Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue No. 11 - Evidence - March 8, 2017 (afternoon)
ST. JOHN'S, Newfoundland, Wednesday, March 8, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 1:25 p.m. to study Maritime Search and Rescue activities, including current challenges and opportunities.
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to our afternoon session here in St. John's. My name is Fabien Manning. I'm a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador and Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I'm joined by several colleagues, and I will ask them to introduce themselves, starting on my immediate right.
Senator Doyle: Norm Doyle, senator for Newfoundland.
Senator Hubley: Elizabeth Hubley, senator for P.E.I.
Senator Christmas: Dan Christmas, senator for Nova Scotia.
Senator McInnis: Don McInnis, senator for Nova Scotia.
The Chair: We are conducting a study into search and rescue in Canada and the challenges they face. We've heard from witnesses across the country and have spent the last couple of days in Goose Bay and Gander. We've heard some great testimony this morning and we're looking forward to hearing from our guests this afternoon.
Before we get into opening remarks, please introduce yourselves.
Ernest Simms, Town of St. Anthony (Newfoundland and Labrador): My name is Ernest Simms. I'm Mayor of the Town of St. Anthony. We're located on the northern coast of the island portion of the province, and I'm here speaking on behalf of the town.
Johanna Ryan Guy, as an individual: I'm Johanna Ryan Guy. I was born here in Newfoundland on a little island called St. Brendan's out in Bonavista Bay. I'm the youngest of seven children. I am the sister of both Dave and Joe Ryan who lost their lives when the Ryan's Commander sank back in 2004, and I've been at hearings and speaking pretty much ever since.
Danny Breen, as an individual: My name is Danny Breen and I'm a city councillor in the City of St. John's, although today I'm here as a private citizen to speak to the committee. But as a city councillor, first of all I must welcome you to St. John's. I hope you enjoy your stay here and don't worry about the weather. It's nice out now, but it'll change before you get outside. I'm looking forward to the afternoon.
The Chair: Thank you to our guests. I understand that we have opening remarks from all three. We will start with Mayor Simms.
Mr. Simms: I would like to thank all of you for the opportunity and the invitation to be here this afternoon. I was sort of surprised. I've never been involved in one of these things before, but I was never involved in the actual action that took Coast Guard operations out of St. Anthony either when I received an invitation from a minister at the time to be part of federal budget consultations. It seemed to me, "Why was St. Anthony included in this?'' It didn't make sense to me, but afterwards, I knew why, and we lost MCTS in St. Anthony.
I would like to thank you for the invitation and also to clarify my role here. I'm the mayor of the town. I've never worked for the federal government or any agency of it. I was born in St. Anthony. I spent my career as a teacher, French as a second language. I'm not bilingual right now; I haven't spoken it for 16 years, but I can still get along when need be.
I spent most of my life in northern Newfoundland and Labrador. I taught in several communities on the Labrador coast as well.
I don't profess to be a professional in any capacity with respect to items related to the Canadian Coast Guard, but I do know some things about it. I have a fair knowledge of working operations in my town and in that area because the people that worked there were all people that I knew. They weren't all people from the town, but they were people that I knew.
Depending on the Coast Guard has always been uppermost in my mind, and all others who live in a rural environment surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean depend on everything the Coast Guard does. Our location and our responsibilities have always been looked upon as second to none for the purpose of Coast Guard operations.
St. Anthony is on the doorstep of what we call Iceberg Alley. The coast down through Labrador coming across the Northern Peninsula, we're at the very intersection there where the Strait of Belle Isle is located and the most adjacent to fishing area 6, where we've heard some rumours of problems lately, where nearly all the fishing vessels, both large and small, have pursued a livelihood for many, many years.
We have had Coast Guard operations centred in St. Anthony for decades and with good reason. There is no place in the world that has the opportunity to take care of the north, the west and east as St. Anthony does. We're at the intersection of everything there, international, provincial and national.
I am also Chair of the St. Anthony Harbour Authority. The position has given me a fair understanding of the needs of all marine-related activities in our area, St. Anthony being one of only two international container ports in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have expanded operations, and right now we're the centre for all European-going traffic.
Eimskip, the east coast organization based out of Iceland, has signed a 20-year agreement with St. Anthony Basin Resources Inc., which is a local company that basically works with shrimp and the offloading. They have a shrimp quota of 3,000 metric tonnes, and all of that is worked on through St. Anthony. The international container ships come into St. Anthony from Portsmouth, Maine, from Halifax to Argentia to St. Anthony and then on to Europe. They drop in there once every two to three weeks.
The operations, like I say, are expanded, and all of the fishing activity occurs on our coast, on the Northern Peninsula, both sides, east and west, along with the operations that exist in Labrador. All of the plants in Labrador, all of their product, once it's processed, is stored at the cold storage facility in St. Anthony. Everything is brought there.
These operations are scheduled to increase — well, there have been some questions in regards to shrimp and crab in the past number of weeks, so we're still working on that, but we're looking at other species. And we're looking at improving and increasing the capacity of St. Anthony for larger vessels. Eimskip has just purchased two large vessels to come to St. Anthony, and we have to do some work in our harbour to accommodate that. So we're moving ahead. We're not a community that's sitting by and waiting for something to happen. We're going out there and doing things.
During the snow crab season, during the northern shrimp fishery and cod fishery, there are approximately 250 fishing vessels from 34'11'' upwards that use St. Anthony harbour. They use the port regularly. Seismic vessels, vessels that are carrying salt for transportation networks throughout the island, and barges on route to and from Labrador to Voisey's Bay and everything else, all use St. Anthony as a port. In the past, all of these vessels used the MCTS Centre.
All vessels entering the Strait of Belle Isle used the MCTS Centre. All locals depended on the centre for weather and much other information, such as ice charts, notices to mariners and everything else. It was all operated from there. In fact, at times, St. Anthony was so busy they had to hand some of the information and work off to St. John's. St. John's and St. Anthony are the two most important stations in this province. Either one of them "is'' indispensable, not "was.'' That is gone now.
We're not located in the Caribbean Sea. We don't have the luxury of warm ocean currents and everything else, and the last couple of days proved that. We've had ships that had to be brought in to our harbour by the Coast Guard, and other mariners as well have had to use Cormorant helicopters to get off boats. Along with that, we've had medevacs from our town taken out by Cormorant helicopters through search and rescue, and those things have to happen. But there was no contact in St. Anthony this time and it left us wondering what we are going to do. We can't talk to anybody about this.
As the mayor of the town, we do all of the roads, snow clearing and everything else in our town. We had to actually go out and clear roads to an area where the helicopter could land because we had put all of our crews on emergency response only. The weather was that bad.
Now the Coast Guard couldn't get in there. We could have told them that, but we had no way of telling them other than we had a phone call telling our wharf manager that the Coast Guard was coming in. Find out who was clearing the roads. Could they get the roads cleared to an area known as Fishing Point where the lighthouse used to be and get out there — it was half a kilometre away — and clear eight- to ten-foot banks so that a helicopter could get in there? So he had to get the message and we had to get the message and that message had to be relayed to our operators, get them back into stations, direct them where to go, send them out there and clear the snow. We did it all during the storm. But the Cormorant could not get in, and they would have known that if they had radio operations in St. Anthony. Would have known, but didn't.
We're in the North Atlantic. It is a rough area when it comes to weather; doesn't matter the season. We get very vicious storms, especially in the last number of years. The area has six different forecasts for marine weather, from one side of the Northern Peninsula to the other, because the Gulf of St. Lawrence from the Strait of Belle Isle is a totally different set of weather conditions. You can have an area up there where you can't drive on the road it's so windy, whereas on the east side of the peninsula, you have a beautiful summer day. These weather systems change like you wouldn't believe. Vessels travelling in this area need every bit of help and information they can get, as well as local contact.
I could go on and on. I have prepared notes. The notes that you have are copies of what happened from the time we received notification that the centre was being closed up until this past number of months. I also have a few things that are not in those notes that have happened in the past little while.
What you see there is the culmination of all the things that occurred as I was mayor at the time and received my first call from the Assistant Commissioner for the Coast Guard, John Butler, when he told me that as far as he knew, our operations, radio operations, were being shut down. St. Anthony was being closed. And the CCGS Harp, which is a small search and rescue vessel and service vessel, was being taken out of service and moved. There was another boat coming in, but it was going to be put somewhere else; nothing in St. Anthony. I mean, it was devastating news to all of us. This was always there.
St. Anthony has been and it was at the time part of the Pinetree Line of radar operations maintained by the U.S. Air Force during the Cold War, after World War II. That was built there. We have a site — not an historic site — there now and a trail to the area depicting what had happened and why it happened.
Along with that, a couple of years ago, we lost another service that we had had for a number of years, and that was air ambulance medevac service for the province. That was taken and moved to Goose Bay as well, which is where the MCTS operations moved.
I have nothing against Goose Bay, but I like the idea that if I'm going somewhere, I'm going to get the best service I can, and I can't believe you can get that out of Goose Bay. We're on the coast. We're on the exact intersection points of north, east and west, like I said, and Goose Bay is 300 kilometres inland. I don't think you can give the same Coast Guard service in that area.
All the letters that are there are letters we sent. There was one that we did get a response to, but I could not find the response. That was from Minister Keith Ashfield at the time. We did get a response, but the response was that they were looking at operations that were going to be improved and upgraded and, as a result, they were shutting down so many sites. The fact of it was that the federal government had cut the federal budget by 8.3 percent in DFO operations, and some stations had to go to save money. Well, there was no money saved. I know that — nothing.
If you follow through with St. Anthony and where we've been, all of the operations that we had, we started with the U.S. Air Force. Now before that, we did have some operations in St. Anthony, radio operations. Anybody who has ever visited there knows that years ago Dr. Grenfell set up a missionary service there as a doctor. Operations there are named after him and our colleges are named after him. He had services set up as well. In fact, he got radios from World War II pilots who flew and he got them from the Province of Quebec and installed them in the nursing stations along the Labrador coast and northern Newfoundland. He actually purchased small aircraft and connected that area by that operation so that they could fly in and work with patients and pick up patients on the Labrador coast back in the 1920s and 1930s, which were rough times in Newfoundland.
After that, we had the Americans. Then we had Marconi Limited. Canadian Marconi had an operation in St. Anthony as well, and they provided telecommunications expertise and services from that area.
Then we had the Coast Guard. Everything with the Coast Guard was operated out of St. Anthony, along with Comfort Cove, Twillingate, Conche, New Ferolle and other places along both sides of the coast.
We recently — and I say "recently'' because it hasn't been all that long — had a new Coast Guard building constructed in St. Anthony. Everything in it was up to date — new equipment, new building, everything that you needed for full-fledged Coast Guard radio operations in St. Anthony. It was done. And that is still there. Nothing is being done with it, but we're leaving that.
Now apparently there's a new building being constructed in Goose Bay. They're operating now out of one of those Atco trailers, I think. So you can imagine the change.
All the workers that were in St. Anthony and most of them have retired. A couple have gone other ways. None of them have gone to Goose Bay, so they don't have the local knowledge and contacts that came from that area. I don't think anybody that's working in Goose Bay knows the local area and around our part of the province, and I don't think they've been taught.
Not only that, but most of our part of the province, believe it or not, has French names. We were part of the French Shore, the first and second one. We have a lot of French people in the area who are still along the coast, all of the fishermen's knowledgeable points like Tarquet and Crémaillère. All of those are there and they use them every day. I mean, along with their dialect and the pronunciation of some of the French ones, you're going to have some fun on the radio, I'll guarantee you that. It's one of those things. So there's knowledge that needs to be gained and understood.
I could go on, but I don't want to bury you in this. In my notes, what you have there, are the letters we sent and the information we received, plus the second round of letters we sent after we learned what Minister Penashue said at the time, after he came in.
I'll say this publicly: He screwed us. He came in for the sole purpose of looking at the operations in St. Anthony and seeing what he was going to move out of there. I guarantee you that, because he had no other reason to be in St. Anthony other than that, to take it out, and that's what he did. And when he said, "I took it out of St. Anthony so I could save five jobs in Happy Valley-Goose Bay,'' that's exactly what he did. He wasn't thinking people at all. He was thinking, "Five jobs in Goose Bay; that's a good many votes when I do it publicly.'' That's what happened.
We tried to get information. We tried to get responses. We tried everything, and all we got was Minister Penashue coming in. We took him and wined him and dined him. The only thing he wanted to do, he asked us for a list of things we were concerned about in regards to the federal budget. We listed them. We got five minutes to talk about them. He wanted to do a viewing of the Coast Guard operations in St. Anthony. It was new to us. We didn't know why he would want to do that, but he went there. We took him there, gave him coffee; we did it all. And then we found out afterwards this is what happened. His assistant at the time, his special adviser, I called her and she would not speak to me. She couldn't. She was so hung up about what had happened that she couldn't talk to me.
I've spoken to people in the Coast Guard. I spoke to John Butler. He didn't tell me the truth. He did not tell me the truth. In fact, he didn't call me back when he was supposed to.
I spoke to Anne Miller. I asked her about the report that had been changed, and I was told there was a report being done and St. Anthony was not recommended. Happy Valley-Goose Bay was recommended to be the site that was being saved in the report. That's what I got from Assistant Commissioner Butler.
When I spoke to Anne Miller at the closing in 2015, she said, "What report?'' I said, "The report that was done. I'd like a copy of it. I want to see what the rationale was for it''. She said, "I don't know of any report,'' and she's the head, I believe, of east coast operations. She came in to see the end. There was no report.
I kept asking. I received no information whatsoever, and then I found out that we lost the Coast Guard because of some political decision. You can imagine the way I felt.
It was a very difficult time for me and for the residents of the town. We lost operations. We lost people who were citizens of our town, who were Newfoundlanders having a rough time with age, aged citizens, and rural communities dying and everything else. And a lot of the people that are coming out of our town because of that are people that have families and everything else, and we lost them. Each of the operations we have lost in the past number of years, every one of them has taken 10 to 12 to 20 professional people, who lived in our community, and posted them and put them somewhere else. It was very difficult.
I'll stop there. If there's anything you need, I'll certainly answer it for you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Simms. We'll have some questions later. Thank you for your presentation. I understand the passion of your words. We look forward to engaging with you later on that.
Mr. Breen?
Mr. Breen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I'd like to thank you for your time spent to hear the views of many individuals, groups and organizations over the past few days. I consider this to be one of the most important issues facing the province right now. Even though we're going through some tough financial times and people think that that may be the number one issue here, I think search and rescue and protection of our workers offshore and all those industries has been a very important issue for many years and one that has not been sufficiently addressed.
My views on search and rescue are impacted by my own personal experience as well as the conversations I have had with many workers who work offshore in various industries. From a personal perspective, this coming Sunday, March 12, will mark the eighth anniversary of the crash of Cougar Flight 491. Our family and our whole province were profoundly impacted by the loss of that day. My brother Peter was one of the 17 victims of the crash of which there was one sole survivor. I think in this province, after going through the Ocean Ranger and the many fishery disasters over the years and shipping incidents, we all knew the dangers of working offshore, whatever industry it be in. But we couldn't be prepared for the immense tragedy and loss that we all felt that day.
I also have the privilege to serve as a city councillor for Ward 1, the east end of St. John's. Many of my constituents work in the oil sector. In my many discussions with these workers and their families, their overriding concern for safety in working in the offshore is very apparent. Families have concerns today about their loved ones going off to work in those conditions, and although there have been measures taken in the past, those concerns are still there.
When you look at it, those aboard the helicopter that day were merely doing what is done routinely every day across our province and country by others. They were going to work to provide for themselves and their families, albeit in different and more dangerous conditions. Historically in our province, many people work in offshore industries, whether it is oil, fishing or shipping. Through the efforts of these workers, these industries provide many financial benefits to our province and to our country. It seems reasonable an expectation that in an emergency life-threatening situation, help be available for those people as soon as possible.
Now I'm not going to claim to be an expert in search and rescue and I'm not going to be able to offer any technical advice. I also don't feel I need to reiterate the issues that have been discussed in detail for the past 30 years, dating back in my memory to the inquiry into the Ocean Ranger disaster. But what I can tell you is that there is a serious deficiency in search and rescue protection in our province today. It's my opinion that we're under-resourced, given the exceptional and continued growth in our offshore oil industry and the continued development of our fishing industry. And if you look at the offshore oil industry, as we grow, we will be going farther offshore and we'll be going into deeper water, and the challenges and the dangers will be increasing as we do that. Therefore, it's imperative that the people working in those industries are given the protection that they deserve.
The case for improved search and rescue capabilities is well documented through the many inquiries, studies and commissions over the years. What we need to do is see that the main recommendations that have been discussed over these years be implemented.
From my perspective, there are two. First and foremost, there is a need for a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week, common response time. It is imperative that consistent response times be in place regardless of the time of day. We have an industry that doesn't go out at nine in the morning and come back at five in the evening. You have people that are out there overnight in the fishing industry on three or four day trips; in the oil industry, travelling out for three-week shifts. Incidents can happen at 3 o'clock in the afternoon as easily as they can happen at 3 o'clock in the morning, and you have to have the help there for them when they need it.
Secondly, there is a need for an additional fully equipped search and rescue unit based in St. John's. That's not to say that you take the one from Gander and move it to St. John's. That's always been kind of a political ploy to argue against implementing that second unit. What it means is there needs to be an expansion and have that in St. John's where it can be accessible easily when needed.
In my opinion, these initiatives would provide a level of protection to our workers that is necessary, deserved and long overdue. There have been many improvements, such as the recent announcement of the reopening of the marine rescue centre and we are grateful for that, that we're enhancing coverage. But we can't take our eye off the real issue, and the real issue is that when something happens and you're out in the North Atlantic in those conditions, in a survival suit in the water, you want to make sure somebody's coming to get you as quick as they can. And the only way that can be done is to have a common response time and to have a unit that's accessible to get there.
I won't take very long today because I really don't think I need to repeat everything that has been said over the years about search and rescue. These issues have been there a long time and they remain. I was intentionally brief today because I believe these issues are obvious and these issues need to be addressed immediately before we need another inquiry to make the same recommendations.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Breen.
Ms. Ryan Guy.
Ms. Ryan Guy: First of all, I want to thank you guys for doing this to begin with and to be addressing the concerns that we, as families, have to the current search and rescue protocols. It really is a pleasure to get the opportunity to bend your ear a little bit. I'll say it again: Forgive me if I get into baymen language instead of your French, right. Us baymen tend to speak "Newfoundlandish'' instead.
Having said that, the purpose for me being here is because on September 19, 2004, at exactly 6:45 p.m., Ryan's Commander sent out a mayday call. Unfortunately that mayday call occurred outside of the 30-minutes wheels-up response times. Would it have made a difference that night? In our opinion, yes, definitely. It could easily have meant that I would not have lost my two brothers — Dave who was 46 and Joe Jr. who was 42. That their wives, two sisters in fact, would not have lost their husbands and four kids would not have had to live a life without their fathers. My parents died believing that at least one of their sons would have been saved. My life, too, has changed in a profound way for I have dedicated myself to telling their story again and again in the hopes that someone will listen and that lives can be saved.
In any rescue at sea, time is obviously of the utmost importance, especially in Newfoundland and Labrador with its treacherous coastlines. I understand you guys flew over a few of those in the last few days.
There was so much that went wrong that particular night that I actually wrote a book. Call it the diary of a mad woman, I'm not quite sure, but it needed to be told. Ryan's Commander is a story of tragedy and perseverance. It became a bestseller. It's now out of print, but it lives on as an e-book. They say that a picture is worth a thousand words, so I ask you guys to bear with me because I want you to picture this.
Ryan's Commander was a 64 foot 11, $1.8 million vessel that didn't last its first fishing season. September 19, 2004, the boys' — as I call them — boat was offloading shrimp in Bay de Verde. The forecast called for northeast gales, 35 to 45 knots, for the overnight; nothing to hinder heading for home to St. Brendan's. They left around 11 a.m. and within six hours had passed Baccalieu Tickle without issue. But by 6 p.m., when they were approaching Cape Bonavista, the winds had increased significantly.
She was rolling roughly 10 degrees to starboard to 24 degrees to port. Within 30 minutes, she rolled twice roughly 35 degrees to port, about 15 minutes apart, and came back. Concerned, yes, but most boats were able to go 50-odd degrees. You know, STAB 4 requirements, the stability issue, were at 48 degrees before the point of no return — a big difference.
But unfortunately for us, Murphy's Law was about to play out. So, at 6:30 she took that third and final heavy roll to port. This time, she did not recover. Her point of no return was later determined to be roughly 39 degrees.
For my brothers, the unthinkable had happened: Nine miles east of Cape Bonavista in one brutal of a spot.
Ryan's Commander crew had made the perfect escape. At 6:35, the distress call was made. My brother Joe was beat up. He was actually in the engine room, but he managed to get up on deck, thank God. At 6:45, all hands had made it into the life raft, not an easy thing to do in such harsh conditions that night.
Now, to wait patiently — after all, their mayday was called. Their location was told. They didn't really think they had a care in the world. As a matter of fact, they sang songs in the life raft. One can only imagine how all six of them felt as the hours passed on, though, waiting to be rescued.
At 7:42 that chopper left Gander. Yes, that's 37 minutes more than what a wheels-up 30 would have been.
At 8:50, the Hercules departed Greenwood, Nova Scotia, and at 8:55, the Cormorant helicopter arrived from Gander, finally.
It took two hours and 20 minutes after the mayday call. Winds and the pull of the tide had actually caused their life raft to go in one direction and the boat and the other life raft had went the other way.
This caused more time, even though a lady saw a flare around 7:00-7:15. She could see the life raft from her dining room window. She reported it to the RCMP immediately. Plus, as time went on, she called the Coast Guard at 8:30 telling them that she had seen hand flares and she could see the light on the top of the life raft from her dining room window. But the chopper headed towards the mayday coordinates where the vessel and debris was. I guess they had to get their coordinates to where the mayday was; I'm not sure, but again, every minute counts.
Finally, the chopper spotted the raft as it was going around the cliffs into the next cove. When the chopper was overhead, they went and sent up another flare. Jamie and my brother Dave were by the door and they were the only two that managed to get their survival suits on before leaving the vessel. Joe was on the other side. He was hurting from his fall in the engine room. Don was next to him and had the flu, so he would be rescued first. Next to go would have been my brother Joe.
The Cormorant helicopter had two hoists, an inboard and an outboard. At 9:05, the first SAR tech went down using the inboard one. But just after being lowered, the warning light indicated it had automatically switched to slow speed. Heavy seas and the buffeting of the helicopter had actually pulled the wire tight and yanked the SAR tech violently away from the life raft, damaging his equipment and causing him himself minor injuries. The pickup hook was damaged. The inboard hoist broke. Time, minutes — it matters.
The second SAR tech gets lowered by the outboard one. Once to the life raft, he tells the boys to get the ropes out of the way from the sea anchors so he could get access to the doors and wouldn't get tangled up in them. He then helped my brother-in-law Don out of the raft. Don had become momentarily paralyzed as he swung upside down in this hoist rig that they had done, actually putting his head under water for a minute before he was brought up to the helicopter. Meanwhile, the life raft, without any sea anchors, quickly drifted towards the shore.
They lowered another SAR tech for the second rescue, but the rear spotter, fearing imminent tail rotor contact with the cliff, assertively instructed the pilot to move the helicopter forward. In those few seconds, that SAR tech got pulled twice from the water and literally tossed in the air. His crew was forced to cut the cable or risk permanently injuring him.
At 9:59, their man was in the ocean and both of the hoists were broke. Time and weather!
What began as a rescue for the Ryan's Commander crew was now a rescue for one of their own men. They manually lowered a wire mesh basket, flew down really close to the water to him, and he actually swam to the basket and they rig-hooked it and hauled him back aboard the chopper. But they had no equipment left. There was nothing else they could do. So the helicopter would land at Cape Bonavista with only one survivor, my brother-in-law. Everyone else had been in the life raft since 6:45 and it was now after 10:00 at night, three hours and 15 minutes.
My brothers, my nephew Ronald, Richard and Jamie began to realize all too well the gravity of the situation, said a prayer and prepared for the worst. Within minutes after the chopper had left them, they were thrown from the life raft. It was survival against all odds. Dave and Jamie were in the water first because they were by the door. Richard was next. My nephew Ronald recalls looking to my brother Joe Jr. before he, too, had been thrown into the sea. He was wishing that he could grab him in his arms and take him with him.
No, this doesn't end well, I'm afraid.
Thankfully, many locals, plus the ground search and rescue, were bracing themselves in high winds above those cliffs in Bonavista by Spiller's Cove. It was pitch black. It was raging seas. Every wave was tossing them. My brother Dave had hit his head on a rock. He was later found floating around in his survival suit. The rescue crew actually ended up tying him to the cliff and securing his body because the conditions just weren't safe to get him up out of it.
Richard had actually grabbed a life ring as he was leaving the life raft or outside in the water and Jamie had a survival suit on. They actually made it to a crevice in the rocks on the cliffs of the shore. Jamie could see Richard and he grabbed him, pulling him in before another wave took him. Richard was cold. His pants and boots were gone. Jamie took off his survival suit and gave it to him. In that little crevice in the rock, he risked doing that for him. They held each other so that they wouldn't be washed back out into the water.
Hearing the voices above, they started to shout back. Richard, being Richard, just give it to her, bolted it, climbed up over the cliffs himself. The locals grabbed him. By this time, the search and rescue techs were there themselves and they went down and got Jamie up out of it.
Ronald, my nephew, a small giant of a young man, was literally fighting the waves. Each swell, he braced himself, knowing full well that he was going to be tossed closer to shore, hoping he wouldn't be smashed against those rocks. One such wave left him clinging to a cliff, hanging on for dear life. The winds were howling and the rocks were black and wet, but he continued to hold on by his fingertips and his bare feet on the rocks as each wave broke against his legs. All he could do was wait it out for as long as humanly possible; stay strong, hold on as each wave would break against the legs. He could see to his left that one of the boys was in a survival suit face down into the water. There's nothing he could do. He knew who the two were that had the survival suits on, so it was either his uncle or it was his cousin Richard. That was running through his mind as well as everything else while he's hanging on to the cliffs waiting to be rescued; didn't know how, didn't know how.
Finally the Hercules aircraft from Greenwood arrives. Thank God. Ronald's weakening grip was loosening as the water had been trickling down between his fingers, he told me. The men above could not hear him, no matter how many times he cried out, no matter how loud he was, over the roar of the ocean and the whistling in the winds. The Herc's arrival actually felt like the entire sky had opened up and the light shone through it. As it began strobing the light towards the cliffs, Ronald instinctively flicked his wristwatch in the hope they would see it, and they saw it. That part is still a miracle. It's just a miracle.
Once they spotted him, he could hear the shouts, "We see him; we see him.'' A SAR tech rappelled down to get him. But there was no sign of my brother Joe. He was still missing and presumed dead. His body was found thankfully five days later.
So yes, 24-7, it would have made a difference. At least, I believe so.
In closing, in the case of Ryan's Commander, not only do we need to learn about the effects of not having 24-7 response times, but we also need to learn from the rules and regulations that surround outdated vessel length restrictions. I'm baffled. I still do not understand the justification as to why those laws exist. I didn't call it a 65-footer; I said 64 feet 11 inches. It's not allowed to be that other one inch. It's counterproductive to safety. It just is.
I cannot forget and you here today should not forget the human factor in all of this. It's hard for me to swallow that after 12-plus years of advocating for 24-7 search and rescue and way too many souls lost, we seem nowhere close to it actually changing. I had Scott Simms present a petition to Parliament. I've spoke at hearings similar to this one with the Department of National Defence in Gander. I've done "Fifth Estate.'' I've even brought them to that same rescue site. I showed them where Ronald hung to the cliffs. I showed them where they tagged my brother until the next morning to find him. And I did show them where my other brother was eventually found.
They say that time heals. But as you've witnessed here right now, it hurts the same to me. It's just as raw; I'm just as mad. And I believe that one of the many reasons why it's like this for us as a family is because we know that 30-minutes wheels-up could have made all the difference that night.
Search and rescue needs to be 24-7. No more excuses. No more hearings to be had just to be put on a shelf, like was done with Parliament. I realize that sometimes you have to just keep on ringing the doorbell before you're heard. So, knock, knock, because is there anyone that could possibly hear it this time?
I, for one, am so tired of all this just falling on deaf ears. I can only trust that you will hear my voice, their voice, and the collective voice of the many others who have lost their lives through the sea. Because I can assure you, as I sit here, sometimes it's not my words that I tell you, because they speak through me.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Ryan Guy, Mr. Breen and Mr. Simms. Some riveting testimony to be sure.
We have been contemplating our study for quite some time. We're not naïve to the challenges that we face as a committee in putting forward the concerns of the people we have heard. We hope to be able to put together a report that calls for some concrete action in a very timely manner, and it's testimony from folks like you that will hopefully help us do that. So I really appreciate what we've heard here today.
Senators have some questions or comments on your testimony, and as usual, we will start with our deputy chair, Senator Hubley.
Senator Hubley: Thank you all for your presentations. We've only heard some of the emotional testimony in our trip to Newfoundland. We know there's more out there, but that is where we're grounded. We're grounded in the fact that this is saving lives, and if search and rescue is not saving lives, then we've got to look at the reasons why. So if that's an assurance, I think I can give that to you.
Whether our report is accepted, and I hope it will be, as a committee — and certainly the chair has attempted this study many times — you just don't pick a subject one night and say, "Oh, I think we'll do search and rescue.'' That's not the way it happens. It's because each one of us, in our own communities, our own jurisdictions, sees what the issues are. We hear the stories about the near misses. We know the work that's being done by the people who are working with search and rescue, and if they're being hindered in some way by either how the system is working, the equipment, the response times, the limitations, those are the things that we would be bringing forward.
I can only compliment you on how great you've been over the years, how important it is to tell that story. And I know you have no choice but to tell the story, and it certainly is moving to hear it firsthand. I think you've taken us all out there to that cliff that night.
Ms. Ryan Guy: That was my intent.
Senator Hubley: I know.
I'm going to pass for now, and I'll come back with a question later. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Hubley.
Senator Doyle.
Senator Doyle: Thank you. It's actually hard to ask a question after hearing that.
Danny, the commission of inquiry into the helicopter crash that killed your brother contains 33 recommendations. The 15- or 20-minute reaction time that applies to the people working offshore, do you know if that's been applied to all marine traffic?
Mr. Breen: With regard to that reaction time, if I'm not mistaken, Cougar Helicopters has adopted a dedicated search and rescue vehicle that will respond to helicopter incidents, but that wouldn't be, I don't believe, a response for other marine traffic at this time, unless there was a requirement and one wasn't available.
Senator Doyle: Have you followed the 33 recommendations and have they all been implemented?
Mr. Breen: I believe the majority of them have. Probably the most significant one had to do with developing the culture of safety in the offshore, and I think there's been a lot of good work done on that.
I think one of the shortcomings of that inquiry was not looking at search and rescue as a component. I don't believe Justice Wells gave recommendations on search and rescue. His recommendations were mostly on the oil companies and the regime in place for safety in the offshore.
Senator Doyle: Yes.
Mr. Breen: I believe that was a shortcoming in the terms of reference of the inquiry at the time. Of the other recommendations, I believe the issue of night flying still hasn't been fully resolved and has yet to be dealt with.
Senator Doyle: Mayor Simms, you said that you don't have too much service on the ground on the Northern Peninsula right now. So in terms of service on the ground that would prop up response time, what do you have right now?
Mr. Simms: Basically nothing. All we have in St. Anthony are two technicians, I think, that remain at the station. One is close to retirement, I think, and when they move out, that's gone as well. From what I gather, the station will be shut down. That's what I've been told.
In regards to "on the ground,'' we have nothing that I'm aware of. There is a new a 58-foot ship being built as I speak, I believe. I was talking to Wade Spurrell. He's the assistant commissioner for Newfoundland now, and he advised me that the ship would be placed in St. Anthony. This only came out this past fall, and four or eight jobs would be created with that. Now I don't know where that's going to be supervised from.
Senator Doyle: Yes.
Mr. Simms: I know Coast Guard did have the wharf. They used the wharf in St. Anthony, which was a federal government wharf, not Small Craft Harbours. It would be operating out of there with some refurbishment of the living quarters for crew and that sort of thing when the ship was in the harbour at dock. That's supposed to be coming, but he could not tell me whether it would be this spring or this fall. Apparently five or eight of them are being put into service.
Other than that, no, there is no marine operation, no ground operations. We have local RCMP. We have ground search and rescue and we have the Canadian Rangers, but other than that, no. Everything has to be removed.
The Chair: Mr. Breen, one of the recommendations you made was for an additional fully equipped search and rescue unit based in St. John's, and that issue was raised with us yesterday in Labrador in regards to Goose Bay.
On Monday, as part of our visitations, we had the opportunity to visit with Cougar Helicopters. To be honest with you, I was very impressed with their operation, their response times and their personnel, not to take away in any way, shape, or form from the personnel of the military that we have providing search and rescue, because we believe the personnel themselves are second to none.
Cougar presented to us and threw out the idea of either — I don't know if I should say — total privatization, but certainly part of creating something that would provide the service. We're looking at other jurisdictions in the world that have gone in that direction or leaning towards that direction either on a full-time or part time basis. Could you make a comment on that?
Feel free, Ms. Ryan Guy, to do so as well in relation to what they can provide. If it comes down a point of either/or, the bottom line is that we have the service, in our view.
Mr. Breen: I think there's an opportunity to utilize those assets. I don't know if I'd use the word "privatization'' in terms of how to do that, but a supplement to the existing service when the need is apparent. It seems to me that if an incident takes place that could be better serviced from St. John's and there's equipment ready, the fact that it's owned by a private company compared to the search and rescue services of the federal government, what you want is somebody to be there as quickly as possible. I think that could be used as a support for search and rescue, but I don't know if I'd go as far as to promote privatization of the service.
I could say that there's a role for Cougar to play in enhancing the search and rescue operations in the province, and I think that some kind of an agreement or partnership between the two could work to everybody's advantage and improve the safety in the offshore.
Ms. Ryan Guy: I remember speaking on "Open Line'' on that at one point. I believe I said that if I was in a situation budget-wise and that's the only thing that I could offer, then yes, offer it. If that's what it comes down to and you're saying that that's the only way that we can give 24-7 is by having it that way, or having that second place out of St. John's in addition to having the one in Gander, then I would say the answer is yes, because the person in that life raft or in that situation is really not going to give a cat's ass as to whether that's from Cougar Helicopter or from Joe Blow down the street. I would say that the protocols that they would have to use and the training that they would have to use, and all of the above — as I told you that story, the SAR techs themselves, I've never knocked them, never. They did everything humanly possible that night and beyond super human, in my opinion, to the point that their own lives were at risk as well because of malfunctions.
I mean, malfunctions can happen. That's a whole other story into the equipment side.
I still think that under the umbrella of our own government for Coast Guard, for search and rescue, is the ideal way to go. When you're looking at coordinating as well, now that we are getting everything back here in St. John's at the station, it may even work a bit better, Fabian. I don't know, but I have no issues. I'd have no issues for it to be looked at if that's all we could do.
The Chair: We're not promoting it. We're just looking at different options and ways of doing things.
Ms. Ryan Guy: I know. It has come up.
The Chair: I was not surprised, but the other day when we were there, and the seven personnel with Cougar were all ex-military.
Ms. Ryan Guy: Yes.
The Chair: They were trained through the military and are now working with Cougar, so the professionalism that they're bringing with them is top notch.
Ms. Ryan Guy: The standards are there, yes.
The Chair: So it's not like we're dealing with oranges and apples. We're dealing with the same people all around.
Senator McInnis.
Senator McInnis: Thank you for being here. It was emotional testimony, and my heart goes out to you and to your family. The thing that we know for certain, unfortunately, is that in the future there will be more fatalities.
Ms. Ryan Guy: Yes.
Senator McInnis: I think we heard this morning and this week that there are over 600 incidents, 18 deaths/fatalities on average. So what's the cost of a death?
We heard from not just Cougar but from one of the largest operations in the world about how they could take the service on. In fact, they came to see us. It is interesting that Australia has in fact privatized it. So as well-meaning as the military is, as I said this morning to one of the witnesses, search and rescue has gradually evolved. We heard yesterday where there's a requirement for additional equipment and to meet the test that you're asking for response time. Being a realist, unless you can somehow convince the national government that this is of such importance that they are going to really increase the budget line, then it's not going to happen.
There is the efficiency of the private sector, and what we've been told is that they can put equipment in certain places where the equipment is not now. These are things that the committee is going to have to weigh, but it always comes down to cost. We hear it from the military and we heard it from the Coast Guard. We heard it from the auxiliary members, where their budget is basically level. That's more a comment.
This has been a powerful presentation, and I wish that some of them in Ottawa could hear it.
Ms. Ryan Guy: Oh, I'll go there.
Senator McInnis: You have the book out. We perhaps should deliver it.
Ms. Ryan Guy: I've done that.
Senator McInnis: This is a powerful message.
My home town is Sheet Harbour, Nova Scotia, a small town. I retired there and then ended up here. They have a voluntary fire department. The municipality has given these full-time professional firefighters between 8:30 and 4:30, and the voluntary fire department is falling off — age, not that many individuals, and so on. The saying in Sheet Harbour is that if you're going to have a fire, have it between 8:30 and 4:30.
Well, that's analogous or similar to exactly what you're talking about. This operation operates 24-7 and in many respects 365 days a year. That's a little address that you may want to comment on. I didn't want to draw you into it, but if you want to make a comment, go ahead, and I then have a question for Mr. Simms.
Ms. Ryan Guy: Dollars and cents are always going to be part of the decision-making process. There's no doubt about that. If you can give the service of wheels-up in 30 or closer to 30, without necessarily having it as a 24-7 stance, but by adding Cougar or adding volunteers, the Coast Guard Auxiliary, and by doing this and by doing that, how you ultimately do it is not really my concern, as long as it is as close to the service that the current search and rescue can give.
There are so many people out there looking for the money of the government, both provincially and federally. I'm not naïve to think that, but what price do you put on a life when you get someone like me in this situation? I'll go to the highest mountain, to the highest office. What I read to you is specifically taken from the book, and it's an e-book. I can tell you exactly where the pages are if you want. I tried to condense it instead of reading directly from the book for that reason, but it's there.
When you look at the dollars and cents of doing it, I understand. I'm not here to say give it to us at all costs. I'm saying improve it to the best of your ability with what you've got there to give us. Is that fair?
Senator McInnis: Yes.
Mr. Simms, I wanted to get clarification with the MCTS. Tell me about the service that is lacking now. You said that it's a very busy harbour, and I have no doubt about that. You referred also to the MCTS Centre for weather and other information. Tell me a little bit about that for my edification.
Mr. Simms: The MCTS station radio operations in connection with all marine traffic from the east coast of Newfoundland, Cape Freels —
Senator McInnis: Oh, I know that.
Mr. Simms: — all the way around. Apparently, the last year of operations and many years before that, 5,000 messages to mariners and pieces of information came from that particular station. That was just in the message section alone. There are also connections with all boats in the area, not only boats that are traversing the Strait of Belle Isle or the Labrador Coast, but boats that are fishing in the area along all parts of the coast. Oil tankers, any ship coming from Europe that goes into the Strait of Belle Isle has contact with St. Anthony Coast Guard Radio.
Along with that, all of the ships coming from Halifax and that area that come along the east coast, picking up supplies for the Labrador coast, they have responsibility for monitoring all of these ships. They monitored for not only safety but also for cargo, because the manifest of each ship that's moving had to be passed along to Coast Guard Radio at the time so that everything was in order and there weren't any dangerous goods and things like that.
We did have an incident whereby a ship came into St. Anthony Harbour and had been asked to provide its manifest to Coast Guard Radio. It hadn't done that and said it didn't have it at the time. Of course, when the manifest did come to Coast Guard Radio, they found out that the ship contained a high number of explosives on their way to the Labrador coast. That is not allowed in the harbours unless given permission and the manifest is known. The ship had come into the harbour at the time.
The RCMP were contacted. They boarded the ship, checked everything out and got the manifest from the owners and everything else. Luckily everything was cleared, but it was very stormy weather and they came into St. Anthony as a port for safety. We have a very enclosed harbour, and it's pretty well safe from all winds, in all directions.
With respect to other operations, they work with the RCMP there to help in searches. We've had four people lost in the St. Anthony area in the past 15 years who have never been found. They worked with the logistics and that sort of thing in areas like that. Three of them were traced to the sea, but at the time, search and rescue wasn't called in because it looked like a land-based search rather than an ocean-based search.
With marine activities there right now with the container ships, they're a very large vessel, very high when the containers are stacked. They need to know the weather directly in the harbour when they come in. They need to know what the winds are and which direction they're blowing because most harbours have very narrow entrances, and the ships have to be able to make it. They're equipped with thrusters and everything else. They still know that with strong winds they cannot make the turns to get to berth. There's nobody there now that they can talk to, and there's no way you can get the weather directly in St. Anthony Harbour any more as you could when the station was there. All mariners look for that. Temperatures, ice charts, all those things, you can't get them any more from St. Anthony.
Senator McInnis: So you've distinguished it, I think, in that this is more of a hands-on scenario. You'd have to physically be there, because I understood something different.
Mr. Simms: Yes, you would. The radio operator had all of this information. They passed all this information on to the mariners that were coming in.
With regards to the container ships, they stayed out of the harbour until the winds abated enough so that they could actually enter and take on cargo.
Senator McInnis: I thought that was the role of the harbour master. I thought every vessel in the waters in Atlantic Canada can be seen from the north end of Dartmouth in Nova Scotia, the Joint Search and Rescue Coordinating Centre. So I thought that when they consolidated these through modernization, it could be done just as efficiently and as effectively, but you're saying something different.
Mr. Simms: No, it's not.
Senator McInnis: Cannot be done?
Mr. Simms: No. I've talked to fishermen who have come in.
In my retirement, I work on a wharf offloading vessels, and I've talked to fishermen who have not now got VHF coverage so that they can actually contact St. Anthony. St. Anthony Cold Storage has a radio operation so that they can contact the vessels they're working with. They don't have coverage. There's a zone with no coverage.
I know of one instance last year where a boat left St. Anthony Harbour, had gotten outside, and some of the material that it had for the trip was left behind. We tried to raise them and couldn't until they got to a certain point farther out from St. Anthony Cold Storage. We couldn't contact them with the Coast Guard because they aren't there. Finally, we tracked them down and got them to come back to St. Anthony to pick up these materials. That was unknown; we hadn't heard talk of this before. So that's happening. It's not being covered presently from Goose Bay either.
Senator McInnis: Thank you.
The Chair: Senator Christmas, the floor is yours.
Senator Christmas: Thank you very much for being here today.
Ms. Ryan Guy, I have to ask a difficult question.
Ms. Ryan Guy: They're all difficult.
Senator Christmas: I understand from your testimony that the distress call happened at 6:35 p.m. The Cormorant arrived at 8:55 p.m., two hours and 20 minutes after the call. The Cormorant left Gander at 7:42, and so I assume that the flight from Gander to the site was an hour and 13 minutes. I assume that's a fixed length of time regardless of when the Cormorant left Gander, and it would have taken them roughly an hour and 13 minutes to get to the site.
Ms. Ryan Guy: There was 37 minutes in the difference between wheels-up in 30 to when she left Gander, so we're talking about those 37 minutes, really.
Senator Christmas: This is where I'm heading. When we went to Gander, we asked about response times, and they said that in the 30-minute scenario, they can get wheels-up between 18 to 20 minutes.
Ms. Ryan Guy: Twenty minutes.
Senator Christmas: Under the two-hour response time, their average is between 50 and 59 minutes.
Ms. Ryan Guy: Yes.
Senator Christmas: So in this particular instance, they were wheels-up in 37.
Ms. Ryan Guy: No, it was 37 minutes more than what 30 would have been. It was 67 minutes to be exact.
Senator Christmas: Sixty-seven minutes.
Ms. Ryan Guy: Sorry, I can be pretty analytical.
Senator Christmas: That's exactly what I was trying to get at. I was trying to determine —
Ms. Ryan Guy: Sixty-seven minutes.
Again, there were extenuating circumstances in this particular rescue because not only was it the rescue of the Ryan's Commander crew, it ended up being the rescue of their own crew because there were problems. I had to write the book about it because so much went wrong.
Nobody plans their demise. Nobody plans accidents happening, what the weather is going to be like and what the equipment is going to be like. If there was any situation where every second counted, this was one. I think that's why I'm so raw about those extra 37 minutes, because those extra 37 minutes for me, nine times out of ten, would have meant that I would have had one brother at least because my brother Joe Jr. was next to come out of that life raft. I call him Jim, Joe Jr. I'm going to go to my grave with that one on my forehead. Like I can't get past it; I just can't get past it. I can't.
Senator Christmas: So would those extra 37 minutes have saved your brother's life?
Ms. Ryan Guy: I'm 99.9 percent sure that it would have had him in that chopper, yes.
The Chair: Thank you, senators, for those questions.
In closing, I want to say thanks again for your presentations here today. We've heard from many witnesses right across the country, but I have to say hearing your personal experiences firsthand, not too often it leaves Senator Hubley without words, but it certainly struck a chord with her today and all of us. We're not the answer to all the problems with search and rescue, but it's something that's near and dear to my heart, as chair of the committee. I know that I speak for all members of the committee when I say that our visit to Newfoundland and Labrador has been a true eye opener, and part of that has been your testimony here today. We want to say thank you.
As I say to all people who appear before us, many times I've had the opportunity to make presentations myself and on the way home that night I think, "I wish I had said say that.'' It's always the case. Our report is several months out, so if at any time you think there's something you want to add, please feel free to contact us and put it forward.
Once again, thank you very much.
Ms. Ryan Guy: I've got to leave you with one more question. If you have to be stuck considering dollar values, if you look at the coast, I mean, we're on the tip of nothing here, and St. Anthony being in the same situation. Does Newfoundland have a higher potential to save the lives of more souls with a 30-minute protocol for here, and it not necessarily be for the rest of Canada? Would it be able to be done that way, or is it six months a year when we have higher numbers?
I come from a fishing family, but my background is also business, so I'm a dollars and cents girl, too. But if I had to cherry pick, I would cherry pick the highest time, and I would probably pick that as a pilot project in government. I love that as a pilot project.
The Chair: Very good point. Thank you for that.
When the media asked me this morning about how many recommendations we think we're going to have, the bottom line is I'm not concerned about the number of recommendations. I'd rather have 6 that would be acted upon than have 30 that would not. As a committee, we'll decide which ones are priorities and what we can do.
Once again, thanks for your time.
Ms. Ryan Guy: If you have any further questions, you have my information.
The Chair: We appreciate your time. Thank you.
Mr. Simms: I'd just like to say thanks again for the opportunity.
As well, I don't know if you know that St. Anthony is the patron saint of fishermen, mariners, and lost people, and yet we haven't got any facilities there to help them.
The Chair: When I was growing up, if you lost anything, you prayed to St. Anthony. My mother used to send them money. Anyway, we appreciate your time.
I would invite our next panel of witnesses to introduce themselves, and then we'll get to some opening remarks.
Captain Chris Hearn, Director, Centre for Marine Simulation, The Fisheries and Marine Institute, Memorial University: I am Chris Hearn from the Marine Institute here in St. John's.
Mark Dolomount, Executive Director, Newfoundland and Labrador Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board: Mark Dolomount, Executive Director with the Newfoundland and Labrador Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board.
Glenn Winslow, Captain-Owner, F/V Roberts Sisters II, Newfoundland and Labrador Fish Harvesting Association: Glenn Winslow, fish harvester here in St. John's, Newfoundland.
Sharon Walsh, Executive Director, Newfoundland and Labrador Fish Harvesting Association: Sharon Walsh, Fish Harvesting Safety Association of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Chair: I want to take the opportunity to thank you for taking the time this afternoon to come before us. It's been a job to find a word to describe what we've already heard here today, but it's been a very worthwhile experience.
We've been in Newfoundland and Labrador since Monday, and we've been travelling to different sites and talking to different people. In our study on search and rescue we think that we're getting some great feedback here, and we're looking forward to hearing from you.
I understand that you have some opening remarks. We'll do that first and then get to questions from senators.
Mr. Dolomount: Thank you, senators and Mr. Chair. My name is Mark Dolomount. The PFHCB is a provincial legislative board that registers and certifies the 10,000 or so commercial fish harvesters in this province, both owner/ operators and crew members. On behalf of our board and the professional fish harvesters we certify, I'd like to thank the committee for allowing us to present here today.
Since 1997, commercial fish harvesters in this province have operated under a new professionalization system supported by provincial legislation and by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, administered by the PFHCB, our board. As a direct result of professional certification and its linkages to DFO regional licensing policy, harvesters receiving the transfer of core fishing enterprises in this province must now meet minimum standards for training and experience.
Largely due to these certification requirements and as a result of new federal regulations, Newfoundland fish harvesters have been receiving training in record numbers and their vessels are now much better equipped. Over the past two decades we have witnessed a strong coordinated effort by fish harvesters and their organizations to advance safety in our province's fishing industry.
As Senator Manning can attest, Newfoundland and Labrador has established itself as the best trained fisheries labour force in the country. Since 2000, more than 1,500 fish harvesters have completed Transport Canada Fishing Master training at the Marine Institute. That's in addition to those harvesters that had already had it. More than 13,000 fish harvesters have completed marine emergency duties training in that period. This training, coupled with a commitment to achieving compliance with Transport Canada regulations, has Newfoundland and Labrador leading the country in Marine Personnel Regulations compliance.
In less than 20 years, our industry has progressed from one with very little formal training and certification to one where every single vessel, regardless of length or tonnage, will have a certified master and a competent crew trained in marine emergency duties. Not only are harvesters better trained, vessels are much better equipped. This is sometimes due to regulatory requirements, but more often because Newfoundland harvesters recognize the importance of safety and being prepared.
Safety equipment like EPIRBS and VHF radios are becoming increasingly commonplace, and combined with good training, contribute directly to effective distress signalling and activation of the SAR system. Life rafts and immersion suits are the norm, not only on larger vessels required by regulation to carry them, but also on smaller vessels in the less than 40-foot fleet that accept them as a necessity.
Generally, Newfoundland and Labrador harvesters, once willing to accept injuries and fatalities as part of the job, are much less fatalistic about safety and survival. Overall, the result has been some very positive downward statistical trends on injury and fatality rates and more crews are surviving incidents at sea. We only have to look to three days ago when we saw successful rescue of a fishing vessel at sea.
Training is certainly a large contributor to this positive change. However, there's a broader industry-led education and awareness campaign underway. Industry organizations have played a key role in disseminating information to fish harvesters in an effort to establish safety as a priority, address specific safety-related issues, and support regulatory compliance. It's clear that Newfoundland and Labrador harvesters and their organizations are engaged, committed and invested in safety, but they are also frustrated and concerned about what they see as a reduction and degradation in federal government services, including many services directly and indirectly connected to effective SAR.
We've included a longer list in our formal submission, but several of those would include closure of the St. John's Marine Rescue Sub-Centre in 2012. It was met with a great deal of concern and discontent based on what was a presumed impact on SAR coordination and response.
Closure of the MCTS Centres in St. John's and St. Anthony has had a negative impact on marine communications, as you just heard from Mayor Simms, and has had a direct impact on effective SAR response.
Loss of personal local knowledge of radio operators when communicating with mariners has been noticeable to harvesters. Local knowledge and ice routing is lost as well, especially so in northern areas of the province with the closure of St. Anthony.
Harvesters are reporting that up-to-date weather charts are no longer being received.
Coast Guard Auxiliary members are reporting cuts to their programs as well, including the availability of SAR equipment and valuable training programs.
These reductions in service come at a time when other departments like DFO and Transport Canada are also cutting services and in many cases downloading responsibilities and liabilities to fish harvesters. To see this level of ongoing reduction to government services at a time when fish harvesters have been increasingly more invested in safety is not only frustrating, it's unacceptable to them.
The announcement of the reopening of the MRSC St. John's and the opening and renovation of three lifeboat stations in this province is certainly welcome news. Physical assets are an important part of an effective SAR system, but timely access to human resources is equally if not more essential.
We cannot express the deep level of admiration, respect and gratitude that fish harvesters have for the men and women employed by the Canadian Coast Guard and Department of National Defence who often risk their own lives to safe another. Their abilities and dedication is not in question. But fish harvesters continually point to addressing the issue of a two-hour wheels-up response time as their main priority and concern related to SAR.
Fish harvesting is not an 8:00 to 4:00 job, as you know. Commercial fishing activity takes place 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and no other jurisdiction in Canada compares to Newfoundland in the number of days spent at sea, the distance from shore, and the geographical distribution of the fishing fleet. The importance of a 30-minute wheels-up response time for SAR cannot be overstated.
To conclude, fish harvesters in this province have demonstrated an extraordinary level of commitment and investment towards improving safety onboard their vessels and being better prepared in the case of a SAR incident. They expect and deserve the same level of commitment and investment in government resources and services, particularly when it comes to SAR and the impact that the reduction and degradation of services has on their ability to survive.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dolomount, and thank you for your complete presentation which we will have time to peruse and the recommendations that you put forward. I'm sure we'll expand on those in our conversation.
Captain Hearn.
Capt. Hearn: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and honourable senators. Thank you for the invitation to appear before this committee and to bring observations and opinions on the issues surrounding maritime search and rescue in the North Atlantic.
My name is Chris Hearn. I am a master mariner and formerly a captain serving on ships working domestically and foreign going. I serve presently as the Director for the Marine Institute Centre for Marine Simulation. In this role, I have been asked by the Marine Institute's Vice-President, Mr. Glenn Blackwood, to bring greetings and comments before this committee today.
When he asked me to come forward, he suggested that probably we should look at it from the perspective of how preparation and knowledge are the first steps in safety at sea, and this is the viewpoint I'm going to expand upon in my opening comments.
To build on what Mark just said in terms of the Marine Institute, it's a world-class centre of advanced marine technology, education and training. It was initially conceived as the College of Fisheries, Navigation, Marine Engineering and Electronics in 1964. The institute has grown and developed to become Canada's leading fisheries and marine institute. Today this progression can be seen in the Marine Institute's superb facilities, its education and training programs, and its highly qualified and dedicated people. Through its wide range of technical education and training courses, including short industrial response programs, it's bachelor and masters programs, as well as its participation in research and development, and public policy advocacy initiatives, the institute is actively involved in contributing to the economic development of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Atlantic region as a whole.
I have provided this committee with an overview of the institute. For the purposes of this discussion and my opening comments, I'd like to focus on the schools and the centres that are most focused on the areas of maritime search and rescue and survival from an education, training and research point of view.
The School of Maritime Studies is the first group that I'd like to speak about. This school in its entirety has longstanding and highly successful programs to prepare individuals for entry-level operations as deck officers and engineering officers onboard ships, and also looks at the education and training in the design of ships and associated marine systems.
The next facility that I'd like to speak about in terms of prevention is my own, the Centre for Marine Simulation. It was originally conceived and created from the lessons learned following the loss of the Ocean Ranger. This tragedy catalyzed the province's offshore industry and focused on more formalized safety training, and this led to the facility that we now operate today, probably one of the most advanced facilities of its kind in the world. We do over 31 simulation-based courses, over 300 people per year anywhere from eight to ten industrial projects focusing on the shipping, offshore oil and gas, and other allied marine industries, all focused on increasing safety and identifying and reducing risk.
The last facility I'll mention is one that deals more with response, and this is the Offshore Safety and Survival Centre in Foxtrap. This is where a lot of people go to take their marine emergency duties training. This is what you do and this is the place you go when you need to understand how to survive when things really get bad. So the fundamentals are provided by the school and the programs. The prevention in terms of identifying risk and not getting yourself into a bad situation is what my facility does, and then finally when things really go to the wall, OSSC is what prepares you for that. So it delivers a comprehensive range of safety and survival and emergency response training for the offshore petroleum, marine transportation, and the fishing and land-based industries.
The OSSC works closely with industry, researchers, and industrial associations to improve safety technologies and practices, and can design and customize courses to meet the specific training needs of its clients. It runs over 57 short courses. Over 5,000 people a year go through the OSSC, with 4,000 directly related to safety and survival training. It also undertakes research in thermal protection and lifeboats and life rafts, the launching of lifeboats and life rafts in ice, and evacuation and recovery of personnel under challenging conditions.
On areas of concern, if I can hold my final observations personally, outside the Marine Institute, to sometime later in the conversation, I'd appreciate it.
The Chair: Thank you very much, captain, and feel free at any time to give us your opinion outside or inside. One thing that my colleagues have found in our visit to Newfoundland and Labrador is that we have very frank discussions here and not a whole lot of grey area. We like that.
Ms. Walsh, I believe you're next.
Ms. Walsh: Thank you. As previously stated, my name is Sharon Walsh, and I'm Executive Director of the Newfoundland and Labrador Fish Harvesting Safety Association. I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak here today. With me is Glenn Winslow, a professional fish harvester from Shea Heights, and Glenn will also be giving opening remarks.
Our safety association is a non-profit, industry driven and funded association that's in its infancy. While fishing has been around for hundreds of years in our province, the safety association has really been active with an industry board for about the last two and a half years, but in that time, we have no doubt been very busy.
We were established through a joint venture of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador Workplace NL, which is our provincial compensation board, the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board, and the FFAW.
I think one of the most valuable things about the safety association is in fact our governance structure and how we operate. We have an owner/operator and a crew member from each of the three commercial fishing fleets on our board. They are the majority of the voting members of our board.
In addition to that, government bodies as well as most of the major fishing organizations in the province sit on our advisory committee. So we have the provincial Department of Fisheries, the federal Department of Fisheries, the Canadian Coast Guard, Marine Institute, PFHCB, FFAW, and as well as Memorial University and the provincial regulatory body for safety. So anybody who has an ability to advance safety in the province sits on our board structure. There's no doubt we're industry driven and industry funded.
The reason we established the safety association — although there are many organizations in Newfoundland like the ones who presented here before me who have been successful in the advancement of safety — safety is secondary to the primary mandate, and so all folks thought that it would be a good idea to establish an association that has a sole mandate for safety in order for the prevention of injuries.
We exist to improve safety practices in the commercial fishing industry, obviously, to reduce accidents, injuries, and occupational disease through education, training, and research initiatives, and we also support the development of and compliance with a proper regulatory regime.
No doubt this committee, with all the stories that you've heard, understands that this is a very dangerous occupation. We work in what the ILO describes as one of the most dangerous industries in the world, particularly here, as has been said by many others. The long working hours, the harsh weather and the sea states, and the strenuous labour makes for difficult times. There's no question that the safety of our fish harvesters is paramount.
It's also important to say that commercial fishing is a billion-dollar industry to our province. It involves approximately some 3,700 fishing enterprises, with 9,000-plus fish harvesters engaged in fishing in a given year, and 400 communities around the coast of the province are impacted by that as well. There's no doubt a lot at stake.
The high number of accidents, injuries and fatalities, even though they have been in decline, are a constant reminder of the risk and danger. Specifically in our province, based on the provincial statistics available for the last five reporting years, which takes us to 2015, we've had — and I think I heard it referenced in the previous presentations — 500-plus, close to 600 injuries in that reporting period. We've had 10 fatalities in that reporting period, and that doesn't include last year, 2016. What is absolutely astounding in terms of the fatalities, and perhaps an opportunity depending on how you look at it, is the $63.5 million of injury costs that has generated over the same five-year period.
We all know there's nothing more important than a harvester returning home safely at the end of the day, and we can do more; we need to do more.
One of the key things about the safety association that was really important to everybody in the months leading to establishing the association was understanding that the people who do the work understand the work best. So if you are going to put a regime or an organization in place, then you have to make sure that the process facilities that they're heard from and that they're listened to, and that their needs are properly identified and addressed.
For that reason, for the past two and a half years we've spent a lot of time talking to fish harvesters around the island, in their communities, and along the coast of Labrador. Over 1,000 harvesters have completed surveys. We've had about 100 community meetings. That's quite a lot if you have an understanding of this province. In addition, we've had several roundtables and we've put on two safety conferences. One was last week in which we had about 140 folks. There is no doubt there is a great interest in improving safety.
Despite all of that and what I've heard the previous two speakers address in terms of the investment that harvesters have made, the industry has changed a lot in a decade and a half and things still go wrong. We need to have strong search and rescue that's going to bring folks home at the end of the day.
Going around in those different formats that I mentioned, here are some of the things we've heard. We will submit a more comprehensive brief after we leave here.
First of all, the recent announcement to restore the Coast Guard services in Newfoundland is welcomed. It's a good thing and is to be celebrated, but it certainly doesn't go far enough to ensure for proper resources for search and rescue to bring people home at the end of the day.
Unfortunately I didn't hear the beginning of Johanne's presentation, but there is nothing more important than establishing a 30-minute wheels-up time, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Harvesters don't work 9:00 to 5:00, Monday to Friday, and we have to find a way to address that.
I think I heard Mayor Simms of St. Anthony speak about this as well: We have a lot of harvesters who are quite often outside of VHF range, so they then have to depend on the automated systems to get accurate information. With the closure, we're finding that often they can't get them at all, or when they do get the automated service, they can't make out what's being said. That's absolutely vital for planning your trip and getting home safely.
The safety association is engaged in three bodies of research, one of which is weather and fishing safety. We've had a lot of roundtables on that. One of the key things that keeps coming up is that the current areas for weather forecasting are too large. Unless you're a very experienced fish harvester and you have access to other information and a lot of local knowledge, you're unable really to interpret that. If you think about that in the context that we have the oldest aging working population in the country and in the fishing area, and given that age, what's going to happen in transitioning out in the next 10 years? What's going to happen when all that local knowledge goes? We have to be prepared and we have to address that.
Safe harbours, ports of refuge, lack or condition of wharves: Harvesters are saying also that these need to be addressed. Port Au Port Peninsula would be an example of that.
A lot of our harvesters, as you've heard today, are auxiliary members, as is Glenn, and they've raised concerns about the availability of equipment and valuable training programs. I'm sure you know what the statistics are in terms of the number of incidents that they would respond to, and being adequately equipped is absolutely essential.
This is something that is probably seen as not tangible, but from my personal experience outside of this industry in safety, it's absolutely essential. You have to have meaningful opportunity for dialogue with government departments, in this case federal government departments who make decisions.
Under Transport Canada, we had two national CMAC's a year, plus regional. That was the opportunity for people in the industry to come together and hear each other, which is just as important as being able to speak, and hear the federal government. That's being phased out. We're down to one, and I don't have any level of confidence we're going to keep the one that we supposedly currently have.
Of course, I want to pass on from harvesters the absolute appreciation of the outstanding services of the men and women in the Canadian Coast Guard and the Department of Defence who use their expertise when they can to bring folks home, but their expertise and commitment is not enough. Harvesters spend many days on the ocean, significant distances over significant geography, at tremendous risk, and they deserve a proper search and rescue regime.
It was interesting listening to Senator Manning in the last session. You're going to have a lot of recommendations. I don't know how you're going to deal with that.
We have one key recommendation. As I said, we'll provide a brief. We hope you address all of the issues that you hear. But our key recommendation is that we put together an industry standing committee for search and rescue so that industry is involved, with the goal of continuous assessment and improvement in all areas of SAR. Because you're not going to have the answers to some of the things that have been brought up and I'm sure you've heard in this province and across the country. We need a way forward; we need a process to go forward. That's our recommendation.
I will close by saying that we hope the government continues to work with and support harvester organizations in advancing safety. I'll just leave you with the people who do the work and understand the work the best. They understand the risk, and they're more likely to come up with a proper way to go forward.
With that, we've asked Glenn, on behalf of the association, to share recent experiences and his thoughts with you as well.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Walsh.
With the preface "the people who do the work, know the work best,'' we'd like to hear from Glenn now.
Mr. Winslow: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As you know, my name is Glenn Winslow. I'm a fish harvester here from the community of Shea Heights, St. John's. I'm a Fishing Master Level I, which allows me to master any size vessel anywhere in the world. I've been fishing 36 years. I've fished in every nook and cranny around this coast from zero miles to 325 miles offshore. My backyard is anywhere from 150 miles to 250 miles, and that's where I have spent most of my time. I've fished every month of the year, January, February, March, tough times of the year that you can be fishing, but I've been there. I would like to thank the Senate committee for giving me the opportunity to speak here today.
On September 6, 2016, myself and a crew member of mine, my best friend — we have been working together over 30 years — arrived at the Small Boat Basin, Southside Road, St. John's, to check on my vessel, the Roberts Sisters II. While this is not a topic that most would like to remember, I feel that educating about the event that very sad day can help prevent future tragedies from happening again.
On that day, I was immediately approached by a fellow fisherman who told me that the Walsh family was on the wharf and concerned about the crew members of the fishing vessel Pop's Pride because they had not returned from fishing that day. He also told me that local fishermen didn't know the family was out that day because the vehicle usually driven by Keith Walsh, Sr., was not parked on the wharf. I can remember this because I took a couple of steps out the wharf and looked down to see the brand new truck that he had bought two days before and was so proud to tell me about. As it stands today, I was the only one that knew he had it. It was actually parked in a different spot than he usually parks it, and that's why no one knew it. Even if he had parked in the same spot, I think things might have been different. I can remember turning around and looking back and saying, "It's Keith's truck and they're still out.''
We immediately left the Small Boat Basin in my vessel, Roberts Sisters II, and other vessels were quick to follow. I had a good idea where they had been fishing, as the previous day I passed right alongside them on my way back to shore. We headed to that position, having a look on the way as they could have been anywhere on that route. Upon arriving at the area where they fished, I stopped my vessel to have a good look around and figure out the direction of drift that day. It didn't take long for us to figure out, so we started idling in that direction.
We didn't go very far before we spotted what looked to be a life vest floating in the water, but as we got closer, we could see that there was also a person in it and that a tragedy had occurred.
I don't need to speak about the rest of the events that happened that evening but rather some of the lessons learned from our experience to help prevent such tragedies from happening in the future.
The crew members that we found were wearing life vests that day. The first thing we realized after the experience was the change in the regular routine. When you change a regular routine, you should let others know. I feel that if Keith had been using his old truck and parking in the same position he had always parked, the local fishermen would certainly have recognized that they had not returned a lot earlier that day. Make sure before you leave that a sailing plan is properly prepared and filed with someone in the know.
Second, most people carry a cellphone today, and placing it in a watertight compartment can be useful if in the water. If a person can manage to get it out, he can manage to use it.
Third, when you arrive at the place you will be fishing — and I did it, the next time we were out in my small vessel — look around and see who's in that area. Call the vessels — I did it — and let them know you're in the area: "Do you see me? If you do see me, before you go in, make sure you contact me and make sure that everything is all right and see how long I'm going to be before I leave.''
While most large vessels carry an EPIRB, which is an Emergency Positioning Indicating Radio Beacon. My larger vessel carries one, as it is mandatory. For my smaller vessel, it's not mandatory, but after that incident I went out and purchased an EPIRB for my smaller vessel. These beacons send out a distress signal automatically when it is immersed in salt water. They are relatively cheap, only a few hundred dollars, but time is everything when you have an emergency.
Harvesters could also benefit from wearing PLBs, personal locator beacons, that can be manually and automatically activated to alert SAR and transmit their location. We need to make sure that these beacons are readily available, but it's not enough to wear them. They need to work properly when men go overboard in our waters, and more at-sea testing in various conditions and training is needed to verify their value as an effective lifesaving tool.
My opinion is based on my experience of being involved in situations like this for the last 36 years. It's not that my vessel has been involved in an emergency situation in 36 years, but there have been years that we've spent as high as 10 and 11 months on the water. Being on the water 10 and 11 months offshore, there's always someone in an emergency situation and a lot of times you're the closest vessel. Those are the emergency situations that I'd like to expand on.
Most times when there are life-threatening and emergency situations at sea, it is not a very nice day, and therefore it's very difficult to deal effectively with emergencies. Thinking back to the incident last year — not that I like to think about it — how important this equipment could have been when the weather conditions that day weren't so nice. After we found the first victim, we were asked to proceed to Cape Spear Bay and do a transfer to the Coast Guard, which we did. It took time for us and the Coast Guard vessel to steam into the bay, complete the transfer and get back on scene.
To give you an idea of how important the right equipment could have been in that situation, while we were gone that day, there were seven to ten vessels still searching. The approximate area that this search went on, to give you some idea, from St. John's to Cape Spear is only three miles. From Cape Spear to Petty Harbour is only three miles. So we're looking at a nine-square mile area where all this took place last year.
While we left to go in to do a transfer, there were still seven to ten vessels searching, combing that nine square miles, and we had time enough to transfer a body, get back on scene, start a search pattern again and find a second body. That's how important this equipment is to let you know exactly where a person is.
From the time the emergency happens to the time the Coast Guard is deployed, the clock is ticking. Simply having EPIRBs and PLBs that are sending signals to land-based equipment is not enough, as this takes a tremendous amount of time.
The signal from an EPIRB or a PLB goes to a satellite, which transfers it to a land-based station. That station has to get in touch with a Coast Guard station. The Coast Guard station has to get in touch with a vessel in the area or deploy a search and rescue vessel, and this all takes time. In the meantime, that EPIRB or PLB is attached to something that's drifting in the water. The position that they finally get back to you with is not the position where that is going to be at that time, depending on the amount of wind, the amount of tide and the amount of current.
I am a member, like Sharon said, of the Coast Guard Auxiliary. We spend countless hours training — countless — but we still don't have the equipment aboard our vessels to deal with — even if we had EPIRBs and PLBs, we do not have the equipment that we should have in an emergency at sea for directing us to these positions.
Most of these pieces of equipment give off an electronic signal on a frequency. A lot of the Coast Guard boats have direction finders for tracking these signals and pointing and steering the vessel, but we don't. One of my suggestions would be that as a member of the Coast Guard Auxiliary, not all vessels but a lot of the vessels spaced out around the island should have the equipment for detecting these at sea and following them while at sea, not have to depend on going through a satellite system and wasting a lot of time.
The first responders, which are usually vessels nearby, need to have the proper equipment and technology to detect the exact location of the beacons because time is everything when lives are at stake.
I would like to wrap up by making the following important points. When things go wrong at sea, we need to know that search and rescue is on the way, as we don't work 9:00 to 5:00, like Sharon said, five days a week. So the importance of the Government of Canada following through with reinstating 30-minute wheels-up response times for SAR, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, can't be overstated.
I also think it's important for the government to continue to support harvester organizations like the Newfoundland and Labrador Fish Harvesting Safety Association. Like Sharon said, last week we had a seminar on safety, and I could not believe the information we gained after that eight-hour day. That's only 130 or 140 of us around the table that are not all fish harvesters, but it was the important people there that can get the information, heads of committees, out to the people that need to know.
Over the last two and a half years, the safety association has engaged in important research in noise, stability, weather and fishing safety research. The association has also brought the safety conversation to the forefront through community meetings, roundtables, and conferences focused totally on safety where harvesters can hear and share important information and follow through with us on these important issues.
Finally, I would like to note the importance of the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary in the search and rescue process, and the knowledge we have gained through countless training exercises as part of that organization. I've been personally involved. Every year my vessel and my crew will do the equivalent of a week of training with search and rescue technicians. Last year in November we did a full week, and they did things with our vessel that I've never seen them do before. I was amazed. A lot of times when there's an emergency situation, some of the stuff you can do with a vessel that doesn't have anything wrong with it with regards to keeping her head to the wind, and steaming at a certain speed when they have to drop their men, is not the case. A lot of times the vessel could be disabled, could be listing, can't keep her into the wind, and last year they practised with us in all those situations, which I thought was phenomenal.
Lastly, along with the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary, I wouldn't be doing justice if I didn't recognize the service of the men and women of the Canadian Coast Guard and the men and women of DND, who are committed, along with ourselves, to saving lives, and also committed to training with us so that in partnership we all can save lives.
Thank you once again, Mr. Chair and committee members, for allowing me to speak here today.
The Chair: Thank you very much everyone. That is certainly a lot of information to digest.
Usually we go to our committee's deputy chair for the first question, but Senator McInnis has to leave in a few minutes, so I'm going to ask him to put forward his questions.
Senator McInnis: Thank you very much for coming here today. Newfoundland, as we individuals who are freshmen to the view that we see out there and the beauty, is an extremely dangerous place to do the occupation that you do. It is said that these are most dangerous waters in the world, and so it's really a challenge. I've always felt that government should do what the citizenry cannot do themselves. There's a certification board, a safety association, a fisheries and marine institute, and I could go on and on. We have the auxiliary, of course, and the Canadian Coast Guard, and to the extent that they have the equipment to do it, we have the military.
Listening to you and to other presenters today, those involved in the commercial fishery have done a tremendous amount to help your own cause and your case. Now has that triggered the military? That's the question. I'm beginning to think it has and to get the proper response.
So you present a compelling case that can be put by the committee to ensure that there's some response. It's not going to happen overnight, but it shouldn't take long because we're losing lives, as we all know, on an annual basis.
So I commend you. It's amazing and you've articulated it extremely well.
I want to ask a quick question. The certification board was recently put in place by provincial legislation. Does it cover all fishers? Do they all have to have a licence? Is there a test, is it retroactive, or just for new individuals coming on stream? What is the cost of it to the fishers?
The other question is for Ms. Walsh. I don't know how you computed the over 500 reported injuries and close to $63.5 million in injury costs.
Mr. Dolomount: On the certification board, the provincial legislation was passed in 1996. Our board started in 1997, so this represents the twentieth year.
In 1997, DFO discontinued its personal fishing registration system that still exists in other jurisdictions of the country, and transferred the role of registering and certifying all commercial fish harvesters, enterprise licence holders and crew members, to our certification board.
With regard to the certification criteria, the difference is that under the old system, and in systems in other parts of the country, there are no education and training requirements to hold a species licence with DFO. You merely have to have two years of experience on a vessel in order to become what's referred to as full time, and then you're eligible to hold the licence.
In Newfoundland, it's considerably different. As a new entrant to the industry, you require a minimum of five years of full-time fishing activity, and 120 education credits, which amounts to about 100 to 120 days in school, usually at the Marine Institute. We're very fortunate to have one of the most highly recognized nautical institutes anywhere in the world right here, and our fish harvesters are lucky to be able to take advantage of that training.
There are actually linkages between provincial certification and federal licensing policy whereby the only people who are now eligible to hold federal species licences in this province are those harvesters who've achieved Level II certification. While in 1997 some 12,000 fish harvesters were grandfathered into the higher levels of certification, we've seen over the past two decades that entrants come in under the new system whereby they attend the Marine Institute and do their fishing master tickets, their marine emergency duties and their radio operator training. As a result, in recent years we've seen more competent and better trained crews and one of the most highly trained fisheries labour forces arguably anywhere in the world, and certainly the most compliant with the federal Marine Personnel Regulations.
Ms. Walsh: To add to what Mark said, from what I've seen of the PFHCB and FFAW, the Marine Institute and other organizations in the last three years, which is my history, is when you go to the Transport Canada Canadian Marine Advisory Council meetings, and you hear and see what's happening across the country, professionalization and the commitment of harvester organizations in this province in my mind no doubt is the reason why not only are we, as Mark said, the most compliant, but we often exceed minimum requirements. So there are all kinds of harvesters in fishing vessels who have fishing masters licences here in Newfoundland and Labrador when they don't require it. There are all kinds of harvesters who own fishing vessels that have all kinds of safety equipment on those vessels that don't require it, because they're professional. They're professionally trained, and they see and understand the need.
Having said that, the statistics bear out that no doubt there's a lot of work left to do. The $63.5 million is Workplace NL's — our compensation board — injury costs for the just under 600 injuries that happened in the same five-year period. Within the period up to 2015 — so 2011, 2012, 2012, 2014 and 2015 — there were just under 600 injuries reported to Workplace NL.
To give you a bit of perspective on that, earlier I talked about the community meetings that I go to. We sometimes talk about workplace injuries. Afterwards, I might go up and talk to a harvester and say, "I noticed you lost your fingers. You didn't do that fishing.'' And he says, "Oh, of course, I did that fishing.'' I say, "But that's not a workplace injury?'' He says, "No, because I went to the local hospital and talked to the doctor. To do the therapy, I'd miss work, so they sewed them up and I bandaged them. They gave me a few painkillers. So they don't consider that.'' They don't consider a permanent loss of their digits a workplace injury.
So when I say 600, those are the ones that are reported. The commission, they actually do a cost of what those 600 would be and 10 fatalities. It's $63.5 million over that same five-year period in our cost, and our injuries and our fatalities have come down because of the investment that Mark talked about.
Senator McInnis: Thank you.
Senator Hubley: Thanks to each of you for your presentations here today. I'm going to be sharing my question with Senator Doyle, but I'm going to start off.
Mark, I was glad to read in your presentation that safety equipment like EPIRBs and the VHF DSC radios are becoming increasingly commonplace and, with a combination of good training, have contributed directly to effective distress signalling and activation of the SAR system. Then I listened to Glenn say that they are operating on a satellite system that is probably not the most efficient way to get a message out and that there is now another generation. What is the next generation of instruments that should come with the licensing that we should have on these vessels to ensure their safety?
Mr. Winslow: I can speak to that. What I'm referring to is when an EPIRB goes off, or a PLB beacon, it sends out a signal over radio waves. These radio waves are picked up by satellites and transferred to a land-based station, and this all takes time, whereas vessels that are on the water at the time can have a piece of equipment just the same as a satellite that can zone in on this signal itself. It is called a direction finder, and it'll tell us the direction to go to proceed to that signal when we can pick it up at sea, saving a lot of time.
Senator Hubley: So how many vessels would have that type of equipment?
Mr. Winslow: Right now in the fishing industry none of us have that equipment.
I guess the research would have to be done first with PLBs to see whether in our environment and sea conditions these pieces of equipment actually work. That's the research that I'm talking about has to be done. If they do work, we have hundreds of vessels in the auxiliary that — I'm not saying all of them should have this piece of equipment, but certainly 20 percent based right around the island should have this aboard their vessel because nine times of out ten when an emergency happens, there's a fishing vessel close by.
Ms. Walsh: To add to Glenn's comments, we recently had Dr. Rob Brown from the Marine Institute, who has done research on oil and gas on PLBs, and the safety association is engaged in conversations with Memorial University now to look at that specific research. So it's great to have a PLB that's going to send it off. If there are vessels nearby that have equipment that can zone in on it, that's great, but they have to stick up in the water. Picture yourself as a harvester and you have to go overboard very quickly. If it's on your vest or in your suit, is it going to work? I don't think we have a great understanding of that answer just yet.
Mr. Dolomount: There are many lines of defence and many pieces of equipment that fish harvesters have aboard their vessels to activate the search and rescue system, from small open vessels to much larger deck longliners that fish 200 and 300 miles from shore, starting with cellphones on small open vessels. Then when you get into larger deck vessels, you have cellphones plus VHF radios in most cases. A growing number of those vessels, though not required by regulation, carry EPIRBs. When you get into larger vessels, they have it all. They have VHF radios and VHF DSC radios. They most all now, by regulation, carry EPIRBs.
I don't think there is much in the way of opposition in this province to the introduction of EPIRBs into smaller vessels, and even the introduction of PLBs. Permanently mounted EPIRBs, as we know them today, wouldn't necessarily have much utility on a small open vessel. I think we're open to advancing whatever technology is fitting to the vessel.
On the training side, I think there's a direct correlation between the level of training that people do in an institute like the Marine Institute and their willingness and understanding of why that equipment is important.
When you go to the Marine Institute and you do a three day or a five-day MED course, then you understand how the SAR system works. You understand how to activate the SAR system and how an EPIRB works and how a PLB works or a search and rescue transponder. I think it gives people a better understanding and a better appreciation for why those pieces of equipment are so important. I think it directly links back to why a lot of our harvesters in this province, even though not required by regulation to carry them, see a need to carry those pieces of equipment because of the environment they're fishing in.
Senator Doyle: When Senator Hubley and I were talking, is there tremendous cost involved in having this kind of equipment on board a vessel, making it standard equipment? Is it something that can easily be installed? Have any studies been done on the cost of it?
Capt. Hearn: I have to look at it from the commercial shipping perspective. We don't have a choice. It's absolutely mandatory.
The industry I come from is probably the most heavily regulated in the world, from the design of the ship, the operation of the ship, the people on board, to what must be on board, to where the ship goes, to what the ship can do. We don't have a choice.
I think that that should translate over to the fishing industry in some cases for safety, particularly when it comes to equipment to either identify a person in the water or to help people who are looking for them to find them.
I know there's a reluctance sometimes with cost. Cost is a driver and has to be accepted as part of the operation, unfortunately. This is what's true in my world.
But in the fishing industry, I think it also needs to be more that this is for you and, more importantly, this is for the people who belong to you ashore, to make sure that you come back if something goes wrong.
I know some people may balk on the cost, but again there's a range of costs. They can be fairly efficient and small scale, or they can be extremely elaborate. Again, it depends on what you want, but I still think they should be on board. That's just my opinion.
Mr. Winslow: I'd like to add to what Chris said. Actually, I spoke to an electronics company this morning before I came here, and the cost is relatively cheap. We definitely know that EPIRBs work. With regard to the PLBs, we're not sure yet, but EPIRBs do work. Like I said, cost is not insurmountable if at the end of the day it's going to save a life.
I'd like to add a little thing about why it's so important to have them aboard the vessels, and I told Mark this yesterday.
I was involved in a situation about 17 years ago. We were out on the Grand Banks, 220 miles off St. John's. We were fishing scallops at the time. There were probably 12 to 15 vessels in the area, and we got the call that a man went overboard. It was a very foggy day, and those 12 to 15 vessels responded immediately to try and find that gentleman, but we never found him.
I've been in situations looking for balloons and staff buoys that we know where they're at in the water and have spent hours trying to find them. So can you imagine someone who gets a position, goes through a satellite, gets to a station, calls out, and tells us the position and it's a foggy or a windy day and we got to try and find it. If we don't have that other piece of equipment aboard on a foggy and windy day, no matter what you got, may not help.
Senator Doyle: Has the federal government ever been approached officially by you or anyone to actually get involved in a funding package for it?
Ms. Walsh: At the recent Canadian Marine Advisory Council meeting, one of the sessions was on navigational aids. Transport Canada is looking at introducing legislation for small fishing vessels to make it mandatory to carry EPIRBs and PLBs. We invited Transport Canada to come down at our safety association. They spoke about this legislation they're considering, because they needed to hear from Newfoundlanders to say we're all for it. But we need to make sure it works first. Part of what the safety association is doing is researching and looking to start this. So the answer is, yes, but I think what that does is it raises a bigger question, not just related to the PLBs.
The TSB did a safety report, a 10-year review, and made a lot of recommendations. One of the recommendations, or embodied in a lot of them, actually, is that there are harvester organizations that are capable and proven and with mandates for research and safety and otherwise, and we need to work together more closely. I have found that we're moving away from working more closely.
In terms of funding, what comes to my mind recently is there was no specific pot for safety initiatives that we were looking for. We had been raising this at CMAC and we asked Transport Canada to provide something. So after a year or so of discussions, they came up with funding under boating safety which had been given for pleasure but hadn't been available for commercial fish harvesting. The amount of money was next to nothing. I won't waste everybody's time here, but the process attached to that was absolutely dismal and did not facilitate partnership and going forward on these support things.
So I think, Senator Doyle, there's all kinds of improvement for that, and I think the Auditor General of Canada actually made a recommendation as such a while back.
Senator Doyle: Good.
Mark, you said that harvesters can no long receive regular ice charts and weather charts to allow for effective ice routing. Why would something so basic and apparently cheap to the operation of a fishing enterprise be so difficult to get? Why would all that be difficult? Why is it cancelled? What's it all about?
Mr. Dolomount: I'll let Chris comment, but my understanding is that once you get outside VHF range, unless you have a SARSAT system, it's very difficult to receive weather charts, ice charts, et cetera. Some vessels are set up for receiving email and internet and they're able to get it that way, but those are expensive at sea as well.
One of the concerns is not so much about the equipment that harvesters have aboard their vessels. I mean we have vessels like Glenn's and others that fish particularly on the northeast coast, and with the closure of St. Anthony, for example, they have a very difficult job now that there are automated systems and that humans are no longer giving out weather forecasts. It is a very difficult job understanding and interpreting weather forecasts that come over the new automated system. I hope it wasn't misinterpreted as being a lack of investment or equipment on the part of the individual fish harvesters.
Senator Doyle: No.
Mr. Dolomount: It's more a reduction or degradation in service over radio for the availability and reception of the service.
Sharon mentioned earlier the importance of dialogue between government and industry. We had a recent meeting recently that was facilitated by the safety association. We had a Coast Guard search and rescue expert in the room and a fish harvester similar to Glenn who fishes offshore with a 65-foot vessel that's very well equipped. The Coast Guard individual sincerely believed that the weather forecasting coming through the weather charts was now not coming through Cartwright but still coming through the St. Anthony transmitting station and was able to be received across the northeast coast of Newfoundland readily by harvesters. But the report that was coming from a very well-respected fish harvester was that the people he knew in his fleet weren't experiencing what the gentleman from the Coast Guard thought was the case. I think it's an example of the disconnect between sometimes the services that are in place and how those services are being received on the user end.
Senator Doyle: Right.
Ms. Walsh: I have harvesters on the northeast coast who are actually communicating with shore to get the U.S. Navy weather information. That's what they're relying on instead of our own. We've got problems and we need to fix them.
The Chair: Senator Christmas.
Senator Christmas: I'm from Nova Scotia. I have to congratulate you for developing such a strong culture of safety within the fishery industry. I'm very impressed with the work that has gone on in the last number of years and the growing development of a safety culture within the industry.
I have two questions. One is a very easy question, I hope, Ms. Walsh. How is the safety association funded?
Ms. Walsh: We received start-up funding from the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, which is now Department of Fisheries and Land Resources. And we had money from Workplace NL, which is our workers' comp board. Workplace NL, supported by the provincial government here, looked at what was happening in all industries and determined that if you put the key leaders of the employer and the workers side and the industry associations in a room and gave them access to their industry statistics and the leading indicators, and you're able to facilitate a conversation, they would be able to take a systemic approach to what's causing those injuries and make some real headway and save lives. Think about that in the context of the fishing industry, $63.5 million over a five-year period injury cost, compared to what it takes to run a safety association. Having said that, that's where our start-up money came from, but we also have significant funding that comes from industry themselves.
Part of the PFHCB legislative mandate is safety, and so we're housed in the PFHCB and they help us out. So if we're having a function and the FFAW sends their elected members and others who are interested to learn, they'll cover the cost. So there are lots of ways in which we get it done, but we don't have a long-term funding regime, and that is something that we need to deal with in the next little while.
Senator Christmas: For someone looking from a distance, it seems like it's a great investment of both public and private funds to do the work that you're doing.
The other question rolling around in my mind, and forgive my ignorance, what's the role of the insurance industry here? I assumed that if fishing operators are using the best safety equipment, meaning the EPIRBs and the PLBs, the fishing industry would welcome that and support it. Does the insurance industry have a role here to promote safety?
Mr. Dolomount: I'll speak briefly to that. I don't pretend to know a lot about the insurance business or the insurance policies that harvesters have, but I do know that most marine insurance policies require the holder of that policy to be compliant with federal government regulations. In the case of vessels over 15 tonnes, which is basically our over 40- foot fleet, some 1,000 of them or so in this province, they hold what's called an SIC 29. It's the old steamship inspection. Those vessels are inspected on a quadrennial basis by Transport Canada, and unless they have a valid SIC certification — a ship inspection certificate — their insurance policy would be void.
It's a good question and I think it's something that Sharon has actually broached at some point with the insurance companies about trying to find reductions in insurance costs for those harvesters who can demonstrate that they're able to go above and beyond in protecting themselves and their vessels, the environment and other things. It's certainly something that should be explored.
On the insurance piece, oftentimes when you get into the reduction of government services, I mentioned in my remarks about not only the downloading of cost, but the downloading of liability to fish harvesters. I think it's a really important point because we have a federal government now — Transport Canada — bringing in fishing vessel safety regulations. I applaud them for doing it. We've worked closely as industry with Transport Canada to develop regulations that we think can work.
One area of those regulations that are coming in July 2017 is going to require every single fishing vessel in this country to have written safe-operating procedures. First of all, harvesters don't know that that requirement is there, and secondly, as of July of 2017, they're going to be liable if they're not compliant. So those are some of the concerns.
We understand that the TSB has a watch list. They put a lot of pressure on Transport Canada to put regulations in place, but at the same time, I think it's critical that Transport Canada in creating and amending regulations do it in partnership with industry to the end that we're able to not only get good regulations in place but get buy-in from fish harvesters, get buy-in from their organizations and put good regulations in place that have some ability to actually achieve their intended purpose. In most cases that has been the case, but there are situations where that hasn't been, and it's problematic. For the purpose of liability, it's a huge concern for the industry starting in July 2017.
Ms. Walsh: I will give you an example of what Mark was just speaking about in connection with SAR.
The requirement for written safety procedures is new business for Transport Canada and the commercial fishing industry. The trouble with that is generally with cutbacks and resources, and then whether you have the expertise.
We asked Transport Canada to come to our safety symposium and speak about these regulations. As Mark said, there is a huge liability for owner/operators, the 3,700 enterprises out there on day one when those regs come into effect. They require harvesters, owner/operators, to have written procedures on a lot of things; that those procedures be available in French and in English; that those procedures be communicated to a crew based on their needs and the equipment that's on that fishing vessel; that they test their crew on whether they're able to follow these procedures; and that they keep written records.
Now think about that in terms of our fleet and how many vessels are out there. So everybody is going around with a plastic binder in their boat. I don't know what's going on with that, but it is important and, as Mark said, they should be applied because we have to start to do some things differently if we are going to be able to get at those injuries.
But here's the problem, and this is why people doing the work have to be involved. One of those regulations is a requirement for the prevention of fire on your fishing vessel. So think about when a fire happens and the cost if we're not able to deal with that in the subsequent SAR activity. Transport Canada is saying, "Just go on our website and check out our template, and it will help you meet this regulation.'' Their template is for firefighting, not fire prevention, so there's not even a real understanding of what it is that they're bringing in if the full onus of that is going to be on harvesters as of July, with no industry approach plan to get folks compliant. Think of the cost savings in SAR with some of that.
Senator Christmas: One point of clarification, Mr. Winslow. I'm not sure if I understood this properly. When the EPIRB and PLB signals are sent out, you mentioned that the Coast Guard has the capability of receiving those signals. Did you mean Coast Guard vessels?
Mr. Winslow: Yes, most of the larger, and even the commercial vessels like Chris spoke about, have the equipment onboard now to detect the direction that a radio frequency is coming from. Our vessels do not have that.
Senator Christmas: Do I understand what you were commenting on is that auxiliary vessels, at least selected auxiliary vessels, should also have that capability of receiving these signals?
Mr. Winslow: Exactly.
Senator Christmas: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Dolomount: To use a specific example, a PLB has 406 megahertz EPIRB technology that activates the SAR system, and that gives the search and rescue centres the distress signal to let people know that an EPIRB has been activated and its location, which as Glenn said, gets picked up through the satellite system and that position is sent back. But what it also has is a 121.5 megahertz homing mechanism. You can be on the scene in the general area and, as Glenn said, you can get drift, so from the time that you get the location from the 406 EPIRB transmission and get on site, the transponder may have drifted. In order to make up for that, they have a 121.5 homing mechanism. So unless you have the technology onboard to home in on that signal, you could be steaming back and forth on a grid pattern within 20 or 30 feet and not know exactly the precise location of the transponder or the person it's attached to.
Senator Hubley: In many of the presentations today we've been asked to make sure that the 30-minute wheels-up is enforced as far as search and rescue goes.
Certainly, we have learned a lot coming to Newfoundland and Labrador and we've seen a lot. We had the opportunity to look at Cougar early on in our visit, and then we also had the opportunity to visit Goose Bay. There's no magic in why Cougar is getting an earlier response time. Comparing both of those operations, we have talented, dedicated and well-trained personnel. Their mission is to save lives, but the difference is that at Cougar everything was "go.'' They're under contract to be there and to respect that 20 minutes. It's not a question of being late; they can't be late or they've broken and lost their contract.
Comparing that situation — and again we'll go to Goose Bay — search and rescue is not their primary function; it's secondary. There are limitations from their equipment that I think are serious. I didn't see anything that would haul that helicopter out of the building it was in, so right away there are things that hold you up because of infrastructure that should be there.
I think if we're going to be serious about search and rescue, we better get serious about it, and to do that, it has to be well-equipped and it has to have places of operation that are conducive to getting off the ground in not 30 minutes but in 15 minutes. Every time I see 30 minutes, I say, "Gee, 30 minutes.'' And we just heard a story not too long ago; that's a long time.
There are reasons, I think, that we've gotten used to saying "30-minute wheels-up'', but I think we can do better. I don't know if you want to comment or not.
Capt. Hearn: You make a good point, senator.
Part of the reason for Cougar is obviously they're the main supplier of not only transport but SAR services for the offshore oil and gas industry, and given the volume of people they are transporting back and forth between the assets, that's a big driver. After they had the accident — they learned very quickly after the Cougar crash.
The difference in Goose Bay, as you illustrate quite correctly, is that it is a military installation for a specific purpose. The ability of helicopters to be able to mobilize quickly is a subject of debate.
I worked in the North Sea and in sectors where it was 15 minutes, but also there were helicopters tasked that could land on platforms and were part of the search and rescue network for a much later offshore operation.
Our challenge is the distance. There's no offshore industry that occurs so far out with so many factors against safety, and we've still been able to get through and we've still been able to prosecute the business offshore. We've had some real bad tragedies, but we still are able to get past much more larger challenges.
I think that the ability of Cougar to do it quickly, as you illustrate, is because they're under contract. It is a very, I can assure you, hot topic of discussion always at any offshore industry association anytime they meet, anytime they talk about safety, because the field operators are so averse to risk, as anybody should be given what's going on.
I think one of the shortcomings of aerial search and rescue in Newfoundland, in this region, is the lack of fixed-wing aircraft. That gives range, which is very important. The district that the Halifax JRCC, and St. John's MSRC now that it's open again, has to deal with is 80 percent water. It's a large area, and we also have to provide services for ships transiting, and just at the fringes of this. So helicopters can't get to that range.
I know that Statoil is now looking at how to put a minimal amount of people on whatever platform it puts out on the edge of the Flemish Pass in the Mizzen Field because they're at such an extreme range for helicopters. So it's not to get people out to the platform. But God forbid, what if something happens to the helicopter? How do you get to that helicopter when the other one is already at its extreme range?
To get back to the point, I think that 15 or 20 minutes like Cougar is doing meets a standard that other industries have already established in other jurisdictions. It should be done here. It's not a knock or a mark against the military, DND, and the Coast Guard; they're making do the best they can in terms of what they have.
As part of that, maybe a solution is to bring the Coast Guard back into Transport Canada and take it out of Fisheries, because every time there's a budget issue, it always seems like it manifests itself in the Coast Guard in terms of the fleet, the equipment, training or personnel.
Senator Hubley: Thank you.
The Chair: Sharon, you're going to have the last word. Make it good.
Ms. Walsh: It definitely gives me comfort to hear the questions and the comments that everybody has made. I'm here obviously speaking about commercial fish harvesting, but you can't really answer that question without the context of what's going on in our marine environment here, and I totally agree with the previous speaker.
I was in the audience but didn't present myself when you guys were last at the Delta Hotel. At that time I worked in a different place and I was part of the inquiry into offshore oil and gas and the Cougar helicopter crash. Some things stuck home with me at that time, one of which was that what was going on in a privately run industry at the time was an absolute disaster. We have to remember that, until the crash happened, and they're still improving and they're doing very well. There are still improvements to be made. There are night runs, all that kind of stuff.
The safety association made the recommendation that we need an industry standing committee. We did that with these types of things in mind because the oil industry is going to be farther from shore, and just like the North Sea, we don't have those platforms where they can land. We're going to need more resources than we currently have. It's going to get busy out there. We're going to be going from a shorter shell fish industry season to hopefully closer to 365 days a year with a groundfish industry, then a farther-from-shore growing oil industry. When you add the transportation into that and you add the cruise ships and the pleasure boats, and you add everything else, there's a lot to be considered.
I don't know what the answers are going to be and who's going to be tasked with what. Moving something from one department to another, with the greatest of respect, is not an answer. Currently with my experience of Transport Canada, they do a lot of things well, but they have opportunity for improvement on the safety file, no doubt.
I think you have to have oversight and you have to have constant vigilance where you're going to be checking to see that your plan is actually working because things change, and I don't see where that is. That's the piece that's also missing to me. How is it, regardless of what we bring in, we're going to have oversight around that and constant vigilance?
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Sharon.
I want to thank our witnesses. We ran a little bit longer than planned, but I think I say with confidence that the experience and the expertise at the other end of the table didn't go unnoticed by us on the committee. I want to thank you for some valuable advice and suggestions here today.
As I say to all the witnesses who have appeared before us, if there's something that you may think about afterwards that you thought you should have said, we would welcome that input.
And we welcome your full briefing, Sharon, if you want to forward it to us.
Thank you once again.
I apologize to our next panel. We're running a bit behind schedule, but we've heard some very important testimony here today, and I didn't want to just cut people off when they were having a conversation. We're learning as we go.
I want to now welcome Keith Sullivan and Bill Broderick from the FFAW, and I'm sure they'll take care of the introductions themselves. I understand that Mr. Sullivan has some opening remarks. We'll get those, and then we'll have questions from senators.
The floor is yours, Mr. Sullivan.
Keith Sullivan, President, Fish Food and Allied Workers' Union: Thank you very much for the opportunity today. I know the testimony you heard is emotional and it's been a long day, but it's obviously a very important topic.
I'm Keith Sullivan, President of the Fish Food and Allied Workers' Union, Unifor. I was a fish harvester some years back. I'll pass it over to Mr. Broderick to introduce himself.
Bill Broderick, Inshore Director, Fish Food and Allied Workers' Union: I am Bill Broderick, Inshore Director with the Fish Food and Allied Workers' Union for the past 11 to 12 years. I've been a fish harvester for most of my life, starting off fishing the Labrador coast at a very young age, about 13 or 14 when I went up there the first time, so I've been involved one way or another with the fishery ever since.
Mr. Sullivan: The FFAW represents about 15,000 members in Newfoundland and Labrador. Most of those are in the fishery, but we do have members who are in marine transportation, metal fabrication, working in hospitality, and many other sectors and industries.
I'm sure you're getting the idea by now that fish harvesting is one of the most dangerous occupations in the world, and I heard the prior presentation that had the same statistic. Between 2011 and 2015, 10 harvesters have lost their lives in this province. Obviously, 10 too many, and we've had many more injuries, nearly 600 other injuries that were reported. So by any statistic or metric, it's extremely dangerous.
The stats alone can't account for the significant role maritime search and rescue plays in our fishing industry. While significant progress has been made in recent years to invest and improve search and rescue services, there is much left to be done in order to reverse the degradation of services our members have experienced over the last decade.
In this province, there is never, ever too much time between reminders of why we need first rate search and rescue. We are nearing the anniversary of the Cougar helicopter tragedy, so that'll be coming up this week, and we had a reminder a few days ago where we saw search and rescue professionals rescue the captain and crew of the Northern Provider off the northeast coast of Newfoundland. First of all, I want congratulate everybody involved, the harvesters, and their professionalism, and obviously the job well done by search and rescue.
I think many others have spoken before and said the observations and everything we'll present today are in no way condemning the work of the individuals who work with search and rescue or DND. The individuals are obviously doing a first-class job, which was evidenced by the work we saw here this week. I just wanted to make that clear.
The FFAW has a constant objective to make our workplaces better. Harvesters in the province have taken the initiative, are highly professional, highly skilled, and improve safety practices by focusing on training in navigation, marine emergency duties. There have been 13,000 harvesters have done their MED alone. Others include radio operation and marine first aid, and certainly a lot of credit is to be given to the Canadian professional fish harvesters and the Marine Institute of Memorial University, who just had presentations here before me.
The FFAW has also advocated for the formation of an industry association with the sole focus of improving health and safety of fish harvesters. We just heard from Ms. Walsh and Mr. Winslow, who presented for the Newfoundland and Labrador Fish Harvesting Safety Association. That came to fruition after years of advocating for special attention and full-time focus on safety. It is a relatively new organization, but I think it's making differences in people's lives already. Harvesters themselves have done that. They're raising the bar for safety in our province, and we need our government to raise the bar particularly when it comes to search and rescue, which is what we're talking about here today.
For the fishing industry, we're in a significant transition. The type of fisheries we'll be involved with look like they'll be much different. We're going from a shell fish to a groundfish regime, so a lot has really changed in the 25 years since the cod moratorium, but things seem to be changing now again.
The federal cuts in funding to search and rescue have resulted in a deterioration of many services. While the current federal government has taken steps to improve maritime search and rescue services with investments and the reopening of the Maritime Search and Rescue Sub-Centre, along with opening lifeboat stations in St. Anthony, Twillingate and the Bay de Verde area, many gaps remain. They're a step in the right direction, but we need the reestablishment of the Marine Communications and traffic Services Centres in St. John's and St. Anthony, so we need to go beyond what has been announced to date.
Fish harvesters in the province are looking to the federal government to follow through on commitments they've made to improve maritime safety and ensure adequate search and rescue services are in place in this transition to new fishery.
Harvesters, as I've said before, have already invested heavily to adhere to new safety regulations and requirements. Since the moratorium, Newfoundland and Labrador has seen reduced lighthouse services and closures of the Marine Communications and Traffic Services Centres. These facilities previously had high value for fish harvesters. Fewer points of communications within the province, combined with the shifting of services to other locations in Atlantic Canada, have resulted in a lack of adequate and effective communication with harvesters at sea.
The return of the groundfish fishery in our province will bring a shift to the way we see the fishery taking place in the future. We're going to see an influx in the number of vessels and more harvesters on the water for longer. The seasons will increase. We're going to see more harvesters fishing into the fall. I think this is a message that may not necessarily have been picked up in other places. To be very clear, we're going to see a significant, significant increase in the number of hours at sea spent by harvesters. We're going to work hard to prevent that, but in all likelihood we're going to have more cases of distress heading into the future.
We need our search and rescue to be able to keep up with these changes, and this is in addition to increased recreational boating activity and a high level of oil and gas activity in the offshore off Newfoundland and Labrador.
Our members have focused on some key aspects of maritime search and rescue services and support that must be improved. Many harvesters have felt the impacts of the closure of the St. John's and St. Anthony Maritime Communications and Traffic Services Centres. Like I mentioned before, lifeboat stations are certainly welcome news, but the lifeboat stations are not replacements for other search and rescue capabilities. We can't have, we'll say, two lifeboats, and therefore we don't need icebreakers or vessels that have longer range capabilities. I know that wasn't something that was intended with the announcements, but we just have to make sure that we're not doing that, that we're actually increasing our capacity and not just trading it off in one area as opposed to another.
Previous speakers mentioned the importance of the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Most of the auxiliary are fish harvesters in this province. We know about the enormous coastline and that the geography of the province is just immense. So having that auxiliary in many occasions — I don't know if the statistics would say that in most occasions, but many times it's a fishing boat or often an auxiliary member who are first on scene in the case of distress. So having budgets stagnate and not having those auxiliary members outfitted with number one, the training, and number two, the equipment they need to do their job, is a problem. This is one area where we can raise that bar when it comes to search and rescue capabilities, because we have an incredible amount of skill when it comes to mariners who are part of that Coast Guard Auxiliary.
Consultation with industry participants is key. Formal processes like the Canadian Marine Advisory Council have been cut from two meetings per year to one. I believe you heard this at least once today. It was an opportunity for harvesters, in the case of the people I represent, to come and meet with Transport Canada and other regulators to talk about the issues they face and work on challenges together. I would suggest reinstating that biannual meeting in the sense of twice a year, not once every two years.
Ms. Walsh, from the safety association, also mentioned, which I thought was a good idea, to set up another forum within industry stakeholders that focuses on search and rescue. I thought that was a reasonable suggestion considering how important search and rescue is for the people of our province.
Weather forecasting services also must be improved. We know that this is Environment Canada, but operating in the areas where harvesters do, it's important that they have the most accurate forecast possible, as weather can obviously hamper the efforts for search and rescue. In many cases with recent changes, harvesters outside VHF range can't actually hear. There was a reference to an automated service, and harvesters can't actually hear the broadcast weather forecasts for these areas.
Another comment that came up from harvesters was that the marine forecasts often involve immense territories. For example, the northeast coast goes from Cape Freels to Cape Bald. I mean, we're talking 200 or 300 kilometres. We know in this environment it can be extremely different, so perhaps a consideration of subdividing some of those large areas would make sense.
Also a change recently that has caused problems for harvesters is not having access to ice charts. It was mentioned that that service now is supposed to come from Sydney, Nova Scotia. I haven't clearly identified what the problem is from getting that information out, but it's been identified as a problem and we're going to have to address that one immediately. We got a fishery coming up, and we'll certainly have significant ice issues in the spring.
It's been mentioned many times here already today that we all know the fishery is far from a 9:00 to 5:00 job. We know that Newfoundland and Labrador has many fishing enterprises, approximately 4,000. They go farther from shore than any other jurisdiction in the country. We know that the environment is harsh and often unpredictable, and we know now that we will have significantly increased hours spent fishing in the years to come.
The most critical recommendation that we've heard from any of our members and other stakeholders has been the implementation of 24-7, 365 days a year, 30-minute wheels-up response to vessels in distress, no matter what time of the day. I think many people recognize that a lot of problems happen at night; we don't get to choose when accidents happen or incidents of distress. This is absolutely something that we have to improve. This is not just something for some areas of the province. If you happen to have a problem in an individual area, we have to get people out to areas where there's distress. Whether you're in Labrador or off the coast of St. John's, it's equally important.
I think Senator Hubley mentioned this in a previous discussion. We suggest further evaluation on reducing the 30- minute wheels-up time. In these situations, we all have heard how important time is. Quite literally, life and death can be seconds, and we certainly know what minutes can mean. It can be an eternity.
We have, like we said before, the largest and most challenging coastline and conditions in the world. We certainly deserve the best search and rescue.
Obviously there are choices to be made. We'll talk about the cost of search and rescue, what it will cost to implement that. As Canadians, we have to evaluate some things, whether there's investment in other areas of the military, whether it's a fighter jet, or whether we tax people on dividend growth. It's obviously a balance. We recognize this, but I think this should be placed at a very high priority, and I know that the Newfoundlanders and Labradoreans that I speak to certainly value this.
The FFAW is committed to working with all industry stakeholders, including the Newfoundland and Labrador Fish Harvesting Safety Association, to improve our safety, but we need that increased investment and commitment from the federal government as well.
For families in the fishing marine industries, efficient and effective search and rescue are obviously crucial. When it comes to the list of priorities for those people I speak to, health and safety and consequently search and rescue are top of the list.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. There's no doubt that given the discussions we're having here today, the people that you represent around Newfoundland and Labrador — maybe the majority of people that are on the ocean are fish harvesters here in our province — this is a very important issue. I thank you for making your presentation here.
We're going to go to our deputy chair for the first question, Senator Hubley.
Senator Hubley: Thank you for your presentation today. We've had a lot of information coming our way, and we appreciate everybody's efforts to bring this information to us.
That was an excellent presentation. In your role with the FFAW, where else can you present this information or where else do you have an opportunity to advocate on behalf of the fish harvesters?
Mr. Sullivan: I did mention one venue in particular on a federal level at the CMAC meetings. I said we had those meetings twice a year, recently reduced to once a year. That was a beneficial forum. Mr. Broderick might have something to follow up on that because he's actually attended many of the CMAC meetings. It was an opportunity for harvesters from all different areas of the country to first of all have access to the regulators but also talk among themselves and meet about some of the important trends, whether that was opportunities for more cost-effective lifesaving equipment or how they found the provider, someone who can actually do things more cost effectively, which is important. It's hard to put a price tag on some of these things, but obviously something cost prohibitive is difficult. So that was one.
The safety association, which we advocated for so strongly, has gone around the province and consulted with harvesters and worked with regulators. So that's harvesters themselves, a full-time focus on what they can do to improve safety. If I can look at one thing that the industry has done in the last few years that can point to the biggest change, it has been the development of that safety association.
Bill, would you have anything to add?
Mr. Broderick: On the CMAC process, the one thing that we have been successful in attaining over the last 20 years — and I'm not sure exactly when it was put in place, but we lobbied for it long and hard. Mr. Winslow was here, and his father-in-law was one of the forerunners, going to CMAC meetings for us. We were successful in getting a fishing vessel standing committee at CMAC, and that took a long time to get.
The funny thing now is that as we've moved through a lot of the changes to the new regulations that are coming into place, it has been suggested that maybe the fishing vessel standing committee should be phased out because we've done our work, and for us, nothing could be further from the truth. We need to keep that committee in place because there are issues that constantly arise and things that we need to be discussing.
Actually, Mr. Dolomount, who spoke to you a short time ago, has been the co-chair of that committee for quite a number of years. He isn't at present, having stepped down from that position last year, and it's now held by a lady from Grand Manan. We've seen good things happen through that standing committee, and we'd like to see it continue.
Senator Hubley: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Sullivan, maybe you could give us some idea, because it's come up in our discussions, about the importance of the fishing industry to the province. Everybody understands the general terms, but I wonder if you could break down the monetary value for the committee, the jobs created, what it means as a natural resource to this province and why it's important to make sure that the people that make a living from the ocean have the protection they need. Maybe just give us some details on it for the record.
Mr. Sullivan: I think you'll probably get some idea as you travel around how valuable the fishery is to the province. It's pretty much the reason why most of us ended up here.
People tend to think that somehow the fishery is in decline in the province. We've had some bad news very recently, but in the last few years the fishery has been worth more to the province than it ever has been in history, in the magnitude of about $1.3 billion or $1.4 billion dollars annually. The money that comes from the fishery is very intensive.
The owner/operators are relatively small boat enterprises, so when you're talking about all these communities that dot the coastline, that money is made there and spent there. So in terms of jobs, even compared to an oil and gas industry, which would obviously have very big figures, impressive numbers, contributing to the GDP, there would be no comparison to the value of the jobs from the fishery.
Generally, direct employment in the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador is around 20,000 people, but the supporting industries around that infrastructure needed to make it work, I mean, it goes much further. So it's the main economic driver in rural and coastal Newfoundland and Labrador, and we believe that it has the potential to be that for some years to come.
The Chair: One of the issues raised with us in our conversations has to do with the construction of vessels, the allowable length of vessels. Most of the fishery operates on a quota system now. Whether a person catches his quota in a 25-foot boat or a 50-foot boat, safety issues came up several times today. People feel safer if they're on a larger vessel. Sometimes we have a situation where the width and the length of the vessel necessarily raise questions.
From a FFAW point of view, I'm sure that issue has come up and you made representation on that. Maybe you could give the committee an idea of where that stands now and the concerns that have been raised. It's one of the things we're looking at. Have you seen any light at the tunnel in relation to dealing with that particular issue and, if so, in what way?
Mr. Sullivan: Firstly, when we deal with the health and safety issues, the Newfoundland and Labrador Fish Harvesting Safety Association would say that no matter the size of the vessel, it's important to ensure that you're safe and have a safe working environment. The people we mostly represent have vessels from perhaps 18 feet right up to 90 feet. We also have members on offshore trawlers and some in the marine transportation on tankers. I would say that there's certainly discussion around vessel lengths. We saw an increasing capacity in lengths a few years back, and most harvesters have not gone to the maximum sizes. There's still a combination of quotas and competitive fisheries.
I think the focus from our point of view right now has been ensuring that vessels, no matter the length, are safe. I don't think anyone is actually saying that you can't be safe whether it's a 25 or 30 or 45 or a 60 foot. All these vessels could be unsafe for various reasons, operating bigger vessels that are not properly manned, so there are all kinds of considerations when it comes to that. Our focus is on ensuring that no matter what vessel you're on, you're as safe as you possibly can be.
On the other end, when people do get into a situation like we're here to talk about today, we want to make sure that we have the search and rescue capabilities to help them.
Senator Doyle: Could you speak about your organization's relationship with the Coast Guard vis-à-vis search and rescue activities? Do you have committees or working groups that would regularly liaise with the Coast Guard on the safety of crews and their needs? Is there any hands-on relationship with the Coast Guard on that kind of thing, or would you be expected to do that?
Mr. Sullivan: I would say in a lot of these ways that we've identified the needs for dealing with whatever regulator, whether it's DFO or the Coast Guard section of DFO, or Transport Canada, and trying to put the infrastructure in place, the right people there to focus on the job. Like I mentioned earlier, we've set up a safety association, for example, that can really focus and hone in on those issues full time.
As you can appreciate, many of the other responsibilities that our organization would have, we have peaks and troughs, and preparing management for the fishery right now makes it very taxing on our organization. We recognize that safety can't be a part-time thing, so organizing something like the safety association and having people involved on the boards and committees is important.
We do the same thing in cases through the Newfoundland and Labrador Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board. We work on issues around safety with the oil and gas sector, DFO, the Coast Guard, provincial Fisheries and groups through One Ocean. We work with the oil and gas industry. We have certain areas where there's more traffic, like in Placentia Bay. I forget the name of the committee, but there's a committee with all the industries in Placentia Bay that we're engaged in. So there are many different areas, senator, that we are involved in, yes.
Mr. Broderick: We have been involved over the years, prior to the standing committee at CMAC, where most of the people are involved now. We travelled there. We worked together on that, the group from Newfoundland. But prior to that we had a working group with the people from DFO, from the Coast Guard, from Transport Canada, from the Marine Institute, from the professional fish harvesters board, from the union; everybody who had any stake in it was around that table. We had that going for quite a number of years until now. The safety association in a sense fills that void now.
It got so big that it actually collapsed under its own weight. Everybody wanted to be a part of it. It ceased to exist for a while, but the safety association now has a bunch of committees that report. So all of the individuals and bodies involved would be taking part in some way, shape or form.
Senator Doyle: Today we've heard about forecasting not being accessible to boats outside of VHF range and about charts that come from Sydney, Nova Scotia, and they're not reliable forecasting. All this stuff is so necessary to safety. I mean, I don't even know what I want to ask you. How could it be happening? It seems just a small kind of thing. The feds or whoever should be on top of it. I mean, it's basic to the safety of the people on the water. How could these little things, I call them, be happening and not be addressed yet?
What's the alternative if you can't access proper forecasting or reliable forecasting? If you don't have access to the charts and what have you, even though they're coming out of an area that's very close by over in Sydney, that is so basic to the safety. It's just unbelievable, really, when you get right down to it.
I don't know what I want to ask you. I just wanted to say that.
Mr. Sullivan: I agree. This primarily came up on the northeast coast. I spoke to harvesters fishing off the Northern Peninsula, and they seem to suggest that it coincided with the closing of the St. Anthony communications station. The commitment was made that there will be no loss in service, but so far, I guess that hasn't been the case for people there. It's hard to understand why it's actually happening, but that seems to be the common thread here when it comes to the charts.
Senator Doyle: The ice charts.
Mr. Sullivan: Yes, ice charts in particular, and with the weather forecasts actually being able to be picked up by harvesters.
Senator Doyle: How long this been happening?
Mr. Sullivan: It seems like it's been a couple of years now. It has been some time.
With all the issues that harvesters have, it's probably not the first thing they're coming in to talk about and complain about. When you go ask and you're presented with something like this, or asked to do this, you think, "Well, yes, we manage it and find work-arounds and talk to other people.'' But it's obviously not ideal.
Senator Doyle: Thank you.
Senator Christmas: I actually had the same comment that Senator Doyle was just referring to, which I was trying to understand myself: accurate weather forecasts and accurate ice charts in this day and age. That would reduce the number of search and rescues, so I'm a little surprised by that.
I do have a second question. I'm not a fisherman. You had mentioned, Mr. Sullivan, that looking ahead there will be a return of the ground fishery, and in your statement you mentioned it'll be longer seasons, more hours spent at sea. Could you elaborate? What would be the impact of a longer groundfish season on the readiness of search and rescue capabilities in the province? I guess this is a way of asking the following: Do you anticipate that because of the longer season, there is the possibility of an increase in incidents and as a result there will be a need for more resources? Could you elaborate on how the ground fishery can change what search and rescue does in the province?
Mr. Sullivan: I would say the short answer, with everything being equal, is yes. More time spent on the water, particularly in the fall, would generally manifest itself as more search and rescue incidents. I believe that we're doing a lot of work avoiding these and ensuring that people are more safety conscious.
Just to elaborate, I guess the reason for that, more time on the water, is that groundfish, cod, red fish or any species are expected to be more labour intensive fisheries. The market will be requiring these fish to be harvested throughout the year. That's when the higher value market demand will come into effect. Some of the highest quality groundfish will be caught in the fall. That's when yields and textures of the product are better. So there will be more focus in the fall.
Anybody who knows Newfoundland weather, and I would say it's much the same most places in Canada, once you get into the fall, storms increase and weather conditions deteriorate, which makes operating the fishery in a fishing vessel much harder. Those are basically the reasons why I'd expect we have to become more prepared and up our game when it comes to search and rescue.
Senator Christmas: The other thought that comes to mind is looking to the future and the possibility of the opening up of the European market for fish products. Given Newfoundland's quality fish products, I'm sure there will be an increased demand from their side of the water, so I'm thinking there's going to be an increased fishery, not only because the fish is there, but I think there will also be a new demand.
I'm thinking that, yes, if you forecast the growth of a ground fishery in Newfoundland, then I think you have to also forecast an increase in the capabilities of providing the necessary safety required for those fisheries.
Thank you.
The Chair: Go ahead, Bill.
Mr. Broderick: My comment has to do with what I call a changing environment. Global warming is one thing that we certainly see here, and I guess you see it in other parts of the country as well. We're witnessing much windier conditions, this winter being a case in point. In the spring and fall, and sometimes even in the summer, but certainly in the fall of the year we get those — they don't talk about anything now without talking about winds of 100 kilometres an hour. I guess that's a new phenomenon. As they say in certain parts of this province, it didn't used to be like that. That's a nice expression that Norm would know, I think.
Senator Doyle: A Conception Bay expression.
Mr. Broderick: A Conception Bay expression.
We're witnessing a changing environment. Going along with your comments and Keith's about the longer season with groundfish, crab and shrimp were confined to get it in in a month, two months, as fast as you could, but groundfish will have to come in slower. We're looking at maybe over an eight-month time frame, so you're certainly going to have people on the water in those times of the year when it's not as good as it would be in July or August. Because of market demands, that's what you're going to have, and not only market demands, but in terms of the capacity of plants to deal with it. So it's all coming into play there.
The other issue I'd like to go back to is forecasting, because what I see with the forecasting is the size. If you talk about the east coast of Newfoundland and the northeast coast of Newfoundland, you're talking about, as Keith said, hundreds of kilometres. On the east coast of Newfoundland, from Cape Race to Cape Freels, you could be having a very fine day in Bonavista Bay where I come from, but if you're living on the Southern Shore, you could have a storm wind and can't get out of the harbour. The fellows in the lower bays could probably have had a day on the water, but if the forecast is for a storm on the east coast, you miss the opportunity. If we had smaller areas of forecasting, and in today's world with the technology, as I guess Norm was saying, that's the kind of stuff that you would think you should be able to get.
You'd think we'd be coming forwards and not going backwards on that kind of stuff. That's the thing that surprises everybody. We can't seem to move with the times on certain things.
The one thing that I've heard the most is having a person in the weather office in Gander that you could actually talk to. Everybody didn't have to talk to him, but if you're in a harbour and somebody is talking to him, that spreads around pretty quickly.
We lost the service. I mean, I spent many mornings, 4 o'clock in the morning, talking to that guy and figuring out is it going to be fit to go today because that was a valuable resource.
The other thing is the lighthouse stations, when they were manned. How many times were we listening to the people in those lighthouse stations talking about the way ice was running, and letting people know where they could get to, Twillingate, Long Point or Cape Freels, Gull Island? People were watching the conditions and they could see it long before the guy in the boat could see it.
There's been a deterioration in the service over time, but the conditions on the water, if anything, are definitely about to get worse. We might have better technology on our boat, but the conditions are still there, and we need to have the services that used to be provided by the Government of Canada. There has been a lot of deterioration in that, and some of it where you'd say the savings were not real significant. Small dollars could maybe make a big difference.
Senator Doyle: Good advice.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Sullivan, and Mr. Broderick. You've added much to our conversation here, coming from the group you represent. It's a very important part of our economy, and we certainly welcome your comments. As I say to everybody, if you think about something afterwards, feel free to contact us. I want to thank you for your presentation here today.
Mr. Sullivan: Thanks for the attention. Like I said, it's been a long day with a lot of information.
The Chair: I want to now welcome Mr. Merv Wiseman. I'm sure he'll explain who he is, but we have a bio on Mr. Wiseman. I've known him for many years. He is certainly an advocate for search and rescue services here in Newfoundland and Labrador and a man who has a great knowledge and expertise and loves to talk, like most Newfoundlanders and Labradoreans.
Given your background, we are delighted that you could come here this evening, Mr. Wiseman, and present to us. The floor is yours.
Merv Wiseman, Retired Rescue Coordinator, Marine Rescue Sub-Centre St. John's, as an individual: Thank you, kind sir. I'm pleased to appear before the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to talk about SAR activities in Canada. I hope I'm not too repetitive because I'm sure after a long day repetition is not something that you'd want to entertain at the moment.
My role as a maritime search and rescue coordinator at the Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre in St. John's, or what we call the MRSC, for 20 years has given me some licence to reflect on aspects related to search and rescue coordination. Likewise, 15 years as a vessel traffic services officer, VTS — today they would call it MCTS, Marine Communications and Traffic Services — with some commercial and fishing vessels seagoing experience, offers additional insight into the subject of general search and rescue activity in Canadian waters and perhaps more specifically in waters adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador.
The full scope of search and rescue activities has significant reach within Canada and beyond. From a maritime standpoint, at least 85 percent of all search and rescue incidents in Canada are related to the marine environment. Under international treaty, Canada has significant obligations to the global community, which has significant implications in waters adjacent to Canadian territory areas on all coasts, in the Arctic and on inland waterways, including the Great Lakes.
From a Newfoundland and Labrador perspective, this province has the longest coastline — approximately 29,000 kilometres — in Canada and, in most instances, anywhere in the world. It also has the most volatile and hostile waters in the world. Newfoundland and Labrador has the largest fishing fleet in Canada, representing over 90 percent of all small boat fishing activity in this country, and that small boat feature has got significance. It is one of the largest fleets of transatlantic vessels transiting in close proximity to its coastline.
Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the largest offshore oil exploration industries in Canada, with projections of a much expanded industry in the future. It also has significant large passenger vessel activity, which includes super ferries and emerging tourism cruise liners. The province also has significant recreational vessel activity, which is still growing.
Inquiries and studies into maritime tragedies in waters adjacent to this province have recommended an increase in SAR operations for a long time, including search and rescue coordination in close proximity to all the activity I just pointed out.
On average, 500 search and rescue incidents annually, with the highest rate of distress anywhere else in Canada, have been coordinated in the waters adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador coastlines. The probability of a major marine disaster occurring in these waters is greater than anywhere else in the country. Canada's ability to manage or coordinate a major marine disaster in waters adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador is dangerously risky with the closure of the Marine Rescue Sub-Centre. The closure of the MCTS Centres, such as St. Anthony and St. John's Coast Guard Radio, is a continued erosion of important search and rescue infrastructure. The recent announcement to reinstate the Marine Rescue Sub-Centre by 2018 is clearly a positive measure of mitigation in a seriously deteriorated search and rescue system in Canada.
Recent announcements to reinstate the Marine Rescue Sub-Centre St. John's notwithstanding, the process that led to its closure needs to be examined with a view to designing safeguards to prevent it from ever happening again. At the time, the closure was rationalized on the basis of technological advances that precluded the necessity of having duplicate coordination services at the Marine Rescue Sub-Centre.
The MRSC St. John's was established after years of extensive study from an inter-departmental perspective and after many maritime tragedies and subsequent investigations and inquiries. Among other things, it was established to provide local knowledge and expertise against the backdrop of dialect, of geography, cultural nuances, meteorological and environmental characteristics, and other variables unique to the region. It was not established to fill a technological void, and nothing has happened since to change that premise.
The capacity of search and rescue regions to bring efficient and effective resolutions through SAR coordination has always been the main operative in rationalizing MRSC St. John's and Quebec. Rescue coordination at the MRSC St. John's was always a function of effective and efficient decision making in matters of life and death in a maritime environment and not predicated on technology as its primary objective. Despite this, it was closed in a flash in 2012 without study, without analysis or even minimal consultation with its users or the general public.
Once considered having one of the greatest search and rescue systems in the world, Canada has been slipping behind most industrialized countries in its response capabilities. Search and rescue response time in Canada has been far behind many progressive nations in the world. Standby posture for hours outside of normal working days, holidays and weekends is very substandard by international standards. The slippage in operational infrastructure such as MCTS Centres, prevention agencies such as the Office of Boating Safety, and the lack of modernization in the Canadian Coast Guard fleets have compounded an already troubling situation for search and rescue in Canada.
The recent announcement relating to the reopening of the Marine Rescue Sub-Centre St. John's also came with the announcement of much-needed infrastructure on the front lines, including new and modernized lifeboat stations, as well as customized towing kits for vessels in the Coast Guard fleet. Language of additional enhancements to a reinstated MRSC St. John's presents opportunity to better collaboration with the stakeholders on prevention measures. The absence of coherent protocols and operational programs for SAR follow-up by the agency mandated for maritime safety in Canada — Transport Canada — can fit within the scope of an enhanced MRSC. The establishment of better search and rescue accountability through oversight on search and rescue case execution is also a necessary extension of prevention and one that is non-existent or at best seriously flawed.
In closing, I would be seriously remiss if I did not give testimony to the impact of DFO management on search and rescue in Newfoundland and Labrador, especially as it relates to fishing vessel size restrictions. Fishing is by far the most dangerous commercial activity in Canada, as well as globally. Search and rescue statistics established through the MRSC during its operation indicated that more than 70 percent of all SAR incidents in waters adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador were related to fishing activity. Furthermore, most of these incidents and fatalities occurred in the small fishing vessel fleet, and Newfoundland is home to approximately 90 percent of all small fishing vessels operating in Canada.
Additional analysis has shown that fishing vessel safety designs and modifications brought on by DFO enforcement of the size restriction rules have led to compromising features in vessel stability, which has likewise led to unnecessary accidents at sea. This situation, coupled with the reality that too many vessels are forced to fish in conditions that simply do not fit their size, creates an untenable safety situation which begs for a DFO management solution to remove the dysfunctional rules.
Clearly many of the issues raised in my submission can be expanded into a much broader discussion and analysis. In the interest of time, I conclude my discussion points with an invitation for any questions or clarification on the items raised in my narrative on SAR activities in Newfoundland and Labrador, and Canada as a whole.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wiseman, and also thank you for the additional background information you have provided to the committee. In perusing it for just a few moments, I can see that there's much here to be taken into consideration.
We're going to start with our deputy chair, Senator Hubley.
Senator Hubley: Thank you, Mr. Wiseman, for being here and for your presentation.
One of the concerns that we had from search and rescue, the industry itself, was that their mandate was broad. There were times when there was confusion, whether it was a federal responsibility or provincial responsibility. The impression sometimes was that the system was working because of the dedication of the people involved in it, not necessarily that the ways and means are all in place that should be in place. One of their concerns was that there should be clarification as to what a marine rescue is, when it is and when it isn't, and then when some other agency should be taking part. I'd like you to comment on that.
Second, other countries around the world have search and rescue programs in place. I'm wondering if you might comment on some that you've seen or know of that you feel are exemplary in the work that they are doing.
Mr. Wiseman: Thank you, senator, for the question.
As a search and rescue coordinator, I quite frankly didn't find that there was a whole lot of confusion among roles and responsibilities between, say, a Joint Rescue Coordination Centre and the Marine Rescue Sub-Centre in St. John's. It's been called "Sub-Centre.'' I think a lot of times people would think that it's somewhat subservient to the JRCC, but that has not been the issue. Our roles were clearly delineated and our geographic areas were clearly delineated. I think, by and large, that delineation and our obligations to international coordination worked reasonably well.
I think the confusion came insofar as the protocols that were established for "marine'' were different from what was happening with "land-based.'' I think that's where a lot of the confusion lay. Quite frankly, I could never understand why there was not a more harmonizing approach taken between what happens at sea and what happens on land.
I remember the Burton Winters situation quite well. I was actually on duty at the time at the Marine Rescue Sub- Centre, as it hadn't closed up to that point. We had no say whatsoever because it was land-based. We didn't know that the incident occurred at sea at the time, on the ice flows, and I was thinking, "Oh, my God, I wish I could be part of the decision making.'' I think that the removal of our local understanding and appreciation for what took place there may have played somewhat negatively on that ultimate response.
I remember about six months previous to that where we did have jurisdiction. Three people from Makkovik where Burton Winters came from were actually stranded because their vessel had swamped off Cape Harrison on the Labrador coast. I had just come on duty at 9 o'clock at night and got the call. These guys were wet and they were in danger, and right away we had search and rescue responsibility for the execution of that case in St. John's.
I happen to know Cape Harrison very well. I actually fished there one time when I was a young boy, and within five minutes we had a helicopter from Gander in the air. I immediately requested a fixed-wing aircraft, and within 15 minutes we had a fixed wing following. It started at 7 o'clock. At midnight that night we had these three people plucked from the rocky shores and delivered back to Makkovik.
If we had applied the same protocols and standards that were applied in the Burton Winters case, we would have had three more dead people in Makkovik. That's a sad testimony, and I think it's testimony to where we can make some improvements on that piece. That's my comment there.
Internationally, it's been pretty much accepted. Britain, for example, would have 40-minute standby posture, 24-7, holidays, you name it, it's there, air as well as sea. Norway has got 15 minutes; Australia has half an hour. So when we look at some of the more progressive nations with coastline from a maritime standpoint, they're there and they're 24-7.
We make this great differentiation with the air resources. Maritime vessels, of course, are on 30-minute standby primary posture, anyway, 24-7. But in the air, of course, at 4 o'clock in the evening we shut her down for a couple of hours and it's a two-hour response, and weekends and holidays, which I never quite fully understood other than the fact that it is expensive. There's no question that it's expensive to have that standby posture there.
If I may expand a little into the question that you asked, we talked about the Cougar situation. I think it was mentioned today. I was just coming in on the back end of the testimony that was being given. It's a great service, no question about it, but something has to be said about fixed wings and how that makes this standby posture functional. In some ways, it's a little dysfunctional to have Cougar with a 20-minute standby posture in St. John's because there is a standard whereby when search and rescue units arrive ready to launch out to sea, they need top cover from fixed wing. I have seen many times when the helicopter from Gander arrived at St. John's to refuel, and we have a serious situation happening at sea that needs to be resolved, and they have to wait in St. John's until a fixed-wing aircraft gets in from Greenwood. That's crazy.
Oftentimes we have had that fixed-wing coverage come from a secondary resource, Provincial Airlines, for example. I've often said, "Hey, we have Provincial Airlines engaged under a federal contract to do environmental coverage off our coast, so can we have a standard arrangement where we can actually supplement what we have in St. John's in lieu of having a DND presence, an air force presence in St. John's? Can we do something like that?'' It's a huge shortcoming that needs to be fixed if we're going to make that piece of work function the way it should.
Sorry for the long answer.
Senator Hubley: Thank you.
The Chair: We don't care about along answers. We just want to get some answers, and that type of information is very vital to us.
Senator Doyle: Merv, we've heard a great deal about response time, wheels-up time, and you can only take for granted that the Coast Guard is also very concerned about reducing wheels-up time. Have any studies been done to date to determine whether or not we're operating within acceptable time limits or the expectations put out there by the commission when they were studying the helicopter crash? If there isn't, is it time for an official full-blown study?
Mr. Wiseman: No question, yes. That's a good question. I've been around for a long time and have heard about inter-departmental things that have been happening, but there has never been full public engagement, full public disclosure about what's happening. I know that we've had some narratives from government at senior levels about how expensive it was to engage in that process, and I understand that part of it, but the details from a public standpoint, of public engagement and having full disclosure, have never been there. We really sincerely need it.
I was a little disappointed in the Wells inquiry, for example, and some great recommendations came out of it. I thought that it should have formed a big part of the terms of reference of that study, and it wasn't.
In fact, with rescue coordination right on the heels of the Marine Rescue Sub-Centre being closed, and all the things that were happening with MCTS, when Judge Wells was asked about his response to the rescue centre closing, he said, "Oh, my goodness; I can't speak to that as it wasn't in our terms of reference.'' Come on, guys: It's time to get this in the terms of reference.
Senator Doyle: Somebody mentioned today about the Coast Guard not being properly placed in the governance area. It probably shouldn't be in Fisheries; maybe it should be in Transport. Would that change the efficiency of the operation in any way?
Mr. Wiseman: Where to put it, I don't know, but I can tell you that there is a serious disconnect between prevention, safety and search and rescue incidents and the follow-up that's needed to correct this from happening in the future. It's a very serious situation.
Quite frankly, I saw deterioration in that. I joined the Coast Guard in 1976, and I saw a huge deterioration. Empowerment to take care of safety issues was actually under the Canadian Coast Guard. It was called "Ship Safety.'' That was the responsibility.
Now we talk about having the Coast Guard report to Transport Canada. Transport Canada was basically carrying out the function of ship safety. It worked very well. We had an Office of Boating Safety that no one is talking about. The Office of Boating Safety was actually administered by DFO, not Transport Canada, but it was done under arrangement of an MOU where Transport Canada allowed them to go out to engage, to liaison, to network and to have collaborations with all the people in the prevention sphere; the maritime people, organizations, you name it. It was all there. During the reorganization and restructuring, that was put back under Transport Canada. It was there about two months and Transport Canada said, "Boom, we'll axe that; no longer needed.''
I do know as well that when there are very serious search and rescue cases, the one mechanism that we should have, which is in the manual of operations with search and rescue, is that there be a search and rescue operations report. We call it a SAR operations report. It is entirely up to the search and rescue commander whether or not to have that SAR operations report. We used to have it often, but what happened was apparently the system was exposed to the public, and the media used to grab these SAR ops reports and maybe sensationalize them; I don't know. Nevertheless, it was said within the department that we were stopping these SAR ops reports, and it was stopped without any accountability. We have no oversight group. We don't know what's happening in search and rescue in a lot of cases. From a user point of view, the public, we simply do not know what's going on lots of times.
The standard under the Transport Safety Board, which looks at a lot of fatalities and accidents in all sectors, is a criterion with vessel accidents that if there's not a fatality, they don't normally do a report on it. With recreational boating, they rarely do a report on it.
On the other side, all these things are taken for granted. We get these SAR ops reports and the Transport Safety Board reports on near misses, it just doesn't matter; otherwise, how are we going to correct the —
Senator Doyle: Does it get recorded as a stat?
Mr. Wiseman: It gets recorded as a stat, but it gets buried within the scope of all of that. We very rarely get full disclosure and public disclosure.
When I was at search and rescue, I had some good inside intelligence that, quite frankly, used to keep me well informed. As time went on, a few months into a year, it all fizzled, and I couldn't find out anything that was happening in search and rescue. I saw some serious situations and flaws with rescue coordination done from the Joint Rescue Coordination Centre in Newfoundland and Labrador. I saw them; I have them documented, but as I lost my contacts and there was no oversight for me to defer to, which there should have been, I didn't know what was happening. Most of the public just simply do not know what's happening out there, and I think it needs to be fixed.
Senator Doyle: Okay.
You mentioned in your fact sheet that Canada has been moving substantially away from its commitment to primary maritime SAR resources dedicated entirely to SAR standby, and relying more and more on vessels of opportunity, multi-tasking. What do you mean by that?
Mr. Wiseman: When I first came into search and rescue, we had a very disciplined and regimented standby posture, and there was always a well-equipped vessel to do what it should. Gradually, we found that most of the reliance on what the primary vessels used to do was starting to default to the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary. I mean, I love the auxiliary; don't get me wrong. There's a great case for the auxiliary, but there's a place for both. I just thought that the balance between the two had tipped too far, by and large, and it became a cost-saving measure.
Time and time again, if you look back at the available statistics, you will find non-operational times for primary SAR vessels tied up in port because they were trying to save fuel, to save this and that. So it was happening.
The Sir Wilfred Grenfell was built and designed for nothing but primary search and rescue. That was its sole purpose and that's why it was designed, especially for the offshore, where it's got these huge fire cannons to extinguish fires on oil rigs and so on. We put it in lay-up for over one full year without any consideration of the fact that there may be a major marine disaster happening offshore that the vessel could play a role in. That's a primary SAR vessel.
We have all these international obligations to transatlantic vessels, and there are a number of examples where large, crippled bulk carriers came into St. Mary's Bay and other places, close to drifting ashore, and no capability from a commercial standpoint to hook onto it and tow it. The Sir Wilfred Grenfell was capable of doing all this and we put her on lay-up for a year. So that's where my statement comes from when I saw things like that.
Senator Doyle: Yes, naturally. Thank you.
Senator McInnis: Welcome.
With regard to Labrador, what kind of challenge do you see? When you come here as an expert, you're supposed to know everything, so I have a wide latitude as to what I can ask you and I want to take that opportunity. What is the greatest challenge to search and rescue in Labrador?
I also want to reference that an Arctic cooperation agreement was executed by seven countries in 2011 and Canada was included. It was an agreement on cooperation on aeronautical and maritime search and rescue in the Arctic, but I would include Labrador as well. In 2015, two years ago, they established the Arctic Coast Guard Forum, allowing them to share information with respect to SAR operations. What involvement has 5 Wing Goose Bay had in that study, to your knowledge, and what have we learned and how involved are we? We often learn from other nations as to what they're doing. Some of them are ahead of us and some of them are behind us. Can you talk about that cooperation agreement, Labrador in particular, because it's slightly outside this particular area?
Mr. Wiseman: Let me just say to your first comment that Oscar Wilde at one time was challenged by a young student at a university lecture about something that the student thought he should have known. I think Oscar Wilde at the time was in his late sixties, and he said, "Look, I'm not young enough to know everything.'' I guess I might fit into that.
Senator McInnis: Touché.
Mr. Wiseman: Look, I know it's been an outstanding issue and I know the study has been done, but most of it has not been disclosed to the public and the public has not had a good engagement on it.
I know there have been different groups looking at the opening of the Arctic to more commercial activity because of climate change, so on, and have said, "We need to ramp up and to understand the dynamic that's happening up there.'' This kind of a study needs to be dusted off and we need to go back in and modernize it.
The work, to my knowledge, was done well over a decade ago. There have been little bits and pieces and references made to it along the way, but it needs to be modernized. Again, it needs that broader public engagement and stakeholder engagement to see that we do it.
Within the scope of that, we need to examine the question you just posed. The position has been made that 5 Wing Goose Bay is very well positioned to close some of the gap, especially given the geography we have to deal with. The Burton Winters situation is a case in point. It was distance and proximity to an incident that happened that changed the course of the outcome of that accident. I really believe that 5 Wing should be incorporated into an operational plan that gives it more of a primary standby posture, a readiness posture, that's simply not there now.
We were caught in real bad shape during the Burton Winters one, and it illustrated the point. It's happening all the time. If we knew the full scope of the lack of readiness, I think we would be scared when we consider what's happening along the coastline. It is opening to mining and to other types of resources at sea and so on, the harvesting of that, so we just need the work. The work is not there. We can't make intelligent decisions on the basis of what's there already, but we can at least work on the premise of what they started with and that we need to stop this kind of thing from happening.
Senator McInnis: From what we're hearing, the interest groups — the fishermen's association, the union, the auxiliary — all seem to be pulling their weight and moving forward and being innovative in trying to lobby and point out to government what it is they require. Have they exhausted it? Is it not now in the hands of government and a proper document to request funds?
As I may have mentioned here today, but certainly since I've been in Newfoundland, the fishery is your largest natural resource revenue producer, and Ottawa gets a great portion of that. Now that's not the case in Nova Scotia, where I come from; it's forestry. So if that's the case here, why do they not get what they require in Goose Bay and what they require here, generally speaking, in Newfoundland? Why is that?
Mr. Wiseman: I think it's political, to a large extent.
Senator McInnis: Pardon?
Mr. Wiseman: I think it's largely political. It has been said; it has been repeated, and we heard the previous submissions here today. We talked about the Canadian Marine Advisory Counsel, for example. This is a body set up within the framework of legislation, of Transport Canada, to have stakeholder collaboration on all these fronts, but despite the fact that there was a standing committee on fishing vessel safety, for example, at the CMAC that was referred to earlier, all of the things that need to be said were said, were put on the table, but it didn't make any difference. It just didn't seem to resonate further up through the bureaucracy and to government.
I really worked hard at CMAC when they were closing the Marine Rescue Sub-Centre. I remember presenting to and addressing 500 members of the Canadian Marine Advisory Council — captains, shipowners, the chief of Transport Canada, the chief of the Coast Guard — making an appeal not just to keep the Marine Rescue Sub-Centre open, and I'm using MRSC as an example to illustrate my point, but making an appeal to do the right analysis, the right study, so we can have intelligent decision making. We did not have any intelligent decision making when we closed the Marine Rescue Sub-Centre, and that transfers to the kinds of questions you're posing.
Why is it happening? I don't know. It's frustrating. I've been frustrated by it and I think the public has been frustrated by it. If you start to work within the system, I think you start to find that it's just exacerbating.
Senator McInnis: Senator Doyle hit on this a couple of times today, and I'm beginning to give it some credence. I do not believe that a division of the Department of Fisheries and Ocean, which is what the Coast Guard is, gets the importance it deserves. Evidence of that, one piece, would be the fact that the Transport Safety Board suggested changes to the new regulations. It took Fisheries and Oceans 24 years to get them published in the Gazette and open for public comment. That speaks volumes. If you're a division and not a separate entity — I just don't think it's in the right place.
If we had a separate agency and a board of directors that could meet on a regular basis, have representation from this area on the board, that would speak volumes in giving a voice to search and rescue in this country. It's very important. Now it's not getting it.
When Fisheries and Oceans officials appeared before us, I asked them this precise question: Why did it take you 24 years? Well, "We couldn't communicate with the fishers; it's not easy. How do you get them corralled?'' Well, I never experienced that.
When I practised law in Nova Scotia, I used to deal with a lot of the fisheries associations, and I never experienced that at all. There's no difficulty, particularly today, to do it with technology. You just hit a button and you have it. Do you agree with what I'm saying?
Mr. Wiseman: A million times over, no question about it. That separation has to occur. I think it's just not functioning properly in the way that you describe it.
I remember back in the early years of collaboration between the fishing vessel safety standing committee and what was happening with the FFAW and all the stakeholder groups, I was very much involved with the Canadian Coast Guard in bringing that group together. I was doing a lot of the research and publicity around safety and all the things that really formed the basis of what the safety council is doing today. I was a big part of that, and we were so successful. In fact, in that piece of work that we did, we went two years, from 2002 and 2004, the first time in recorded history that we had no fatalities in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador — the only two years that we never had fatalities in the fishing vessel industry because of that work. It was so successful that Transport Canada seconded me to Ottawa and said, "Hey, would you come up and let's do this on a national basis?'' And I said, "Yes, let's do it.''
When I got up there, he said, "Merv, come over; I've got to show you something.'' I went to his window and he said, "Do you see that window there? That's the Director General of DFO.'' This is Transport Canada, one of the senior people, and he said, "I've been trying to get a meeting with him for eight months and I haven't been able to do it.'' He was looking at his window and he said one of our first objectives was to get that meeting. I'm thinking, "There's a statement.'' We were so disconnected on that issue, and we wonder why safety has gone south?
On the fishing vessel file alone, there is the fact that DFO will not listen to some of the things being said about the size restriction. Look, I'm going to call it the way it is because I know that there are people dead today because they were fishing in a boat that was too small. Three people in Placentia Bay, and I'll just name one example.
In the summer of 2015, three people died in a 23-foot speed boat when their 45-foot longliner was tied up at a wharf about three miles away because they weren't allowed to use it to haul their fishing gear. They're dead today because of that, point blank, and there are others.
We can't get DFO to listen to that, for some reason. They believe they have to administer the management of small vessels and size restrictions.
What's happening is that vessels are operating in areas they shouldn't be in. I co-authored a report on small fishing vessel safety for search and rescue. I was mandated to do that by senior people, and we found that modifications were coming to small vessels. They wanted to move farther offshore or prosecute other types of fisheries because we had a movement from the cod fishery to shrimp and scallops. DFO used to say, "You have to take six inches off the stem of your boat and two inches off the stern of your vessel, at a cost of about $50,000, $60,000, $70,000 dollars in order to meet our regulations. It says you can't fish out there in a vessel over 35 feet, and you happen to be 35 feet, six inches, and we can't have it.'' It cost a fortune to do it.
In the process of doing that, they disrupted the buoyancy and the stability of those vessels so much that we have documented many, many accidents. Transport Canada has documented these accidents as well. Yet when the Transport Safety Board reports on these accidents, they simply will not address it. It's beyond me.
When the Placentia Bay Transport Safety Board investigation was done, the main conclusion was that there was a serious flaw and lapse in the fishing vessel safety culture, that the fishermen had a culture of recklessness and so on. There was nothing about this vessel size restriction.
Despite where the union might be today, and I use the word "today'' broadly, I don't understand why they're not more aggressive on that particular point. They have their reasons. I don't know what they are, but there is concrete evidence to demonstrate that the size restrictions are causing accidents and fatalities.
There was an Irish study done in 1996, and here's the big thing. Here we are in Newfoundland and Labrador with 90 percent of the small fishing vessel activity in Canada. The Irish study said that the smaller the vessel involved in an incident, the more likely there will be a fatality. Yes, you need safety on all types and sizes of vessels, but rest assured when that accident occurs, the smaller the vessel, the more likely it is that there will be a fatality. That's a significant statistic. We should take stock of that and do something about this hideous size restriction.
Senator McInnis: Thank you.
Senator Christmas: Mr. Wiseman, I've heard in the last few days that one of the government's rationales for cutbacks is technology. I was very interested to read a comment in your statement, and I'll just read it for the benefit of the committee. It says, "Among other things,'' and you're talking about MRSC St. John's, "it was established to provide local knowledge and expertise against the backdrop of dialect, geography, cultural nuances, meteorological and environmental characteristics . . . . It was NOT established to fill a technological void.'' Then you go on to say, "Rescue coordination at the MRSC St. John's was always a function of effective and efficient decision making in matters of life and death in a maritime environment and not predicated on technology as its primary operative.'' This is the first time I've heard a sound counter to the government's rationale of using technology to cut back. Can you expand or elaborate on the value of having the human factor that is local and present that makes a difference in search and rescue?
Mr. Wiseman: Thank you for pointing that out. I was just amazed that we would talk about technology as a replacement.
You know what happened? The second last year that I was working at the Marine Rescue Sub-Centre, they actually brought the number of rescue coordinators up from one at all times to two. You know why they did it? Because of the complexity of technology coming into the centre.
Technology now, instead of coming to MCTS Centres, for example, in a lot of cases was coming directly to us. We were getting calls on cellular phones that we would never get before. It was all kind of filtered. Now it was coming directly to us.
And there were so many different avenues of technology, the EPIRBs and various other technologies that I don't have time to go into here. These complexities were so great that we had to deal with the liabilities that could happen if we didn't respond under these kinds of circumstances.
The one that really brought things home to me was that quite often we could get calls from somebody off Green Island. The dialect told me he was operating off Green Island in Fortune Bay. We have about 40 different Green Islands all over Newfoundland, north, south, you name it. So which Green Island was it? By association of dialect, we could position the person who was in distress. That is major; that is significant. We had several examples of that and we lost it.
I remember when the announcement was made to close the Marine Rescue Sub-Centre. I had a call from Christine Gallard, a good friend of mine, a rescue coordinator about to retire at the JRCC in Halifax. She said, "Merv, you know what scares me? I'm not worried about the French part, never was. I can understand French; I'm fully bilingual, but I can't understand Newfoundlanders.'' She said it from the heart; she really meant it. She said, "I'm going to move up my retirement; I want out of here.''
Many times, as the fishing fleet from the south coast of Newfoundland, Francois, Fortune Bay, and other areas, would move down to the Hamilton Banks area, and in the summer they would move their fishing operations, they would cross the line from our jurisdiction into JRCC jurisdiction. Many times I would get a call from them: "Hey, Merv, we got a call from a Newfoundland vessel and we don't know what they're saying.'' So right away we would plug him right in and put him on the line, and it was so routine. The guy has a broken rudder and needs a bit of help, and I'm thinking, what's the problem? But we would have to do that kind of translation, honest to God. We lost that.
In terms of environmental and meteorological, ice conditions, I remember a case in Bonavista Bay the first six months after we closed. Some turr hunters went out and tried to make it back in. "It was making ice,'' we call it, "making slob,'' and it was too heavy. They couldn't get back in through the ripple effect. The boat was stuck. They obviously couldn't get out because 20 feet away there might be a weak spot, and they were left to sit there all evening. Finally, the Cormorant helicopters in Gander executed a rescue. The comment that came from the JRCC was that if your boat is stuck in it, certainly to God you can get out and walk on it. So I watched — it was six hours.
In one of my cases, I said, "Thank God no one drowned.'' This was a case where a local ferry could have been tasked to go within two hours and was never tasked because they believed the situation was not — so there are some of the local nuances that I talk about, and there are so many more.
When we lost the rescue centre in St. John's, we calculated 150 collective years of experience that was built up. It was gone; it was not replaced at the JRCC and simply couldn't be.
Senator Christmas: Thank you, Mr. Wiseman.
The Chair: Again, Merv, thank you very much. Like I say, your years of experience and your expertise is something that we take very seriously here at the table. The advice you've given us and the suggestions you've made will certainly be part of our report.
As I have said to others here today, if you think of something in the future that you wish you had said here today, please feel free to contact us. I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for taking the time to join us here this evening. It's a wealth of knowledge that's very much appreciated.
Mr. Wiseman: Thank you very much. I really appreciate everything.
(The committee adjourned.)