Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue No. 6 - Evidence - October 18, 2016
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 18, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 5:10 p.m to continue its study on Maritime Search and Rescue activities, including current challenges and opportunities.
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening, everybody. My name is Fabian Manning. I'm a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador, and I am pleased to chair this evening's meeting. Before I give the floor to our witnesses, I would like to invite the members of the committee to introduce themselves, starting on my immediate right.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Carolyn Stewart Olsen, New Brunswick.
Senator McInnis: Tom McInnis, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier, a senator from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Hubley: Elizabeth Hubley, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Munson: Jim Munson, Ontario.
Senator Enverga: Tobias Enverga, Ontario.
Senator Raine: Nancy Greene Raine, Pacific Coast, B.C.
Senator Wallace: John Wallace, New Brunswick.
Senator Sinclair: I'm Murray Sinclair. I'm just south of Hudson's Bay.
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
The committee is continuing its study on Maritime Search and Rescue activities, including current challenges and opportunities. This evening, we will be hearing about and discussing the occurrences of marine accidents and incidents in Canada, with a view to understanding the factors that lead to these occurrences and what can be done to prevent them, thereby reducing the pressures on Maritime SAR services.
We are pleased to welcome representatives of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada. On behalf of the members of the committee, I thank you for being here today. I understand you have some opening remarks. I would ask you introduce yourselves first and proceed with your opening remarks, and then we'll go to questions from our committee members.
Jean L. Laporte, Chief Operating Officer, Transportation Safety Board of Canada: My name is Jean Laporte. I am the Chief Operating Officer at the Transportation Safety Board.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee, I want to thank you for inviting the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, or TSB, to appear today. I have with me Captain Marc-André Poisson, our Director of Marine Investigations. Mr. Poisson is well placed to provide greater context and information on our marine investigations and statistics.
First of all, I would like to take a moment to remind you of who we are and we do at the TSB in order to properly frame our discussions.
[English]
The TSB is an independent body created in 1990 under the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act. Our mandate is to advance safety in the air, marine, rail and pipeline modes of transportation that are under federal jurisdiction. We fulfill this mandate by conducting independent investigations, by identifying safety deficiencies and/or causal and contributing factors, by making recommendations and by publishing reports.
In short, when something goes wrong, we investigate to determine not only what happened but also why it happened. We then share what we have learned publicly so that those who are best placed to take corrective action can do so.
It is important to point out that the TSB is neither a regulator nor a tribunal. We do not assign fault, nor do we determine civil or criminal liability. We do not conduct inspections or audits. These responsibilities belong to other organizations. We are, therefore, able to provide you with information only from the events that are reported to us and on which we have conducted investigations.
In 2015, 245 marine accidents and 707 marine incidents were reported to the TSB, a slight decrease from the previous year. Each of these occurrences is carefully documented and assessed according to our occurrence classification policy in order to determine if there are safety issues to investigate. We only investigate occurrences that contribute to the advancement of safety. In 2015-16, we launched 12 new marine investigations and completed 15.
In all of our investigations, we look at the emergency measures taken in response to the occurrence, including search and rescue activities. When necessary, we examine these activities in-depth as an integral part of the investigation.
[Translation]
Between 2004 and 2015, we identified eight issues linked to maritime search and rescue in Canada.
Several investigations have revealed that the absence of emergency position-indicating radio beacons on board ships has resulted in too much lost time, and above all, too many lost lives. These beacons alert search and rescue automatically when a ship is in distress and contribute greatly to a rapid search and rescue response. This issue mainly concerns the fishing industry.
We have also observed response delays after search and rescue has received a distress signal. This may be because the information provided to search and rescue services is sometimes inaccurate or invalid, and that wastes valuable time.
In some cases, we have found that, if the authorities responsible for dealing with an emergency are not involved in a timely and coordinated manner, there is a risk that intervention measures may be limited and the situation may worsen.
[English]
In one occurrence that involved the loss of lives, it was established that the Department of National Defence search and rescue standby times for response vary from a maximum of 30 minutes during work periods to a maximum of two hours during quiet hours. However, a total of 60 per cent of search and rescue activities take place during regular work hours when the 30-minute response time is in place.
In another occurrence, our investigation found deficiencies in practical training as well as the absence of medical and fitness standards for crew members of the Royal Canadian Marine Search and Rescue.
Another investigation found incomplete communication between the search and rescue authorities, the marine communications and traffic services, and the ships on the scene. This resulted in the loss of valuable time and undermined the success of the search and rescue mission.
A recent investigation found equipment problems with the emergency pumps that search and rescue units supplied to a damaged fishing vessel.
Finally, the TSB is also concerned with respect to the availability of search and rescue resources to respond rapidly in the Canadian Arctic.
These issues that I have just outlined were communicated to relevant organizations in our investigation reports or through safety communication letters. We currently have no active recommendations related to search and rescue services.
[Translation]
In closing, I would like to point out that we appreciate your focus on maritime safety, and we thank you for inviting us today to discuss this matter with you. We hope that our presence here will assist with your work. We are now ready to answer your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Laporte. That is a great segue into our questions.
Senator Hubley: Welcome, and thank you for your presentation this evening. As you both well know, the vast majority of the Canadian fishing fleet is small fishing vessels. That's what we have exclusively in my home province of Prince Edward Island.
I would like to ask about the new fishing regulations published in the Canada Gazette Part II in July of this year. I would like to know what you think of those new regulations and how you think they will impact the number and/or the severity of marine incidents.
Marc-André Poisson, Director of Investigations — Marine, Transportation Safety Board of Canada: Thank you, senator, for your question. The most appropriate reply would be to provide you with what the board has provided to Transport Canada in reference to several recommendations submitted over the past 20 years, and the delay by Transport Canada in responding to these recommendations has the board very concerned.
There are a few issues that have been raised and that have been submitted in the new regulations that are positive, but unfortunately there are other issues that have not been resolved and won't be with the new regulations. The best way would be for us to submit to you the list of the recommendations, and they're on our website, because it would be quite extensive to go through them all, but I can provide an idea of several of them.
There are some that are to the satisfaction of the board, some that are satisfactory in part and some that are unsatisfactory. Part of the proposal for Transport Canada is in two phases. The first phase has been completed, and then there is a second phase that will respond to other recommendations.
Senator Hubley: I see that part of these new regulations is the response to TSB's recommendations stemming from the capsizing of a small fishing vessel called Cap Rouge II. Five people drowned, including two children, and two escaped. The accident happened in 2002 and the TSB report came out in 2003. Since then, it has been a constant back- and-forth between Transport Canada and the TSB responding and reassessing.
The TSB's assessment rating is currently unsatisfactory, and the TSB continues to monitor the proposed action. It took 13 years to get to this point. How common is a delay like this?
Mr. Laporte: Over the years since the TSB was created, we have issued over 40 recommendations specifically pertaining to fishing vessel safety in one way or form. There are currently seven of those that remain outstanding. As you have just pointed out, senator, some have been outstanding for quite some time.
In the other modes of transportation, we have a similar issue where it's taking an excessive period of time, in our opinion, to take the appropriate actions to fully address the issues we have identified. That is why we seek updates on an annual basis and reassess the responses. We make that public.
In 2010 we also issued what we call the TSB "Watchlist,'' where we identify the most significant issues that have been outstanding for a long time. We use that watch list, which is updated every second year, to raise attention and re- engage the dialogue publicly on the most significant outstanding issues. This is a tool for us to prioritize the outstanding recommendations and try to generate more safety actions on the part of the government and industry. We will be publishing our new watch list in November.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I have so many questions, but I'll keep it as brief as I can.
Up to this moment on this study, we have been painted a very rosy picture of response. I'm not faulting anyone, but I wondered all along if that rosy picture was actually the way it is, so I'm happy to know that there is an oversight body and that you do issue recommendations.
The first question would be: When you commence an investigation, by whom does it have to be reported to you?
Mr. Poisson: The regulations state that the master of the vessel or the owner of the vessel has to report to the Transportation Safety Board an occurrence. Now, the way this is done is through the Canadian Coast Guard Marine Communications and Traffic Services in the majority of the cases, and Canadian Coast Guard would relay that information to us. That's how we're aware, and if a search and rescue is launched, they get their information the same way.
If it's an incident without any SAR capacity, we would get that information, and we would determine what we do with that information. But in the majority of cases, it's always through the Canadian Coast Guard. We do get some through other means, but it's generally that way.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Is that information timely? Are you able to visit the site in a timely fashion to do your investigation and speak to people?
Mr. Laporte: As Marc-André indicated, there is an obligation to report the occurrences immediately. Up until about a year ago, we were being notified by the marine communications centres in a timely manner. However, in the past year to 18 months, roughly, as a result of changes that have been made by the Coast Guard in those centres, we are no longer being called all the time in a timely manner. That is an issue that we have taken up with the Coast Guard and we will be pursuing because it remains outstanding.
We do get notified, sometimes, days after the occurrence instead of right at that moment, and that does impair or impact in some way our ability to deploy to a site quickly.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I will leave that part of it. Going to your statements on your reports, when you do report, the reports go to Transport Canada. Do they go to the minister? What is the trail of your reporting?
Mr. Laporte: The final reports are public and they are all posted on our website. There is always a news release that accompanies all of our final reports. The reports are distributed to the Minister of Transport as well as to other key stakeholders that were directly connected with the occurrence.
However, before we publish the final report, under our legislation, there is a requirement for us to provide a confidential draft of the report to what we call designated reviewers. Those are organizations or individuals that are identified by the board as having a direct interest in the investigation and being able to help us validate the accuracy and the completeness of our reports. It is a fairness process, in a way, that is built into the legislation whereby they have the opportunity to provide comments on the draft before the report is made public because the report could impact their reputation and business, et cetera. We have that process.
The minister is always a designated reviewer, as well as, typically, the owners or key crew members involved in the accident in question.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Do you ever get any pressure or push back to change some parts of your report?
Mr. Laporte: We always get comments from the minister or the department. Other parties will most frequently provide comments. Sometimes we do have no comments, but most of the time there are. We have a very robust process. Everything is done and documented on paper, so there is no pressure or influence that can be exerted on the board or on the investigators to change unduly the contents of the report.
They make their representations in writing. We analyze them, and we reply to all representations in writing.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you very much.
I'll just put on the record my concern about how quickly your reports are actually acted upon and that there's a significant lag in some of them. I think that's something we should look at, as well. Thank you, gentlemen.
Senator Poirier: Thank you, gentlemen, both, for being here.
In your statistical summary here — maritime occurrences in 2015 — on page 9 it noted that, in 2015, incidents in the Atlantic region represented 45 per cent of all marine incidents. As well, the report notes that the majority of the reportable incidents consisting of a total failure of any machinery or technical system happened in the Atlantic region. That's 50 per cent in all of Canada. What were the reasons behind these statistics for Atlantic Canada?
Mr. Poisson: One of the main issues has to do with the large fleet that's on the east coast and the small fishing vessels that are there. If there is a breakdown that occurs offshore, then it's mandatory to report. In that case, the information comes back to us, and we generally don't investigate further than acknowledging the fact that there was, again, another fishing vessel breakdown with no impact to the safety of the crew members or to the vessel.
We statistically continue to track these amounts, and it's larger on the east and west coasts than in central Canada, where there are fewer fishing vessels.
Senator Poirier: Is there anything that can be done to lower the number of incidents related to the machinery and technical systems in Atlantic Canada?
Mr. Poisson: That is a question that should be posed to Transport Canada, because if we had found any issues, we would have reported on them. What we did do, however, is a large study called a safety issues investigation, and we broadly looked at issues of safety in the whole of Canada.
We looked at the maintenance as well, and we did report on this large, broad investigation, but there was nothing systemic we could find that we could report on related to the lowering of the breakdowns. It's a question, of course, of maintenance, and that's the main responsibility of the owner and the crew.
Senator Poirier: In your opinion, is the Coast Guard ell-equipped and systematically well-organized to respond adequately to incidents in the Atlantic region?
Mr. Poisson: Our reports, as the Chief Operating Officer told you, found eight issues that we wanted to bring to this committee today. We couldn't find anything related to your question that would lead us to doubt that the capacity or quality of search and rescue in Canada is any different than the positive submissions that you got from the previous witnesses.
Senator Poirier: And this is my last question: In your opinion, as of today, what is the biggest safety deficiency that needs to be addressed for marine transportation?
Mr. Poisson: The biggest one that I would relate to you would be the one that we found, which is related to the carriage and the quality of the information in the emergency positioning radio beacon, or EPIRBs. You've heard previously about the issues related to that. We have one recommendation that is outstanding, and it has to do with mandatory carriage of EPIRBs on the small vessel fishing fleet.
Now, if you're going to sea in a small fishing vessel and an accident happens, as we have investigated in the past, and you don't have any means to automatically identify to the search and rescue officials that you are in a state of emergency and you don't have any capacity to communicate, and if the vessel overturns rapidly and you fall into the water, either with or without a life raft, then you're left on your own. We have found that the absence of EPIRBs on the small vessel fishing fleet has created loss of life and has put many fishermen into danger.
This is an outstanding recommendation that the board has provided to Transport Canada and remains outstanding. You had a question, Senator Hubley, on specifically the recommendations and the regulations, and that's one specific point where the board is unsatisfied with the response from Transport Canada related to the new regulations that they are proposing.
Again, with the EPIRBs, another issue that popped up — and Mr. Laporte has told you about them — has to do with the inconsistent information or the delay of the information. You may have an EPIRB on board, and we've found on sail training vessels off the coast of Brazil, on tug accidents and on fishing vessel accidents, and the information that's on the EPIRBs is not correct. If you don't modify the information that's in your EPIRB, the EPIRB information that is received through the satellites and sent to the SAR is inappropriate.
You may find that what the search and rescue coordinator will do, because there's a high level of false alerts, is use the information on the EPIRBs to be able to track and make sure it is appropriate information or whether it is a false alert. When they try to go back and find the appropriate owner and see if this was an actual emergency, if the information is not appropriate, there are delays. That's one area that we found and that the board has found that needs to be improved.
Also, we found in some situations that when the Cospas-Sarsat information reaches the SAR RCC centres, there's a delay in the time that the information is received, which creates a delay. But that's not a systemic issue; it's an issue that we found in some investigations.
To answer your question, it's the EPIRBs, I would say, that the board would reply as the number one issue.
Senator Munson: Just to clarify for people who may be watching and are interested this, when you say EPIRBs, how do you spell that — I know what it is — and what does it mean?
Mr. Poisson: EPIRB is a tracking transmitter which aids in the detection and location of boats, aircraft and people in distress. For people in distress, it's called a PLB, personal locater beacon, and you probably heard of ELTs, emergency location transmitters, which are again location beacons but they're used mainly for aircraft.
Senator Munson: So what does this term mean?
Mr. Poisson: Emergency Position Indicator Radio Beacon.
Senator Munson: That's what I want to get into. Obviously, there are no mandatory rules, but do licensed boats in this country have a black box? Are they required to have one? I have a reason behind this question, obviously, because with plane crashes there are normally, but sometimes not. So it's not mandatory here for boats and major fishing fleets to have a black box to say what may have happened?
Mr. Poisson: The carriage requirements follow the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea requirements for voyage data recorders. A black box is called a VDR, voyage data recorder, in the marine world. There are mandatory requirements for commercial vessels, and I believe the tonnage is 500 tons and above. If you're a SOLAS vessel, that means you're trading internationally and that's the requirement to carry the voyage data recorder.
There are no requirements for the fishing vessel voyage data recorder. There are some systems that exist that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have to track the fishing vessels, but not for all of them, and there are also automatic identification systems that some vessels do use.
But, really, to collect data on the black box VDR, you would not find this on pleasure craft and you would not find this on the majority of fishing vessels.
Senator Munson: Do you think there should be? I'm not talking small rowboats, but I mean a robust industry in New Brunswick, fishermen and so on going out. Do you think from your safety point of view that this should be a requirement?
Mr. Poisson: To improve safety, what we found over and over again is if we have a voyage data recorder, the investigation is much simpler. We find the issues much easier. So if you're able to have a voyage data recorder, when an accident happens, the investigation team is able to understand much better what happened.
It's not an issue that the board has looked at for small vessels, but we did look at voyage data recorders and recorders for other modes as well, and it systematically comes up as something that the Transportation Safety Board feels should be on every mode of transportation. But we don't have a specific recommendation for smaller vessels on the VDR.
Senator Munson: With that in mind, where I'm leading on this is the fact that, sadly, a colleague of ours was killed in a plane crash, Jim Prentice, and we all got to know Jim here. But then I notice the Transportation Safety Board said because of various reasons it may take a year — at least that's in the news — to come up with what exactly may have happened. A year is an awful long time in the modern age that we live in and with the technology that we have.
You obviously have the technology. Do you have enough people and enough investigators to thoroughly get into this so that there could be at least an interim report before a year goes by, before you find out what happens there or happens on the sea?
Mr. Laporte: I think each investigation is different. We typically have a year as a rough benchmark. That factors in not just the investigation but also the report process, the confidential draft review, as I mentioned earlier, the publication and so on.
But when we do an investigation, we do release factual information along the way, once that information has been corroborated and validated. If we identify safety deficiencies that require immediate attention, we do release that during the investigation. We have in some cases released recommendations during the investigation as opposed to waiting for the final report. For example, in the case of Lac Mégantic rail mode, we issued recommendations halfway through the investigation.
We have different tools and communication products that we use to share information along the way, but what's important for us is that we need to ensure that the information is fully validated and corroborated before we release it.
We also want to make sure that we do not release information prematurely that creates or generates speculation unnecessarily out there. We also have to always consider the compassionate side of the equation with the victims or families or loved ones. When any information is released, we always have to notify these folks ahead of time before it hits the media and the public.
We have various ways of sharing information. We always try to do our investigation as quickly as possible, but we need to take the appropriate time to do a thorough analysis.
Senator Munson: Chair, is one more brief question okay?
The Chair: Yes, go ahead.
Senator Munson: I'm on your website. You have 220 people, and you're looking for people to work there. It says that, according to the 2014 Public Service Employee Survey, the TSB is one of the top places to work, that satisfaction is high and so on. Do you have enough people to do the job?
Mr. Laporte: I believe we have enough people to do the job, and we have enough resources. Over the last few years, we have not spent all the dollars that we've had. We have had, at certain periods of time, a bit of a challenge with recruitment, just like the Coast Guard has.
Senator Munson: Why was there a challenge?
Mr. Laporte: We're competing for a very small pool of talent that is highly specialized. There are not a lot of people that have those skillsets, to start off with. Sometimes it's difficult to compete in terms of salaries and wages with the private sector for that scarce talent. We've had, from time to time — and it varies with the economic cycle — some difficulty with recruitment. That has something of an impact on our ability to get our job done.
But, generally speaking, I think, especially in the marine mode, we are doing quite well. We are quite satisfied with the timeliness of our investigations and we're able to deliver on the mandate that we were given by Parliament.
Senator Marshall: I'm trying to get a handle on the types of incidents or accidents that get reported to you. We recently had an incident, or I guess I should say a tragedy, in Newfoundland where four people lost their lives. They were fishing in a small, open boat.
Is that the sort of accident or incident that would be investigated by the board? That is.
The statistics that we have are set out by region. Are they also available by province? Would we be able to find the ones that go to Newfoundland, and, if not, what's the difficulty?
Mr. Laporte: In the maritime world, it's a bit difficult to categorize accidents and incidents by province because we're out at sea. What are the boundaries? So it's a bit difficult.
That's why we tend to capture data by region as opposed to by specific province. We do have some data available, but it's not something that we publish. It would require a bit of effort to pull that out because we could use GPS coordinates, for example, to do triage. But then what's the boundary between Newfoundland and Quebec and Nova Scotia and so on?
Senator Marshall: The province of Newfoundland and Labrador has quite a few of what we call interprovincial ferry services. They have quite a few ferries, marine vessels, that are providing services between different remote communities. Would incidents aboard those vessels also be reported to the Transportation Safety Board?
Mr. Laporte: Yes, they are. In fact, Marc-André and I were in Newfoundland in June to meet with the provincial government to talk about some concerns that we had with respect to passenger ferry service in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Marshall: Okay, then I think I'm on the right trail here.
Based on the material that we were provided, it refers to 245 marine accidents, 210 shipping and 35 accidents aboard ships. I'm just thinking of all of these marine vessels, including all of the ferries in Newfoundland and Labrador. The incidents don't seem like very many when you think about all the vessels that are involved.
Earlier, I think you alluded to — or maybe I misunderstood — there being some concern about the statistics being incomplete. Because my understanding is that incidents can be referred from different sources. I was wondering if you had any further comments on that. Is my understanding correct, and what can you do to make sure that the statistics are complete?
Mr. Laporte: I think the statistics are correct. If I gave you that impression, I apologize because that was not the intent.
Our concern is delays in reporting information to us so that it can be captured and analyzed. That's where the concerns lie. We ultimately get notified at some point in time. We find out that there's been an incident, and we do ask the questions. We do the follow up, and the information is added to our database, to our statistics. Where it requires follow up investigative activities, we do take those activities.
It may be a delay of a few hours, a few days, before we get the information. That's really what the concern is. It's not that we are not getting notified at all. Ultimately, we do find out about those incidents.
Senator Marshall: To go back to Newfoundland and Labrador and the interprovincial ferry services, quite a few of the vessels are quite old. Are there any specific concerns? Do you wait until there is an incident, or are there concerns that you become aware of? For example, would there be concerns with regard to the age of the vessels?
Mr. Poisson: That's an interesting question because we did do an investigation a couple of years ago on a ferry in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we found out that they weren't reporting some breakdowns to us, and it was an old ferry. When we did the investigation, that information came out to us, so we were able to provide that information to the public and let them know about the conditions of the vessel.
We didn't find anything saying that there was a vessel out there that shouldn't be sailing, but we did find some issues on, for example, the safety management system of the Newfoundland and Labrador ferry service. We did communicate these issues, including to the minister responsible for the ferry service in Newfoundland and Labrador.
So, systemically, we haven't found anything that would raise any concerns with the conditions of vessels, but we have found some issues of delays in services. That would also impact the way the crew navigates the vessel. In all, we haven't come out with a finding that has us concerned.
Senator Marshall: The issues that you're talking about there, that you would go back and discuss with them, would all of them arise because of an incident, or is there some other way that you're becoming aware of these issues, through general discussions or something? Is it always an incident that triggers your involvement?
Mr. Laporte: Our involvement is triggered by incidents. Our mandate is to follow up on accidents and incidents. We do not do inspections. We don't go out there and check up on things or do audits and so on. That's the role of Transport Canada. But sometimes, through dialogue with industry stakeholders or with Transport Canada or Coast Guard officials, we get some clues about things. Then we ask a few questions, and we find out that there was this breakdown that wasn't reported last week. So then we capture that information and add it to our statistics. It does go in when we do find out about those things, but we are always following up on incidents and accidents, in our case.
Senator Marshall: As to the safety board, are there different departments set up? I don't know if "silos'' is the right word, but would you have people that specialize in marine and then people that specialize in air? Is that the way you're set up?
Mr. Laporte: Yes. We have specialists in all four modes under our jurisdiction — marine, rail, aviation and pipeline. But then we also have a number of specialists that we call multi-modal — for example, engineers in our laboratory, human factors specialists, statistical analysts and communication specialists. They are assigned to the various files in any mode of transportation as required.
Senator Marshall: Would you be able to give us the numbers for how many would be in marine and how many would be in the multi-modal group?
Mr. Poisson: For investigators in marine, there are 20. The majority are ship masters. We have two fish harvesters who are previous masters. We have chief engineers, and we have one naval architect.
Senator Marshall: What about the multi-modal?
Mr. Laporte: In the multi-modal groups, we have seven human factors specialists. We have five macro-analysis specialists that look at data and statistical trend analysis and so on. We have about 25 specialists in our lab that look at all aspects of engineering, electronics systems, the recorders, the black boxes and so on.
Senator Enverga: Thank you for the presentation, gentlemen. You mentioned earlier that there are eight issues still outstanding; is that right?
Mr. Laporte: There are eight issues that directly touch on search and rescue activities. These issues have been raised with the appropriate authorities and some actions taken. Whether they're fully addressed, I can't necessarily give you a full answer because we respond to incidents and accidents. Until an accident comes up, then we find out whether the problem has been fully addressed or not. I cannot give you a definite answer, because we do not inspect or audit in between incidents.
Where we have formal recommendations, we do follow up and evaluate the response. Where we have safety advisory letters, we do some follow-up, but we do not do follow-up on each individual finding.
Senator Enverga: Can you give some examples of one of those eight and some details about it, please?
Mr. Laporte: I think the EPIRBs is an example. We talked earlier where we have an outstanding recommendation that hasn't been addressed.
Another example is delays in the response because of inadequate or insufficient information. That's something we see from time to time, especially in the fishing vessel occurrences where they may have an EPIRB but the registration information hasn't been updated. So the search and rescue people are trying to contact them, and they can't reach them because they have got the wrong phone number for the owners. A simple thing like that creates delays in dealing with the emergency situation.
We can give you more examples along those lines, if you'd like, but that's the sort of thing we're talking about.
Senator Enverga: You mentioned that one of the outstanding recommendations is having beacons on almost every ship, every individual, whether it's in the sea or the water. As a government, would you recommend making it mandatory for everyone to have that? What is stopping you from saying everybody should be doing this?
Mr. Laporte: We have made that recommendation to the government, and that recommendation is still outstanding after many years, unfortunately. We believe every vessel that's out there should have an emergency beacon. There's a cost, but the cost is not that big when you're looking at the cost of lives being lost.
Senator Enverga: What do you think is stopping them?
Mr. Laporte: That's a question that should be asked of Transport Canada, because they are the ones that have the recommendation and have not addressed it. I can't speak for them. We will provide to the clerk of the committee the latest response we received from Transport Canada and the assessment that the board has made of that response.
Senator Enverga: Would you recommend that the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans push that with Transport Canada and say that we have reported this? As a committee, do you want to us make a recommendation saying that this should be mandatory? If there is any need for more funding to help the small vessels, would you recommend that we do this?
Mr. Laporte: Yes, we would certainly be very pleased if the committee made such a recommendation to the government in support of the message that we've been conveying since 2000 on the emergency position radio beacon. It's 16 years we've had this recommendation outstanding.
Also, generally speaking, our biggest concern is fishing vessel safety. That's one of the most important recommendations, but there's also other issues about the mandatory use of other safety equipment on board those ships that are outstanding and where we're seeing very little progress. The new fishing vessel regulations, as was mentioned earlier, do not go far enough and do not address all the issues that have been identified.
Senator Enverga: Can you stop those ships or vessels from going to sea if they do not have a beacon?
Mr. Laporte: We cannot. Transport Canada could, but there would be significant economic impact on the livelihood of those fishermen. Part of the difficulty is that the livelihood of the fishermen is at stake. There are a bunch of issues intertwined between safety and earning a decent living. The fishing quotas and regulations also present, at times, conflicting issues with safety.
There's an intricate linkage between a number of issues when we're talking about fishing vessel safety, and we have produced a study where we went back and looked at 20 years of fishing vessel incidents and analyzed that. We've come up with 10 key factors that we see time and again in those incidents that contribute to those events. All 10 of those issues need to be fully addressed.
Senator Enverga: You said it could cause economic issues with the fishermen on those vessels. How much are we looking into this? How much is involved here? Do you have any idea how much it is going to cost?
Mr. Poisson: We're not talking tens of thousands of dollars; we're talking in the lower thousands of dollars for a unit.
Senator Enverga: How much is the personal beacon?
Mr. Poisson: For a PLB, you can buy one for yourself and it's not that expensive, if you want to go into the woods and have a personal locator beacon. The problem is that it's not automated, and what you want is an automatic hydrostatic release, and that's one thing we've been reporting. That's not just a carriage of an EPIRB; it's also that it automatically releases.
So what happens is if you have the EPIRBs on board, when the vessel sinks between two and four metres depth, the hydrostatic release will launch the EPIRBs to float to the surface and automatically activate the system. That's a key issue that we've been reporting on. It's not just to have the EPIRBs; it's also to have it automatically released. When you start adding those components, you're adding more money.
Senator Enverga: I'm more worried about the personal beacon. Is there a way, with the budgets we have here, to supply some of them to the vessels or the fishermen so they will always be protected?
Mr. Poisson: Senator, you are talking about 18,000, I believe, fishing vessels in Canada. It's a large fishing fleet.
Senator Sinclair: I am impressed at the depth of your knowledge, gentlemen. Let me ask a general question that relates to the nature of your investigations.
In media reports, whenever there's an air crash, there's always a report that the Transportation Safety Board is taking control of the investigation at the site. Is that also the case with regard to marine accidents and incidents? Do you automatically assume control of the incident or accident site?
Mr. Laporte: When we're notified, the first thing we do is assess the incident to determine whether we will investigate or not. Once we determine that we will investigate or deploy a team, we put out a notice to media to advise Canadians that we are launching a team and we undertake the work. That applies to all modes of transportation.
In the marine world, when we talk about a site, most of the time there isn't a site or it's a site that's underwater. It's a little different than aviation, for example, where we have a piece of ground that we can put yellow tape around and say that's the site and we take control of the site, or in a rail derailment.
In the marine world, we typically do not have a site that we control in the same way, but we have, under our legislation, the powers to seize a ship or any component or equipment and to compel crew members to submit to interviews or to produce information. That's the way we normally conduct the investigation in the marine world.
Now, in some cases, we will get equipment, some divers and remote underwater equipment to take video footage or to recover pieces of equipment from below the surface of the water, but that's more in more complex cases.
Senator Sinclair: Is there any area where your jurisdiction, your mandate or the nature of your work would be enhanced by any improvement in legislation or in direction that this committee might be able to offer?
Mr. Laporte: At the present time, there are no major gaps in our legislation or our powers. We have pretty broad powers of investigation compared to other investigative bodies. In fact, coroners and police forces are often surprised at the extent of the powers we have compared to the processed they have to go through. For example, a police officer has to go to a Justice of the Peace to get a warrant, but we can issue our own summons, warrants and protection orders.
We have adequate powers to do our work. Our legislation is 25 years old, so over the coming year or two, we will be taking a look at it to see if there is a need to modernize it, but there is no significant gap that jumps out right now that impedes us from doing our work.
Senator Raine: It's really interesting to hear how it all works. Could you review for me, again, how you interface with the Canadian Coast Guard when a SAR incident is happening? The Canadian Coast Guard is involved in the search and rescue, and you're coming in behind to do the investigation. How does that hand-over work?
Mr. Poisson: When an accident happens, there are SAR resources that are tasked. We make sure not to burden the people, because the rescue is number one, but we immediately try to engage. If there is the possibility for our investigators to board a vessel that's leaving, for example, to go and provide assistance, then the Coast Guard does offer us the assistance of a helicopter or a ship.
The way that it happens is the SAR resources are tasked. We're informed afterwards, and then our investigators will get more information if they're able to talk to the master. Then we'll assess the situation, and if they're in a situation where we would be impeding a search and rescue operation, then we would wait. However, we would want to get there as soon as possible because we would want to get the information as quickly as we can.
So us being mariners and knowing the Canadian Coast Guard, we're able to talk, engage and find the appropriate time to deploy and be on board the vessel.
Mr. Laporte: We also have a memorandum of understanding with the Coast Guard that provides for the provision of specialized assistance and for the coordination of activities. We do have a very good work relationship with them in terms of the response aspect.
Senator Raine: I'm from the West Coast, and right now there is an incident with a tugboat leaking diesel fuel up by Bella Bella. That's an incident, and that's reported to the Transportation Safety Board. At what point do you start to take a look at that? I know there is a big concern on the West Coast that it's not just the future tanker traffic. That's the maritime highway up and down the coast, and there is a lot of traffic and a lot of hazards. How does the Transportation Safety Board get involved in incidents like that one?
Mr. Laporte: We are involved in that one, and we are able to confirm that we are launching a full-fledged investigation into that occurrence. I can't discuss details right now.
Typically, we are notified, and as I said earlier on, we do an assessment based on the facts and the information that's provided to us. Is there a potential to learn something new in terms of improving safety? That's what our mandate is all about.
If there is potential to learn something and improve safety, then we will launch an investigation. If we're not sure, we may go out and do interviews and some preliminary work to make that determination, but we cannot simply investigate every single incident reported to us. Sometimes it is very minor and there is nothing to be learned. Someone acknowledges they made a mistake, or something broke down and they say, "I've learned my lesson.'' There is no point wasting resources investigating something that is not going to yield any safety benefits.
We capture it in the database. We do trend analysis. If we see patterns, we might do a special study on that type of incident to see why there is a pattern and why we're seeing many similar incidents. From time to time, we do launch those particular studies.
Senator Raine: When you're talking about whether there's potential for improving safety, are we just talking human life safety, or are we also talking environmental protection safety?
Mr. Laporte: We're looking at human, property and environment. All three aspects are considered in there.
Senator Raine: Is that a relatively new angle that you're covering in terms of your investigations?
Mr. Laporte: No. Our mandate has always included the consideration of injury or damage to people, property and the environment. I have to say in the last few years the environmental aspect is, perhaps, taking up a little bit more space than it had 20 years ago, but we always consider all aspects.
For example, in terms of spills, we didn't capture in our databases all the small spills in the past. In the last few years, we are capturing all of those and tracking that and looking for trends and so on. We have always looked after the big spills. The small spills, 20 years ago, were not as important as they are today.
Senator Raine: A few years ago, we studied the de-staffing of the lighthouses along our coast where there were lighthouses left. Certainly, we heard from mariners along the B.C. coast that those lightkeepers were sort of the outposts of civilization, if you like, in between long stretches of places where no one lives, and people really were very comforted when the de-staffing was stopped. Have you had any interface with those light stations as part of the Transportation Safety Board?
Mr. Poisson: We look at aids to navigation and impacts on safety when there is an accident. We look at how the surroundings helped or did not help. We haven't found anything on either the West Coast or the East Coast related to lighthouse de-staffing that would have the Transportation Safety Board worried.
Senator McInnis: I'm not going to hold you up. I've heard a great deal, and it's been very interesting and educational.
I know you don't find fault, so you're not a quasi-judicial board. Are you? No.
After the unfortunate train incident that took place in Lac-Mégantic, did you go in and investigate that?
Mr. Laporte: Yes, definitely. That was one of our biggest investigations.
Senator McInnis: There were hearings, but who would have held those?
Mr. Laporte: We have not done hearings on that. Typically, in large accidents or occurrences, a number of bodies that get involved with different mandates. For example, we could have the coroner looking at cause of death. They may be doing an inquiry and some hearings as part of their work.
We also have the regulator, Transport Canada, who could also be investigating for compliance, typically. Did the operator or the companies comply with the rules? If not, they may lay charges or issue sanctions against those companies. So they conduct investigations.
We have the police force that might be doing criminal investigations. In the case of Lac-Mégantic, they were doing a criminal negligence investigation, and charges were actually laid against some crew members and company officials.
You have the environment people who might be investigating for environmental damage and compliance with environmental laws.
You may have a multitude of organizations that are investigating or conducting hearings for their own purposes concurrent with the work that we do.
Senator McInnis: On your relationship with Transport Canada, you've been very direct tonight, and you didn't take a shot at them, but you were very candid.
It says that your relationship with Transport Canada is ongoing communication. You're the minister's observer, and of course you provide information to Transport Canada after your findings, 48 hours in advance.
What kind of a relationship is it? You say it's arm's length.
Mr. Laporte: The part that's arm's length is the actual investigation. So the conduct of the investigation, we are doing this totally independent. When we conduct an investigation, the minister may appoint an observer from the department, from Transport Canada or from Fisheries and Oceans, depending on the case, or both. The observer has certain access to certain types of information, but not everything. For example, when we interview people — we interview crew members and witnesses — the observers are not entitled to participate in those interviews or to receive transcripts from those interviews. That's privileged information.
However, if we do some testing of an engine, for example, we bring an engine to our laboratory in Ottawa and we do some testing on it, then the minister can have an observer observe the testing.
There are certain parts of the investigation where the minister's observer can be present and have access to factual information so that they can fulfill their obligations to act in a timely manner and not wait for the final report to come out. They take that factual information and they relay that back to the department so they can take proactive safety measures, issue some emergency directives or safety notifications and safety alerts to the industry while the investigation is ongoing. They have an observer for that purpose.
Then they're involved in reviewing draft reports, providing written representations on the draft report before it goes out, and then they get the final report 48 hours in advance so that the minister can prepare a response or a statement on the findings and recommendations that are included in the report. As a courtesy, we give them that heads up, but everything is done and finalized. They have no influence and cannot change anything.
That's with the investigations.
In the day-to-day operations, we have ongoing dialogue. We talk to Transport Canada every day. We share some training between our organization and Transport Canada, the Coast Guard, Fisheries and Oceans, National Defence, RCMP. We have MOUs with them where we help one another out in terms of investigation techniques, tools and training. We have collaborative arrangements outside of the investigations.
Senator McInnis: You find the facts as to what took place at the incident and make recommendations to Transport Canada, and it's up to them to get the regulations or safety or whatever in place.
Mr. Laporte: That's correct.
Senator McInnis: This has been very interesting. One of the difficulties with many fishers is they can't swim. I know many of them, and I often wondered how they do it, but they do. Anyway, thank you very much.
The Chair: Just before we get to the second round, I have a question myself.
Back in 2004, with the loss of the Ryan's Commander in Newfoundland and Labrador, your board issued a report at that time, and part of that report said they found that the vessel stability was affected by a flawed design, creating problems that were not fully understood by the owners, the builders or Transport Canada. I'm just wondering where you stand with that today in regard to vessel stability and design.
Mr. Poisson: I'm glad, Mr. Chair, that you asked this question, because it's pretty well top of our list with our concerns in the fishing vessel world. Not only do fishing vessels — and we're talking about a large portion of the fishing vessel fleet — not have appropriate stability assessment, they also don't have the appropriate guidelines as to how to assess their stability. They don't have, in many cases, the training to be able to read the documents, if they have them.
Again, so many years later, after all the recommendations related to stability, we still are finding over and over again systemic issues in the fishing vessel fleet in Canada related to stability. Not just the stability of the vessel, but in many cases what you'll have is a fishing vessel that is, let's say, 25 years old, and over the years they've added equipment on board. They may have modified the structure in some way, and they don't go back to a naval architect to look at the changes and the impact on the vessel. So they're going out to sea not understanding the conditions of their boat and not getting it assessed appropriately. Transport Canada is not telling them to do this because there is no regulation to tell them to have a mandatory stability assessment done on board, and there is very little to help the mariners themselves to be able to understand the information. It's very complex. So making it very simple and adapting it to your type of vessel is something that is needed, plus the training, of course.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Raine: I have a supplementary question. When you say a mandatory stability assessment, what would that entail?
Mr. Poisson: Well, it would be a naval architect looking at the condition of the vessel and looking at the different loading conditions and how this would affect the vessel to be able to impact with the various sea conditions. A naval architect would look at the various liquids coming on board, the various catches that it will be taking, and providing that specific vessel the different conditions that the vessel would have with limits, also, of loading conditions. So some of the vessels are going out there, and they're going above the limits, so their stability is to a limit. When they get into some sea conditions that are too much for the vessel, then they may capsize, which we have seen happen many times.
Senator Poirier: It kind of reminds me of when you have your car and you have to go for a yearly inspection to make sure your car is still functional and can be on the road.
Just on the fishing vessels, I know it has happened in my area, and just this last summer we had a couple. Many times, when an accident happens, it can be weather related, but sometimes it is related to overloading. What often helps them out in times of need is another fisherman sees them in distress and comes along. Do you hear about things like a fishing boat that helped another fishing boat? Does that get back to you? Does it get back to the Coast Guard?
Mr. Poisson: Yes, we do get that information.
Senator Poirier: So you would have all that recorded.
Mr. Poisson: Yes, we'd have all that recorded.
Senator Poirier: And do you go back to see why they were in distress?
Mr. Poisson: Yes, we do that and we analyze it. As Mr. Laporte said, though — and this is one thing I think the committee can probably help us on — the Canadian Coast Guard has, about a year ago, stopped reporting in some cases all of the accidents that are going to them, and they're reporting only by sending us an email or a report, so we have delays that are impacted. Perhaps this committee could tell the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, specifically the Canadian Coast Guard, to maintain the services. I'll define this, because a year ago we had a collision accident which got us concerned that they weren't advising us.
Under our regulations, if a shipping accident happens — and this includes ships foundering, capsizing, if there is a collision, a fire, an explosion on board, if the vessel goes aground, if it sustains damage that affects its seaworthiness or renders it unfit for its purpose or it is missing or abandoned — in these situations, what we want is the Coast Guard to maintain their service and call us rather than to send us a note or an email. In this particular case, this committee could be helpful.
The Chair: Just as a follow-up to what I asked earlier, I live in the small community of Saint Bride's, in Placentia Bay, and, last year, your board carried out an investigation into the death of three crab fishermen there. Part of that report told us that the fishing industry, from 2000 to 2015, in Canada, lost 189 persons, 31 of them from Newfoundland and Labrador.
A quote in the report was, "The number of accidents involving loss of life on fishing vessels remains too high,'' and you touched on vessel stability.
In your opening remarks today, you touched on the fact that the Department of National Defence search and rescue standby times of response vary from a maximum of 30 minutes during work periods to a maximum of 2 hours during quiet hours. However, a total of 60 per cent of search and rescue activities take place during regular work hours.
We all know that, making a living off the ocean, there is no such thing as regular work hours. One of the concerns that has been raised with us is the fact of response times. Has the Transportation Safety Board made any recommendations in regard to the response times and how we deal with, especially, what you call your quiet hours, after four o'clock and on weekends?
Mr. Laporte: We have not made formal recommendation on that, but we have, in some of our investigation reports, made findings about the response times that did contribute, in some ways, to the fatalities or to the severity of the injuries to the workers involved. So no recommendations, but some findings.
Recommendations tend to address systemic issues that have been demonstrated a number of times over a number of incidents. At this point, the board has not gone to the extent of specific recommendations on search and rescue. Most of the time, they are able to respond in a timely manner, but we have had cases where there were delays, and the delays are caused by different reasons. The availability of the crews and the equipment is one factor, but there is also, as we talked about earlier, the availability of emergency beacons on the ships, the proper registration, et cetera.
Up to this point, no recommendations.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Or committee is struggling with how to provide a better service in the North, in the Far North, to our Native population. I'm just asking for your advice, but if fishermen going out on the ice carried the personal locaters, perhaps a more sophisticated type, do you think that would help in some ways? Sometimes they can't be found. This is just advice. I'm not holding you to anything there.
Mr. Poisson: It would not apply to just transportation modes but to individuals as well. It's something that is used more and more.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I didn't want to put you on the spot, but I just wanted your thoughts on that. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Just before we finish up, I will ask the committee members to stay behind for a few minutes to go in camera and discuss our trip next week.
I want to thank our guests this evening. It's been a very educational experience, for sure. I would like to reserve the right, on behalf of the committee, to call you back again, just in case we need to clarify some issues as we go forward with our study. Certainly, it has been a very educational evening for all of us, and thank you for taking the time to be with us this evening.
(The committee continued in camera.)