Fisheries Committee on March 1st, 2011

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

I'd like to thank both our guests for being here today and for sharing information on this important topic. I think it has been of benefit to the committee to hear the presentation.

I certainly in no way want to speak on behalf of the committee, but when the original agreement was put together in 2000, these are the types of relationships that I think people hoped would take place, and they have evolved. Given the structure, with Laval looking after the actual science aspect of it, and with those partnerships, there seems to be a separation--which I think is wise--between the coast guard and the actual work that's being done.

I have a couple of things. My sense is that there's a savings to the coast guard, but more so, it was a depreciating asset. As Mr. Sopuck indicated, you're able to do additional work over and above. Maybe it's not essential work, but the work that you're allowed to do is very worthwhile and useful, so this partnership has unlocked that potential, really, to do that.

Give me an indication, though, how long would the Amundsen, as a depreciating asset, have been listed under dispersal of crown assets? How long would it have been listed for sale before this opportunity came up?

[Marc Grégoire]

If I remember correctly, what I read was that the Sir John Franklin had been put aside in Newfoundland and wasn't used for a few years. Then it was put up for crown disposal and I think the sale cost was about $2 million. That's why it cost so much to reactivate it and re-certify it to the standards of Transport Canada. It was $30 million in total, with the scientific equipment.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

That was the cost to the coast guard to reactivate—

[Marc Grégoire]

That money went to Université Laval. It was the grant from the CFI.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

That was all retrofit?

[Marc Grégoire]

That money was given to the coast guard to rehabilitate and reactivate the ship and to rename it afterwards. That is where the name Amundsen came in.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Are you comfortable with putting a dollar value on the work you're able to do as a result of this partnership, the charting that you had indicated they are doing?

[Marc Grégoire]

It is not only the charting. It is our presence in the Arctic. The Arctic is huge, and we have limited assets, so being able to sail the Amundsen in Hudson's Bay and all the way across the western Arctic is of high value. It is difficult to cost other than saying that $5.8 million is the actual amount we charged Université Laval for those trips, and that is depending on the size of the ship.

We have bigger ships like the Louis S. St-Laurent that are more expensive to operate. We also have smaller ships, but that is about how much it would cost us to send a ship with our own money. We're not making any money out of this arrangement. It's not for profit. In fact, we have to absorb the benefits to employees, the 20% you normally add to the salaries. That is the only cost to the coast guard, and that is nothing to pay for having such a nice ship in the High Arctic. As I said, if it is needed for search and rescue or for an oil spill event, we can use that ship. It's part of the MOU.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Yes.

I guess this is one that the other witnesses weighed in on. As Monsieur Blais has indicated, the alarm bells went off when the story reached the papers, and it caused a considerable amount of concern. What has been shared with the committee to date is that they believe the context in which the story was written was not quite as accurate as the reality.

Could I get your opinions on when you first read the article and what you thought when the article was released?

[Marc Grégoire]

Well, the first thing I saw was the Radio-Canada report, the French news on CBC, and I was kind of shocked to see it reported as it was, because I knew that wasn't the true story. I knew very well what kinds of arrangements we had with ArcticNet, and this reality was not reflected, in my opinion. It was a bit twisted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Cuzner. Your time has expired.

Monsieur Blais.

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

I am going to continue on the same track as before.

I used to be a journalist. And when I would interview someone, I would often provoke them to try to get something meaty. So I am going to carry on provoking you, but it is not to be mean. I have absolutely nothing against you.

I want to come back to the oil companies. Whether Mr. Sopuck likes it or not, Chevron's response in South America and BP's response in the Gulf of Mexico lead us to believe that they really are the bad guys. They do not exactly inspire confidence, unfortunately. I wish they did, but they don't in light of what happened. If things were to change, that would be a different story. But given how things stand right now, I am going to do everything in my power to mitigate the damage.

I have the same concern when it comes to the Amundsen and the oil companies that are helping to fund ArcticNet's work. That is my sole concern.

You even said it yourself. You had questions about whether there was a conflict of interest, real or apparent, when you found out that oil companies were helping to pay the leasing costs of the ship through ArcticNet and Université Laval.

Would you be more comfortable if none of the funding came from oil companies?

[Marc Grégoire]

I have already told you that, for me personally, this situation is not an issue. So I cannot be more comfortable or less comfortable; I would be equally comfortable.

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

Do you not think that, one day, you may be called upon to help clean up the mess caused by oil companies in the Arctic, given their greed, their conduct and their lack of accountability?

[Marc Grégoire]

I hope we never have to do that kind of thing. What's more, where should the company stop? Should we prohibit oil companies from giving anyone money, universities or whoever? If we could not take money from oil companies, who else should we not take money from? I believe Manitoba Hydro was one of the first organizations to contribute to the research networks. Is that better or worse? I don't know.

Our organization is extremely operations-oriented. We offer icebreaking services and search and rescue services. We have an opportunity to use a vessel that was on its way out. So I have a very hard time seeing the continued operation of the Amundsen, under the current conditions, as a disadvantage.

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

Mr. Grégoire, like some of your predecessors who came before the committee a few years back, you are no doubt very aware that the Canadian Coast Guard's budget is insufficient. Recently, however, thanks to the generosity of the current government, you did receive a budget that allowed you to slightly increase your ship funding. But funding is still inadequate for things such as research.

According to the report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, the Canadian Coast Guard is not equipped to deal with a disaster. You have no emergency response plan. That is unfortunate, but there is not enough money.

Does that mean, then, that you are willing to take money wherever you can get it?

[Marc Grégoire]

No, not wherever. If we had not allowed ArcticNet to accept funding from oil companies, the vessel would have been docked in Quebec City for months. It is as simple as that.

So you are asking me, the head of the Canadian Coast Guard, whether it would be better for the Amundsen to sit in the harbour on principle, because of the possible perception of an indirect conflict of interest or whether it would be better to conduct these scientific missions for Université Laval and ArcticNet.

I will repeat what I said to you during the first round: I am comfortable with the situation, provided that the current parameters are respected, in other words, that the outcome of all this research is in the public domain, which is the case today.

If an oil company were to approach us and say that it wanted to lease our icebreaker for its personal use, we would flat-out refuse.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Monsieur Blais.

Mr. Donnelly.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we've covered the perception issue--

[Marc Grégoire]

I would say so--

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

--a fair bit, so--

[Marc Grégoire]

I'm not sure, though.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Well, I'm not saying that I necessarily agree, but I certainly was affected by the story and had other Canadians ask me questions. I think it's always important that we deal with these questions. That's why I was putting my questions to you. I certainly appreciate your responses.

I did want to just ask a clarifying question about the resource issue and the best use of resources, based on what you have said, because I'm now a little more confused. You could probably straighten me out. Have you used the Amundsen for any purpose besides research?

[Marc Grégoire]

Oh yes, absolutely.