Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue No. 6 - Evidence - October 4, 2016
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 4, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 5:05 p.m to study Maritime Search and Rescue activities, including current challenges and opportunities.
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: My name is Fabian Manning. I'm a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador. I have the privilege to chair this evening's meeting.
Before I give the floor to the witnesses, I invite the members of the committee to introduce themselves.
Senator Wallace: John Wallace, New Brunswick.
Senator Sinclair: Murray Sinclair, Manitoba.
Senator Hubley: Elizabeth Hubley, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Watt: Charlie Watt, Nunavik.
Senator Enverga: Tobias Enverga, Ontario.
Senator Eaton: Nicky Eaton, Ontario.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Carolyn Stewart Olsen, New Brunswick.
Senator Raine: Nancy Greene Raine, British Columbia.
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier, New Brunswick.
The Chair: Our committee is continuing its study on Maritime Search and Rescue activities, including current challenges and opportunities. This evening we will be discussing comparisons between the Canadian Coast Guard and Coast Guard agencies in other jurisdictions, particularly with respect to Maritime SAR.
From the Canadian Coast Guard, we are pleased to welcome Mr. Gregory Lick, Director General, Operations; and Marc Mes, Director of Operational Support. On behalf of the members of the committee, I thank you for being here today.
Gregory Lick, Director General, Operations, Canadian Coast Guard: Thank you. It is a pleasure to again appear before this committee to provide you with additional information on Canadian Coast Guard's Maritime Search and Rescue program.
Today I will touch on a comparison between Canada's Maritime Search and Rescue system and that of three other countries: the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia.
I know I repeat myself, but I do it because of the centuries-old traditions of helping those who need help at sea. For our part, the Canadian Coast Guard is at the ready 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to assist mariners in stress. Safety at sea is our number one priority, and it is work we do exceptionally well and with tremendous pride.
Canada has one of the world's most diverse and challenging areas of SAR responsibility. As I was proud to highlight to this committee last week, Coast Guard is recognized as a leader in Maritime Search and Rescue. Our leadership role is demonstrated in how other countries come to the Coast Guard for training and to look at our performance in our rescue coordination centres and on the water. The Bangladeshi Coast Guard met with us in August, and we have received interest from other international Coast Guards to come to Canada to learn from our SAR system and discuss our best practices.
Other countries are not solely interested in our SAR system, but also in our other services: marine communications, traffic services and environmental response, for example.
[Translation]
When comparing Canada to other countries for maritime search and rescue, it is important to note that each country that is party to the International Convention for the Safety of Life a Sea (SOLAS) is required to ensure their SAR programs contain core elements, that is, they are required to adhere to certain norms and operational procedures. However, these countries have the flexibility to establish their respective SAR program based on the particular demands of each country's environment — the geography and length of the coastline, the level of maritime activity, et cetera.
This makes for difficult comparative analysis of each SAR system; however, when we look at the search and rescue systems of the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom, there are many similarities with Canada's SAR system. Notably, all four countries have 24/7 search and rescue operations and all complement their maritime search and rescue system with volunteer services or auxiliaries. The readiness postures are also comparable, with 30-minute reaction time as the standard.
[English]
But there are also major differences. For example, the simplest one, probably, is that the United States Coast Guard is considered part of their Armed Forces within the Department of Homeland Security and in 2015 had a budget of $9.8 billion, 43,000 active duty members and 8,000 reservists.
I would like to follow up on a line of questioning from the committee last week regarding our needs in order to improve the maritime SAR system.
One area that could benefit from additional focus is prevention. Preventing SAR incidents from occurring in the first place is always preferable to the risky business of heading out into normally difficult weather to respond to people in distress. Maritime SAR prevention is done through education about boating safety, regulations requiring safety equipment such as personal flotation devices, or PFDs, and having communications on board the vessel and knowing how to use them, to name just a few.
An example that I typically use to illustrate the importance of prevention is when there were changes to PFD regulations years ago that allowed a variety of colours to be used, in conjunction with promotion of their use and a public awareness campaign, which significantly reduced the number of drownings from boating accidents.
In search and rescue, investments in prevention could have a significant impact on reducing the number of incidents and fatalities. The Coast Guard does place effort on the prevention side of maritime search and rescue, in collaboration with Transport Canada, by promoting the use of PFDs and emergency position indicator beacons and letting someone know the details of your trip when you are out on the water. These types of things have an enormous impact on saving lives.
[Translation]
To conclude, Mr. Chair, the Coast Guard demonstrates every day of the year the importance we place on the safety of mariners at sea and we work continually to improve our operations and share our best practices with our international partners.
I also want to particularly emphasize the incredible efforts our Coast Guard personnel. We are not simply an organization, but more importantly one that is formed and built upon the women and men who put every ounce of their hearts into helping people on the water.
We would be very happy to answer your questions now.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. I want to go to the deputy chair of our committee, Senator Hubley, for a question, please.
Senator Hubley: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and, of course, thank you for your presentation, Mr. Lick. It's nice to see you again.
As you will know, the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary is a private, not-for-profit, registered charity. Its members volunteer their time and vessels to assist in search-and-rescue operations. Between 80 and 100 Islanders volunteer, many of them fishermen in my home province. In 2012, DFO conducted a comparative analysis of the Coast Guard auxiliary and other voluntary marine search-and-rescue organizations found elsewhere, and you mentioned the United Kingdom and Australia.
One finding was that the others are more self-sufficient financially. They rely on corporate sponsors and fundraising activities. The analysis concluded that the Coast Guard should look at other ways to fund the auxiliary.
My questions would be: Has the Coast Guard looked into new ways of auxiliary funding? And what would be the feasibility of funding the auxiliary in a different way?
Mr. Lick: Thank you for your question. I think it is worthwhile spending a few seconds on looking at the auxiliary across the country. We do find that there are very significant differences in how each of the five auxiliary organizations are run and managed by their particular volunteers that make up their auxiliary units across the country.
When we look at the West Coast, for example, we see that the contributions that are either through corporate or charitable donations from the public or communities makes up a much more significant part of their budget on the West Coast versus the contributions that we make to the auxiliary across the country.
When we move farther east through the central and Arctic region, Ontario, Quebec and so on out to the East Coast, we see, generally, that those particular donations make up a smaller and smaller proportion as we move across the country. I'm not going to try to explain why, but I think we do see those differences as you move across.
We generally don't treat each of the organizations much differently. We try to ensure that the efforts in either training or exercising with them are very much the same across the country from the Canadian Coast Guard's perspective.
In the past, we've explored, generally, what we can do to improve the representation of the auxiliary and find further funding mechanisms for the auxiliary. The auxiliary, in fact, does come to us periodically to suggest ways in which they may be able to fund their organizations a bit differently. But they are each structured differently and have different populations to deal with, and truly we have not come to one way of doing it across the country that would make each organization better and a bigger part of the search-and-rescue system. It's not that that's tragic or anything; it's just that they are just different across the country.
I can't really answer your question definitively in the sense that there is one way of going about it. We explore every year with the five auxiliary organizations, generally, at SARscene, which is happening next week, where all the auxiliaries get together. We discuss how they're progressing and advancing, whether with regard to exercises, training or whatever.
We also talk about the business of each organization, and that's the forum we use to understand their needs and what might be a better way of managing their organization. For example, one of those ways that is important to each of the organizations is tracking information about their members and the actual business of running a charity. That's important to them, and we've come up with various ways. In fact, the RCM SAR, which is the auxiliary organization out west, came up with an excellent software program that allows them to track their business, each of their members and the parts of running a volunteer organization. Over the last number of years, we have tried to move that across the country to help each organization become more efficient.
That's a long-winded way, I think, to say we don't have a definitive answer. Every year, we explore with each organization ways to improve them. In some cases, as we did in the last budget, we are investing more in the North, as an example, in that auxiliary, to help with some of the gaps we see at the Arctic at this point.
Senator Hubley: You may have answered my next question, but do you see a difference in the level of participation in each of these five units because of their financial situations? Are there limits?
Mr. Lick: When we look at each organization across the country, we see the differences. Many of the differences have to do with their members and who they are, whether they are pleasure boaters or volunteers who give their time to be on stand-by for search-and-rescue calls and may have a dedicated vessel that allows them to do that. When we move further east, we generally see many more fishermen who already own their own boats for the purposes of commercial fishing. They are already out there, in many cases, in the areas where search-and-rescue is happening.
Typically, when we have the Southwest Nova fishery that happens at certain times during the year, that's one of the more risky areas where we see search and rescue calls, but we also see that many of the members who make up the auxiliary on the East Coast are actually out there fishing with their own colleagues. So, in general, as we talked about over some of the appearances here, many of those are vessels of opportunity — we call them — in terms of the SAR system, but, in terms of auxiliary, they are there already and are usually the first ones to respond.
There are, very much, differences in the population of each charity. Some are able to put more time in, and time is a part of that resource. Some are able to put more time into volunteering. Some, like commercial fishermen, may not be able to because they are actually out there trying to make a living, but they are an absolutely vital part of the SAR system that makes up the auxiliary.
Senator Raine: As follow up, as I understand our fire departments and how many of them are trained in first aid and trained to a very high standard in that, they are volunteer firemen and also trained in search and rescue and other skills. But they have a job, and, when there is an incident, they drop everything and go and are called out. That is the same thing with these fishermen who are fishing. When there's an incident, they drop everything and go to help. So it is very similar to what takes place all across the country in mobilizing people who are trained, and the big key is in the training. If those people are willing to do that and able to be trained, then that's really what we need as the backbone, if you like, of our manpower for those incidents.
Mr. Lick: The one thing I would add to that, senator, is that, certainly, training is a vital part of making sure, for any volunteer organization but, in this case, the Coast Guard auxiliary, that our members of the auxiliaries are ready and able to respond. At the same time — we talked about it the last time — exercising is also a tremendous part of the training, in essence, that goes on to make sure that people take the knowledge that they got through the training and actually use it on the water. So both go together. In fact, we did bring with us some examples of our exercise schedule that we can talk to you about as well.
Senator Poirier: Thank you, gentlemen, for being here. It's good to see you again. In the last several months, there have been a lot of reports on our aging fleets and the need to renew them. We have a long-term plan with the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy. When comparing with other countries how we are performing in the delivery of the vessels for maritime SARs, where do we stand?
Mr. Lick: I'll introduce the topic. Then I would ask Mr. Mes to actually talk about some of the renewal projects. He has project directors that actually work with the teams to deliver those projects. As part of our Fleet Renewal Plan from 2012, in which it was announced in budget that we received $5.2 billion to renew the next phase of the fleet — it becomes the next phase of renewal of the fleet — that was in addition to projects already under way to renew, in particular, some of our larger science vessels. In total, we have — and we mentioned it last week — about $7 billion worth of committed funding for those projects.
In particular, in terms of SAR system though, what we talked about last time also was the age of our SAR fleet. In fact, it is much younger because of recent investments. In some cases, not so recent but certainly over the 1990s. Now, as we are investing in a new project to renew our higher endurance SAR lifeboats, the age of our SAR lifeboats is actually quite a bit younger than most of our larger vessels. So we are working at advancing what makes up pretty well the heart and soul of our SAR system in terms of the in-shore and near-shore lifeboats that actually respond to calls.
Many of our calls are in-shore and near-shore, so they make up the heart and soul of our SAR system. I'd ask Mr. Mes to talk about how our most recent project is actually advancing.
Marc Mes, Director of Operational Support, Canadian Coast Guard: Mr. Lick mentioned that the lifeboat fleet itself is probably the newest part of our fleet, but, at the same time, with the use that they get, we have undertaken, based on some funding we just received, to renew that fleet. Fifteen new lifeboats will begin to be delivered to the Coast Guard at the end of next year and over the next year and a half, whereby some of those lifeboats will be replaced with a bit of a bigger and better boat, specific to the areas in which we need to have these assets.
I think that, from a life and from a search and rescue perspective, that investment is being made based on the requirements of our fleet and based on the requirements of the community to ensure maritime safety and the safety of those on the water. That's a project that is moving along very nicely. The two shipyards, one in Ontario and one in Quebec, are delivering those over the next year and a half.
Senator Poirier: Some other jurisdictions have a single agency for procurement instead of the multi-department approach that we have here in Canada. Are you aware whether this approach has been beneficial for those countries' maritime SARs?
Mr. Lick: I don't tend to be an expert in the procurement world. However, let me just touch on the system that we have currently.
When we developed what, at that time, was the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, back in 2012-13, I was actually a part of it. So I have a lot of information, a lot of background, in that. At that time, we looked at what was, in particular, a problem with the bust and boom cycle that the shipbuilding industry in Canada has experienced over the decades, where governments would invest very ad hoc funds into renewing our particular fleets. Unless there is a stable requirement for shipbuilding over the decades, that boom and bust cycle kills the industry. So that was the major problem that we were trying to address, alongside the fact that our fleets were aging, both on the navy side and in the Canadian Coast Guard.
There was a requirement, the demand from our federal fleets, for ships that we needed over the next 30, 40, 50 years, and, at the same time, we wanted to avoid the problems that we experienced over the decades with the boom and bust cycle. That is what the NSPS was created, and now they have termed it the NSS because we've gotten past the procurement side of it. In terms of two particular shipyards, they will build our new, large vessels into the future — Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax and Vancouver Shipyards in Vancouver.
In terms of the procurement approach, when it was decided by the government at the time, that was decided to be the best approach for our particular country. It may be different in other countries where there is a bigger demand from the federal fleets, a bigger demand for commercial shipbuilding, but the mixture of commercial shipbuilding and federal demands, whether it's coast guards, whether it's our Coast Guard, whether it's the navy, whether it's ferries, the demand in Canada just isn't generally high enough and continuous enough to support four, five or six large shipyards. That is why procurement decided to contract for two major shipyards to fulfill our needs in terms of federal shipbuilding over the next long period of time, 30 years.
I think, in the end, we determined that it was the best approach. In reality, we are at the beginning of this. We are at the beginning of this 30-year cycle where we have analyzed it to see that it is the best approach. We will see, over the next 30 years, whether it was the best approach — way past our careers, I think — but, at this time, we have the Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels being built in Vancouver Shipyards. OFSV number one is planned to be completed by the end of 2017. They've already started construction, cutting steel, putting the blocks together, on number two of the three vessels. We are getting into the design stages with the shipyard on the offshore oceanographic science vessel, which will be the fourth in the series.
From the Canadian Coast Guard's perspective, we're actually seeing ships built. That's a good thing.
Senator Poirier: I also know that in other jurisdictions, such as Norway, their coast guards have leased some vessels. That gave them a more modern and cost-effective fleet to deliver their services, they're saying. Could you provide more details on the participation of the private sector in the delivery of maritime SAR services in other countries? What would be the advantages and disadvantages to the Canadian Coast Guard?
Mr. Lick: In terms of private sector participation — I'll set aside the auxiliary, which is essentially the charitable organization, which many countries adhere to as a means of delivering search and rescue. In the private sector part of the system, there are vessels of opportunity, and we've already talked about those. That has been a centuries-old way of delivering search and rescue in the world. Vessels of opportunity are required by the Law of the Sea to respond if there's a vessel in distress.
In terms of what you're asking, over the years, the Canadian Coast Guard has leased vessels. Leased vessels, particularly the ones most recently, have generally been small vessels for conservation and protection purposes. We saw some gaps there and we weren't able to get the new small vessels built. We also chartered at the very beginning what is now the Canadian Coast Guard Ship Terry Fox, which was a large offshore oil platform vessel. We leased at the very start of it, and then found that if you're leasing for long periods of time, like most things in our economy, it doesn't make the most economic sense if you have the funds to be able to buy it at the beginning, because then you can amortize those costs over the years. The company that is leasing to you — you don't have to pay for that profit and so on. If we have a long-term need for a SAR vessel, generally it makes more sense for us to procure, construct and build or buy the vessel than it does for us to lease.
To come back to your question, if there is a short-term requirement where the industry is not able to respond in a manner where we have a gap and it might be that one of our vessels has a technical problem we're unable to fix fast enough, then there may be opportunities for us to lease a vessel.
One of the problems with vessels capable of responding to SAR is that they are highly equipped vessels capable of going out on very rough seas with equipment that allows the crew on board to be able to recover people. They're highly capable vessels, particularly for the search and rescue world. When we get into the offshore world, though, many vessels that are out there can do that. Many of the offshore oil platform supply vessels can do some of that work; in fact, many of our vessels are actually constructed or designed after some of those types of vessels.
In conclusion, if there's a short-term gap, it does make sense in some cases to lease. Generally it can be a bit difficult in the SAR world, except for the offshore type vessels that could be out there. But in the long term, it makes more sense economically for almost any organization to procure a vessel and amortize it over the lifetime of the vessel.
The Chair: Senator Raine, do you have a supplemental on that?
Senator Raine: Just to go back a minute with the smaller lifeboats that you're renewing, a few years ago I believe they took away the lifeboats or rescue boats from the manned lighthouses on the West Coast. I could never figure out why they did that, because those lighthouses are for the most part in areas where there are perilous waters and where there were accidents. Some of the light keepers had their own boats, but it seems to me that if there's any possibility of using those lifeboats in coordination with the lighthouse keepers, would that be an option, or do you find it's just not part of the SAR system? How are the lighthouse keepers integrated into the SAR system?
Mr. Lick: I will touch on a couple of points. With the lighthouse keepers in the past, many of the lighthouses were manned by one light keeper, or maybe a light keeper with a family. One of the requirements for our own operations, for safety purposes, is that you don't go out in a boat alone. That is highly dangerous.
It's the same thing for a fire department: You generally do not go into a burning house by yourself. You always have a buddy with you, if you want to think about it that way. You always have backup.
That is vital to the safety of our employees, whether it's light keepers or our crews who man our vessels or fast- rescue craft. Those vessels always go out with a crew more than one; in fact, they're generally manned by a crew of three. You need one person to drive the vessel and two people sometimes to get people into the boat.
For safety purposes, we never go single-handed.
In terms of the light keepers themselves at lighthouses, they were certainly some eyes out on the water, but they are fairly limited in their ability to actually provide us more information than many of the technologies than we already have out there. If there is a vessel in distress, for example, the radio communications that I talked about in my opening remarks are the most vital piece of equipment you have to communicate your distress to our whole SAR system. Without those radios or means of communicating — in fact, in some cases, it may be by cellphone nowadays, but those are part of the SAR system as well.
Like a 911 call, you need to communicate your distress. Our whole infrastructure across the country is set up to receive those calls, with all the towers out there. All those calls are directed to our Marine Communications and Traffic Service Centres. They receive the calls, activate the SAR system and communicate with our JRCCs in order to activate the system and get a vessel out there to respond.
Light keepers generally don't make up a large part of that because the radios automatically connect into the SAR system with the infrastructure we have. They provide some information locally about weather, and it is important to understand what weather is out there that may not be captured by some of the technology, but that is fairly limited at this point in time.
Senator Eaton: Reading my notes and comparing our Coast Guard to others, it seems that the Royal Danish Navy, the Norwegian Coast Guard, Iceland, Finland and the United States are all considered military or semi-military. Why aren't you military? What would be the advantages or the disadvantages of being incorporated and reporting to the Department of National Defence?
Mr. Lick: I'm going to answer that with Mr. Mes, because he has a tremendous background on the arming side of the house in terms of what we've looked at and so on.
I'll first answer it by saying that, in terms of the search and rescue system, I believe it wouldn't add any value in terms of making us an armed organization —
Senator Eaton: Better coordination?
Mr. Lick: I was going to get to that as well. I don't believe arming us or making us a part of National Defence would add any value to the SAR system. We already work very well together — the two organizations. We have the maritime SAR component; that's our primary responsibility. National Defence has two roles: One is the overall responsibility for search and rescue on the marine and air side for the purposes of coordination, and then they have the air side responsibility
The Joint Rescue Coordination Centres are joint, and that's one of the areas where we work well together. Making us part of the same organization as National Defence wouldn't add any value to that SAR system. We're already working together.
Senator Eaton: You wouldn't be part of the navy, for instance, or part of the air force? You wouldn't just be an offshoot?
Mr. Lick: For the purposes of the SAR system, I don't think it would add any value, because we're already coordinating ourselves and working in the same office. I think you're hoping to get to a JRCC at some point.
Senator Eaton: Yes, we are.
Mr. Lick: It might be a room about this size, and Senator Hubley might be the Search and Rescue Coordinator for the air side, and I'm sitting here as the Search and Rescue Mission Coordinator on the marine side. We're talking like this and coordinating.
For the purposes of SAR, I don't believe it would add any particular value. But on the other question of arming us and whether that would do anything, I will ask Mr. Mes to touch on that.
Mr. Mes: In 2010-11, we looked very closely at enforcement and whether or not options could be developed to arm the Coast Guard. We looked at a comparison with many other countries, including many of the countries that you mentioned — the United States, the United Kingdom, Norway and Denmark — all of which have a military or law enforcement, much like the U.S. Coast Guard. It did not have a big difference from a search and rescue perspective. It had a difference in that the Coast Guard had the enforcement powers to enforce maritime safety and security regulations. They could do immigration and some customs on the waters.
Senator Eaton: If you feel I'm smuggling people in a boat, can you actually stop the boat and go on board? Or do you have to wait and say, "We suspect,'' and call in the military?
Mr. Mes: In that case, no, the Coast Guard cannot get on board and arrest anyone who is smuggling people. However, that information usually comes through our intelligence agencies or MSOC where we have the five partners — Coast Guard, RCMP, National Defence, Customs and Transport — and they collect that information. If they determine that there is a vessel of interest that is smuggling in people, they are going to inform those who will be able to enforce.
They may use a Coast Guard platform. The RCMP may come on a Coast Guard vessel, use our vessel to interdict that vessel, and it will be the RCMP who boards that vessel and makes those arrests or has that enforcement power.
Senator Eaton: If you found someone overfishing, you would either take out the RCMP or call in the military?
Mr. Mes: Overfishing is a Fisheries enforcement. I forgot to mention that. Within the MSOCs there are the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the conservation and protection folks. They are looking specifically at those who are overfishing or not allowed to fish based on the closing of a fishing industry or whatever, so then they would enforce, going on Coast Guard vessels.
There are vessels specific to Fisheries enforcement where we have Fisheries officers on board Coast Guard vessels. I think Mr. Lick is saying that there's a synergy between enforcement and Coast Guard. We provide that platform. You don't necessarily have to be part of the military to do that, but if you're working in partnership like we do in the MSOCs, the intelligence agencies and the Department of National Defence and Search and Rescue, we are there side by side. It doesn't mean one thing is being missed. It's a level of coordination we're doing through those centres to deal with an enforcement issue or a search and rescue issue.
Senator Eaton: Comparing ourselves to other search and rescue countries, do you look at things like response time and how well we compare? We have a much larger territory and different challenges, with a very long coastline and very different climates, but do we compare well to other countries?
Mr. Lick: Absolutely. I think I made this point last time. We talk about reaction time as the standard to which most countries in the world standardize their SAR system in terms of the criteria they perform against. We're meeting our reaction time standard 99.7 per cent of the time.
Senator Eaton: You meet the same reaction time 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, so I'm better not drowning between nine o'clock and five o'clock than I am on a weekend after midnight?
Mr. Lick: Our standard is twofold. In terms of reaction time for a primary, dedicated search-and-rescue vessel like a SAR lifeboat at a SAR station, the reaction time is 30 minutes across the country. It doesn't matter whether you go in the water at eight o'clock in the morning or eight o'clock at night.
Senator Eaton: Thank you.
Mr. Lick: The only change is if the vessel is seasonal and we have ice on the water, it does change at that point. But 24 hours a day, 365 a year.
Senator Sinclair: Let me see if I understand the answer to Senator Eaton's question. I appreciate all the information about having intelligence and involving authorities ahead of time, but criminals are smart and they can beat the intelligence system. If you're out there and you get a call to rescue people or save people who are in distress on the water, and if you find in doing so they are being illegally smuggled into the country or carrying drugs, you're telling me you can't interdict them, arrest them or do anything, except call an RCMP boat? You can't even detain them so they can't figure out a way to get to shore?
Mr. Lick: That is correct at this point. Our Coast Guard officers, for the purposes of Criminal Code violations, are not peace officers. They do not have those authorities. We do have certain authorities under other acts with respect to environmental response, but with respect to criminal activities, as you're talking about, we do not have those powers.
In that situation, we have a couple of opportunities. We participate with those law enforcement agencies, as Mr. Mes talked about, in the intelligence centres, the MSOCs. That is one area of gathering information and then tasking vessels to respond to criminal activity.
We're out there many times 24-7, 365 a year. We are the eyes and ears of a lot of Canada on the water. If we see a particular activity that we believe looks criminal, we make sure that's reported back to the appropriate authorities or to the MSOCs directly. They can take action and get an RCMP ERT team and an IBET team from Customs on board very quickly, and we've done that, in order to interdict. We see many examples of that with drug interdictions.
The only other one that's important to mention is on the Great Lakes, for example, where much smuggling occurs across the borders. I certainly don't have those types of statistics; those would be held by the RCMP. Certainly there's enough smuggling across borders that we're aware of, and the government put in place our Marine Security Enforcement Teams. Those are the four vessels on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway that are jointly crewed by Coast Guard and RCMP, on the board all the time during the season in which the vessels are operational. If they do note smuggling or criminal activity on the water, the RCMP, with their peace officer status, can interdict right there. That is not the same across the country.
Senator Sinclair: Because you do not have peace officer status, you do not have the protection that peace officers enjoy under law if your officials or representatives get caught in the crossfire between police officers on your boat and their target on the water?
Mr. Lick: I'll ask Mr. Mes to touch on this. Our Coast Guard crews that man those MSET vessels on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence are trained in order to be able to crew those vessels. They're trained to understand law enforcement and the acts being enforced by the RCMP. They're also trained to be able to handle, say, criminals who are brought back on board.
I know Mr. Mes has participated in much of the training there and actually developed much of it, so I'm going to ask him to talk a bit about that.
Mr. Mes: There are two things I want to mention, senator. One thing is that there are, however, a couple of our boats that are armed, along with our fisheries officers, for the NAFO program, the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization, who will board foreign vessels that are illegally fishing in our waters. Those Coast Guard officers are armed at the time of boarding and participate in armed boardings, along with our fisheries officers. That's limited just to the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization enforcement, along with conservation and protection.
With regard to the Marine Security Enforcement Teams, or MSET, with RCMP on board our vessels, our officials go through about three weeks of extensive LEFT training, law enforcement and familiarization training, so they understand, number one, their rights with regard to criminal law and their role in any sort of boarding. On the MSET vessels, Coast Guard officers will not board. It's still the RCMP, and you're right, senator, that there is the risk of being caught in the crossfire. What happens in those cases, much like it would if we had a boarding team on any other vessel, the boarding team would go and approach another vessel through a RIB, a rigid inflatable boat, launched from our boats. We don't go alongside and jump overboard and do it. They launch through a RIB so that the Coast Guard parent boat is still somewhat of a distance away but close enough to support that boarding team when the RCMP moves forward.
There's extensive training, and at the same time, the procedures and the operational concept is exercised on a regular basis to ensure that the RCMP and Coast Guard are working in concert on these enforcement actions.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Sinclair.
Senator Wallace: Gentlemen, both of you are well experienced in Coast Guard operations. Mr. Mes, you have a lot of experience on the policing side of it, although not directly because, as you say, the Coast Guard does not perform that role.
Do you believe the role of the Coast Guard should involve a policing ability and that you should have the ability to intercede directly when you see a criminal activity? I realize you seem to be doing a very effective job in a limited way, but there must be circumstances where I would think you would feel it would be in Canadians' interest that you could intercede directly. Do you believe that? Do you feel you should have those additional powers?
Mr. Lick: Not that I have experienced it directly, but I think one of the hardest things we talked about when we were on the ships as officers is what we would do if we saw a drunk boater. It's one of the typical examples of a criminal activity. Right now, the senator is correct in that we don't have the ability to intercede directly and arrest somebody. One of the hardest things we would have to do is just report it, and if the person ran away, we might be able to keep an eye on them, but we can't arrest them or detain them. That would be one of the hardest things I would have to do, and there are much more serious criminal activities that could make it harder.
I think there is a role for Coast Guard to play. We've looked at some of those options over the years, particularly when we have talked about arming. The CBSA has found this to be a very expensive option once you start to get into arming officers, much less the fact that we would have to train all of our officers and crews to be peace officers — maybe not all, but maybe some.
I think there is a role for us to play, but right now, we've provided options to the government over the years. We haven't received direction to be able to say we should go one way or the other. We await that direction and we're ready to respond, if necessary.
Our role over the years has primarily been focused on safety. That's our primary role, and we're comfortable with it. We're evolving into a role in marine security and law enforcement as we work with different partners. I think we can play a larger role, but what we need to understand with our law enforcement partners and the government is what role they want us to play. We're ready to play whatever role they want us to.
Senator Wallace: So you believe you could play a larger role. I'm asking you whether you believe you should. You've had experience on the scene. Do you believe this is something on which, for example, a committee like ours should recommend that a change should be made? Would you support that?
Mr. Lick: I think there is a role for us to play. It might be a very small role to start out, but we're there. If you think about the Arctic, for example, we're the primary presence up there on water. We're not the sole presence, because the RCMP and the military are there, mostly on land, but we're the primary presence on water, so we would generally be thinking about water-related criminal activities.
With us being the primary presence up there, in some cases, who else could do it?
Senator Wallace: Exactly.
Mr. Lick: But most of those types of changes in mandates and mission do require significant resources and, in fact, a significant amount of time to actually implement.
At this point, is that the highest priority for us? I would say probably not. Focusing on making our waters safer would not only be more comfortable for us, but also more traditional. Certainly, I think working on areas of safety and reducing lives lost on the water is more important, but it may be only a small difference between that and making sure our waters are secure.
One of the things we talked about last time was that the Coast Guard plays a very critical part in making sure that our waters are safe but also secure economically and environmentally. If we think about it, a criminal, or possibly a terrorist organization, could very easily shut down our waters through an environmental response spill. I'm not trying to give anyone ideas, but shutting down the seaway, as an example, would have a huge impact on the economic security and the economic prosperity of this country. Concentrating on making sure that, through our intelligence, we know what's going on is probably more important than giving us law enforcement powers, as an example.
We have the most critical role within this country of making sure our waters are safe. It's a matter of priorities, obviously, for the government. But certainly I think we have our priorities where we need them right now and we're evolving them in terms of marine security and in terms of filling gaps in our safety.
Senator Wallace: Has the Canadian Coast Guard ever had law enforcement powers or authorities?
Mr. Lick: When we talk about Criminal Code acts, not in my memory or experience. We do have, as I spoke about, authorities under other acts, though, in terms of environmental response, where we can direct and detain vessels that have environmentally polluted. Our MCTS officers can also direct, under certain conditions, but primarily, those are focused on environmental issues.
Senator Wallace: I'm just wondering if ever your powers and authorities have been reduced in a law enforcement sense. Is the way it is today the way it's always been?
Mr. Lick: No, it's pretty well the way it's always been.
Senator Enverga: Thank you for your presentation. I know it's difficult to compare the delivery of maritime SAR among different countries. You mentioned that Canada's Coast Guard is a leader compared to other countries. What is the Canadian Coast Guard's advantage? What is so good about the Canadian Coast Guard compared to those of other countries? Is there anything we can learn from other Coast Guards at all?
Mr. Lick: I'm going to ask Mr. Mes to talk to you about the exercises part, because I talked to you earlier about training and exercising. Certainly, countries are coming to us for training, and I think that demonstrates that we're a leader in particular areas.
The other area of note has been our Joint Rescue Coordination Centres and how they jointly operate with both Air Force and Canadian Coast Guard personnel. Those are seen as world leading too just due to the fact that other countries have visited to figure out how they can implement something similar in their own countries.
We can always learn. We can always learn from others, and I think the particular areas in which we learn are around exercising with other countries. That's where I wanted Mr. Mes just to touch on some of the examples of where we are exercising, where we will be exercising and why we are doing it, more importantly.
Mr. Mes: Senator, I think we can always learn from each other, and I think that's a critical aspect. One of those things is through exercises, and we exercise quite often with our international partners, particularly with the U.S. One of the exercises that we have recently done is in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, with the U.S. Coast Guard. We had the recent exercise in preparation for the passage through the Northwest Passage of the Crystal Serenity, a significant exercise, not only with U.S. Coast Guard but with other federal partners and with industry in this case, so that we could ensure that, number one, the plan that they had put in place but also our response plans were well seated. I think that's an important element.
We had a recent exercise in the Bay of Fundy with U.S. Coast Guard. We do that so that we learn from each other.
One of the key elements is that our coastline is significantly longer than any other coastline of the countries that we've compared with, so, if you look at that and we look at the performance and at our ability to react and to respond, I think that's one of the critical highlights of the Canadian Coast Guard, along with our coordination with the Canadian Armed Forces through the JRCCs.
But exercising, to me, is a critical element for us to be able to share best practices, to learn from each other and to ensure that we always stay on top, along with the U.S. Coast Guard and other international Coast Guards in our waters.
Senator Enverga: Are there other countries that you feel appear more effective in delivering SAR services? As a committee, we want to learn what we can. Would you let us know about any kind of improvements we can make compared to other countries?
Mr. Lick: In terms of looking at other countries, we're always doing it — when we exercise and train with them, when they come to us and talk about their particular SAR system and learn about ours. We never stop learning.
In terms of comparison, though, our performance actually bears out that we are top of the barrel in terms of how we're doing, whether it's the reaction time that I talked about. The reaction time is more of an internal measure for ourselves. Are we meeting the international and national standard? What is more important is: Are we saving the people who have their lives at risk when they go out on the water?
It's certainly not funny at all, but for every person who goes out on the water to save a person in distress, their target for saving people is 100 per cent. In fact, I would say, it would probably be more like 110 per cent, but there are, sadly, always situations where it's just impossible or the person may have tragically passed away before we even got there because of a whole variety of reasons outside our control even if we had the best SAR system or the perfect SAR system. But our statistics actually prove that we are doing very, very well.
But the one thing is that we can't rest on those laurels. We can't say that we are just going to keep the same way forever. Importantly, as areas like the Arctic are starting to open up to more traffic and larger traffic, those are the particular areas that we have to put our focus on right now. I talked about this last time as well. As areas of risk start to appear, like the Arctic, we have to focus our attention on those. And we are.
Yes, comparisons are difficult, and we always learn from everybody else. They learn from us. We never stop, and exercises are pretty well the best way to do that.
Mr. Mes: One of things, senator, that I learned just recently at a search and rescue conference in Helsinki was that some international partners are now looking at technology. One of the technologies they are looking at is the use of drones. I think that's something we take away. We, currently, even within the Coast Guard, within my group, are looking at how drones could be used in support of all Coast Guard programs, as well as search and rescue, as another element to complement the complete SAR system. I think that we continually learn from our partners, and one of the areas was technology. What are others looking at? Is this something we can use within our SAR system to further help those that are in distress on the water? Technology and the use of drones is something they are all looking at, and we are now looking at, as a potential element, not just for search and rescue but for all Coast Guard programs, including environmental response and ice breaking.
Senator Enverga: I think I have asked you this before: I know you are saying that we are at the top of the heap. We are the leader of the coast guards. You mentioned, too, that we should get some drones to enhance our services. Are there any other things that you would like to have in the future to improve our system here?
Mr. Lick: We talked a little bit about that last time. I talked, in my opening remarks, about prevention. That's an area that we can always invest in more, and, typically, a small investment in prevention usually gains a lot of value in terms of a life saved. Getting people out there who know how to operate on the water, getting people out there who wear the proper equipment, getting people who know how to use a radio and know how to communicate properly can save lives like nothing else.
The area of drones is one. We are seeing access to other new technologies, like certain satellite surveillance systems for the purposes of search and rescue, which will be able to see through fog, through clouds, much better.
There are definitely improvements in technology that will help in doing that, including the spot beacons that people sometimes wear. That's more typically when they go on land, go out into the forest hiking, but certainly if they wear it out on the water, that spot beacon can activate the SAR system. Teaching people how to use it and how to avoid false alerts is one the bigger issues as well, updating the technology so that we get fewer false alerts, which we do get with certain radio-frequency beacons that ships or aircraft use. Those cause a lot of difficulty, particularly for the Air Force more than anything. Getting out of those particular old technology beacons is something that particularly the Air Force has tried to get regulations in place for, to start to get rid of that old technology because it does cost the Air Force in particular a huge amount of dollars to be able to respond to those false alerts, just like 911 false alerts.
Senator Stewart Olsen: You mentioned that next week all of the auxiliary units will be getting together to discuss. Where are you going to do that?
Mr. Lick: It is being done in Edmonton.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Do you have observers who would be welcome to attend those meetings?
Mr. Lick: The SARscene, for us and the military, the Canadian Armed Forces, in this case, we use as an opportunity to meet with all of the auxiliaries.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Yes, I get that.
Mr. Lick: We also meet with our own SAR staff who run the JRCCs, but the forum itself, the SARscene itself, is organized by Public Safety. As far as I know, that forum is open to everybody. We use it in coordination because it's a good place to have particular discussions on SAR with the people who actually respond, right in the forum where they are actually responding or actually talking about SAR more generally.
A lot of the people we work with there and who make up a large part of SARscene are ground SAR organizations. We don't play a large part with ground SAR normally, at least in the maritime world.
But as far as I know, the forum is open to people who want to attend. Normally they are SAR organizations, but we could put you in contact with the organizers to see what is possible.
Senator Stewart Olsen: That would be helpful, thank you. Odette, our researcher, could perhaps track that down.
Speaking about all of the good work that you do — we're not questioning that in any way — but without the auxiliary units, I don't believe we would have a good search and rescue operation in this country. Given the hugeness of our territory in the North, how are you developing auxiliary units in the North to assist with any rescue operations that you might have?
Mr. Lick: I agree with you, senator. The auxiliary makes up a critical part of our SAR system. In terms of comparisons across the world, most countries do recognize that and many do have auxiliary or volunteer organizations that help out. Most of the ground SAR organizations are volunteer-based. In terms of our auxiliary, in terms of performance, they respond to about 25 per cent of SAR calls successfully.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I understand that, but I'm asking particularly about the North because the population is so limited. We are going to be needing more, so how are you going to look at that to provide adequate oversight there?
Mr. Lick: Absolutely. We've received a recent investment of about $500,000 in order for us to help to look at the North and look at what would be the best way to build the auxiliary there, where would be the best places to put auxiliary units, et cetera. That information will form the basis for options about where we invest in the auxiliary in the North.
I very much support the view you brought forward, senator, that because of the vast geography up North and our limited federal resources, we have to — maybe even more than down South — depend upon the auxiliary. That is something we are investing in now, and we're looking at areas for future investment.
Senator Raine: With regard to the North and looking at how to build a better program, will you be working with the Rangers on that? The Rangers are very established and exist already along the coastline.
Mr. Lick: The Rangers make up part of some of the auxiliary. I do not have the statistics with me, but the Rangers do and can make up an important part of an auxiliary in the North. They have been part of the Canadian Armed Forces in terms of being more devoted toward land — ground SAR — but with their capabilities, and if they have maritime capabilities, there is no reason why they cannot participate in the Coast Guard auxiliary.
Senator Raine: In the North, the water is frozen for a great part of the year and then it is "land.'' It would seem better to have one organization that's maybe enhanced support rather than developing a second one.
Mr. Lick: It's something we are going to explore with the Canadian Armed Forces. It is a different organization in terms of how it's run. They receive a stipend or a certain amount of funds — I'll say salary for the lack of a better term — that allows them to participate in the Rangers, more like a reservist.
The model of the Coast Guard auxiliary, very similar to almost every SAR organization that has volunteers around the world, is comprised of volunteers. They receive their training, but they also get expenses that they have outlaid.
So it is a different model. Ours is more similar in the SAR system to everything around the world, including the countries we have talked about. The Rangers are more like reservists. Can we integrate the two in some manner? That's something we have to deal with. If we think about it, the population is relatively limited in the North, and so we are going to have to work out how we are going to work with the Rangers, absolutely.
Senator Watt: Your presentation was enlightening in terms of what you consider priority issues to focus on. I'm not going to touch on that. I think I understand where you are coming from. But there are additional needs in the Arctic in every community, as you probably are aware of. Human resources are very limited, as my colleagues mentioned. There are no reasons why the Rangers could not combine efforts that you people are making to make it a successful project.
One of the issues I have noticed is that, at times when you are looking at the North, there is a limited focus on that, because there is a bigger picture that you are trying to drive at that the general public of Canada has a clear understanding of. When it comes down to the point of local needs, the general public of Canada have no knowledge of that whatsoever. The military groupings, whether they are Coast Guard, Rangers, the Army, the navy — their knowledge about the North and how they operate on a daily basis is very limited, if you don't mind me saying so. With all due respect, but they are limited. That's not their fault. They don't live there and they don't understand the nature of the area and how much they are being impacted by climate change. Their lifestyles are basically changing on a daily basis.
Taking that into account — and it's very important also to do an inventory of each community to see what kind of equipment they require in order to survive. They go out into the ocean, the ice is very thin and the texture of the ice is not the same as it was 10 years ago. You could normally operate snow machines over the ice, even though the snow machines and ice are moving. It is like riding on a boat on the ice. So the people put their lives on the line in order to harvest what they need to survive for clothing, to feed themselves and things of that nature.
Take a look at what is really needed on the daily basis today when the hunter goes out on the ocean with a snow machine, knowing very well that there is a danger out there. If the community could be equipped with modern technologies such as a hovercraft that can operate on thin ice and water, that is what is heavily needed today. That has been long overdue. When I say long overdue, it is long overdue.
Right now, we use helicopters to save the lives of the people stuck out on the ice because they can't get to the mainland. Sometimes the helicopters don't make it. The pilots have no knowledge of looking with his naked eyes at how thin that ice is or whether the texture of that ice has been changed because of the climate change. He has no knowledge of that.
We already have an experience of a helicopter that thought he was landing on the ice to save the person out there, and the helicopter sank. The only reason the helicopter pilot is alive today is because the person he was trying to rescue ended up rescuing him.
Those are perfect examples of what is going on in the North, and I would highly recommend that you focus on doing an inventory in terms of the needs of the communities.
I strongly believe that there is no reason why we can't combine the Rangers and the Coast Guard. From time to time, I get in touch with the auxiliary officers in and out of my community, and I think you have some people in the North dealing with that.
Don't forget when you are looking at the bigger picture to look at the day-to-day needs of the people at the same time. That's very important. Thank you for your allowing me to raise those important points.
Mr. Lick: Certainly, senator. You brought up some very important points. Certainly the people in the South don't know enough about the people in the North. I absolutely concur with that.
I think we have a job to do to learn, to be there, understand, work with the communities to understand their lives and needs, whether it is search and rescue or environmental response, because that's just as important to sensitive areas in the North.
One of the things we do understand but probably don't have all the solutions to, hopefully yet, is we simply can't transfer what we know down South. We can't transfer the Aids to Navigation system. We can't directly transfer the SAR system or the Environmental Response System directly into the North and expect it to work. That's something that we recognize.
We certainly don't have all the solutions yet, but we are working toward that. You are correct in saying we have a job to do, and it's not just the Coast Guard. Southern organizations need to do more to understand how they work in the North.
Certainly on the idea of the Rangers, it is something we are exploring now. How do we work with the Rangers and the auxiliary to focus on search and rescue as we are talking about today, but maybe in other areas. Maybe it's environmental response as well.
When I think about an inventory, I think about the equipment, but it is much more than that. It is an inventory of their needs.
Senator Watt: Communication is the other factor. And training needs of the young people. That is also very important.
Mr. Lick: I talked about PFDs in terms of an easy fix in SAR prevention to help people save their lives. In the North, a PFD only gets you so far because the water is so cold that normally hypothermia tragically takes you before you drown. We've found that with our own personnel who have lost their lives up North.
In this case, one of the things we think about is providing everybody with a spot beacon. In the North, as an example, that is a very cheap way of communicating and for us providing people with life-saving means as an inventory, as you say, rather than investing in a large ship. Even providing everyone in Canada who is on the water with a spot beacon might be cheaper than having a SAR system. I don't mean that in its entirety, but it is an interesting point, providing that type of very small investment for everyone on the water. Most people will buy them, but not everyone. It is not everybody that we normally have to go out and save.
Senator Raine: Obviously, the two of you are very experienced in terms of what is out there for technology and the future and where it's going. Paint us a vision of 50 years from now. My fear is that everyone will be at home on their devices and no one will be outside doing all these lovely activities we do, although of course we'll still be fishing.
We have satellite imaging. Certainly in terms of weather information, we know where the storms are coming from and when. How do we pull that all together? It seems everybody is walking around with devices now. It should be when you are going out of cell range, there be a message blast that says, "Have you told people where you're going?'' This gets into your first topic of public education. How will we educate people to make it safer?
Mr. Lick: I will touch on a couple of areas where I see us 50 years down the road. I will be in my rocking chair on the porch, by the way. But one area I would like to see is we know who is on the water. Certainly we have many capabilities now technologically to understand who is on the water, but in many cases, particularly for pleasure craft, and this is certainly not everybody, but people do not recognize the severity of storms. They don't recognize how dangerous it can be when you go out on the water, without the proper equipment and training.
It's not meant to be a Big Brother arrangement, but knowing where people are could be something as simple as having a transponder on your vessel which tells us where you are. That can be just as important as having a PFD on board, because that can tell us where you are and whether you are out of range. Your family has called and wants to know where so-and-so is with this transponder. We have those transponders available today. They have been available for quite a while. It looks like a simple puck. It sits on your vessel and can easily tell us where you are. The biggest thing in search and rescue is avoiding the search part and making sure we know where you are so we can get people to help you. That's important.
I will ask Marc to talk more about some of the areas we already talked about, but 50 years down the road we would love to see everybody well-trained about how to go on the water. I would like to see everybody trained to the level of those who can drive a car now, whether it's a licence or whatever. The purpose is not a money grab for the government; the purpose is to ensure that people who go out on the water are trained about how to handle it. I have been out on the water for decades. I know how to work on the water, but it's also a healthy respect for the dangers out there. That's just as important as knowing how to navigate. It's knowing when to go back in, in some cases, and not everybody recognizes that.
Whether it's licensing, but having everybody out there well-trained like we do with cars, 50 years downs the road, if I was to ask for anything in terms of a wish list, that's what I would like to see.
Mr. Mes: Greg already spoke to a couple of the elements. Number one is the satellite and knowing where people are. The biggest concern is the number of pleasure craft we have on our waters. That's where there is a significant risk. Senator, you talked about providing that level of awareness. Everybody wants to go on the water and it's very nice and relaxing, but there is a level of awareness they need to ensure their own safety. It's important to have that level of awareness, knowing what kind of communication to have, having that transponder — that "puck'' — and just knowing where they are, so that if there is bad weather, and we see there's bad weather, you can look at what impact it's going to have. Is there somebody out there? There's a big storm coming in. Can you communicate with that person? If we're able to communicate with that person, we can say, "You need to come in,'' and we need to be able to do that in advance of something tragic happening.
Again, it speaks to prevention and what we've been talking about. It's awareness and the use of satellites and communication. But I think awareness is the key one. It goes back to what Mr. Lick spoke about, and that's prevention, particularly with regard to the millions of pleasure craft out on our waters, and providing that level. In 50 years, if we can be where they have that level of awareness and monitor where they are with a very simple puck transponder without giving personal information — because that's very important at the same time — I think we will be in a better place if we have that in place.
Mr. Lick: The only other thing I would add, senator, and the one that certainly gives a lot us shivers, particularly in the summertime, is the pleasure craft boaters who get themselves into trouble, but we've known about that for decades. The one that gives me shivers is seeing the number of adventurers who travel the North without any knowledge of how the North operates, the dangers out there, like the ice and the cold water.
When we hear about adventurers who want to snorkel across the Arctic, it sends shivers up and down my spine. We don't have the assets to be able to save and monitor everybody in the water who does — I'm going to say it — stupid things like that. They do, and they don't recognize the dangers that are out there. Some may be very well equipped, but others are not, and we've had to save a number of them.
I bring the other example of the group of three or four Sea-Dooers that decided they wanted to voyage across the Arctic. They had a very small vessel supporting them, but in the end, they got themselves into trouble. The support craft couldn't support them very well, and we had to save them, bring them aboard one of our icebreakers and bring them back down south. That, to me, is just stupidity. That's the type of search and rescue event that we don't want happening.
To go back to the senator's question, it is about getting people who do things like that to understand the dangers of doing that in the North, not only safety-wise, but also the environmental and economic problems they may cause, not to mention the economic problems for us, as we have to save them. That is the one that sends shivers up and down my spine.
The Chair: Education is certainly the key to a lot of them.
I want to thank you again, Mr. Lick and Mr. Mes, certainly, for your very constructive discussion here this evening. We have learned a lot and you have made a couple of great suggestions, I think, in relation to what we're looking for with regard to recommendations. Certainly if we need to follow up, we'll be back.
We will reconvene on October 18, and we will have people from the Transportation Safety Board here, hopefully.
(The committee adjourned.)