. Da Pont: That would make arrangements easier. It is unlikely that we would have icebreakers in the Western Arctic in the third week of June. September, or even July or August, would be much more feasible. We would be happy to work with the committee around those possibilities, as you see fit.
Unless any of my colleagues have anything to add, we would be happy to answer your questions.
Senator MacDonald: I have some general questions about the Coast Guard with regard to the country as a whole that I have always wanted answered.
I would like to know the number of icebreakers we have across the country, particularly on the East Coast, where their fields of operation are, where their home ports are and how home ports are determined.
In the last couple of years, there was some controversy about moving a Coast Guard ship from Dartmouth to Newfoundland. I was not upset by it. I live around Halifax Harbour, and I have never understood why icebreakers operate out of Halifax Harbour when all the ice is in the Cabot Strait and on the extreme eastern coast of the country.
What criteria are used to determine where Coast Guard ships, and icebreakers in particular, operate from?
Mr. Da Pont: In terms of the number of icebreakers, we have two heavy icebreakers. They are the most powerful vessels that we have. One is the Louis S. St-Laurent and the other is the Terry Fox. We have five medium icebreakers that have a significant capacity. All of those are located on the East Coast. In addition, we have the Amundsen, which is an icebreaker but is primarily a science vessel. It is available to do icebreaking work.
Senator MacDonald: Is that in addition to the five?
Mr. Da Pont: That is one of the five. Those are our most powerful vessels.
In addition, we have a number of light icebreakers. I do not have the exact number of them off the top of my head. I believe we have 10 or 11 of them, if memory serves me well, and all but one are on the East Coast. Obviously, almost all the icebreaking is done on the East Coast.
The medium and the heavy icebreakers operate in the Arctic, largely between June and November, depending on the vessel. They all do icebreaking work south of 60 around Newfoundland, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and in the St. Lawrence River during the winter season.
Senator MacDonald: I assume they work in the Cabot Strait as well.
Mr. Da Pont: Yes.
As to where vessels are home ported, we try to home port vessels as close as feasible to their main theatre of operations. That is the main criteria, along with where we have the facilities that support those vessels in terms of maintenance and other work they require. Like any organization, requirements change from time to time, so we do move vessels around as operational requirements and priorities change. For example, four to six years ago we moved an additional vessel to Newfoundland because of the government's priority on NAFO patrols. Should the government at some time decide those are not required on the same scale, those vessels would be deployed elsewhere.
We do not have a set of criteria beyond trying to ensure that the vessel is home ported as close as feasible to its theatre of operation, which can change, and where we have the support facilities necessary for the vessel.
Senator MacDonald: You did not mention in which ports the ships are located.
Mr. Da Pont: I can provide you a list. We have 114 vessels, and they are not all in my memory.
Senator MacDonald: Growing up in Louisbourg, I would see ships from Halifax breaking ice in the gulf and the Cabot Strait. I would suspect icebreaking is a substantially more expensive proposition today than it was 60 or 70 years ago when these icebreakers came in and kept the ferry system open. What does it cost to operate a heavy icebreaker for one day? You take a ship out of Halifax and bring it to Sydney Harbour to break ice in the Cabot Strait. I always wondered why that ship was not located at Sydney Harbour where the ice was, and how much money would be saved if the ships were not trekking back and forth between Cabot Strait and Halifax Harbour.
Mr. Da Pont: I have a couple of points, senator.
The heavy and the medium icebreakers actually operate all over Eastern Canada in any given season. This past winter, the Louis S. St-Laurent has done work on the Saguenay River. It has done work in the St. Lawrence River. It has done work on both coasts of Newfoundland. It has done work off of Îles de la Madeleine. That is the case with many of our vessels. They are not tied permanently to any particular location. They work throughout the whole area.
Senator MacDonald: I appreciate that, but I am sure they break more ice in Sydney Harbour than in Halifax Harbour. I am convinced of that.
Why is this infrastructure not sitting in Sydney Harbour instead of Halifax Harbour where they will not have to travel? It will not take time and money to get to where the ice is located.
Mr. Da Pont: As you know, senator, that was one of the considerations several years ago when I made the decision to relocate the Halifax home ports of the Louis S. St-Laurent and the Terry Fox to Newfoundland where we already had facilities that could accommodate both vessels. In Halifax, the facilities would have required significant investment to maintain.
Senator MacDonald: Do we have the facilities in Sydney Harbour?
Mr. Da Pont: We do not have facilities that could accommodate the vessels.
Senator MacDonald: Does it make sense for the Coast Guard, since the Coast Guard College is in Sydney Harbour, for some of the Coast Guard vessels and infrastructure to also be located in Sydney Harbour?
Mr. Da Pont: It would be possible to look at almost any geographical location that made sense. It certainly would make sense under certain considerations. However, to be honest, my biggest problem right now is that I have more infrastructure than I need for the number of vessels and where they operate. My priority would be to shed a bit of that infrastructure, which we are maintaining at some cost when we do not need it, and have more consolidation.
Investing in a new base or new infrastructure would not, in my view, be a priority or a good investment at this point.
Senator MacDonald: It would not, unless you consolidate.
Mr. Da Pont: We have worked at trying to consolidate. As an organization, we have already done a fair bit of that in the last 10 years or so.
Senator MacDonald: What about smaller harbours, such Louisbourg Harbour? It is basically an ice-free port but is really close to the icefield. You have a small Coast Guard base there. Could some of these smaller vessels be based in a more appropriate place?
Mr. Da Pont: Almost anyone would have a view on that. Our own preference and my preference for efficiency and cost-effectiveness would be to base the vessels and to group as many of them as we can in a consolidated site where maintenance and other facilities are available. I would not want to have to duplicate electronics workshops and other workshops over a series of different sites.
Senator MacDonald: Of course not.
Mr. Da Pont: It would not be efficient.
One of our considerations is building hubs around which the maintenance of those vessels can be done the most efficiently. I think you see many people moving in that direction as part of cost control.
Obviously, if efficient use of taxpayers' dollars was not a primary consideration, we could look at having more bases, more locations. However, there is a very significant cost to doing that, and it does not give you anything more in terms of delivering the program or the service.
Senator Hubley: I would like to get the timelines on the replacement for the Louis S. St-Laurent. The February 2008 budget announced that funding was in place to replace the Louis S. St-Laurent with a new polar icebreaker. What is the length of that process and where do we stand today?
Mr. Da Pont: Those are excellent questions and not as easy and straightforward to answer as one might think.
The length of time it takes to replace a particular vessel depends, in large part, on the size and complexity of the vessel. Replacing a vessel like the Louis St-Laurent, which is a very big, complex vessel — and given that there is no existing proven design to start with — will take us a significant amount of time.
We have begun the process and are looking at replacing the Louis S. St-Laurent in 2017. It would take about nine years from the budget announcement to the actual arrival of a new polar icebreaker, which is an awfully long time.
The first stage in that process is to spend a fair bit of time, which we have been doing for the better part of a year, to clearly define the operational requirements and what the vessel has to be capable of doing. It will not just be a straight replacement for the existing vessel.
Again, that does take a fair bit of thinking because we are looking at a vessel that will be operating from 2017 probably to around 2050 or 2060. When you are trying to define the operational requirements of the vessel, it is not just for today's situation. You are trying to build a vessel, recognizing that it is a government asset for that period of time, and trying to assess what might be needed.
In that case, we will then have to go through a design phase. Once we have defined the requirements of what we want the vessel to do, we will issue a request for proposal for someone to design that vessel and then subsequently to build it.
For smaller vessels that are less complicated, or where there is a proven design, the process would be much shorter. The process really does vary, senator, from vessel to vessel.
Senator Hubley: Is there any place in Canada that has the capability of building this vessel when it is designed, or will we be going outside of the country to do that?
Mr. Da Pont: It will definitely be built in Canada. The capability is there. In fact, the government's shipbuilding policy requires that all of our vessels are built in Canada.
Senator Adams: You mentioned navy ships. I remember the Prime Minister announcing that Nanisivik would be used as a deep-sea port in the Arctic. Mention was made about the ability to build vessels that would break ice up to two metres thick. Are the Coast Guard and the Department of Transport looking into that? Are we waiting for the government to make a decision? Where do we stand on that issue? We would like to have it up in Nunavut in the future.
The last time you were here, we talked about training Inuit to work with the Coast Guard or on their ships. Some Inuit are good at operating boats and getting out on the ice.
We settled the land claims. We want to protect our land, and we do not expect anybody to come up there to do it for us. We are all Canadians. I would like to see something up there in the future, with people having more control of the area up there and not having to come down south.
Mr. Da Pont: Senator, I know that you had raised some of these issues the last time I was here. I did check, and you will be happy to know that there are eight Inuit working with the Coast Guard now. We have tried in the last few years to have targeted recruit programs for Inuit. Perhaps we have not tried as hard as should have, but our success has been a bit modest. One reason is that at the moment almost all of our jobs in the Arctic are seasonal. People are only there for part of the year, and they often work the rest of the year in our operations south of 60. We have not had much success at this point in persuading too many Inuit to look at those sorts of arrangements. It is one of the limitations.
We are trying to put more effort into improving the diversity of the Coast Guard and to doing outreach to Inuit and other Aboriginal communities. I hope to put more effort into that over the next few years.
The other initiative you may be interested in is that the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary is in a number of Arctic communities now. We are working to expand the number of communities that have a Coast Guard Auxiliary because the interest is certainly there. That is another area we are working on to improve our presence in the community, but also to involve northerners in parts of our operation.
Senator Adams: You did not mention anything about Nanisivik.
Mr. Da Pont: The government has announced a DND project around Nanisivik. It is being run and managed by the Department of National Defence.
The Chair: Was that not to be transferred to the Department of Transport, though?
Mr. Da Pont: I am not aware of that, Mr. Chair, although I am not completely current with the project. I know they have been both been involved. I am not current with where that project stands exactly.
Senator Adams: I have another location, in case you want to go ahead. If you build ships that cannot break the two metres of ice in Nanisivik, you will never get out there in the wintertime. We were out there last year in June. I have a picture of the harbour.
Mr. Hunt, you are familiar with the people up in Nunavut, and I know we have discussed the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation in Winnipeg.
DFO did a lot of work with the Arctic char, especially in Pangnirtung and Cambridge Bay, and they are doing research. At that time, we talked with the Nunavut government about the inshore fishery and doing research on the future of the commercial fishery. We now have a new organization called the Arctic Fishery Alliance, with members from about four communities — Grise Fiord, Resolute and Arctic Bay, and Baffin Island. It is coming along quite successfully. They have the quotas this year from DFO, but they cannot buy the equipment for the ships. Every year they do some research, and DFO has a budget to do research. According to DFO, the line for the 0A fishing area crosses the mouth of Grise Fiord. You have some quotas there for turbot. It may be that you have nothing to do with that, but it might have some connection with your job up there in Nunavut, Mr. Hunt.
Burt Hunt, Regional Director, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Central and Arctic Region, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Since this is my first opportunity to speak, I will say how pleased I am to be back with you folks. This is my third visit. One of those was when I was area director in Iqaluit, and we had a pleasant picnic on the shores of the Sylvia Grinnell River with some of the group. That is going back I suppose six or eight years. The second meeting was here a year ago, and I think you had supper after that meeting. Now I have come to this meeting, and not only have we had supper, but we also had birthday cake. I do not know what comes next.
With regard to your questions, Senator Adams, you are entirely correct. We have had a great deal of interest, and that interest was evident last year when I spoke to you. One of the planks in the Nunavut government's initiatives, as well as the department's initiatives, is economic development in Nunavut of one kind or another. We have seen progress and hopefully we are making progress by the day in all of our relations with the Nunavut government, with our management boards and with the hunter-trapper associations in those locations. In fact, we worked with those four HTAs, as they were referred to, to have them issue licensing arrangements to those hunter-trapper associations so they can explore for turbot. After all, this is literally on their doorstep.
You heard much about turbot on my last visit. The numbers are in thousands of tonnes of available resource. As my science friends will attest, we are continuing the quest for more resources, and the majority of that benefit would fall to Nunavut.
We think that the area Senator Adams refers to is one of the more productive areas in the North. Research there costs a small fortune. It has to be planned years ahead. We are hoping that in conjunction with those hunter-trapper associations, we will be able to generate some of the information we need to make sensible decisions. The truth is that we started out working with them at a modest harvest, which they went out and tried. We are convinced that we are not jeopardizing the resource because we have basic information about the resource. We then put everything that we have learned together with our best science and with the traditional knowledge from the community and the results of that experimental fishery and hopefully come up with additional quota and resources.
Last year was the first opportunity for that, and the results are still coming in. It was essentially a mixed result. Some communities were more active than others.
The infrastructure costs are immense, and we do have problems — that is, "we'' the fishermen, if I could speak for them — equipping ourselves to go out and tackle that resource, and that remains one of the problems.
I know that the INAC Northern Strategy is looking into funding to do some of that. Certainly, the Government of Nunavut is working on it. We had very good meetings with our co-managers, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, as well as the Government of Nunavik, in January and again in March. We are heading down a road. As my friend Mr. Da Pont mentioned, it takes a long time to build an icebreaker; well, it also takes a long time to build a fishery. We are not striding, but we are moving down those roads.
The Chair: Are you talking about breakwaters and that sort of thing?
Mr. Hunt: Yes, some of that. You heard since my last visit that the budget announced the Pangnirtung development. Senator Adams has referred to Pangnirtung. Of course, that has been somewhat the centre of the fishery. One of our problems is that the fish harvested offshore of Baffin Island are processed elsewhere. They frequently go to Greenland, for instance, and we are simply not able to cope with it.
The Chair: If we had shore facilities in Nunavut, we would be harvesting there.
Mr. Hunt: That was announced, in part, for Pangnirtung. That development is going ahead.
The Chair: Seven sites were recommended.
Mr. Hunt: The discussion with the Nunavut government did indeed pull up seven sites. Nunavut, of course, would have liked to have seven sites approved. I think the government carefully weighed the various options initially, and I say "initially'' guardedly. Initially, the move is on with Pangnirtung as the somewhat centre of this activity, but the other locations are not off the table, if you will. Those discussions are ongoing. It will take time and money, but we have not given up on any of that.
Senator Adams: Maybe you are not responsible. I do not know what is happening at Pangnirtung. There used to be ice fishing on the sea, but I think nothing has happened in the last four or five years.
Maybe you do not have anything to do with it; it is up to the minister to make decisions.
The ice fishing quotas used to be 150 tonnes. When I was up there, I remember one time I went about 60 miles out onto the sea by Ski-doo. In the last three or four years, the climate has changed and that area is not frozen. There is usually fishing in the wintertime using the hooking method, and we have not been able to do that for the last three or four years now. That issue was ongoing between Nunavut and the department. My question is with respect to those quotas and the fish plant in Pangnirtung.
Mr. Hunt: You are entirely correct; the fishery in Cumberland Sound, as the large sound in front of Pangnirtung is named, is a lucrative fishery and has been effective in its day. As you indicated, global warming has changed the ice conditions out there. While it was very convenient for the residents of Pangnirtung to fish in Cumberland Sound and provide fish to essentially feed the fish plant and keep it alive for many more months of the year, ice conditions have been such that they have not been able to fish or travel out there. Like so many things, this is one of our concerns with global warming.
There is some wish to use that allocation otherwise and go fish in Cumberland Sound in the summer season. However, there are a great number of sensitivities with the community. As you heard last year, and I will say again, we do not do that in terms of running roughshod over the community. We listen as closely as we can in order to meet the interests.
The clash is with the whale populations in Cumberland Sound. You can picture a gillnet fishery going on in Cumberland Sound with beluga whales, in particular, that are feeding the population of the town. We do not want to suffer the consequences of that, so that discussion is active and ongoing.
As to whether you see that as a viable option or not depends on which side of the fence you come down, whether you are primarily a narwhal and beluga user or a turbot user. The discussion is ongoing, shall we say, and has not been resolved.
We wish, frankly, that we could fish in a winter fishery because it does not have the same concern. As Senator Adams indicated, it is largely a longline fishery, which is a line with a number of baited hooks. Of course, you do not run into the whale problem that you could potentially in the summertime.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Hunt, let me take this opportunity to thank you for your hospitality when we came to the area where you are responsible for fisheries management.
When we travel to the Western Arctic, what new challenges in fisheries management will we find there, if there are any?
[English]
Mr. Hunt: The situation is not entirely different, but it is very much different. In terms of structure, we have many of the same structures that were created under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement in terms of management boards and institutions of public government, as they are called.
Western Nunavut has one land claim and essentially one Nunavut Wildlife Management Board. There are a number of other boards for managing different things, but in the west, it evolved many decades earlier. The original land claim in the west was developed during the 1970s and signed in the 1980s with the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, the IFA. Under that, there is a quasi-equivalent of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board called the Fisheries Joint Management Committee. That land claim was followed by the Gwich'in settlement, under which there is the Gwich'in Renewable Resources Board, on through to the Sahtu land claim and now the Tlicho claim, which is the Dogrib claim area on the west side of Great Slave Lake. You will recognize that some of that area is unsettled yet. We hear much in the news about the Deh Cho and their claim area. They are having their share of conflicts with the pipeline developers.
We do not have a similar issue in terms of the economic development from the commercial fishery in the east, which is one of our primary focuses in economic development; it is seen as a golden opportunity. We do not have that same opportunity in the west.
We have the Great Slave Lake fishery, which has existed for decades and goes back probably into the Depression years when people were forced out of the quasi-desert of the south and went north to fish where it was still green.
I have Metis friends who came up from Saskatchewan in the 1950s to fish on Great Slave Lake. It is a fishery that still has probably 70 fishers and families fishing on it, but it is not a char or turbot fishery; it is very much a small-boat fishery with people fishing basically whitefish, pike and pickerel, when they can find it, in canoes on the Buffalo River.
Senator Robichaud: Is it all marketed by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation?
Mr. Hunt: That is yet another issue because the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation operates a plant in Hay River on the south shore of Great Slave Lake. In its day, it was a going concern.
In the early 1990s, I was co-chair of the Great Slave Lake Advisory Committee with a man named Johnny Nault, who was a Saskatchewan Metis. We had so many fishermen coming to us that we had to have a lottery, of sorts, for applicants. Then once we got them into the lottery, we had to apply a strict set of criteria such that if you did not grow up in a fishing family, you did not go fishing.
A year ago, I received a note from that board asking us to ease the regulations that I was in part responsible for injecting on people 15 years ago because they cannot get people to fish. Whitefish is worth a few cents a pound. The cost of everything, no surprise to anyone, has literally gone through the roof. People who could fish and make a dollar before simply cannot do so any longer, and there is no interest in doing those kinds of things. That is a product of hard work and work ethic, working from morning to night, feeding your family, and that was all okay then. People have other options now. If you can work in a diamond mine for dozens of dollars an hour, why get up before the birds, go to bed long after the birds and barely eek out a living? It has all changed.
In regard to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, I do not know what their plans are because I do not have jurisdiction over freshwater and have not heard from them recently. They encouraged us to change some boundaries and change some seasons last year in order to get the production into the plant. I feel a threat for the viability for the plant in Hay River because of the nature of the fishery and the way things have gone and the trifling bit of money that is in a pound of whitefish these days, which probably is unchanged from the Depression years. It is not there any longer.
That is the commercial fishery.
There are a couple of smaller lakes in the neighbourhood of Great Slave Lake. Tathlina Lake and Kakisa Lake are the other two commercial operations but nothing of the scale that you see in the east.
Using that as an opener, when and if you decide to go there, we can arrange a get-together with those folks who are suffering that trauma. You would certainly get a feel for that fishery as well.
A number of communities are involved in inter-community trade, if you will, but that is not a commercial trade in the sense of the product going down to Winnipeg and being marketed to the soul food market in the U.S. That is a whole different thing. It is an in-the-community type of trade.
Senator Adams referred earlier to Cambridge Bay. That is the Arctic char fishery, such as goes on in the east.
There are certainly many things we could find for you to do. You would find it interesting to meet with some of the management boards. We have, by and large, very good relations with them in the pursuit of trials with their management plans. We have populations of Dolly Varden. Senator Adams has heard of Dolly Varden before, but most people have not. Dolly Varden is a form of Arctic char that is being considered as a species at risk, not because of commercial overfishing but simply because the communities have needed the fish and climatic events and geographic events — in one case a landslide that closed off the spawning area — have conspired to make it difficult for those communities to have a sufficient supply of Dolly Varden as they migrate past them, which they have done for centuries and seem to be failing to do now.
The Fisheries Joint Management Committee is a progressive board. That is not to say the others are not, but they meet regularly. Gwich'in could do the same; Sahtu could do the same. We could have a colourful agenda for you to speak to people in the east in a general fashion.
All of these folks, incidentally, are affected by the Mackenzie Valley pipeline development. In the case of the Inuvialuit, they have a financial interest in that pipeline.
Other things you have heard in the news include the trapped whales in the Husky Lakes two winters ago. We have worked on some measures with the Fisheries Joint Management Committee and the hunter and trapper association from Tuktoyaktuk to herd the whales out of the Husky Lakes in the fall. We hope we are not patting ourselves on our back. I say "we'' generously because the hunter and trapper association herded 100 whales out of the Husky Lakes that would likely have been frozen in, and we would have had another nasty bit of newspaper press and, of course, damage to the resource had that not occurred. We are making progress on some interesting fronts, but we could have an event- filled few days in the west as well.
Senator Robichaud: I am sure we will.
With climate change and the way the ice is receding from the shores, the season is getting longer and there is more open water. Are there any issues in the Beaufort Sea? I have heard that some species are coming through there and they were not in the past. Will climate change have an impact on the people, on the whales, on the fish stocks and the way of life over there?
[Translation]
Sylvain Paradis, Director General, Ecosystem Science Directorate, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: It is quite clear that we do not have very good knowledge of all the biodiversity in the Arctic because not much research has been done. But with the arrival of ArcticNet and the Amundsen, we have done a lot of research to find the kinds of species, what happens in migration, and so on. Researchers in ArcticNet, together with researchers from DFO, other Canadian universities and several international teams, are now looking at migrations. One researcher was trying to compare the biodiversities in the east and the west in order to see, when the passage is open, what kind of migration would take place and what kind of invasions he could observe: which species would dominate the others.
We have a feeling that there are changes in those species, but, since we have no comprehensive knowledge of Arctic biodiversity in its entirety, we are not able to identify all the direct changes.
In a recent interview, Mr. Fortier, from ArcticNet, talked about some species migrating from south to north. We are beginning to see this on the west coast where some varieties of salmon are beginning to move towards Yukon rivers where they were not historically found. We know that climate change will bring changes to the north.
Senator Robichaud: Is it possible that fishing for certain species could become viable at some stage?
Mr. Paradis: In the last two or three years, the department has become more and more committed to scientific investments in the north because we know that there is going to be increasing pressure. Two years ago, the minister recommended a realignment of resources in fisheries science programs; researchers were moved to the north to find species and look at the commercial possibilities. A lot of work was also done on marine mammals because everything is always done in close cooperation with joint management committees. People had raised those concerns.
[English]
In the Beaufort Sea, we implemented an ecosystem research initiative, an ERI, where we looked specifically at what is going on with the Beaufort Arctic transformation. All priorities are set jointly with the co-management board. Usually, we have community members coming out with us because they have an incredible knowledge of what is happening in the field. They can actually point to specific transformations in the ecosystem. All of those things are taking place.
In the last budget, on top of the harbour construction, we received additional fishery science funding to actually deploy scientific operations around the harbour.
[Translation]
There are a lot of changes. We feel that there is considerable pressure. The government has asked the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to develop new plans. We are about to see the establishment of what is called the Canadian Research Institute. The plans are in place.
[English]
There is a lot going on in the North in terms of improving our understanding. We do not have the fine details of all the transformation we will be facing up there.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: When it has been established that there are fish stocks that can be commercially developed, are we going to use our experiences in the east to good effect? Interests from outside the region, whom we had asked to fish on an experimental basis, ended up getting more or less permanent quotas. That caused a lot of problems in the communities. Can we hope that that will not happen again in this region?
[English]
Mr. Hunt: It is interesting that you ask that question, senator. We have had southern interest in pursuing commercial opportunities in the Beaufort in the same experimental way that we talked about with regard to the hunter- trapper associations. The interest quickly waned when we advised them that we would be looking for the benefits of this development to remain in the adjacent areas. That has not gone away entirely, but the idea was exactly your point: "It is in my backyard, and I should be the beneficiary of it.''
Frankly, our relationships with the Fisheries Joint Management Committee, with the Gwich'in Renewable Resources Board, et cetera, is good enough, consistent enough and communicative enough that they are involved in any of these decisions.
The minister is the one who ultimately makes these decisions, but I dare say there would be a lot of discussion with our co-management partners before any decision was made in the direction of enshrining an interest from outside the region. That is not to say it could not be done with someone who was interested in buddying up to work with the local interests. I cannot fetter and say things for sure, but it seems to me that our co-management partners would be very critical of an arrangement that went around them and did not involve them from the beginning. Therefore, I think we would see a decision that would sit well with you in that circumstance.
Senator Robichaud: I hope this happens the way you are saying it will.
Senator Raine: I find this all fascinating. I am new to the world of fishing and the Coast Guard.
I want to skip back to the Coast Guard and the Western Arctic. I note on the map that the Pacific region includes a little piece of the Beaufort Sea. Is that administered by the B.C. region, or is it rolled in with the Central and Arctic Region based out of Sarnia?
Mr. Hunt: You will get sick of hearing where I have been, but I used to be the area director in Whitehorse and, therefore, part of the Pacific region. My head office in those days was in Vancouver. We had a map that showed what you are looking at, but there was an operating arrangement under which the north slope of Yukon was administered out of the Central and Arctic Region, which is my region now.
Senator Raine: That makes sense.
Mr. Hunt: That exists in a within-department document, so I suppose it could be subject to change. However, I do not see anyone, in these days of scant resources, looking to expand their turf and have more work to do and more responsibility. At this time, the simple answer is that it is administered by us out of our Inuvik office and by Central and Arctic Region, which is essentially my region now, having left the Pacific region in 2000.
Mr. Da Pont: The Coast Guard regions are roughly analogous to those of DFO, but not exactly. For Coast Guard operations, it is all in our Central and Arctic Region.
Senator Raine: It is the same in this case.
Mr. Da Pont: Yes.
Senator Raine: I cannot help but wonder why the Western Arctic has its regional headquarters in Sarnia. I am sure there is a good reason for it, but it does seem a bit strange.
Mr. Da Pont: I will start with the Coast Guard side. That is not a surprising question, senator, since I know it has been raised before.
The Coast Guard has about 70 people who work in the Arctic, generally between June and November. That does not include the people on the vessels in the Arctic. These are people who are shoreside.
The main reason it has been operated out of a different area is that it has been a seasonal operation, and it has been hard to rationalize having a permanent, ongoing infrastructure in the North under those circumstances. As circumstances change over time, I am sure we will review it, but it has been administratively efficient for running a seasonal operation.
Our people are up there in the field. Rather than duplicating the administrative apparatus, it is located in Sarnia.
Senator Raine: Search and rescue is an ongoing problem. It is a long way to go from Sarnia to do a search and rescue.
Mr. Da Pont: I will ask my colleague, Mr. Spurrell, to explain a bit about how search and rescue works in the North.
Wade Spurrell, Assistant Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard, Central and Arctic Region, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Our colleagues in National Defence are responsible for the management of search and rescue cases, and cases in the Central Region and in the Arctic Region are run out of the Rescue Coordination Centre in Trenton. There are three; one in Trenton, one in the Pacific region and one on the East Coast in Halifax, with a couple of sub- centres in Quebec City and Newfoundland. Management of search and rescue is across a very wide area. However, our resources in the region would be tasked through our normal command and control structure.
Senator Raine: They are not sitting around waiting; they are out doing others things.
Mr. Spurrell: That is correct.
Mr. Da Pont: The Arctic is such a large region. As I mentioned, we normally have seven icebreakers there and some smaller vessels. That is not many vessels for a very large region. If we had an incident that required search and rescue, whoever was closest would be tasked to respond to it. In the North, a great deal of air support is required for almost any search and rescue operation, and that comes primarily from the DND bases in the North.
The Chair: There was an incident in our province recently, and there is a lot of discussion now about where equipment should be placed. I think the same sort of thing applies to the North. We heard testimony when we were up there from John Amagoalik, who was in an accident in the Arctic. The fixed wing aircraft could find them, but it took a helicopter to remove them from where they were. The helicopter came from Trenton, Ontario. It did not make a lot of sense to us that the equipment was placed in Trenton for use in the Arctic.
The question is the strategic location of equipment. I understand how search and rescue works and that DND is the coordinating area, and that Transport and Fisheries are part of it as well. Our concern was the physical location of equipment, how long it took to get from point A to point B, and whether you could do an effective job, particularly with the opening up of the Arctic now.
Mr. Da Pont: That is a legitimate concern. I cannot and I will not try to speak for DND. I will limit my comments to the Coast Guard side of the operation, where some of the issues are the same.
The positive news is that overall we have one of the best search and rescue systems in the world. I think the committee is aware of that fact.
The Chair: Absolutely.
Mr. Da Pont: There are tremendously professional people in the Coast Guard, DND, the auxiliary and elsewhere. We should be proud of the work they do.
At the same time, there is no doubt that Canada is huge, and we cannot predict where incidents will take place. Every time an incident takes place in an area that is more difficult to get to, questions are raised about the response time.
I know that National Defence has a process similar to ours. Every six to eight years we do a search and rescue needs analysis. We look at the number of incidents in a particular area, the differing patterns of traffic and so forth. We try to identify where requirements might be and to shift resources to the extent we can to accommodate that.
We did that recently. For example, we will be opening a new search and rescue station on the North Shore of Quebec to address that issue. There is no doubt that there are challenging areas where we probably do not have sufficient coverage. I would say Labrador would be one, perhaps parts of Lake Superior and, certainly, parts of the North. We will have to look at how to provide better services, keeping in mind the extremely challenging distances.
There are legitimate considerations, but it is very difficult to have an asset everywhere you think you might need it in a country this large.
Senator Raine: Can you update us on the situation with the dispute between Canada and the U.S. in terms of the border in the Beaufort Sea?
Mr. Da Pont: I am afraid I could offer comments, but I am not supposed to. I will have to defer to my colleagues in the Department of Foreign Affairs to address that issue.
Senator Raine: I was thinking more about how it affects what we are doing up there. I understand the Coast Guard has a very good relationship with the Coast Guard in Alaska, so that is good to hear.
Mr. Da Pont: That is very much so.
On an operational level in terms of our work and joint work between the Canadian Coast Guard and the U.S. Coast Guard, the dispute has not had an impact on the ground. I can give you one very good example.
This past summer, the Louis S. St-Laurent spent 40-odd days doing some important sea mapping work in support of Canada's claim, under the Law of the Sea, to the Continental Shelf. For about half that period, it worked jointly with a U.S. icebreaker, the Healy.
From an operational perspective we cooperate very well, notwithstanding the fact that, obviously, our countries have different positions on some pretty key issues.
Senator Raine: There is a bit of concern, then, that fisheries might be impacted with the development of energy resources up there.
Mr. Hunt: Yes, insofar as it is disputed and where the line is disputed. It is not an aspect of our commercial fishery because, as mentioned, we do not have a commercial fishery at this point in time.
There is an issue because the United States is looking at measures that would not allow a fishery unless there was sufficient baseline information in order to launch a fishery, and our approach is very much the precautionary principle.
Recognizing our shortcomings in the way of research and our limited resources, we have opted to say that we can have a very conservative and very safe fishery in order to develop that. That issue is simmering out there and may be the subject of some of your discussions with the Fisheries Joint Management Committee, should you take the trip up there and have that discussion. That dispute is out of my hands and the commissioner's hands, and I do not speculate on it.
To quickly clarify the Sarnia issue, please recognize that fisheries management — my gig — is located out of Winnipeg. I field many questions about working for Fisheries and Oceans and being in Winnipeg. Of course, you will recognize that we have jurisdiction for inland waters as well, not in terms of fisheries management in the southern provinces, but, certainly, across the Arctic. We also have habitat responsibilities across the country, and, therefore, in a strange sort of a way, Winnipeg is an exactly logical place for us to be. Fisheries management is located in Winnipeg, not in Sarnia. My boss is in Sarnia, of course, and our corporate headquarters is in Sarnia, but my staff and I are located in Winnipeg or Burlington, in the case of the aquaculture manager. Our aquaculture is on Manitoulin Island in the area of the Great Lakes; some is scattered across the prairies. Likewise, our science group has two centres of excellence within Central and Arctic Region. They are located in the Freshwater Institute at the University of Manitoba and at the Canadian Centre for Inland Waters with the Department of the Environment in Burlington. It is not quite as illogical as it sounds with our being in Tuktoyaktuk and Sarnia being a long way away. We also have localized offices, which you will visit, no doubt.
The Chair: Our feeling was that with what is happening in the Arctic now, with the ice moving out, the traffic that we think will come and the attention that is being paid, the departments should be moving their operations. There was probably a time when the Arctic could be managed from the south, but our feeling is that the time has come to move Canadian headquarters north to the degree that we can.
I realize that some of the operations are seasonal, but would you not agree that the seasons will get longer? I agree that some of the recruitment is seasonal and that people have to do work elsewhere, but if Inuit are recruited into the Coast Guard — and I am glad to see that they are — they have things that they need to do in the Arctic in the wintertime as well. It would fit their pattern and way of life very well.
Senator Cook: I have a two-pronged question. I would like to go back to the discussion of the icebreaker that was budgeted for in 2006. If I understand your interaction with Senator Hubley, are you saying that the design for that ship has not been perfected yet?
Mr. Da Pont: Yes, senator, that is exactly it. There has not been much new worldwide icebreaker construction for quite some time. Some Scandinavian countries on the Baltic have done some, but the ice conditions there are much lighter than the operative conditions in the Canadian Arctic. They are not exactly a model that we can take as is.
The other major design issues have been around nuclear icebreakers. Again, that is quite different from what we are looking at.
We will be looking at a design for a suitable icebreaker. Our approach in acquiring vessels is if there is a proven design for the type of vessel that we are trying to get, that would be our preference because it obviously speeds things up, and we would be getting a tested vessel. In this case, there is no proven design that we can just take as is and then begin construction.
Senator Cook: Is it a priority for the department?
Mr. Da Pont: It is very much a priority for the government, for the department and for the Coast Guard.
Senator Cook: Forgive me for not knowing or understanding, but I come from Newfoundland and Labrador where a Hibernia platform was put together. We have seen two budgets since then, and they have towed Hibernia out to sea. With modern mechanisms, I find it incredible that someone cannot obtain a design and get on with the job so that construction can be completed. I am not being facetious. If we believe in the formula of climate change, there will not be any ice left up there if we do not start soon. If a design has not been agreed to, following which the icebreaker will take nine years to build, the people on Baffin Island will be mowing lawns by that time. I just do not understand.
Mr. Da Pont: Senator, you raise a very good point. Believe me, my objective is to try to get that vessel, and the other vessels that we have been funded to receive, as quickly as possible.
Senator Cook: We are told that there are nuclear ships of various descriptions. Surely, in this global village, we can have some interaction with the emerging economies of China or Russia and other countries located up in that icefield.
Mr. Da Pont: We have been doing that with some of the Scandinavian countries and with Korea, which is looking at icebreaker construction, but the challenge is not just the design. The challenge is that we must be clear about the capabilities of the vessel.
I go back to the point I made earlier. We are trying to imagine a vessel that we will have from 2017 to maybe 2060 and our needs and requirements over that period of time. We are not looking at saying, "We currently have the Louis S. St-Laurent; why not build something exactly like that?''
Factoring in what you need with regard to a very significant government asset, because it is an $800-million expenditure, you have to ensure you are getting it right. You are trying to get the best value for the country in terms of the vessel you need.
Senator Cook: I understand that.
Let me go to the issue of infrastructure now. If you want to think outside the box, given the acceleration of climate change, is there a point in time where I could see that ship based in Pangnirtung Harbour or some such place on Baffin Island, or should we be looking at what we have: Goose Bay, Labrador, for example, with an existing infrastructure in the form of airfields, docks and the like? Should we not be looking at those kinds of ports to service the Arctic?
Mr. Da Pont: Yes, I would agree with that. In fact, we try to do that now in terms of how we place our vessels.
To go to the chairman's comments a little earlier, as climate change progresses, there is little doubt in my mind that at some point the Coast Guard will have a northern operation based full time in the North. It is inevitable. The issue is when does it become feasible, over what time frame? These are the considerations that we have been looking at.
Senator Cook: There are many elements. Thirty thousand Canadians live up there and will be impacted by climate change in ways that we have not even discussed or talked about. My primary concern is for the people, how they make their living and how this will impact on them. It will not be 2022 because it will take nine years after you decide on the design.
Mr. Da Pont: We are under way. I expect that the whole process will be completed by 2017. That is our target. It is nine years from the budget announcement, yes.
Senator Cook: There are many things that I do not understand about the Coast Guard. I understand surveillance, search and rescue and icebreakers, but I will end with this: that terrible morning when I got a phone call from home about the helicopter crash. My daughter called and said that a helicopter had gone down on the way to Hibernia, and I said: "Oh, no.'' Her next words were, "But the Coast Guard is there, mom.'' It is a telling statement that a young woman was giving some measure of comfort by saying, "But the Coast Guard is there, mom.''
I think your mission is laudable, but I think we could be doing so much more if we were not hampered by red tape.
Mr. Da Pont: Thank you for your views.
Senator Cochrane: Where are the major Coast Guard facilities located in the North?
Mr. Da Pont: We basically have one major facility, and that is a base in Hay River.
Senator Cochrane: How many Coast Guard vessels operate in that region every year?
Mr. Da Pont: Two vessels operate along the Mackenzie River every season, and they do mostly aids-to-navigation work. There is a vessel called the Nahidik that operates almost every season doing science work in the Beaufort Sea. I mentioned that every year we have seven icebreakers from south of 60 in the Arctic. They are in various parts of the Arctic, including the Western Arctic, depending on the year and the operation.
Senator Cochrane: That is good; so we have seven vessels.
Mr. Da Pont: We have a capacity for seven, but they are not always there. The Sir Wilfrid Laurier works mostly in the Western Arctic on an ongoing basis. The Louis S. St-Laurent and others are there from time to time. It depends on what the vessel is being tasked to do in any year, and it varies from year to year.
Senator Cochrane: My other question is about communication and cooperation with the U.S. Coast Guard in the Western Arctic. In a typical year, are U.S. Coast Guard icebreakers on the northern side of Alaska?
Mr. Spurrell: Our colleagues in the U.S. Coast Guard do operations in the Arctic, as the commissioner just mentioned. Last year, the Healy, which has a U.S. Coast Guard science role, conducted joint operations with us, but that is the only large vessel I am aware of that does operations now. I am not in a position to really comment on the complete operational capacity of the U.S. Coast Guard.
Senator Cochrane: Does the U.S. have a system like our NORDREG?
Mr. Da Pont: The U.S. does have an equivalent of our vessel-controlled traffic system and our vessel-reporting systems. They are fairly comparable to ours. Theirs are mandatory. As you know in the Arctic at the moment, NORDREG has been voluntary. Legislation and regulations are being put in place to make it mandatory.
The Chair: That was a good question; very helpful.
Senator Robichaud: How soon can we expect NORDREG to be enforced?
Mr. Da Pont: That partly depends on how quickly the legislative and regulatory framework is approved, but we are aiming, as I understand it, to have it in place for next year.
Senator Robichaud: We were told that you did not need any legislation to put that through, that Transport Canada had the authority to do so.
Mr. Da Pont: I think we need a regulatory regime for it, as I understand it.
Mr. Spurrell: Our friends at Transport Canada have a file on the NORDREG issue. Last week I was in a session where our colleagues in transport were consulting with the industry, getting feedback on proposed changes. That is about all the information I can pass along to the committee.
The Chair: I had a briefing this morning from Transport Canada on another bill, and the person from the department said that they expected to have them in place by 2010.
Mr. Da Pont: Yes.
The Chair: However, I agree with Senator Robichaud. We had testimony earlier that you did not need legislation and it could be done by regulation.
Mr. Da Pont: I will not debate the mechanism, but my understanding is we are aiming to have it in place on a mandatory basis for 2010. If it is possible to do so earlier and in a different way, as Mr. Spurrell has said, Transport Canada is the regulatory arm on this matter.
Senator Manning: My understanding is that the Coast Guard was given special operating agency status back in April 2005, which was designed to change the way the Coast Guard operated. In other committees in which I am involved, the government is looking at that type of operation for other agencies.
Has the reorganization been completed? How much independence does the Coast Guard have from DFO and how is that working up to now?
Mr. Da Pont: I think that most components of the special operating agency status have now been implemented. We are not a full independent agency with our own separate piece of legislation. We are a special operating agency within DFO.
Practical changes have come out of that status. Prior to that change, the Coast Guard reported through the various regional operations of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. With the change, all of the Coast Guard operations now report to the commissioner, and they are separate and apart from the DFO structure.
It has given the Coast Guard a lot more operational and financial independence. We are still linked and are part of the department, of course, but it has given us a greater ability to manage our budget.
It has also enabled us to get special authorities from Treasury Board Secretariat that suit Coast Guard requirements but are not required or used in the rest of the department. A couple of those have been put in place since that time.
It has been successful in dealing with what were perceived as difficult issues, primarily some of the financial ones, but also many of the issues the Auditor General raised when she was before this committee — that there were five Coast Guards and they had different practices and procedures. We are well on the way to standardizing that situation. Obviously, we had many years of a highly decentralized organization, so it will take us another couple of years to standardize the rest of our procedures.
It has put us on a good route to deal with those issues and begin to deliver a basket of common services right across the country.
Senator Manning: I want to discuss search and rescue as a follow-up to our chair's questions. I believe you said that a search and rescue needs analysis is completed every three or four years.
Mr. Da Pont: It is usually a bit longer; five, six or seven years.
Senator Manning: Is that needs analysis completed across the country or just in regions?
Mr. Da Pont: Yes, it is done systematically across the country. The most recent one was finished about a year ago, and the results are publicly available and posted on the website.
Senator Manning: Some of my colleagues have raised the issue of the Cougar helicopter crash in Newfoundland. We have had several fishing boat incidents over the past few years, and the location of the search and rescue unit in Gander has been raised as an issue. The response time is what causes the questions.
Yesterday I was in St. John's, Newfoundland, with Minister MacKay to make an announcement on infrastructure. The media raised a question concerning a relocation of efforts. As you know, the government has agreements with Cougar helicopters as a backup plan.
I understand that Gander operates a certain time per day and that the response time during the day operations is one thing and the response time after they close their offices is another.
When you are on the sea, as most of you are fully aware, an accident does not happen between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. or 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. It can happen at any time. If we were to look at ways of improving search and rescue — and I will use the example of Newfoundland and Labrador — we should emphasize our actual operations along with new locations.
In this needs analysis, which I will be getting a copy of now that I know it is available, is that discussed? The concern with several of the fishing boat accidents we have had was that they happened at night, and bringing people in and getting them in the helicopters creates time delays. I do not know if I am asking the question the right way, but I hope you know where I am going.
Mr. Da Pont: Senator, I think I understand where you are coming from. Obviously, I cannot get too much into what the Department of National Defence has in terms of its arrangements and how it positions its assets. I cannot speak for them on that issue.
The SAR needs analysis we have done just deals with the maritime portion and the Coast Guard portion. In fact, my view is that that may be a bit of a weakness in how we do that stuff. I have spoken to National Defence about this matter. In the future, I would like us to do it systematically, covering both their side of the operation and ours, because only doing it covering the Coast Guard's side obviously does not give you the full picture.
In terms of response times — and, senator, I know you are aware of this — the tasking is done often to the asset that is the closest and can get there the quickest, whether it is a Coast Guard vessel, an auxiliary vessel or a vessel of opportunity.
What is required and the timeliness of the response time are functions of those factors. I know that it is very difficult whenever there are unsuccessful cases and where lives are lost. Both National Defence and ourselves review the search and rescue response and how it was conducted in all of those situations, and we examine whether there are ways to improve the service. We do that on an ongoing basis.
I go back to the point we have made several times now. Geographically, Canada is a very large country. The conditions are often challenging, and it is very difficult to guarantee coverage at all times and in all places. That is the challenge.
Senator Manning: I certainly accept that. Coming from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I fully realize that in trying to cover our geography alone, you cannot have a search and rescue helicopter in every port.
Are you telling me that the Department of National Defence decides on the setup, the timing of operations and so on?
Mr. Da Pont: We work very closely with them. Actual operations are run by what is called the Joint Rescue Coordination Centre, of which there are three in the country. They are run by National Defence, but Coast Guard personnel are embedded in those centres, and they task all cases using whatever asset or combination of assets is appropriate for the particular situation.
They have a pretty wide range. They task assets without asking me or without asking senior DND people. They have been given authority to deliver what is needed to deal with the specific situation as quickly as possible.
We position our assets, our vessels, and National Defence decides where it puts its air support assets. Generally, that tends to be done by each of us. We do try to run an integrated operation that is mutually supportive.
Senator Manning: We always hear of the tragedies, and so we should, but I do realize that search and rescue personnel provide a great service to our province and our country and do some wonderful work in dangerous situations. There is no doubt about that.
I would like to take a few moments to talk about the planned procurement of vessels and follow up on Senator Cook's question. Do you have some idea of when the mission profile will be completed for the new icebreakers? Is there a time limit?
Mr. Da Pont: We have actually completed a good, solid mission profile. In fact, it is also available on our website.
Perhaps I had better check. I know it is posted on our internal site. I am not sure if it is posted on the external site, but we can make that available.
We have done that part of the thinking and are now in the process of taking that mission profile and translating it into a more technical piece, which would be the statement of operational requirements.
Senator Manning: You may not be able to answer this question, but I will ask it anyway. How many departments are involved in putting this ship to paper in order to get it out to tender?
Mr. Da Pont: That is a very good question. There are perhaps more than I would care to have sometimes.
The Coast Guard is the major entity that determines the operational requirements. The Department of Public Works and Government Services is responsible for and manages the important parts of the overall procurement process. Industry Canada has a strong interest in looking at various industrial and regional benefits tied to every procurement. In our case, we look for the involvement of departments and agencies with an interest and a role in the vessels. Obviously, one of our key functions for a polar icebreaker is to have a good capacity for conducting Arctic science, so our science colleagues would be involved. We would look for involvement from NRCan and the Department of the Environment.
A vessel of that nature is a Government of Canada asset, so we would involve many government departments to participate in defining the operational requirements so as to ensure that the vessel is able to meet not just the needs and programs of the Coast Guard, but a variety of Government of Canada programs run by other departments. That does make the process a little more complicated. However, I go back to the fact that this is an $800-million investment in something that we will have for 50 years, and it is important that we get the most out of it.
Senator Manning: Based on your answer to that question, I can see why it has taken several years to get to this point. To be honest, I am surprised you are as far along as you are.
I serve on the Security and National Defence Committee as well. We heard some witnesses a few weeks ago concerning contracts for the procurement of vessels for Navy. One of the requirements that the government has put forward is that these vessels be built in Canada. When we talked to the shipyard industry across the country, they mentioned the boom and bust cycle they go through. When we tender for these ships, there are not as many shipyards as there are Wal-Marts, so we are limited as to where we can construct these vessels.
Senator Cook talked about the GPS built for Hibernia, the floating platform, the major part of which came from Korea. My brother is an electrician, and he worked on that project. They had to strip out everything in that vessel and replace it to meet Canadian standards. Going outside the country creates its own problems.
My concern is for the shipyards. The one in Newfoundland and Labrador in Marystown is always looking for work, and I am sure there are others. I believe this vessel has been designed to be built in Canada. Has any thought been given to the ability of a shipyard or a number of shipyards to build the various parts of the vessel? I am trying to get my head around how that process works because I am not familiar with it, knowing full well that we are limited in our capability to be able to build such a vessel.
Mr. Da Pont: Again, these are some very good questions. When a request for proposal is put out to build the vessel, any shipyard can bid. It is at the moment an open, competitive process. Realistically, only a handful of yards in Canada now would have the capability to build a vessel like a polar icebreaker, but it would be an open, competitive process.
I agree completely with your observations of a boom and bust cycle, and I am grateful for the very significant investments in the Coast Guard and in the fleet in the last few budgets. They are the first investments since about the mid-1980s, so we have had a significant gap.
The shipyards obviously cannot maintain capacity, so whenever we enter the boom part of the cycle, as we are now, part of what the shipyards have to do is rebuild their capacity. In a sense, government pays for that because it is built into the bids submitted by the shipyards.
This is not the most efficient way to procure vessels. It would be better if we could move to an ongoing, more predictable program rather than the boom and bust cycle that we have seen. That is a function, obviously, of the investment decisions that are made at any one time.
Senator Manning: I am concerned about the ongoing discussions with the Canadian Navy relating to the contract for the Joint Support Ship Project, or JSS. I understand that that is ready to go at any given time. If you have a contract for JSS and a contract for a new polar ship at the same time, again, we are limited in our shipyards. Can you give us a ballpark estimate as to when you believe that we will be ready to seek bids for the construction of the new vessels?
Mr. Da Pont: For the polar icebreaker, we are targeting, I believe, 2012 or 2013. I have the figure here for putting out a request for proposal for "a build.''
Senator Manning: You are hoping to have it completed in 2017.
Mr. Da Pont: That is right.
Senator Manning: It will take three or four years.
Mr. Da Pont: Yes, for the build process.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I was speaking recently to a shipyard owner. I asked him about the announcement that several vessels of different sizes are to be built, and I gather that the smaller ones can be built in yards that are not able to build icebreakers of the size you were talking about.
The person told me that the problem was not that they cannot build them, but rather that, when people like that are asked to submit a bid, there is no way the yards that are not as big as others can do so because the bid is not just to build the vessels, but also to maintain them for an extended period of time.
Is there a way that the smaller boats that you are going to need can be handled differently so that other yards are able to submit bids?
Mr. Da Pont: Frankly, to my knowledge, we have never included long-term maintenance in our specifications. For the Coast Guard, the invitations to tender that we have prepared for new vessels has been for construction only. To date, maintenance has not been included. I think that is more a National Defence policy.
Senator Robichaud: Invitations to tender are prepared by Public Works, are they not?
Mr. Da Pont: Yes, they are. The Department of Public Works is responsible for the whole invitation to tender process.
Senator Robichaud: For Coast Guard vessels, there is no requirement for a package deal that includes construction, maintenance and a long-term warranty?
Mr. Da Pont: No. To my knowledge, maintenance has never been included. We have looked at it to see if there is any efficiency to be gained. But, up until now, it has not been part of our process.
[English]
Senator Cochrane: Mr. Da Pont, would you be able to take me through the process of responding to an accident when it happens on the scene, knowing full well that the Coast Guard has a very important role here, as well as others?
Mr. Da Pont: I can start and my colleague, I am sure, will provide you with more information. I will provide you with the simplified version.
If an individual on the water has difficulty, one of two things happens. If they have time, they radio in —
Senator Cochrane: To whom?
Mr. Da Pont: It would go to one of our 31 maritime communication and traffic control centres that are spread across the country. In an emergency situation, they would pick up the call and relay it to the Joint Rescue Coordination Centre, of which there are three. The centre would then task whomever was closest and whatever combination of assets were available to respond. For example, if a private vessel was nearby, they would task that vessel to respond in addition to Coast Guard vessels and, if needed, helicopter or other assets from the Department of National Defence.
The system is really triggered by either a distress signal or a call from the person in trouble, often picked up by one of our communications and traffic control centres and relayed to the Joint Rescue Coordination Centre. That process happens very quickly.
Senator Cochrane: Could you give me a time frame?
Mr. Spurrell: The type of response varies with the type of accident. For example, if the vessel has a problem and puts out a distress call, there may be other ships in the area that can respond quickly.
If it is a case that the vessel is overdue and we have to determine its last known position, the rescue coordination centre would have to manage a planned response to conduct an extensive search that may involve fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, Coast Guard ships, merchant ships or fishing vessels in the area.
There is no typical response protocol. In my 20-odd years at sea, I do not think there was ever such a thing as a typical search and rescue. Every time there is a search and rescue, there are varying factors. The last known position may have been days old or certain parts of the equipment in the missing vessel may not have worked. The weather, of course, is always a complicating factor.
Clearly, it is a case of trying to manage the rescue in order to make the best use of the resources available, be it government resources, the mariners at sea, community-based resources like the auxiliary, or even local fire departments that may do a shoreline search for us. It is difficult to outline a typical search and rescue case.
Senator Cochrane: What would be the time frame for either the Coast Guard or the Department of National Defence to respond to a simple accident, the most common accidents that occur?
Mr. Spurrell: Again, depending on the nature of the call, such as a mariner being injured on a ship, it could be as quick as the ship getting a call into the Joint Rescue Coordination Centre via the Marine Rescue Sub-centre or a radio station. Then it is a case of determining the best way to rescue the individual. Is it safer to send a helicopter to evacuate them, or is it better to send a ship, depending on the injury? In the case of a heart attack, an aircraft would be tasked relatively quickly. Depending on the standby situation, the aircraft could get off in 30 minutes or an hour. The distance required to fly will affect how long it takes to get there, and the conditions for the transfer will also affect the rescue. Sometimes these rescues are very quick and sometimes they go on for days.
Senator Cochrane: It is probably not a practical question.
Mr. Spurrell: It is. With a little more definition, I could probably give you —
Senator Cochrane: You know as well as I do, Mr. Spurrell, the questions that are asked when an accident happens, and they are usually on the negative side.
Mr. Da Pont: I appreciate that very much because I would probably feel the same way if I lost a family member. I think we understand very much those questions.
We go back to the fact that we do have one of the most effective systems in the world, and I would hope we do not lose that context. This does not mean that the system is perfect or that there is no room for improvement, but we should understand that we have one of the best systems of any country in the world. I think the people working in it are extremely dedicated.
Senator Cook: I want to pick up on Senator Cochrane's comment. Since the helicopter crash, the media has reported that there is a different response time for certain hours of the day and a different one for night. I heard somewhere that it will now be 30 minutes, 24/7. I do not know if that is so, but I know that officials were looking at making the response time out of Gander 24/7 right across the board.
Senator Raine: Probably just for Hibernia.
Senator Cook: Yes. Given the offshore traffic with Hibernia and with White Rose coming on, I know there was some talk that that would happen.
Senator Cochrane: Perhaps our witnesses have some information in that regard.
Mr. Da Pont: I cannot comment on that at the moment. As I am sure the committee is aware, whenever there is a tragedy of that nature, it is investigated in considerable depth by the Transportation Safety Board, and it is certainly not prudent to offer comments in advance.
Senator Cook: My question arose purely from media reports.
Mr. Da Pont: I understand that, but I am not aware of the point you have made, senator.
The Chair: As you have said, several departments are involved in search and rescues, such as the Coast Guard, DND and the Department of Transport. The Department of Fisheries is sometimes involved, but DND is the coordinating department, the head honcho, so to speak. Perhaps the comments were with respect to helicopter availability and timing.
Senator Cook: It was the response time of the Gander search and rescue. That was one of the first recommendations that went out from the municipal council in St. John's. Someone — and I read it — said they were looking at a response turnaround for the crew being there in 30 minutes, 24/7.
Senator Manning: When the Ocean Ranger sank, a report was filed. One of its recommendations talked about having a Coast Guard operation in St. John's to service the offshore drilling operations. That was never rectified. It is still in Gander.
I guess there are always ongoing discussions. It would be interesting to dig out this needs analysis and have a look at it. As a committee, perhaps we should take a more in-depth look into the operations. I will certainly take that back to our Security and National Defence Committee and look at it from a DND point of view.
Senator Cook: I think that recommendation came out of the Hickman report because Mr. Hickman made the comment.
The Chair: That was a long time ago.
Senator Cook: Yes. It was 1982, was it not? He thought that the recommendation was implemented. Now I have it straight in my head.
The Chair: On that topic, I hope to have a steering committee meeting Thursday morning to go over what we want to do in the future.
Senator Raine: Mr. Chair, I feel like we have been neglecting Mr. Paradis. I know there are issues regarding species at risk. For example, you asked to create a monitoring and reporting system. Maybe you could bring us up to date on what is happening. Rather than me ask the wrong questions, why do you not tell us what you would like us to hear.
Mr. Paradis: The Auditor General presented the recommendations from her report and we have agreed with those recommendations. They are very useful because they help to guide the way we will move forward with the program.
We received new funding for invasive species in 2005. The department got $4 million. Two million dollars was to support the sea lamprey program, which is a joint Canada-U.S. program. The Canadian contribution was not up to the level of the agreement we have with the Americans. We have an $8 million sea lamprey program and a $2 million program to cover the rest of Canada. It is a large country to do monitoring, rapid response, risk assessment, research and eradication. The government strategy is all about preventing issues from occurring.
Since new funding was put in place, we have created monitoring systems on both coasts and in the Great Lakes to monitor invaders. We have been working very closely with Transport Canada on ballast water exchange zones. Within the International Maritime Organization, member countries have to approve the new regulation for ballast water. One of the conditions is to establish ballast water zones where ships can exchange ballast before they enter a country's waters. We have been doing scientific research to look at how we could set up areas where the current would flush the ballast water instead of bringing the ships to shore. The plan is to keep them out on the high seas so they have less of an impact on Canadian ecosystems.
We have also developed a risk assessment centre of expertise in Burlington where we look at various species. I am always intrigued to look at reports that state there are 185 invaders in the Great Lakes. The reality is that there are 185 non-indigenous species; they are not all invaders. There is a lot of work to tease out which species represent the highest risk.
We have strengthened our relationship with the provinces. We really need everyone's support with a program of that magnitude. The pathways of introduction for invaders are often people releasing pet fish in the water. For example, we found piranhas in Newfoundland. I do not think they can establish there, but people bought them and had them in their homes. They simply did not feel that they could kill them, so they released them.
There is a lot of work to be done with the public. We have largely worked with the provinces to have their feet on the ground with the community — the cottagers, the aquaculture industry, the shipping industry and fishermen — so that when they discover new species they are not used to seeing in their ecosystem, they can flag them for the department. Then we can go and work with people.
We have had tremendous success in Newfoundland engaging people. The green crab was found about two years ago. There is an eradication strategy where people go out and fish the green crab to decrease the population. This is the sort of thing that the department alone could not accomplish because it would require a huge infrastructure and operation.
The monitoring system has allowed us to ascertain that the tunicate we have in P.E.I., which is a huge problem for the aquaculture industry, is actually found in Newfoundland as well. We can see that some of those invaders are spreading.
The Auditor General is recommending that we take a more risk-based approach. The reality is that this problem is growing quite rapidly. We are trying to set priorities, as best we can, to determine the damages. For example, the Chinese mitten crab that has been done incredible damage in Europe was found in a few locations in the St. Lawrence River. We quickly put in place a risk assessment to find out if the conditions were there for the species to establish, to spread out, and to replace existing species.
The same thing was done in the Great Lakes around the Asian carp. There is currently a species of Asian carp in the Mississippi River. They are extremely large in size and actually come out of the water like missiles. They fly out and hit people. You can see videos on YouTube where the fish jump into boats and boaters have to throw them back out. They are extremely aggressive fish. It is quite surprising. What keeps them out of the Great Lakes is an electric barrier in the Chicago sanitation canal.
Those are very complicated issues.
Senator Raine: Was the barrier put there specifically for that purpose?
Mr. Paradis: Yes. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers designed the electric barrier to keep them out of the Great Lakes.
The fish are extremely aggressive. They were based in aquaculture sites, and a flood on the Mississippi River released them from their pounds. They have spread out over the entire zone.
Ontario wanted to limit their introduction in live fish stores. However, given World Trade Organization standards, we could not do it without conducting a full risk assessment to prove that Canada could actually create a commercial barrier. We did the risk assessment in a few months to determine the potential spread of the species in the Great Lakes. We determined they could go move into a fairly wide range of waterways, even up to Lake Winnipeg and almost to the Yukon. They could not settle, but they could easily move all over and drastically modify the ecosystem.
We did the risk assessment, and Ontario was able to enforce a regulation to place a prohibition on live fish in fish stores in Ontario. Manitoba used the same assessment to do it. Invasive species are a huge problem that is spreading quite rapidly.
Another problem we are facing is that many sport fishermen are introducing species that are not indigenous so they have a bit more entertainment when sport fishing. Some species in British Columbia are competing in salmon habitats now. It is becoming a significant problem as well.
Senator Raine: Are those species introduced by sport fishermen?
Mr. Paradis: Yes, because the species are a little more aggressive.
Senator Raine: Fighting fish.
Mr. Paradis: I cannot remember the species. It may be the spiny-ray fish. It is a very aggressive species for sport fishermen.
That is why we are trying to work as much as possible with communities and cottagers' organizations to educate people about the impact of their behaviours. Many people will take their bait fish and throw them in the water when they finish, and then they just leave. Those bait fish can totally modify the biodiversity structure of the lake in which they are being placed.
We appreciate the recommendations of the Auditor General. We can see the importance of ranking and setting priorities, but it is a huge issue. The community strategy managed by Environment Canada has $1 million dollars per year to help community organizations to do promotion, provide information, et cetera. Four hundred thousand dollars of that million goes to aquatic invasive species.
Senator Raine: Would you work with groups like B.C. fish and wildlife associations?
Mr. Paradis: Yes. For example, we work with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. We have worked with the P.E.I. aquaculture and mussel producers' industry to try and control the tunicates. They keep spreading in some bays. It is a very challenging issue.
Many people do not realize the complexity of dealing with aquatic invaders compared to terrestrial invaders. If you have a deer or a fox problem, you can build a fence or control the population with hunting. In the water, you hardly see where they are to be able to catch them. Therefore, they can spread and go long distances. It is a very complicated issue to deal with.
Still, with respect to the pathways of introduction, ballast water is by far the most important issue. We keep working at developing new technology and monitoring its effectiveness. Transport Canada has been putting regulations in place. They are doing more monitoring now in ports to see how many ships have complied or not. In addition, a lot of work is being done between the U.S. Coast Guard and Canadian Coast Guard to control the operation of ships on the Great Lakes.
Senator Raine: Can anything be done to sterilize the ballast water while it is on the ship?
Mr. Paradis: Multiple technologies can be used, such as ozone treatment and radiation. There are a number of them, but none are fully effective for all of the different species we find. Depending on which zone the ships come from, they actually bring with them different kinds of species. If all of the oxygen is taken out of the ballast, some species will survive that treatment. Others survive ozone treatment. It is a very complicated issue. The IMO is trying to control that with regulations requiring most ships to change their ballast water on the high seas before they get into the economic zones.
There are different kinds of treatment and there are security issues. There have been cases where ships ballast in parallel and then sometimes break down while the ballasts are empty. They have to do differential treatments, or they do it by cycling the water in the same ballasts in a progressive fashion. There is a lot of complicated technology.
This is one of the areas where we have a very good relationship with Transport Canada. One of our scientists works half time in transport and half time in DFO. We have very close integration regarding the ballast water program.
I have a lot to say because invasive species is a big issue; it is moving very rapidly and we are finding new species. We have lots on our risk assessment list. In fact, we are trying to work with the provinces to have them help us identify which ones are the most significant in each area of the country so they can be put on the list and we can move faster.
Senator Raine: Do some of those species actually come from aquaculture?
Mr. Paradis: They are not always aquaculture species. In that particular situation, an Asian species was actually brought in. Asian carp was used to clean channels. For example, in Alberta, they produced triploids — fish that cannot reproduce — to clean culverts and other areas. Instead of having pesticides —
The Chair: That gives a whole new interpretation to the phrase "carp-et cleaner.''
Mr. Paradis: Yes, they have those Asian carp.
Senator Raine: Carp cleaners.
Mr. Paradis: In Alberta, a technology was developed to sterilize them before they are introduced to the ecosystem. Sometimes those things happen as well.
Senator Raine: We are not talking at this meeting about aquaculture in B.C., but that is a whole other issue that is still ahead of us.
The Chair: We will be talking about it. Tentatively, we are thinking that we could do a B.C. trip maybe in November. Before that time, we would like to have you come back, perhaps, and go over the issues with us in more detail.
Mr. Paradis: We would be quite pleased to present the breadth of our science activities on the West Coast. It is a pretty complicated picture because we have aquaculture, but many other factors now impact the Pacific salmon. As you know, it is an iconic species. Everyone wants to know what is happening with it. There is a huge salmon mortality at sea for which we do not have all the information.
Senator Raine: Maybe they are dying as they move out into the ocean as little fish.
Mr. Paradis: Water temperature is a significant factor for Pacific salmon. Now that the icecaps and the glaciers are melting, there is an impact on the freshness of the water flowing out of the river when the fish come back to spawn.
If you are interested, we would be very happy to prepare a full presentation of our science program on the West Coast.
The Chair: We would like that.
It is quarter to eight, and there is an old saying that the mind can only absorb as much the backside is able to bear, but I recognize Senator Robichaud for a very brief intervention.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Let me take this opportunity to thank you. Perhaps I can ask my question in another session. It has to do with habitat and the melting permafrost. Perhaps you will be able to shed light on that for us at another time.
[English]
The Chair: You can see how popular you are. You have kept us here for well over two hours, and committee members still have questions. Thank you very much for being here tonight.
The discussion has been very stimulating. It has been helpful to us because we are in the process of trying to find answers to some very difficult questions.
We know that you have constraints and limitations on your particular positions. You are not involved in policy- making in a general sense, so we thank you for being as helpful as you could be to us. We will certainly see some of you again and perhaps all of you.
(The committee adjourned.)