Sure, I can do that.
Evidence of meeting #5 for National Defence in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was henderson.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #5 for National Defence in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was henderson.
A recording is available from Parliament.
National President, Union of Canadian Transportation Employees
Sure, I can do that.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
My first questions are not for Ms. Eschuk.
Mr. Chair, would it be okay with you if we check at the end of my intervention to see if the interpretation was good?
Mr. Henderson, you ran out of time earlier to finish what you were saying about submarine detection and so on. Do you have anything to add about that?
As an Individual
Sir, I could hear the interpretation reasonably well there.
I don't really have much more to add specifically. There are lots of capabilities that the Coast Guard currently has, but, as I mentioned in my opening comments, I think there are certain areas that we would do well to add to the Coast Guard, specifically the national aerial surveillance program, which has a small fleet of fixed-wing aircraft with highly sophisticated surface sensors on them. That would feed very well into the marine security operation centres.
If I might just make one very quick comment about the locations of those marine security operation centres, to the best of my knowledge, there have only ever been three. One is in Esquimalt, British Columbia; one is in Halifax, Nova Scotia; and the third is in St. Catharines, Ontario.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
Mr. Chair, the interpreter says the sound is too poor to continue interpretation. That's what the interpreter said when Mr. Henderson stopped talking.
Ms. Eschuk, please tell me if you understand me.
In June, when the announcement was made about potentially transferring the Canadian Coast Guard from Fisheries and Oceans to National Defence, you said you were disappointed in the lack of transparency and consultation. You also added that this came as a surprise, which doesn't mean you're against the idea. You also said that dialogue was under way with Coast Guard leadership.
Would you say coordination has improved since then?
National President, Union of Canadian Transportation Employees
Yes, it has improved, but I've had to ask for it on numerous occasions. I mean, we found out via a leak on the news that it was going to be moved. We should have never found out that way. Can you imagine the surprise of our members and the calls this office got wondering what that does for their employment?
The communications have to be ongoing, and they need to be transparent. When we ask questions, we should be able to get those answers. If they don't have those answers on these committees, then they need to get them so that we can give the guarantee to our members that their employment is safe and that their jobs aren't changing—or, if their jobs are changing, that it's done accordingly. The communication at the very beginning was very poor.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
I won't ask you if you think they should have consulted personnel, because I'm sure you'll say yes given that the transfer will affect them directly. Have you consulted your members, and what do they think of this transfer?
National President, Union of Canadian Transportation Employees
To date, we haven't done a lot of consultation. There's been a lot of being consult-told. That's when they tell us what's going on instead of asking for our opinion or how things could be done a little bit better. Our members are out there, and they continue to do their jobs, but the lack of communication to them is very disappointing, because they still don't know. We hear from certain politicians that it will remain a civil agency, but they don't trust that information that's coming out.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa
Thank you very much for those responses.
Mr. Scott Anderson, you have five minutes.
Conservative
Scott Anderson Conservative Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC
Thank you very much.
I want to continue this line of questioning right now. There seems to be a great deal of confusion in the government. The government has said that the integration addresses “the need for a more agile, efficient, and robust maritime force” in responding to global security challenges. It has also said that it's going to remain civilian. There seems to be a lot of confusion, both in the government and right here, as to civilian versus paramilitary versus military.
One of the first things I had to sign when I joined the military was something called unlimited liability, which essentially turned my life over to the Canadian military. That is a distinctly military thing. There is a cultural, informal and formal distinction between military personnel and civilians. I can read the definition of a combatant here, and I can read the definition of a warship. I can promise you that both of those definitions fit the Coast Guard, now that it's merged with the DND.
Which way are we going? Is there any direction? I understand that the union has not had good direction on this. Where are we going with this exactly? Are we going military, paramilitary—which includes interdiction—or civilian?
That's for anybody who has an answer to it.
As an Individual
Mr. Chair, perhaps I can put forth a thought on that.
I can't tell if you can hear me.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa
We'll hear from someone else at this point. There is an Internet speed issue.
Associate Professor, Canadian Maritime Security Network
Perhaps I can begin, then, until Chris comes back online.
I think what's essential here—and we come back to an earlier conversation—is that there's a fundamental difference between the interdiction role, the confrontation role—which remains the navy and the air force—and a sensing role. The point is that the Coast Guard, as I understand it, will remain a civilian agency. The entire point of this exercise is to increase lines of communication, to knock down barriers in order to allow the Coast Guard and the CAF to exchange information and, of course, to build the Coast Guard's surveillance capability so that the real combatants—the Royal Canadian Navy—will have better access to marine—
Conservative
Scott Anderson Conservative Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC
With respect, I understand that. The problem, though, is that when these ships are floating around in the Arctic with Royal Canadian Navy personnel, they are legitimate military targets. We can call them civilians. We can say that they're actually performing civilian duties, but in fact any over-the-horizon missile launch is not going to distinguish between Canadian Coast Guard ships and Royal Canadian Navy ships. If they are performing with the Royal Canadian Navy, they are combatant ships. We can say that they're civilians, but in point of fact they are legitimate military targets.
Associate Professor, Canadian Maritime Security Network
Well, sir, with due respect, whether they are legitimate military targets or not, during a time of war, our adversaries will target the Coast Guard, regardless of what department they fall under.
Conservative
Scott Anderson Conservative Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC
Indeed, they will.
Who will be in command of the joint operations?
Associate Professor, Canadian Maritime Security Network
I'm not sure if that has been resolved yet. I can't comment on that.
Conservative
Scott Anderson Conservative Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC
Okay. I guess my point is that there should be some.... The merger has already taken place, and nobody is quite sure about some of the major issues here. We're potentially arming the ships with guns. Civilians aren't going to be firing those guns, so either we're going to have navy personnel on board the Coast Guard ships, or we're going to have Coast Guard members who are soldiers. You can't have it both ways on this issue.
Associate Professor, Canadian Maritime Security Network
I believe the long-term intent is to arm some Coast Guard vessels—I believe this, but I'm not sure—with heavy machine guns. However, there's a big difference between that, which is for personal ship protection, and a deck gun, which would be for offensive engagement.
Conservative
Scott Anderson Conservative Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC
That is certainly a debatable distinction. Being shot with a 50-calibre machine gun is just as painful as being shot with a deck gun. They're both kinetic weapons.
What extra equipment will the Coast Guard receive going forward?
Associate Professor, Canadian Maritime Security Network
Perhaps someone else can engage on this, but my understanding is that this has not yet been resolved.
As an Individual
If my microphone is working and people can hear me, I will give this a try.
Can you hear me, Mr. Chair?
Liberal
Conservative
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
The interpreters can't. It's not good enough quality.