National Defence Committee on Feb. 1st, 2011

[Shawn Skinner]

Yes.

First of all, I would say to you that the challenges you throw out are certainly ones that I think we all share a concern over. The purpose of today's presentation, speaking for myself, is to outline to you what we believe the base of the service level should be. Operationally, how that is deployed, where it's deployed from, and who pays for it I think will require further research and further discussion. All of the parties you have mentioned potentially would have a role in that.

But as I understand it, it is the federal government's responsibility, through DND in particular, which currently has the mandate for this, with other agencies like the coast guard and the Canadian Forces and so on, depending on the nature of the emergency. So the bulk of the responsibility and the bulk of the accountability, I would suggest to you, is with the federal government.

I would suggest that the federal government should, from the presentations that it's hearing over these last number of days, recognize that we believe the current structure and the current response times are not satisfactory. They are not acceptable and therefore you need to change the way search and rescue is provided.

If you, upon your reflection--because you are the ones with the mandate--feel there are other partners that may be able to help in that, and if you'd like to engage with us in terms of how it should be done on a more detailed level, there would be a lot of willing participants who'd like to sit down and discuss it with you.

In terms of having answers to some of your questions today, I think it would be a bit simplistic to expect that we would have answers for that. My point to you would be that there are more than enough people around the table who can come up with solutions. We need to be engaged in it to be able to do it. The point to leave you with today is that what we currently have is not acceptable.

[Tom Hann]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a comment, seeing that I brought up the budget issue.

I think there can be better coordination. Maybe you'll have to restructure the whole thing from search and rescue to coast guard and to other entities that are engaged in rescue and search and rescue. Maybe it's time that you looked at restructuring the whole thing so that there's better coordination.

With regard to the funding, there may be a place for the offshore industry to be a partner in terms of funding. But as the minister pointed out, I think at this point it is the responsibility of the federal government. I think if you do anything, if you look at restructuring and then look at efficiency in terms of what that restructuring can bring about, then there's the possibility that this can happen.

Again, I say that we need to...and I notice you're talking about doubling the personnel, the equipment, and so on. That should not be an issue, because we're dealing with people's lives. We have to find a way to fund a system here in St. John's. We have to find a way to fund an enhanced system in Gander. And we have to find a way to put fixed-wing in Gander, whatever the cost, because Greenwood is not the place for it if you're responding to offshore in Newfoundland, especially the east coast.

I think there's an opportunity to look at restructuring and to look at operating efficiencies. Maybe that's where you find the funding to enhance the service.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Merci beaucoup.

I'll give the floor to Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentations, in particular Mr. Breen, in relation to the loss of your family member. Your presentation and all of them are obviously motivated by grave concern for the lives and safety of all those working, particularly offshore, whether it be in marine transportation, fishing, or offshore oil industries.

I have just one comment. Mr. Murphy was talking about the billions in profits that the oil industry is making. I think it's also fair to say that they're paying billions of dollars in taxes and enhancing the ability of the government to provide the kinds of services that are needed as well. I think that's important to note.

We received some statistics this morning suggesting that nationwide there are, on average, in excess of 6,700 SAR incidents occurring throughout the country every year, of which over 5,000 are maritime incidents. It's obviously pretty key in our offshore situation, as Minister Skinner pointed out, where we have three times the area mass of the Maritimes, yet it seems all the fixed-wing assets are in Greenwood, in one corner of the whole so-called Halifax area of service.

Also, as Mr. McCurdy referred to, we don't know how much goes on between 8 and 4. In reality, a study done by DND in 2004, over a three-year period, in an assessment of when these incidents occurred, shows that in fact--in terms of the eight hours per day, five days a week service--17% of the incidents occur in that time, meaning that over 80% occur outside that 8 to 4 period. So it does seem skewed the wrong way.

We also have a situation, as we heard yesterday from Mr. Feltham, one of your members in Gander, where there's a big change in the fishing industry since the moratorium. People are going farther out and staying longer and are therefore at greater risk. This is a big change. There's a big change--as Mr. Kelly, Mr. Murphy, and you, Mr. Skinner, pointed out--in that there are more people in the offshore, hundreds and hundreds of people at any one time...the number of vessels.

I don't know how long the 30-minute response has been in place for daytime, but we heard today that the average response out of Gander in the last two years during the daytime has been 19 minutes. So it seems that it is possible. If the average is 19 minutes, then obviously some of the time is lower than 19 and some of it is a little higher. But it seems that it is possible to get an aircraft, a helicopter, in the air in 20 minutes--if you have the resources available, if you have the staffing issues sorted out.

Mr. Skinner, my question really is to you. There's been a big change in the use of our offshore, the risk that's involved, and the need for better facilities. What expectation does the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador have of the Government of Canada, which has the prime responsibility for search and rescue in Canada? What expectations does your government have of the national government?

[Shawn Skinner]

The expectation, to put it simply, is that the level of search and rescue response time that is acceptable is the one that Commissioner Wells recommended through the offshore helicopter inquiry, which is basically no more than 30 minutes.

The provincial position is that, upon the review of this committee and the presentations that are being made to it, we would expect that the federal government will, through its resources--as I indicated earlier in response to a question--look at restructuring how it deploys SAR resources to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador so that we have no more than a 30-minute response time.

As I indicated in my presentation, we believe that Gander needs to be the focal point for the province. If it means that we need to bring in other resources, like the fixed-wing aircraft, then operationally that can be determined by people better qualified than I to do that. If there needs to be secondary placement of resources in other areas like the city of St. John's, because of its proximity to the activity happening offshore, then we would expect that the federal government would engage to ensure that happens as well.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Skinner, do you have any idea—and of course Mr. Hann and Mr. Breen are also involved in government and budgeting—of what the cost might be? We've heard different numbers thrown out. I don't know how accurate any of them are, although I've seen a study, which I referred to yesterday, showing that the cost of having a 30-minute, 24-7 fixed-wing operation would cost $1 billion over 30 years, which was a billion dollars extra and which of course breaks down to $33 million a year. That's just for fixed-wing across the country.

There were other numbers thrown around. I hear numbers like $200 million. I hear other numbers. We don't know what the numbers are. How big a factor is cost, from your point of view, given the nature of what we've been discussing here today, given the numbers involved, the risk involved, and the people involved? How big a factor should cost be in determining whether we go 24-7 on the 15- to 20-minute standard that you're talking about or whether we have a different system?

[Shawn Skinner]

Well, I think cost certainly is something that we all have to consider as elected officials, but I'm more inclined to say to you, Mr. Harris, that I think the amount of resources we have available to us at a federal level, at a provincial level, and at a private level in terms of companies operating, and in terms of the companies that are exploiting the resources off our shores, in terms of resources that they have available to them...it may mean looking at how we restructure ourselves to be able to respond to emergencies as they occur.

We don't necessarily need to create more resources. It may be how we deploy those resources: looking at where those resources are based and how we may be able to access them in the time of an emergency, no differently than when we had Hurricane Igor, for instance, just recently in Newfoundland and Labrador. Everybody who had resources came to help in a situation like that. There are ways that our fire and emergency services were able to coordinate there. I think that kind of coordination can be done.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. McCurdy, you look like you're anxious to get in on this one.

[Earle McCurdy]

I'd just like to make the point that there are some in this world who believe there's no such thing as a good tax and that there's something wrong with the concept of taxation. Let's face it: we can't have things like adequate search and rescue facilities in this country unless we're going to accept that there has to be taxation that has as its purpose to raise funds to provide necessary services--and in particular in this case, emergency services.

If we had a little less debate about how can we.... You know, you can't have it both ways. You can't say “let's cut, cut, cut on taxes” and at the same time say that we're going to be able to deliver improved services--or even maintain services, let alone improve on them. Clearly what we have here is an unacceptable situation. It requires revenue to deal with it and I think it is primarily a federal responsibility.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

I will give the floor to Mr. Boughen.

I know that you're going to share your time with Ms. Gallant.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Minister Skinner and gentlemen of the panel, let me add my voice to those of my colleagues in welcoming you here this afternoon and in thanking you for taking time to meet with us.

I listened carefully to your presentations. I have a few comments and perhaps a question or two.

First of all, I know that what happened with the Ranger was a terrible tragedy--unbelievable--but had we had an F-18 on one wing and a chopper on the other, we couldn't have prevented that, because that was a mechanical failure. It didn't matter who responded or how quickly they responded in general terms, because it had a mechanical undertone to it that took that aircraft out of the sky. I think we have to keep that in our minds as we try to look at how we can prevent those kinds of things or things similar to that.

I think one thing we have to look at is perhaps the restructuring of what we do now with our search and rescue. In other words, do we always have to throw money at anything we're trying to do and say that we need money to change it? Sometimes I think we're much better off if we say there is no money, but there's definitely a change needed, so how can we do that?

When I look at our current situation, if the heavy action is from 4 p.m. until midnight, why don't we have a heavy concentration of resources matched to that time? Why would we have the heavy concentration from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m.? Wouldn't it make just good common sense to shrink those resources down, heavy at the end when the incidents tend to occur?

As my colleague Mr. Harris said, something like 20% of the action that needed attention happens in that 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. timeframe. Why have all the resources there? Have just enough to handle the calls, but have your heavy concentration later. That's a redeployment and restructuring of the operation. That's not an expensive issue.

As I look at it, is there a need for some dollars? Probably there is, no matter what it is we do, because there's always a need; I guess I ask myself, is there enough blame to go round...? If the answer is yes, then there's enough positive to go around to create a change. So I guess I'm saying, have we had an opportunity to sit down with the union and ask what kind of training programs are in place for the union folks who are doing the work? Are there some safety things we should introduce to the membership? Is there some responsibility on which we should have to sit down with management and say, “Together, let's sort this out”? Let's try to make sure that to and from work is as safe as it can be. I think we haven't done that yet.

Minister, you talked about the involvement of the provincial government with the federal government. It's not one or the other. I think it's together. I think that together, with the unions, we can sit down with the military and put together a package that makes some sense.

The first step of that package, I humbly suggest to you, is happening this afternoon. Your presence here and our presence here from Ottawa, with both sides of the table present, should indicate to you folks that we view this as a serious problem. We're trying to work together as to how we can handle that problem so we make the problem go away. I think we have some work to do together on that.

Here's what I think we have to think about. What has the province done? What has the federal government done? What has DND done? What has the union done? Again, I would come back to the thought that we're just in the embryo stage of this. We haven't done a whole lot of anything, but it's time for us to do something.

All of you gentlemen talked about response times. You talked about being responsible to the citizens of this province. We, too, are responsible to the citizens of this province as Canadians and we're going to work hard to make sure everyone understands our position, what it is, and how we'll implement it.

Mr. Chair, let me conclude by again saying thank you, gentlemen, for being here. You've heard from our colleagues, and you know from this side of the table we recognize what you're saying. We don't debate that. We're fully in agreement with your observations. We want to work together to change things.

Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Often this afternoon I've heard about 30 minutes and two hours--the difference in the required response times--but we've learned over the past couple of days that in practice the actual response time from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. is 19.5 minutes, and in practice outside those hours it's 50.7 minutes. It doesn't actually take the two hours, and they are working very hard to get those numbers down as well.

You talk about having an extra place, an extra chopper unit, in St. John's. That gives me great anxiety. Here we had the situation with the Cougar, and the people in Gander couldn't deploy anyone because they were all on training. It's not just a matter of money; it's a matter of human resources. They don't have the people, so if we split them up, it's going to be even more diluted. I'm concerned that if this sort of approach is taken the response times would be longer.

It's a rare individual and a rare group of individuals who will get into a chopper in a storm like we had last night, over seas, and then have someone go down the rope and try to land on a ship that's rolling in the waves. It's those rare individuals who we are in dire need of, and again, with the private sector now trying to get our people, who are intended to help all Canadians, to help just the oil industry, that makes it even more difficult.

In Ontario we have inland seas, the Great Lakes, and it would never occur to any of us, even up in the Ottawa River, to count on the coast guard to come and help us. We have our province that actually has its resources deployed, and not at the same time; it might be one part of a river, or one lake, or another river on a given weekend. But we pool all our resources. Even the municipalities put boats out, so that it's a community effort.

I know that it would be ideal to have the federal government be there in the 30-minute response time 24 hours a day, but in practicality, we do have to pool our resources. Just as the oil companies are starting to pitch in because they're profiting from the resources, so too, perhaps, should the province think about the benefits that it is obtaining economically from that sector and figure out a way to pool our resources, federally as well as provincially--and from the private sector.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Who would like to give a short answer to that?

Minister.

[Shawn Skinner]

It is the federal government's mandate to provide the service. That's simply the way it is.

You're not providing it. You need to provide it to a better standard.

I indicated in my earlier remarks that if you are willing to look at restructuring it and you feel there's some role for others to play, I'd be more than happy to do that. But I find it offensive that you would sit here today and say to us that you would never think to call the coast guard from some other location.

We're talking about the offshore in Newfoundland and Labrador. We think about it. We expect it.

[Tom Hann]

With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, again, we're not talking about money. We're talking about resources that protect lives.

We have been talking about this issue since the sinking of the Ocean Ranger. We have been talking about this and we continue to have tragedy after tragedy after tragedy.

Like the minister, I find it offensive that we are here talking about budgeting when we need resources because we are under-resourced in this province. We need resources. How you would do that, I don't know. That's up to the experts. How we do that, I don't know, whether it's restructuring or anything else.

But it is offensive to be talking about budgeting when we're talking about people's lives.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

Thank you, everybody. I think I can speak for all the members of this committee in saying that we hear you loudly and clearly and that's why we are here today. I'm sure that the committee will have that in mind in their deliberations when we're back in Ottawa.

That's why it's important for the committee. The committee decided to come here to hear you and that's what you're doing. I'm sure that all the members understand that. We'll take that into consideration in our deliberations. You can be sure of that.

I want to thank everybody for being here with us this afternoon. This hearing is very, very important for us as members of Parliament, so thank you very much.

We'll have a pause for five minutes and come back for another session at 5:05 p.m. This meeting is adjourned.