Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue No. 9 - Evidence - February 7, 2017
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 7, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 6:04 p.m. to study Maritime Search and Rescue activities, including current challenges and opportunities.
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening. My name is Fabian Manning, 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 our members to introduce themselves for the record.
Senator Watt: Charlie Watt from Nunavik.
Senator Raine: Nancy Greene Raine from British Columbia.
Senator Enverga: Tobias Enverga, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Éric Forest, senator from Quebec, from the Gulf region.
[English]
Senator Christmas: Dan Christmas from Nova Scotia.
Senator Sinclair: Murray Sinclair, Manitoba.
Senator Gold: Marc Gold, Quebec.
Senator McInnis: Tom McInnis, Nova Scotia.
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier, New Brunswick.
The Chair: Thank you, committee members.
First of all, I would like to apologize for our tardiness. The Senate sat later than anticipated. I want to thank you for your patience. I know this is the third time off the bat to try to get to hear from you. We didn't want to strike out, so we decided to do our best to get here.
The committee is continuing its studying on issues relating to the federal government's current and evolving policy framework for managing Canada's fisheries and oceans. We'll be hearing from senior officials from the Union of Canadian Transportation Employees which represents non-management personnel of the Canadian Coast Guard regarding its recommendations of reforming the agency.
I will ask our witnesses to introduce themselves and their positions. I understand that Ms. Collins may have some opening remarks for us and then we will get into questions from senators.
Christine Collins, National President, Union of Canadian Transportation Employees: I'm Christine Collins, National President for the Union of Canadian Transportation Employees that represents the majority of the Coast Guard workers.
Michael Teeter, Political Advisor, Union of Canadian Transportation Employees: Michael Teeter, Political Advisor, UCTE.
Ms. Collins: I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about the Coast Guard and our vision for it.
Marine search and rescue is a key function of the Coast Guard, and it will comprise an important part of my presentation today. At the same time, our vision is broader than just search and rescue and a realization that this vision could have a material impact on how and why search and rescue is done.
UCTE is the national union for the non-officer component of the Canadian Coast Guard. We represent ships' crews, search and rescue specialists, staff at the Joint Rescue Coordination Centres, environmental specialists, administrative support workers and lighthouse keepers, among others.
We have 2,366 members at the Coast Guard, 713 of which are deckhand positions, which include the search and rescue specialists. It should be noted that our members are subject to large rescue SAR call-ins even when off-cycle. A SAR specialist would be called for a smaller incident or medical emergency.
I know a question raised by this committee was whether wages for search and rescue specialists were competitive. For the Coast Guard as a whole, we don't believe they are. It's very difficult to attract skilled employees when the pay offered is up to 25 per cent less than what is available from industry, specifically offshore oil and gas work or shipbuilding and other manufacturing or service jobs.
Also, comparative pay studies have failed to take into account the types of roles that our members must assume. Search and rescue or recovery, firefighting, carpentry and welding are all kinds of functions that must be done at sea. Therefore, pay for these functions should be compared to the pay for private sector employees performing the same duties.
The Treasury Board compensation survey results for the SV Operational Services Group states:
The individual job tables for the Deckhand, Boatswain, Engine Room Assistant, and Steward are not included in this appendix as insufficient data was collected to report on any of the compensation elements.
The reality is that all the other groups within the SV group will receive compensation as a result of the comparison to similar jobs within the private sector. Once again, our ships' crews, which includes SAR specialists, will not benefit from the recent pay study results.
While many of our members stay at the Coast Guard because of the importance of the work, we need to consider the difficulty in attracting young people and experienced private sector mariners to these important roles when the pay is not competitive. I do say to you that this needs to be addressed and hopefully fixed.
For many years now UCTE has been advocating for a significant change in the way the Coast Guard is structured and operated. Some of you may have seen our updated position paper called The Canadian Coast Guard: A case for change, which we distributed prior to this meeting. We think it is wrong to structure and operate the Coast Guard as a division of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The Coast Guard needs its own statute and should be structured as a separate statutory service agency similar to the Canada Revenue Agency, Canada Border Services Agency and other organizations.
The Commissioner of the Coast Guard should be a deputy minister-level appointee, reporting directly to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. Furthermore, there should be scope for stakeholder involvement in the governance of the organization, something akin to a board of directors, modelled after the CRA structure.
As a service agency to multiple organizations within the federal, provincial and municipal government, shipping companies, fishers and fishing companies, and many others, a separate statutory agency would help create the framework to remove redundancies, save money and provide a firmer foundation for cost recovery and fee-for-service.
This new structure would benefit search and rescue directly. An important element of the work of the SAR program is management and monitoring. For search and rescue, a separate statutory agency would provide the flexibility that the Coast Guard needs to manage its affairs, as well as make it easier to identify and obtain resources required to respond to incidents or establish protocols for response. With the opening of northern Arctic marine commercial activities, this flexibility becomes even more imperative.
It is important to note that today there are instances where the Coast Guard is not in a position to take action on the seas, where interdiction is required or where derelict vessels need to be dealt with. This is partly because the Coast Guard does not have any police or interdiction authorities to enable it to take action. It is necessary to have a third-party police force presence on the Coast Guard vessel in order to address many maritime problems, and it's not always the case that these individuals and police resources are present on the vessel when these powers are necessary to act.
It is for this reason that we believe it would be appropriate to provide the legal authorities and the training for arming of the Coast Guard. We suggest that the CBSA model may be one to consult. A statute enabling these powers could help achieve the objective.
While UCTE is pleased that the government has committed significant resources to new and updated vessels, we are not convinced they are sufficient. We need more icebreakers, and the commitment for one more icebreaker is not quite enough. The Coast Guard needs 20-year capital plans and capital budgets similar to the Department of National Defence. Seven-year capital plans and budgets are just not long enough, nor do they permit effective capital planning for an important and strategic national institution.
Some of you may have seen the CBC press reports in early September 2016 regarding the internal Coast Guard study by analysts Bill Austin and Carl Hegge. The report pointed out that the average age of Coast Guard vessels is 34 years, and billions of dollars are required to reinvest in Coast Guard assets. Clearly a crisis is emerging and significant near-term action is required.
This week's request for input by the federal government with regard to the delivery of icebreaking services is a direct result of short-sighted provision of a long-term capital budget. If the Coast Guard were to adopt a service agency structure, it could have larger service revenues that could hold the organization in better stead where other federal budgets are squeezed. Some search and rescue activities, as well as other services provided by the Coast Guard, could be billed directly to users. If the rationalization model that goes to the heart of the service agency idea works properly, partner and stakeholder organizations will see fit to support the Coast Guard, even if times are tough.
The Emerson report that reviewed the Canada Transportation Act spoke to the need to restructure the Coast Guard as a service agency. Budget 2016 announced a Treasury Board review of the Coast Guard and the RCMP. A $500-million budget was attached to this, speaking to the need for new capital and resources. These are all good signs, but significant government action also needs to be taken, and soon.
A critical element to search and rescue's is operations. We are appreciative that this government recognized the need to reopen the Kitsilano Coast Guard base in British Columbia, and we were also pleased that the Prime Minister announced the Oceans Protection Plan on November 7. The plan is a bit short on specifics, but the examples given in the announcement appear to be well considered and targeted, particularly the reopening of the Saint John's Marine Rescue Centre, the leasing of two large towing vessels and the opening of six new lifeboat stations.
The plan commits to increased icebreaking responsibilities in the Arctic but makes no commitment to augmented icebreaking capacity. This is a mistake, in our opinion. We need at least two new heavy icebreakers and we need them soon.
The new Oceans Protection Plan did not mention anything about people and wages. We need more skilled and trained Coast Guard workers, and we need higher wages to attract new people to the service. The fact that many Coast Guard workers are affected by the Phoenix payroll disaster is not helping. The Coast Guard is one of the worst groups affected by Phoenix. Coast Guard workers work a variety of hours and shifts. As a result, they have variable monthly wages, which makes them vulnerable to the large, generic payroll systems that cannot handle irregularities. Obviously, we have a probable with people and wages, and we really hope you address these issues in your findings and in your report.
Additionally, some of our Coast Guard members have expressed concerns about Canada's ability to launch a mass rescue operation at sea. We had a cruise ship with 1,700 people sailing the Arctic passage this year. A centre like Halifax alone welcomes 130 cruise ships carrying 200,000 passengers every year. Millions of people travel on ferries on both coasts. Our members are concerned about our ability to respond effectively if a real large-scale emergency arises.
The Coast Guard's search and rescue program's mission is to save and protect lives in the maritime environment. If the government of the day keeps this mission statement in mind, we believe they would ensure that the Coast Guard receives sufficient resources to do the job required.
When we speak about rationalization and the importance of an efficient Coast Guard, we are also thinking of the relationship between the Coast Guard and the auxiliary. Too often there are Coast Guard SAR stations and vessels in close proximity to auxiliary stations and vessels, seemingly competing with one another for SAR duties. This does not make any sense at all. The Coast Guard is the primary maritime search and rescue response element. The auxiliary, a maritime volunteer organization, must remain a complement to the Coast Guard SAR and should assist but never replace professionally trained SAR specialists.
On November 17, 2016, the government published a Request for Information Bulletin in the Government of Canada "Buy and Sell'' to determine the ability of industry to provide interim icebreaking and towing capacity for the Coast Guard. The government is considering whether to lease up to five icebreakers and one to three tow-capable vessels for both coasts. The tow-capable vessels are predominantly required for the West Coast and in event of environmental emergencies that require that capacity.
The icebreaking capacity is required, as the age of the current icebreaking fleet is such that the government is concerned that the older vessels may not be available or sufficient to meet current and future requirements. It is unclear whether leasing might not become a long-term approach to capacity fulfillment. The only new Coast Guard vessels scheduled under the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy are two research vessels and one polar icebreaker.
UCTE recommends that the Coast Guard be a separate statutory agency with a deputy minister-level head reporting to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Such an agency would have stakeholder involvement in governance and the ability to arm trained Coast Guard employees.
UCTE recommends that Coast Guard workers require comparable pay to private-sector workers doing similar work.
We recommend long-term sustainable capital funding similar to the Department of National Defence and sufficient funding to do the work required.
In closing, I would like to quote from a speech I made to the 2011 Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Canadian Coast Guard Labour Relations Symposium:
We are an essential service to all maritime safety and security — a vital component in Canada's transportation system — and a service agency to countless industries, including the fisheries sector. By adopting this vision of ourselves and finding the ways and means to link this vision with government priorities and public needs, we can easily meet the test of priority status, the test of essential service and the test which should result in CCG receiving more government support and not less.
Again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to come here today and to share our vision of the Coast Guard and the important work that our members do. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Collins, for your informative presentation.
I would like to welcome our deputy chair, Senator Hubley, who just joined us. As usual, we will give her the opportunity to ask the first question.
Senator Hubley: Welcome to you both and thank you very much for your presentation. I'm sorry that I missed some of it, but we will carry on with questions.
You mentioned that one of UCTE's concerns is the use of volunteers, the Coast Guard Auxiliary, to perform search and rescue coverage. We know that Coast Guard Auxiliary members respond to about 25 per cent of all maritime SAR assignments each year. UCTE has also stated that these volunteers require only a pleasure craft licence and the ability to lift a 60-pound weight.
We heard from auxiliary members at our hearings in Halifax. Being from Prince Edward Island, I know some. Most are commercial fishers who volunteer their time to assist when needed. They take great pride in their work. The Coast Guard Auxiliary told us that their volunteer crews are highly trained.
Can you expand more on your concerns about the use of Coast Guard Auxiliary, please?
Ms. Collins: Yes. The auxiliary does not have the same requirements that our Coast Guard search and rescue people do. They don't require the same length of training and they don't require the same certification.
You are quite correct that there are commercial vessels that are part of auxiliary. In some areas, the auxiliary is a complement to Coast Guard, but in other areas they are a replacement for our search and rescue specialists, especially when they are in close proximity to one another. The minimum requirement to be part of the auxiliary is a pleasure-craft licence. While there are many vessels that have more, a great number of vessels under the auxiliary are pleasure craft vessels only and not the larger ones.
I will give examples of the training for our search and rescue specialists and the medical requirement to treat injured mariners. For example, under a doctor's guidance, they are sometimes even required to perform surgery, and not necessarily minor surgery. They must take confined space training in the event they are stuck down below the vessels. These are not requirements of members of the auxiliary.
Those are just a couple of examples.
Senator McInnis: Thank you very much for coming.
You wouldn't know this, perhaps, but two or three months ago, the Transportation Safety Board appeared before our committee. They stated that in 1992, they made six recommendations regarding safety on fishing vessels. In June of this year, Transport Canada was here, responding 24 years later with respect to the recommendations for safety. Some of the safety board recommendations were vessel stability, crew training, operating practices, that type of thing.
What happened is that Transport Canada came, and they were very good people who said, "Look, we are putting in a phased-in approach after all these years.''
I mention that because you may not be aware of it, but is this one of the reasons you want a different governance model than currently exists? In your brief, you talked about the Coast Guard being analogous to the Canada Revenue Agency where you would have deputy minister status, the minister in charge. And your commissioner would probably become the deputy. Is that one of the reasons?
When you ask for a different governance model, obviously you are not satisfied and not happy with that. Is that the reason?
Can you talk about the board composition? If you were to go that route, what would you envisage? Would the fishers have an opportunity, the fishing companies and provinces? Would they be part of it?
Also, is that the reason why you are calling on some form of cost recovery, user pay? Could you just touch on that, please?
Mr. Teeter: If you are separate statutory agency, which is what we are recommending, you actually have a statute. There is no statute for the Coast Guard today. There are just generic statutes, the Oceans Act and so on. The Coast Guard does not have any statutory powers.
So in order to rectify a situation that the TSB identifies where the Coast Guard might have responsibility, they would need statutory powers, whether they be inspection or any of the powers vested at Transport Canada that could be vested in the Coast Guard. The recommendation to create a statute is really asking the government to consider what additional powers it thinks the Coast Guard should have and then, in answer to that question, create a statute around it.
I will give you another example: the Oceans Protection Plan that was announced in the fall. To adequately protect the oceans, especially when you allow more tanker traffic, the Coast Guard has lead responsibility for environmental remediation and environmental emergencies in the maritime environment. So if they had inspection powers given to them under a statute, they could be more effective in doing their job.
The other thing about rationalization, when you talk about stakeholders involved in governance similar to the CRA model, is that you enable stakeholders, whether fishers or others, to get involved in governance. Once they are involved in governance, they get a bigger stake in the organization. Once they get a bigger stake in the organization, they start asking questions. Should we have the RCMP responsible for this kind of thing when the Coast Guard is already there? It costs a lot of money to have the RCMP do that, with the Coast Guard being in the same place. Let's rationalize it; let's give the Coast Guard the powers to do that job. We'll save the RCMP money and, in return, we will open the door for cost recovery or at least better involvement of stakeholders in the organization. That's where the ideas come from.
Ms. Collins: I want to respond a bit to the Transportation Safety Board and Transport Canada because we are also the union that represent the majority of the inspectors at Transport Canada and the investigators at the Transportation Safety Board.
We have raised concerns in different forums, and before Parliament, that the Transportation Safety Board is a recommending body only. They have no authority to order corrective measures when they find issues following their investigation into accidents, so Transport Canada often does not implement the full scope of the recommendations from the Transportation Safety Board.
Senator McInnis: Did you get this idea from the Emerson report?
Ms. Collins: We've had this idea and had this position for many years, way before the Emerson report.
Senator McInnis: It's slightly off point, but you mentioned about the running short of vessels and that you need some icebreakers. You are aware that the Coast Guard is looking for a few icebreakers, that they have a made a request for proposals. What do you make of that?
When I read it in the Chronicle Herald, I thought, "Is that the way you go about this stuff?'' They are asking for certain information that I would have thought would already be there. I'm not trying to be overly critical. I'm just trying to understand why this request for information was put out.
Ms. Collins: I believe that they're looking to lease because they don't have enough. That's why they put it out. They have problems with a lot of the older vessels that you may not be totally aware of. They've just had to lay one vessel up. The crew has been transferred to other vessels, but we're short one vessel right now that has been removed from service within the last couple of weeks.
Senator McInnis: Is this an interim measure?
Ms. Collins: I hope it's an interim measure, but if we don't move forward, it may be a replacement. That's part of the concern.
Mr. Teeter: Obviously the asset management function at the Coast Guard is coming late to the table. They have obviously realized that they need a lot more, like three to five leased icebreakers, when you only have five. That's a significant increase. I could ask the question: Where are they going to get them?
Is it more than an interim solution? Under the National Shipbuilding Strategy, they are supposed to be built here. The one polar icebreaker that is going to be built in Vancouver is third in line on the ship sequencing for the shipyard out there. It's going to be 2022, 2023, at least, before that icebreaker actually sees any service. So clearly there is a crisis on the capital side of the program. They are trying to remedy that.
Senator Enverga: Thank you for the presentation.
When we went to Halifax on a fact-finding mission, we heard about the shortage of human resources. We heard that human resources and a lack of training have been issues of concern for several years.
Another thing that we have been hearing about is a lack of qualified personnel who may provide advanced-level first aid in offshore survival and rescue techniques. A lack of personnel was also mentioned by the Marine Communications and Traffic Services Centres. At the same time, there is an expected retirement of 25 per cent of marine personnel, which could lead to a shortage of qualified people to operate CCG vessels.
Which categories of CCG employees represented by your union and working in the field of maritime SAR face critical shortages? There are examples like rescue specialists, marine coordinators, commanding officer of a vessel, specialist SAR operations, radio operators. Can you mention a few that are very critical for us?
Ms. Collins: There is a shortage of seagoing personnel in all categories. They are having trouble recruiting the ships' crews: deckhands, boatswains, even cooks. This is a little more notable in the Atlantic region and specifically Newfoundland because of offshore opportunities and other opportunities.
We have a core group of our members who are loyal to the Coast Guard and the jobs they do and are not looking to leave. But then we have new younger people who don't have the same vision. When they realize that they can go and get an able seaman job in St. John's, Newfoundland, for between $70,000 and $75,000 a year, while they are being paid between $49,000 and $50,500, you can see where the younger people are looking to go. As the crews age — and it's ships' officers and ships' crews, and I think the Coast Guard has recognized this as well and perhaps addressed it with your committee — the younger people are coming in for a short period of time, getting the training and then going to private industry.
There was a job posting for a junior cook on a private vessel that was over $60,000 a year. The cooks on a Coast Guard vessel make $40,000. So the difference in the opportunities for younger people is really blatant.
Many of our Coast Guard members are truly loyal to the Canadian Coast Guard and strongly believe that the jobs they are performing are providing safety and security to the mariners. They are not looking to leave, despite some of them having services cut off, not being able to pay the rent, having the mortgage go in arrears and credit cards maxed out because they haven't been paid properly. To date, they still have not been paid properly.
Yesterday something came out from the Coast Guard concerning Phoenix. Coast Guard operations is launching a measure to expedite the payment for ships' officers and ships' crews for time worked that they simply can't get into the Phoenix system. It said, "See below the message that was sent out to management Friday morning.'' These are going with the fleet time sheets, entering into their system and not going through Phoenix.
We have been facing this problem for our ships' crews for over a year now, and the problem is still not resolved. They are the hardest hit because many of them are on the lay-day factor. They do not work 8 hours a day. They do not work 7.5 hours a day. They do not work five days a week. They work 12 hours a day and are on call for the other 12 hours a day. They work at sea, most of them, 28 days at a time. It can go up to 56 days at a time, depending on where the vessel is going, heading north. Then they come back and their families are stranded in a situation. They are not leaving. The younger ones are leaving, but the majority of our Coast Guard members, through all of this, are remaining loyal to the Coast Guard.
I absolutely have to give a lot of credit to the Commissioner of the Coast Guard and the Deputy Commissioner of the Coast Guard, a direct line to them. When we have unbearable situations, they are addressing it, almost without exception, within 24 to 48 hours. However, that's when the Coast Guard employees are in crisis, by the time they come to me and we go to the commissioner.
So it's not just the wages. This Phoenix mess has significantly impacted anyone who doesn't work regular hours 100 per cent more than it has other government workers.
I get a little emotional on this issue, so I apologize. But we thought we were getting it under control, and then we got the new correspondence as of yesterday.
Senator Enverga: Are there any critical areas? Is it JRCC, MSRC or NCTS centres? Are there any particular places where you think it's very critical to have something like this result?
Ms. Collins: I think the problem is all over, but I think the biggest and largest problem is with the seagoing personnel. The people who are off sailing are the ones facing the bigger problems, pay-wise as well.
Senator Enverga: What role does your union play in recruitment? What you do you tell them? What do you tell the new guys coming in? Being in the union, what do you tell them about it: This is the best place to work? Do you say anything like that?
Ms. Collins: Actually, we do, because we strongly believe in the Coast Guard and the job that they are doing. These are critical, important jobs to the safety and security of the travelling public and mariners specifically. They are playing a very important role in serving Canada. We do say that, and we do encourage individuals that career-wise it is a good, long and stable career, but we are saying it with a lot less enthusiasm and encouragement these days because it's difficult when you see people who are not staying and the problems.
We have asked repeatedly to look at a pay study for ship's crews alone. This is not the first pay study. This is the second pay study. There are no comparators for our ship crew members because you can't compare the work that our members do and a search and rescue specialist does with a mid-size vessel, commercial vessel.
The last pay study, and not even talking about this most recent one, saw the yard hands — good for them — get a decent raise and are now paid higher than a search and rescue specialist. So a yard hand on a Coast Guard base is paid more money than a search and rescue specialist. Something is wrong.
Senator Poirier: Thank you both for being here. It is very interesting. I have a couple of questions. The first is a follow-up to my colleague Senator McInnis.
You mentioned — and from my notes it looks like it was six years or so — that you have been calling for significant changes in the way that CCG is governed, and you're looking at a separate statutory agency. Have you had a chance to discuss this proposition with the minister? If yes, what was the reaction? Is the government open to this suggestion?
Ms. Collins: We have been calling for a separate operating statute much, much longer. We started before the Coast Guard got the special operating agency status, when they were an unrecognized section in, first, Transport Canada and then the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and without having any distinction. We had a large campaign and were asking for separate operating agency status. At the end of the day, the government of the day decided to give them special operating agency status as a group within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
It has been a long time that we have been recommending this is what Coast Guard needs. We have not met face-to-face with the current minister on this issue. We have met with the commissioner numerous times. The last time we met with a minister was when Gail Shea was the minister and was helpful with our lighthouse issues and keeping the lighthouses staffed. As a matter of fact, that issue came before this committee — different faces — on that campaign.
Mr. Teeter: We mentioned that under Budget 2016 there is a Treasury Board integrity review process taking place right now that is wrapping up very soon. So the Coast Guard is under review by Treasury Board. Senior officials have been set up for that purpose.
On the face of it, it looks like more money, because they have announced the $500 million budget for that review. We're hopeful that they are also considering our recommendation and a similar recommendation coming out of the Emerson report.
In the previous administration, we did meet with a number of very senior folks. I think they felt that the biggest problem with the Coast Guard was a capital problem. If you see the history of how capital has been allocated in the last five years, you'll see quite an improvement in the shipbuilding budgets, although it was never enough.
I don't think the previous administration felt that biting off the issue of a separate statutory agency was one they wanted to take on at that time. We're hopeful that this review process taking place may result in — fingers crossed — something in the budget.
Ms. Collins: I want to add that I did meet with the Minister of Transport as part of a group on the Emerson report. At that meeting, I also raised with the Minister of Transport that I believed the Coast Guard needed to have separate operating agency status.
Senator Poirier: In the documents you sent to the committee, it says that:
Currently, the DFO (on behalf of CCG) collects approximately $40 million annually from the private sector for Maritime Service Fees (primarily aids to navigation). To our knowledge, DFO does not return these fees to CCG; DFO uses them for its operations.
Why is CCG not receiving these fees? Is this a common practice?
Mr. Teeter: The Marine Services Fees have been something that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has been collecting for probably 10 years or more.
You have to remember that the Coast Guard and DFO are the same; they are the same department. Some of the services that the Coast Guard gets are actually administered by DFO. It's not what we believe is correct and efficient, but nonetheless, DFO does levy the fees, collects them and uses them for their own operations.
If those fees were part of a separate statutory agency of the Coast Guard, obviously the Coast Guard would levy those fees, and others, and they would collect them and use them for their own operations. Today they are not. They are used by DFO.
Senator Poirier: Has the situation been discussed with the ministers? Has an official request been made to recover the fees?
Ms. Collins: I don't believe so, no.
Senator Poirier: Last week, the committee heard from CHC Helicopter regarding the role the private sector would play in maritime SAR. In your opinion, is there a role for the private sector to play in maritime SAR, whether temporary or permanent?
Ms. Collins: There always has been a role for the private sector to play. All mariners have a role when there is search and rescue or when there is any incident.
You referred to helicopters. Yes, there often are private helicopters doing an air-to-water or an air-to-ground search. They have been instrumental in many instances, but not as a replacement to the search and rescue.
The example I'll use is a young boy who ended up dying on the ice in Labrador a couple of years ago. It was actually a commercial helicopter that had the heat sensor and was able to find him. That helicopter was helping in the search for that boy, who unfortunately did die. But that's an example of how the private sector works with the Coast Guard, because there was also the Coast Guard helicopter.
Senator Poirier: In closing, I want to put on the record that I really feel for the employees and the mess that is going on with Phoenix right now. I know we have heard a lot about it. I can sympathize with the families and how difficult this must be. I sincerely hope that whatever the issues are, they are able to resolve them sooner rather than later.
Ms. Collins: Thank you.
Senator Gold: Welcome and thank you for your presence.
You spoke initially and throughout your presentation about the benefits to the Coast Guard of change in its status. Can you elaborate on that with regard to benefits to your members and — if you'll permit me the question — to you as a union?
Ms. Collins: I will try to respond to that. I think you have heard from us in part.
Directly for the employees of the Coast Guard, they get lost in a larger department. The Coast Guard is one function of Fisheries and Oceans, and they may have the "special operating agency'' status, but we don't believe that's the way it is in reality within the departmental structure. The Coast Guard has its own fund, but they pay a fee for service to the Department of Fisheries Oceans for all the services they receive, which are all the HR services, pay and benefits, computer services, et cetera. So they are treated like any other sector within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
I was so pleased to see that the minister was called the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. They didn't go that next step to have the department name changed, so it's still under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. They are one sector.
When it comes to funding for issues or monies for things, they are vying with all the other groups within DFO. When there are issues — HR issues, for example — it's difficult for us sitting in this room to understand what life is like when you're on board a vessel for 28 days, working 12 hours in close proximity with others. Then you have a problem and you're talking to somebody who doesn't understand how the mayday system works or how the hourly averaging works. There are six different kinds of pay systems within Coast Guard for ships' crews. Just to keep that, you need to narrow it down so that everyone understands what the jobs are and the importance.
Within the larger organization, the role of the Coast Guard gets a little lost in the structure and the bureaucracy, to be plain.
Mr. Teeter: It's quite anomalous, actually, for a coast guard anywhere in the developed world to be a division of a department of government. It doesn't happen that way anywhere.
Over my years working with UCTE, I've found that the Coast Guard is a unique culture. The people who work there are very different. It's not the military, but it's different than any other culture in government. The relationship between the Coast Guard culture versus DFO culture is vast. It's a very different organization.
By recognizing this difference and creating a statute — it doesn't even have its own statute and has no statutory authorities. None. You try to find any reference to the Coast Guard anywhere in any statutes, I don't think there are any. There might be in the Oceans Act, but I'm not sure. I don't think there is. It is anomalous.
Just to recognize the culture, a little thing like arming the Coast Guard, which is virtually the norm in other jurisdictions, in a very modest way is a tremendous reflection. By doing that, you're going to reinforce a culture that gives it more strength, more purpose and so on.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: A question came to mind following your comments. The people you represent at the Coast Guard have a different culture, a bit like islanders, meaning that they have a different status from all the other people you represent who work for Transport Canada or in other areas. So you peacefully coexist with these two cultures. How does that work in your organization?
[English]
Ms. Collins: We are very much member-driven, so we have representatives on the vessels who understand. As part of our national executive, we actually have a regional vice-president from the Quebec region who was a deckhand until they came with us. We also represented the airport sector, so one of our representatives comes from an airport authority. We have a Transport Canada person, et cetera. So we do that.
I have been the national president for 9 years and full time for 18 years. I work very closely with our Coast Guard members, have been on board vessels, et cetera. The way we help best is to listen to their issues and concerns. I believe that the majority of our members would believe they are well represented, with the exception of the problems with Phoenix.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: The situation with Phoenix is really unfortunate. What was supposed to be short-term problem is in fact a structural problem. This is very unfortunate for your members, especially for those who are at sea.
From what I understand, you are seeking greater legislative powers in your actions and better equipment, on vessels or otherwise, in order to fulfill your mission. You have concluded that, to achieve these objectives, you have to change your structure. That cannot be done within Fisheries and Oceans, nor would it be possible for you to be transferred to Transport Canada. You really think that you must modify the structure or create a new one.
[English]
Ms. Collins: Absolutely we believe that. We believe the culture within the Coast Guard is so significantly different — and the fact that they get lost within the department. When everyone is vying for their issue to be dealt with, you sometimes fail to recognize the issues of the Coast Guard as an entity.
The difference in culture goes way beyond the type of work they do. We have a high level of illiteracy within our Coast Guard, which employees of Fisheries and Oceans don't face. At one time, we had what we call the BEST Program. That's kind of gone by the wayside. It was to help our Coast Guard members get better educated. With the generational change, that is shifting somewhat, but I would still suggest that probably 20 per cent of our Coast Guard deckhands, stewards, et cetera, are functionally illiterate. That's an aspect that nobody ever thinks of. They do the job because they are good at their job.
Lost in a bigger entity are all of those seemingly small issues like literacy. People in a 9:00 to 5:00 job who had some problems with Phoenix cannot understand that we are talking about low-paid people who went weeks and months without pay, get an advance and then have 100 per cent of the advance taken back before they ever receive the pay. They're still facing those issues.
I give credit to the commissioner, but we're caught up in a broader problem that shows the bureaucracy of being a group within a department that is within a larger government body, with another entity looking after pay. If they were a separate operating agency with that responsibility, they would be in full control of how they deal with all of these issues, and Canadians would be much better served.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I am in accelerated English training. I would like to know how French training works for your members since the report on the potential closure in Quebec City.
I will not ask the question, but in terms of relative importance at Fisheries and Oceans, from a budget perspective only, what percentage of the departmental budget goes to the Coast Guard?
[English]
Mr. Teeter: I'm only guessing here, but I think it's somewhere between 40 and 50 per cent.
I would just like to make a comment about reporting through a minister. Even if you are a separate statutory agency, you still have to report to Parliament through a minister. We have debated internally at UCTE for many years about whether it should be the Minister of Transport, Public Safety or Fisheries and Oceans.
As an aside, the Coast Guard used to be part of Transport back in the early 1990s, and I believe it left and went to Fisheries.
Our position is that we think it should stay with Fisheries and Oceans, but obviously you would have two deputy ministers, similar to Public Safety where you have a number of deputy ministers reporting through. We think it has been there long enough that there is an understanding of the culture differences. They also have certain functions in common, for example, on the research side of things. It's the Coast Guard vessels that actually have the researchers on them to do the research in the North. There are some shared responsibilities, and we think it makes sense to have Fisheries and Oceans stay there.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: From the beginning, you have talked about compensation in quite dramatic terms: $50,000 in earnings at the Coast Guard as compared to $75,000 in the private sector. When you refer to compensation, do you mean overall compensation or salary only?
[English]
Ms. Collins: The salary is the one that I did the comparator for. They do have some of the same benefits, obviously. The packages are not quite the same when you're talking about leave provisions and pension, et cetera, but many of the private sector firms do offer variations of what the federal government workers do.
But we also argue that when they are at sea, they perform multiple duties like carpentry, electrical, painting, firefighting, et cetera, so there could even be an internal pay study. What we did get very early Saturday morning at the Treasury Board bargaining was an agreement to put a working group together with the Coast Guard to look specifically at the wage inequity for the search and rescue and the deckhands, and that will happen within six months.
It was a proposal that we put forward very late when we didn't get what we were looking for in recognition of the fact that they weren't included in the pay study because there were no comparators, but even the employer recognizes that there is a recruitment and retention problem for sea-going personnel. At the last minute of bargaining, we've got a signed MOU that we will go forward with. How will that work out when the majority of the workers who work in the Coast Guard on vessels — the deckhands and the search and rescue specialists — only work in two departments? That is only in the Coast Guard and there is a smaller group in National Defence. They don't work in any other government department and there are none of those classifications in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Senator Forest: Thank you.
Senator Sinclair: I want to ask for a little clarification. When you were talking about the Phoenix problem earlier, you thought it could be more easily addressed if the Coast Guard had been a special operating agency. Did you mean a special statutory agency when you said that? I just wanted to see if you misspoke.
Ms. Collins: Yes, special statutory agency.
Senator Sinclair: I wanted to ask you a couple of questions that came out of what you said, and feel free to go as far as you dare.
In your presentation, and we have seen this in other materials that we've been given, you raised issues with regard to the difficulties the Coast Guard faces, particularly in the area of search and rescue functions. Many recommendations have been made over the years to make improvements and changes. Some of them have been undertaken but most seem not to have been undertaken. Do you have a view as to why there is such difficulty to make changes to improve the Coast Guard?
Ms. Collins: It is my belief that, in part, it is one entity vying for approvals and funding to do certain things where there are other groups vying for the same monies.
The commissioner of the Coast Guard is part of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' executive management team, but they are only one member of that team. We have long argued that, even as a special operating agency status, which was achieved many years ago, they should have recognition of some kind of entity, but they don't. I mean, what we are seeing today, we've actually seen worse at different times. We saw, when fuel costs were up, that vessels were laid up because they didn't have the money assigned to them to actually pay for the fuel. So we saw some early closures of certain entities, winter closures; we saw cuts where we didn't believe there should be cuts. Currently, it's slow.
Purchase of vessels or retrofits of vessels are quite expensive, so when you are vying with others for that pot of money — which is basically what you do; it's a little bit of shuffle back and forth — it's not always there. And when you are trying to cuts costs, which we've seen with all federal government departments, or quite a few of them, the money or the approvals are not there. That's my take.
Senator Sinclair: Thank you.
You've talked in much of your presentation about the problems you've seen and the changes that haven't occurred that need to be addressed. Would you talk for a moment about some of the improvements you have seen and some of the good things that you see happening that should be encouraged as well?
Ms. Collins: I will say that we work extremely well with the Coast Guard, often in a collaborative manner, and over the years we've seen that increase.
I think the new entity that's coming into the Coast Guard and the new positions are very positive. I think that fact that the employer recognizes there are problems with attracting and keeping employees is a big shift in the way that Coast Guard looks at things.
Maybe I'm stepping beyond what I should say, but I believe that there is currently a good working relationship between the Commissioner of the Coast Guard and the Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, which helps.
I believe the commissioner understands part of the problem. She has actually gone out and talked to people. The fact that you have the commissioner and the deputy commissioner take a personal interest in the problems with Phoenix speaks a lot to their integrity, and I think that's huge. It's huge for the their employees — our members — and it's huge for the working relationship, but it doesn't solve the bigger problem that the Commissioner of the Coast Guard is not the final decision maker for the running of the Canadian Coast Guard. That is a big problem when you have somebody who is the ultimate decision maker and others around the table, when you are one entity of a management team and you have others, then you have others speaking for decisions that affect only the Coast Guard and the uniqueness of the Coast Guard.
In other aspects, in many of the fisheries, there is some uniqueness to them as well, but in large part they can be compared to other federal government departments. For the Coast Guard, the closest you could ever come to comparing them is to the group of the Coast Guard or the navy within National Defence. What is missing is that responsibility to be the leader of the Canadian Coast Guard.
I'm not sure I answered your question.
Senator Sinclair: I think you did a good job.
Mr. Teeter: Where I've seen improvements is on the capital side. It was not that long ago, less than five years, that the Coast Guard would have only three-year capital plans. Can you imagine, with 110-odd vessels, they only had three-year capital plans?
Discipline has been injected into the asset management planning that I think has improved a great deal at the Coast Guard in the last little while. The fact that more money is being allocated to vessels and retrofits and improvements is another good sign.
The fact that the Coast Guard was brought into NSPS, the shipbuilding strategy, has been a positive thing because it has injected the kind of discipline and rigour that the navy has with its capital programs: 25-year funding and a lot of planning that goes into it.
I would say on the capital side there have been some improvements in the last few years.
Ms. Collins: I just want to add the lighthouse keepers. Not once but twice in my time, in our history, was there a move to automate all the lights, and there was a failure to recognize that a beam of light cannot save a life. It was the last round of cuts five, six or seven years ago. It was specifically to save money: "Let's get rid of all the staffed lighthouses.'' That's not even on the table today. That's a big improvement, because more than once we've seen that when we need money or when we are in a situation, let's turn off the people that maintain the lights. We're not hearing or seeing any talk about that currently.
Senator Raine: I want to remind you that we did a study on that, and that is why, I think, you are not hearing it anymore. This committee can really take credit for stopping that move, because we recognized the value of the lighthouse keepers.
Ms. Collins: Absolutely. We were so happy when it happened. We actually met with Minister Shea at the time and requested help. Her way of helping was to come to this committee, and we were more than thrilled with the results when we appeared before the committee at that time and with the end results that are still there today.
Senator Christmas: I think it's a given that the Coast Guard plays an outstanding service to Canadians. It's important to say that.
I noticed in your comments that you referred to the Coast Guard as an essential service. My understanding is that the prime essential service the Coast Guard provides is search and rescue. Maybe that's not totally correct, but that's how I perceive it.
The difficulty I'm having is trying to understand, in light of that, why you think arming the Coast Guard is something that should be considered?
Ms. Collins: I'm going to ask Mike to answer part of that, but I want to start.
Search and rescue, while it's a principal function of the Coast Guard, it's not the only function. Safety and security is another.
We have crew members who run police vessels, who work with the RCMP on vessels, and with the Ontario Provincial Police, for example. There is a security function in some of the patrols that the Coast Guard does. The icebreaking is critical. Maintaining the buoys doesn't sound like very much, but it really enhances the safety of boats coming in.
A number of important jobs that the Coast Guard does are not primarily search and rescue, such as environmental response and often taking the lead in cleaning up spills on the water, et cetera. There is a vast scope of Coast Guard responsibilities.
I believe we provided you with our policy paper on arming, and Mike will talk specifically about arming.
Mr. Teeter: To make a point, there are so many things the Coast Guard is responsible for. Environmental protection these days is very important function and increasingly so. There is also the issue of Arctic sovereignty, and icebreaking is critical to so many northern communities.
There is a tendency to overplay the arming issue and make it sound like a big deal. The real issue is that when the Coast Guard is in a security role, they don't have the police powers with them. If you don't have a policeman on the vessel, you can't do anything. You just sit there and watch as people break the law because you have no power.
The issue about arming is simply one of being efficient. Let's rationalize. Why do we have to call in the RCMP and have them do something, or the navy has to get involved? To me, it is just logical to have that capability in the Coast Guard.
As I said, we get caught up in it because it seems like such a big deal to arm an organization. I know the CBSA went through this to some extent, but in the grand scheme of things, it really is quite consistent with what coast guards do around the world. They have the power to take action on the seas and we don't. We are just saying let's get with the modern age.
Ms. Collins: Poaching by foreign vessels off the east coast of Newfoundland or Labrador is a specific example. The Coast Guard can be there and put a stop to it, but they can't enforce any law when they come into Canadian waters. They have to call others to come and actually enforce the law.
What they can do is try to stop them from actually crossing into Canadian waters. In talking to the fishers on the East Coast, especially with what is happening with lobster and salmon currently, these foreign vessels break the law by coming from international waters into Canadian waters, scooping with the new, modern nets they have that can go along and then pull back, while the Coast Guard vessel sits there monitoring them but has to call another agency to come and actually make an arrest.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much. This has been very interesting. I'm really glad we have you at the committee today.
I have been following the situation on the West Coast with regard to the Coast Guard and the lighthouses and of course the Marine Communications and Traffic Service Centre in Comox that was closed last May. I have had numerous reports sent to me of very serious holes in our safety system out there. I'm wondering what role the UCTE is playing in trying to get that rectified, because it was not just a communications system; it was also a lighthouse. From their windows, they could see the hazardous rocks which are now apparently in a dead zone from mayday radio reception in Victoria. Could you update us on what is happening there?
Ms. Collins: I can try. We are not the lead for the radio operators; they are another union.
We certainly have been supportive. When we sit at the union-management consultation with the Coast Guard and the commissioner, we support them 200 per cent. We've done some joint work together, but we cannot speak for radio operators because they are not our members.
But they are in a bad situation as well with the cuts. With the modern age, the Coast Guard believes that they can do a wider scope and not have the number of radio operation centres that they have. The dispute is between the two of them.
Senator Raine: But you do represent lightkeepers. My understanding is that the communications centre in Comox actually served as a light station.
Ms. Collins: Not to my knowledge. There is a light there, and we have two members that are there and they remain there. I know that last season one of them was a student, but I'm not sure of the link with the radio operators and the actual light.
Senator Raine: If the Coast Guard was its own operating agency, how would it relate to those radio operators?
Ms. Collins: They would be part of the Coast Guard and part of the separate statutory operating agency. They would remain part of the Coast Guard. They have always been Coast Guard. They were originally with Transport when the Coast Guard was with Transport, and they transferred over as part of the Coast Guard entity when the Coast Guard transferred to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Senator Raine: I'm surprised to find that there are different unions inside the Coast Guard with their own turf. Are there other unions as well?
Ms. Collins: There are the Ships' Officers, the guild; IBEW and one other. There is the guild, IBEW, us and UNIFOR, which represents the radio operators.
We are by far the largest. I explained earlier the number of groups we represent. The Ships' Officers would be represented by the guild; the engineers would be represented by PIPS or IBEW. IBEW were there for some of the new electronics, et cetera, onboard vessels; and us.
Senator Raine: To get it clear, with regard to SAR, in terms of the services that are provided by unions to their members, it's not unified?
Ms. Collins: Well, we all believe we provide the best service to our members to meet the needs of our members. Certainly all the unions work collaboratively together when addressing the Coast Guard and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We always have a meeting beforehand so that we are all on the same page before we walk in to discuss an issue. We all bargain through collective bargaining based on what our members give us as the priorities.
Pretty much all departments and all entities have different unions.
Senator Raine: I respect that. Thank you very much.
Senator Watt: Thank you for your excellent presentation. It doesn't really put me in a position of feeling secure, knowing where I come from. We do have very strong neighbours who might be considered a far distance away when you look at it from the South, but when you look at from the North, they are only in our backyard. This is an area that I'm going to cover because of information that you have brought to my attention, namely that there is a problem in regard to the governance. I understood you clearly on that. Hopefully, you will succeed on the point that you are trying to arrive at.
It is well-known that our fleets are not enough. When you take a look at the Arctic, if we don't have the sufficient infrastructure and equipment in place, somebody else will move in and take the responsibility. I say that because when you look at the question of Arctic sovereignty, I've been dealing with that issue over the last seven years, looking at the legal side, the continental shelf and the possibilities. I have been doing some studying regarding the rights I have to take it into consideration, knowing that development is coming.
I'm looking at the domestic aspects of it, as well as the international aspects. What worries me is hearing you state that our government or our country is not really in a good place to be able to say that we have this and we have that and, therefore, we can do things on our own. We have to start realizing that we would have to go outside of our jurisdiction to get help if there is a disaster — even before a disaster.
As you mentioned, the Arctic has to be policed somehow. If we have fleets that are not equipped to deal with that, they will see that the other side is equipped. Are they going to run in the opposite direction? That comes to mind at times, knowing that we are not able to say that we are in a safe position to exercise our sovereignty.
I'm saying that because the American side is talking about territorial waters. They also are talking about it not being within Canadian waters. Canadians are now trying to emphasize that these are internal waters and, therefore, under Canadian jurisdiction.
When those matters start surfacing, which will happen in due time — probably when the economy gets a little better internationally — it will have a great deal of impact on the Inuit living in the Arctic. On the one hand we are not really directly participating, as much as we have tried to emphasize that we have to be there and have to directly participate. But that's not really what is happening at the moment. I guess you are alarming us in a nice way, basically covering the issue of the lack of trained people, the lack of equipment, things of that nature, and the restructuring you are talking about.
Mr. Chairman, all I can say on this issue is that this will probably become an ongoing issue. At some point down the road, we will have to put together a package of recommendations regarding what we consider is doable.
I don't have a real question other than to say that I support your endeavour in terms of what you're trying to get.
The Chair: Would you like to comment, Ms. Collins?
Ms. Collins: I agree with what you're saying. We have just faced the lay-offs and closure of the Port of Churchill, which is the gateway to the North.
We had proposed, when we were meeting with the government and the Department of Transport, the deputy minister, that the Coast Guard could have a role in the Port of Churchill. We requested that it be returned to the port authority. It would be devastating to the community of Churchill, which is a fairly small community, but everybody has forgotten that it is the water gateway to the North, so it has huge impact on what is happening with the North.
We did propose how we saw the Coast Guard playing a role in the North, specifically in Churchill, and in Hay River as well.
Senator Watt: I'm quite familiar with that area because I've been in Churchill, Manitoba. It was not only one visit; I lived there once and I know the gateway aspects of it.
At the same time, we also have to think about having the instrument that we need to provide services to the people, and they have to somehow get closer to the Arctic because they're so far away. By the time that they get to the point where they are trying to rescue a person, maybe that person is already dead. It has happened a number of times. So as much as I hear what you are saying about Churchill, Manitoba, there are some other areas in the High North that also have to be looked at.
The Chair: On behalf of committee members, I want to thank our witnesses for a very informed discussion and great interaction with senators. We look forward to taking some of the concerns you have raised, and some of the suggestions you have made to us, as we continue on with our study.
I thank you for your positive and courteous comments on our lighthouse study and hopefully when we present this report we'll get some comments of a similar nature from you, too.
(The committee adjourned.)