Fisheries Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Pursuant to Standing Orders 110 and 111, I call the meeting to order.

I welcome Mr. George Da Pont, who is the Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard. Welcome to the fisheries and oceans committee, Mr. Da Pont.

If you have an opening statement, we'd love to hear it.

[George Da Pont, Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard, As an Individual]

Thank you very much , Mr. Chairman.

Good morning to you and to the committee members. It's a pleasure to be here again, albeit in a different capacity.

First, let me say it is both a great honour and a great responsibility to have been appointed Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard. I recognize that I have been asked to take on the leadership of a national institution that provides a range of critical services and has the confidence of Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Excuse me, could you hold for a minute? We need to get some translation working here.

[George Da Pont]

I also know that much of that confidence is due to the professionalism and dedication of the men and women who work in the coast guard. Canadians recognize and appreciate their work. The most recent example of that recognition is Les Palmer who, later this month, will be receiving the cross of valour from the Governor General for an exceptional act of bravery in 2004. He will be only the 20th recipient of this prestigious award since it was established in 1972, and the first coast guard recipient. We are all extremely proud of his accomplishment.

While his case is truly exceptional, there are examples almost every day of men and women in the coast guard helping their fellow citizens. The same can be said for the 5,000 dedicated volunteers who are part of the Coast Guard Auxiliary. In fact, just last week I gave a commissioner’s commendation to four members of the Auxiliary for their work in rescuing some of the crew from a DND helicopter that crashed during a search and rescue exercise last July. We could not do our job as effectively without the Auxiliary.

It is examples such as these that bring home to me just how exceptional the coast guard is as an organization, and my responsibility to ensure that this record of excellence in service continues.

I do not come into the job without some background with the coast guard. I have been a public servant for 25 years. My first exposure to the coast guard was in 2000 and 2001 when I was the Associate Regional Director General of the Maritime region of Fisheries and Oceans.

As you are undoubtedly aware, at that time regional coast guard operations reported through the DFO regional offices. It was then that I began to develop an appreciation of the range of activities in the field and the challenges facing the coast guard.

When I returned to Ottawa as assistant deputy minister for human resources, and a bit later for corporate services as well, I continued to work closely with the coast guard. In this role I was responsible for delivering on their key human resources, financial, and real property issues. In addition, the Canadian Coast Guard College reported to me during a portion of that period.

I was part of the team that established the coast guard as a special operating agency. With respect to real property issues, I worked closely with senior coast guard management on some of the challenges of maintaining the bases and trying to divest surplus property, to give a couple of examples.

I was also part of the efforts over the last few years to secure more funding for the coast guard, as were many others, including this committee, and of course the minister. I'm especially pleased with the additional funding for the national capital spending plan three years ago, the investments in fleet renewal reflected in the last two federal budgets, and the significant addition of new money this year to address some of our chronic operating shortfalls.

I want to thank all members of this committee for their strong support for additional funding over the years.

I believe these experiences and background have prepared me for my responsibilities, though of course, like anyone else coming into a new job, I also have much to learn.

As I'm sure the committee is aware, I had the opportunity to act in the job of commissioner for a number of months prior to my appointment. During that period I met with employees, unions, and members of the auxiliary in all parts of the country, as well as with representatives of the shipping industry and some of our other clients and stakeholders. Just last week I met with the senior leadership of the United States Coast Guard, with whom we have such a close and effective working relationship.

On the basis of these sessions and working together with the senior management team, we have established clear priorities for the coast guard for the next few years, as set out in our business plan. Our first priority is continued renewal of the coast guard fleet. While we have made some significant progress--the two new offshore science vessels and the eight new midshore patrol vessels were reconfirmed in the last budget--we still have very significant challenges with an aging fleet, particularly among our 40 large vessels. We're working on a coherent multi-year plan to renew the fleet and will be seeking support and funding for the next phase. At the same time, we're taking steps to ensure that the procurement processes for the new vessels that have been approved are moving ahead as quickly as possible.

Second, we want to focus on full implementation of special operating agency status. The objective of becoming a special operating agency was to enable the coast guard to focus exclusively on the delivery of its services and to give it more autonomy and identity within DFO. While we have begun that process, we are still at the initial stages.

We are working with both our internal and external clients to establish structured advisory bodies where we can discuss issues such as the level and cost of services. Indeed, we've recently re-established the National Marine Advisory Board with the commercial shipping industry, which had not met in over three years. A key issue for this group is addressing the longstanding issue of marine service fees: we have begun those discussions. As an SOA, we will also be seeking some new authorities, particularly for the management of our major capital.

Finally, we're planning additional measures to reinforce our identity, beginning with a memorial at the Coast Guard College to recognize all those who have lost their lives in the course of performing their duties.

Our third priority area is continued contribution to the overall government security agenda. The Canadian Coast Guard does not have a direct mandate for security; however, we do have a significant supporting role for those departments and agencies that have a direct mandate, such as the RCMP and the Canadian Border Services Agency.

We are part of a joint security program with the RCMP on the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes that has just begun: we provide the vessels and the mariners and the RCMP provides the enforcement authorities and personnel. Indeed, four of the new midshore patrol vessels I mentioned earlier will be devoted to this program. In addition, we participate in the marine security operation centres led by DND on both coasts, and we will be participating in the one the RCMP is establishing for the Great Lakes.

The information collected through our marine communications and vessel traffic network is one of several important sources for getting a comprehensive picture of marine domain awareness.

We will certainly continue to put a high priority on these initiatives and to participate, as appropriate, in government-wide security efforts.

Fourth is continuation of our various modernization initiatives. It always has been part of the coast guard's service delivery to take advantage of new technologies to improve the delivery of our services. This is something any efficient and effective organization should be doing. GPS and DGPS, the new automatic identification system for vessels, plastic buoys, and synthetic moorings are but a few examples of innovations that allow us to improve services, often at somewhat reduced operating costs once they are fully in place. However, implementing these innovations takes significant upfront investments, and there's a need to work closely with the recipients of our services—and sometimes our own staff, who quite frankly often have to be convinced that these new systems are worth the investment and are as reliable as those they are replacing. We are committed to moving forward with these initiatives in a sensible and collaborative fashion.

Finally, focusing on our people, I have to return to where I started, with the exceptional men and women who work in the coast guard. Like many organizations in government, ours has an aging workforce. In some of our key occupational groups the average age is getting uncomfortably close to 50. It takes four years at the Coast Guard College to develop an engineer and a navigator who is ready to join a vessel and 12 months to train an MCTS officer. I'm sure you can appreciate that this is only for beginning to take up the duties and that there's significant experience that has to be gained later.

These are only two examples. Over the next five to ten years we, like many other organizations, will see the retirement of many of our most experienced people. We need to take action now on career development and succession planning to ensure that we have the trained and experienced people we need to maintain our levels of service and keep the confidence of Canadians.

We have developed a plan to focus our efforts on these priorities while continuing to deliver our services to Canadians.

Those, Mr. Chairman, are our key priority areas, which are captured in our business plan. With them, I've concluded my opening remarks, and I'd be pleased to discuss these matters or any other issues you and the committee wish to raise.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Merci, Monsieur Da Pont. We certainly appreciate your comments. I will say that's an excellent and very thorough discussion of some of the challenges the coast guard is facing. We appreciate it.

We will hear our first questioner, Mr. Byrne.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thank you very much, Commissioner, for appearing before us. We wish you all the very best in the future.

One of the questions I'd like to raise, in terms of operational issues, is this. You've mentioned as one of your priorities an intention to continue to modernize and upgrade equipment and standards within the Canadian Coast Guard. One of the issues facing mariners.... I'll preface by saying that the Canadian Coast Guard is one of the few organizations of the Government of Canada that actually has a strong physical presence in peripheral regions, and coastal regions in particular, and it's why members of this committee particularly are engaged with the Canadian Coast Guard on a number of its initiatives and are well aware of its importance and stature in overall maritime operations.

One of the issues that have been raised concerning modernization of equipment is marine communications and traffic systems. Would you be able to comment for me as to whether, with upgrades in technology, it's the coast guard's intention to remove present facilities, to actually consolidate facilities and move to centralized locations as opposed to continuing in the regions?

[George Da Pont]

As you know, Mr. Chairman, at the moment we have 22 marine traffic and communication centres throughout the country. We have no plan to consolidate or reduce the number of centres. There is one centre in British Columbia, Tofino, where we have started to look at the possibility, but that has been in response to employees who are having difficulty finding affordable housing in the area and are experiencing significant travel costs. That's the only centre. We're working with employees and are looking at options, but certainly no decisions have been taken.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Is it the coast guard's intention to remove Loran-C? There was a proposal at one point in time to vacate Loran-C in favour of GPS systems. There was an indication that the U.S. was moving to that service model. Are there any intentions to do so today?

[George Da Pont]

Certainly not today, but it is an issue I very much would like to focus on. In fact, it's one that I discussed just last week when I met with Admiral Allen, who heads up the U.S. Coast Guard. They have a position similar to ours in terms of Loran-C.

First of all, it's a system that's no longer used by navigators. It's used now primarily as a fallback system for aviators. So from the perspective of the coast guard, it no longer fits with our mandate, and I very much would like not to be running a Loran-C system.

The issue will be whether it's kept as a fallback system in North America, and we have an agreement with the United States where we are participating as part of that network. The U.S. Coast Guard also feels that it shouldn't be part of their network. So once the decision is made on whether or not to keep it as a fallback system, we obviously would look accordingly at our options.

For me, it's a very important consideration, because our Loran-C sites, both in Newfoundland and in British Columbia, are in very poor shape. If we keep them, we would have to invest, we estimate, around $25 million to upgrade those facilities. Quite frankly, as commissioner of the coast guard, I'd have difficulty justifying that investment from our budget for an item that is not central to our mandate.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Da Pont, the GPS system, though, is completely U.S. controlled and administered. Canada does not have, actually, any direct operational input into the system itself.

On that particular point, given that the Canadian and U.S. Coast Guards often integrate, we have a potential conflict looming on the horizon with the Arctic Archipelago and the Northwest Passage. It's very clear the U.S. authorities have indicated that they do not respect or intend to adhere to Canadian sovereignty issues.

Would it be your intention to continue to conduct joint exercises with the U.S. in the Arctic Archipelago, given the fact that the U.S. has asserted that they do not respect Canadian sovereignty in this field? And would it be wise to continue on with the joint initiative, taking Canadian navigational capability and putting it in the hands of a friendly government--however, one that we may have a very serious conflict with in the very near future--and potentially put at risk Canadian navigational capability?

[George Da Pont]

In response to that, first of all, I'm not aware that we have conducted, certainly recently--in the last five or ten years, to the best of my knowledge--any joint exercises with the United States Coast Guard in the Arctic. We certainly conduct a great many joint exercises on the Great Lakes and in other parts of the country on issues of search and rescue and environmental response. I will certainly verify if that's the case, but I'm not aware of any joint exercises that we've done in the Arctic recently.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

But then, specifically on the question of whether you find there is any potential for risk to Canadian maritime activity, if this conflict were to potentially escalate and Canada had to assert sovereignty by means of a strong presence in the Arctic Archipelago, would it be wise under those circumstances to continue to participate in a system that is completely dependent on a country that may be at odds with our position on that particular issue?

[George Da Pont]

It really wouldn't be appropriate for me to speculate on that, because certainly, as everyone is well aware, the Department of Foreign Affairs has the overall lead.

This is an important issue that will be before government. It's an important policy issue. But the mandate of the coast guard, as you know, is very operational. It's limited very much to service and providing services. We certainly have benefits in terms of providing common services with the U.S. Coast Guard and some tremendous examples on the Great Lakes where we cooperate very closely on icebreaking, SAR, and on vessel traffic control, and similarly on the west coast.

I'd hate to jeopardize those things on an operational basis, but certainly we would take whatever direction was consistent with any overall Government of Canada position, whenever one is developed on those issues.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

I don't think anyone is asking you to jeopardize operational issues in other parts of the country. I think the question was, would you factor that into the inevitable decisions on investing in Loran-C or remove it in favour of the GPS system? As someone sitting at the deputy minister level, would you be advising the government--would you be advising yourself--that perhaps that has to be built in as a certain contingency or concern as you decide on the future of Loran-C and its Canada-first navigational policy? Would you want to create an additional lifetime for that Loran-C, given the fact that it is the only system we have in Canada that's independently Canadian?

[George Da Pont]

Mr. Chairman, when we're ready to present advice on Loran-C, depending on broader decisions that are taken, certainly we would take all relevant facts and broader government policy into account.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you.

I think there is time for a quick question here, Bill. You had your hand up. Mr. Matthews.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Commissioner. It's good to see you back.

I have a very quick question. There has been consideration--and maybe I'm incorrect, but I believe there was some budgetary provision, and certainly it was widely discussed--about stationing a vessel in Labrador. Is there still a plan in place for that? Could you inform the committee whether that's on or what the case might be?

[George Da Pont]

There had been an announcement by the previous government about an initiative in Labrador that involved some aspects of coast guard activities. That initiative is no longer going forward, but the government has replaced it with another initiative for Labrador, which is being led, I believe, by the Minister of National Defence. I am not aware of all the details of that government initiative for Labrador, but it doesn't have a coast guard component at this point.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

That's my question, and that's the answer, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Monsieur Blais.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good day, Mr. Da Pont. Welcome and congratulations.

My first question concerns the Canadian Coast Guard’s manpower resources’ allocation. If these numbers aren’t available to you as yet, I’d appreciate being informed as soon as possible. I’d like to know, for the last five years, what the allocation of personnel in Quebec has been as compared to the Maritimes and I’d like to know how these numbers have evolved over the last five years. That’s my first point.

You’re an expert on budgets and you sometimes have to accommodate staffing restraints or streamlining. Much has been said and done about equipment improvement and our committee has made sure that the government has taken note of a certain message. But the question of human resources is a delicate one and also constitutes a challenge.

I’d like to hear your opinion on manpower resources.

[George Da Pont]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As to your first question, I don’t have any data pertaining to manpower allocation but we will be conducting a study of this question and the results will be forwarded to the committee.

As far as I know, there haven’t been many important changes over the last five years, except for the transfer of personnel to Transport Canada when the coast guard became an SOA. Some of the responsibilities and personnel were transferred to Transport Canada.

As to your second question, as I mentioned during my presentation, I think human resources are extremely important because the coast guard greatly depends on the professionalism of its employees. I believe that the challenge, over the next few years, will be to find a sufficient number of people who have the abilities required to do the job. We have to face more and more changes worldwide in the marine industry. Everyone is looking for experienced people.

Within a few years, the professional market will become more competitive. We emphasize personnel training. Of course, we also have to take care of the consolidation problem. For example, we have put in place a great number of initiatives in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland in order to modernize certain aspects of our activities without cutting back on human resources. We want to keep our employees as long as possible.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

I’d now like to discuss the matter of security.

One of the coast guard’s mandates is to ensure the security of vessels that are lost or in distress. I understand that some amount of fiscal slippage has occurred within the coast guard over the last few years. We seem to want fishermen who require our services to pay fees in certain situations.

What challenges do you see and what is your opinion on this question? Do you think it is important that the coast guard offer rapid service delivery to fishing vessels lost at sea, in distress or who experience certain problems? Do you favour a more rigid approach concerning the charging of service fees to fishermen?

[George Da Pont]

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Our Search and Rescue Program is one of the most efficient in the world. I’m sure that no other country has a better network than ours.

The growth of the network remains one of the coast guard’s main tasks. We are currently conducting a study of the needs of the Search and Rescue Program and we hope that the results of the study will be available within the next few months. Until then, we will take certain decisions. We have never asked fishermen to bear the cost of the Search and Rescue Program and, if I understood your question, we have no intention of doing so.

The renewal of our fleet is the main thing to enable us to preserve our response capability and that is quite a challenge.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

The situation both in the oceans that surround us and in the large territory that we need to secure and protect is constantly evolving, as are the financial needs and available funding. The coast guard will have to accommodate new realities, including the war on terrorism and drug smuggling.

Would the military aspect of the coast guard become more important?