FOPO Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, October 21, 2003

Á

1105

The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.))

Mr. Harry Strong (Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary)

Á

1110

The Chair

Hon. Pat Carney (Senator, Senate)

Á

1115

Á

1120

Á

1125

The Chair

Hon. Pat Carney

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance)

Hon. Pat Carney

Á

1130

Mr. John Cummins

Hon. Pat Carney

Á

1135

Mr. John Cummins

Hon. Pat Carney

Á

1140

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ)

Hon. Pat Carney

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Á

1145

Hon. Pat Carney

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Hon. Pat Carney

The Chair

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.)

Á

1150

The Chair

Hon. Pat Carney

Á

1155

The Chair

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc

The Chair

Mr. Harry Strong

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc

Hon. Pat Carney

Mr. Harry Strong

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Harry Strong

Â

1200

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Harry Strong

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Harry Strong

Mr. John Cummins

Hon. Pat Carney

Mr. John Cummins

Hon. Pat Carney

Â

1205

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC)

Mr. John Cummins

Hon. Pat Carney

The Chair

Hon. Pat Carney

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Â

1210

The Chair

Mr. Harry Strong

Â

1215

The Chair

Hon. Pat Carney

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore)

Â

1220

Hon. Pat Carney

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Hon. Pat Carney

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Harry Strong

Hon. Pat Carney

Mr. Harry Strong

Â

1225

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Harry Strong

The Chair

Mr. Harry Strong

The Chair

Mr. Harry Strong

The Chair

Mr. Harry Strong

The Chair

Â

1230

Hon. Pat Carney

The Chair

Hon. Pat Carney

The Chair

Hon. Pat Carney

The Chair

Hon. Pat Carney

Â

1235

The Chair

Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance)

Hon. Pat Carney

Mr. Andy Burton

Hon. Pat Carney

Mr. Andy Burton

Â

1240

Hon. Pat Carney

Mr. Andy Burton

Hon. Pat Carney

Mr. Andy Burton

Hon. Pat Carney

Â

1245

Mr. Andy Burton

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

---

NUMBER 054

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, October 21, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are continuing our comprehensive study of the Canadian Coast Guard.

    Today we have two witnesses: the Honourable Pat Carney, senator, and Mr. Harry Strong, chief executive officer of the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary.

    Senator Carney and I have spoken, and she's indicated it would be acceptable and actually preferable if Mr. Strong went first. I know Mr. Strong wanted to cede his position to Senator Carney, but I'm going to exercise my prerogative as chair and call on Mr. Strong first. What we'll do is ask both witnesses to make their presentation, and then we'll go to questioning.

    So Mr. Strong, the floor is yours. Welcome.

    Mr. Harry Strong (Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    Seeing as Madam Carney is a paid person and I'm a volunteer, I should go first, I think. Just let me start by reading a little statement I have here.

    I'd like to thank the members of the committee for this invitation to appear today. The organization I represent, the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary, is celebrating its 25th anniversary in 2003. We certainly appreciate the opportunity to address the members of the committee today.

    The Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary is made up of 5,000 volunteers who make their vessels available and provide assistance to the Canadian Coast Guard in two areas of responsibility, safe boating and search and rescue. Every year, in support of our safe boating mission, the members of the auxiliary conduct an average of 3,000 courtesy checks on pleasure craft and attend over 500 boat shows and public events, where they inform and educate the public on safe boating practices. The auxiliary has also developed a safe boating course approved by the Canadian Coast Guard, and the auxiliary is a certified course provider for the PCOC, or pleasure craft operator card program.

    Each year the volunteers of the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary are called to assist in approximately 1,700 search and rescue incidents, or about 25% of all marine SAR incidents in Canada. The impact of the contribution made by auxiliarists to the Canadian Coast Guard is considerable. The value of the privately and community-owned vessels made available to the Canadian Coast Guard is over $300 million. The number of volunteer hours is also considerable. A recent study conducted by the Fisheries and Oceans review directorate concluded that for each dollar invested in the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary, the department received $37 worth of services. Last year the auxiliary contributed over 78,000 volunteer hours, which equals roughly $28.5 million in wages.

    By virtue of a contribution agreement between the Coast Guard Auxiliary and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, auxiliarists are provided with training, basic SAR equipment, insurance coverage, and reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses. When auxiliarists are tasked to a rescue incident, these things kick in. The contribution agreement was signed in 2002. It covers a five-year period up until the year 2007 and provides the auxiliary with an annual contribution of $4.5 million per year.

    The successful partnership between the Canadian Coast Guard and the auxiliary has been hailed in the national and world SAR community as a prime example of an efficient and well-coordinated system, a system that has retained best practices, has evolved positively, and has adopted to respond to change over the last quarter century.

    The total maritime search and rescue system in our country successfully saves 97% of the lives at risk in Canadian waterways. This figure is remarkable by any standard and compares advantageously to any other SAR system worldwide. We know for a fact that the auxiliary is making an important contribution to this result.

    Of course, like any organization operating in a fast-paced environment, the auxiliary is facing challenges. Maintaining a global state of readiness is a key element to maritime search and rescue and one that requires constant readjustment in terms of resources, equipment, and funding.

    To keep this presentation short, I will just mention two of these challenges: expansion of SAR coverage by the auxiliary in remote areas such as the Canadian Arctic and the coast of Labrador, and a significant increase in our insurance premiums since the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States. I will just briefly go through these two items.

    The expansion in the Arctic in recent years. Various assessments in Nunavut Territory by the Canadian Coast Guard, central and Arctic region, and on the Labrador coast by the Canadian Coast Guard, Newfoundland and Labrador, demonstrated that the most cost-effective way to provide SAR services in these remote areas was to train local Inuit on how to conduct SAR operations through implementing auxiliary units in these communities. As you know, these remote areas represent unique challenges for the CCGA. Language, climate, geography, distance, and communications are only some of the challenges we face when we look at setting up auxiliary units in the north.

Á  (1110)  

    The increase in insurance premiums to cover our volunteers. The Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary provides its members with basic insurance coverage, including hull and machinery protection for their vessels and indemnity and group accident coverage for the members. The vessels are insured for damages and loss, and the members are insured against accidental death or disability while on SAR activity. Since the September 11 attacks, the auxiliary's annual premiums have increased from $425,000 in 2001 to approximately $745,000 in 2003, a 75% increase in three years. As a result, some of the programs of the auxiliary have had to be curtailed to allow us to cover these increases in insurance costs.

    Over the past 25 years, as a result of the partnership between the Canadian Coast Guard and this auxiliary, an estimated 4,200 lives have been saved, 40,000 mariners have been assisted, and millions of dollars of property have been saved.

    The auxiliary is facing challenges. We have to deal with fixed revenues from our contribution agreement with Fisheries and Oceans and at the same time expand our services in remote areas and deal with increasing costs for insurance and fuel. Yet, through the dedication of our volunteers, the support of the Canadian Coast Guard and the Department of National Defence, and the benefits of better training tools and advanced technology in search and rescue, we envisage the future with optimism. Our volunteers have answered the call in the past, and we're ready to answer the call in the future.

    I will try to answer any questions you may have.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, sir, for your very succinct presentation. I am sure we'll have questions.

    Senator Carney, please.

    Hon. Pat Carney (Senator, Senate): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    My presentation is timed at 15 minutes in line with your guidelines.

    I'm very pleased to appear before the community to discuss the role of light stations, specifically staffed light stations on Canada's sea coasts, during your comprehensive study of the Canadian Cost Guard, an agency of vital importance to the safety and security of Canada's maritime community whose services have been eroded through massive budget cuts in recent years.

    In reviewing the work of the committee, I note that we share common concerns such as the adequacy of funding to the Canadian Coast Guard, the mandate of the Canadian Coast Guard, and the need for change, particularly in relation to security and sovereignty, whether it should remain with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or be transferred to another department or structured as a stand-alone agency with a revised and renewed mandate.

    These are critical issues, sometimes life-or-death issues, for maritime Canadians. The timing of your study is urgent, because the coast guard is currently reviewing the future of light stations and will outline options and estimated costs and report to the minister, which will be concluded this December. This review was mandated by Treasury Board in 1998 when the Government of Canada reversed its decision to de-staff automated lights in the face of widespread and vehement opposition, particularly in British Columbia. Instead, the government agreed to maintain staff at 51 light stations for a five-year period that ends later this year, at the end of 2003. So once again we may face the controversial issue of de-staffing.

    Why is this issue so emotional, particularly in B.C., although I'm told the reaction in Newfoundland and Labrador, while more muted, can be just as intense? In B.C. the concern may be the loss of local weather reports to mariners and aviators traversing a desolate coast, while in Newfoundland and Labrador the concern might be the loss of a human presence to guide ships through the open leads in the ice to safe harbour.

    Since I know more about B.C. and little about the Atlantic coast, I will talk about B.C. At the present time B.C. has 52 light stations on the coast, stretching from my island home of Saturna at the junction of Juan de Fuca Strait, which separates Canada and the U.S., and the Strait of Georgia, which flows between the mainland and Vancouver Island, up to Green Island, north of Prince Rupert near the international boundary with Alaska. Anchoring the system is Langara light station on the north tip of the Queen Charlotte Islands. South of the Charlottes, the sparse string of light stations are scattered on the west coast--the “west west coast”, we call it--to Race Rocks in Juan de Fuca.

    You have maps of both the area I'm talking about and also the Newfoundland coast that have been supplied to the committee by the coast guard.

    Some 27 of these light stations, or slightly more than half, are staffed, usually with a principal lightkeeper and an assistant, who supply weather and other information for at least 20 hours a day, seven days a week. The singular feature of these light stations is their geographical isolation from coastal communities and transportation links. Only three of the 27 have road access, and two of those roads are poorly maintained logging roads. The remaining 24 can be serviced only by helicopter and by ship. They can be hundreds of kilometres apart, given the deep indentations and the maze of waterways and fjords that categorize B.C.'s 27,000 kilometres of coast.

    I'm circulating a book of light station pictures that the coast guard has supplied us.

    Newfoundland and Labrador have 55 light stations, of which 24 are staffed. I'm informed that many of them are in the same boat in terms of the lack of road access and dependency on helicopter and ship support. The only people in their neighbourhood are the people they serve on the sea and in the air.

    New Brunswick has one staffed light station flying the sovereignty flag in disputed waters.

    This geographical isolation is my answer to the argument that other coastal countries have de-staffed their stations and are astonished that we have not. You yourself have noted that fact, Mr. Chairman, that no other country has our magnificent but isolated, storm-battered coastline. In fact, one of the fastest growing segments of the coastal tourist industry is winter storm watching, which attracts Europeans and others to the “west west coast” to watch the winter winds and the surf seething against the shoreline from the safety of their hotel.

    In Ireland in May, I visited a lifeboat station on the south coast where volunteers live within minutes of the life stations, situated in communities normally 15 miles apart so they can jump into their boots and safety suits, launch their well-equipped high-speed lifeboats, and answer a distress call that might have been dispatched from a search and rescue unit in Scandinavia. But no such network exists in B.C. in the areas beyond the reach of a few coast guard boat stations in communities like Tofino and the courageous volunteers who serve in the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary. Only the lightkeepers, and they are few and far between, are available to answer the calls of people in distress, and they do.

Á  (1115)  

    What do lightkeepers do out there all day and all night except commune with nature? Today, they serve at least five essential services identified by the coastal community network, which consists of the coastal communities on the coast from Alaska to Sooke. They are appended to this report, and include aids to navigation, marine weather, assistance to the public, maintaining automated systems, and services to the other government agencies.

    To see how these services are delivered, last week I flew on a coast guard Messerschmidt helicopter to six light stations on the “west, west coast”, accompanied by two coast guard officials, B.C. superintendent Terry Weber, and Mike Clements, Terry's Newfoundland counterpart, who is preparing the report on the lights.

    The first stop was Cape Beale at the entrance to Barclay Sound, near the site of the worst marine disaster until the Titanic, the wreck in 1906 of the Valencia,with the loss of 117 lives, including the captain and all the women and children. Here, lightkeeper Ivan Dubinsky and his assistant report the weather every three hours, seven times a day, from 4:40 a.m. to 10:40 p.m., to Tofino boat station. Our chopper pilot, Glenn Diachuk, said the lightkeeper's weather reports are essential for pilots. The most important thing they give us, he said, is wind, visibility, and advice such as “It's not looking good”. We can't get that from a machine. Cape Beale is only accessible by water if tidal conditions are right.

    Other services Cape Beale provided this season included tracking the position of the fishing fleet; monitoring unusual marine activity for the RCMP; relaying distress calls to Tofino; assisting injured hikers; providing water samples for scientists; and hosting 27 students from the marine research station at nearby Bamfield, a six-kilometre hike through the bush, who were studying the unique sea life. The coast guard can't collect money for these services.

    The next stop was Estevan Point, at the end of a long and lonely headland so rocky that the site can only be serviced by helicopters, since no boat ramp is possible. Here, the west coast aboriginal people first set eyes on a European ship captained by Spanish explorer Juan Pérez in 1774, who named the headland after a second lieutenant. You may recall that the soaring buttress structure was shelled by the Japanese submarine in 1942, causing general panic in Ottawa. Today, Estevan serves as a major radio relay station for the coast guard, and the Department of National Defence is considering a radar installation at Estevan to monitor shipping entering Canadian waters.

    Every day, keeper Dave Edgington climbs the tower's 157 steps to measure the sunshine, and once a week his assistant and wife, Louise, climbs up to test the atmosphere for a greenhouse gas project being carried out across Canada by Environment Canada. Recently they assisted two American scientists, whose boat overturned near the shore and who trudged through the bush to the light station for dry clothes and food.

    Dave told us that the 20-watt lightbulbs installed in the light stations are drawing complaints. This is what is in a light station--20 watts. The size of my thumb, they have a range of 15 to 18 miles and have a very thin beam. Just look at it. This beam fades as you get closer to shore. Kayakers and small boaters say they can't see the light adequately. It's amazing; this is technology.

    After refuelling, we headed north to Nootka light station at the entrance to historic Nootka Sound, where we spotted the coast guard motor vessel Bartlett towing a fisheries research barge. Nootka Sound was first explored by Captain Cook in 1778 and was later the site of a Spanish fort. Britain's Captain George Vancouver and Spain's Juan Francisco de la Bodega y Quadra met in Nootka Sound in 1792, hosted by Chief Maquinna, to initiate the Nootka Convention, which broke Spain's dominance of the Pacific as a Spanish lake and changed the western world.

    Until recently, isolated Nootka was far off the tourist map, but lightkeeper Kip Hedley reports that so many tourists are showing up in the area it is becoming a theme park. This season, the 18th-century sailing ship replica used in the movie Pirates of the Caribbean spilled tourists onto the shell beaches to visit the small church at Yuquot, the Mowachaht and Muchalaht village adjacent to the light station.

    In addition to his regular duties of weather reporting and environmental monitoring, Kip flies the Canadian flag, places telephone calls for lost souls, and reports possible illegal activity under the RCMP coastwatch program. When Kip said boaters are complaining that they can't see the beam from this 20-watt bulb, the coast guard officials told him to apply to change the bulb to 35 watts.

    Our final stop that day, flying ahead of the fog rolling in from the Pacific, was Lennard Island, a rock-strewn entrance to Clayoquot Sound near Tofino. Although this light station was originally established in 1904 to assist sealing vessels and steamship companies, its clientele has changed to recreational users.

Á  (1120)  

    As traditional coastal industries like forestry and fishing shed jobs, tourism is trying to pick up the slack with whale watching, ocean tours, storm watching, ecological seminars, hiking, and recreational boats landing hundreds of thousands of people onto the sea, often with little knowledge of marine safety. They estimate 1.6 million boaters in B.C. and 250 kayak companies out there with tourists.

    Relief keeper Jon Healey grew up at the Pachena station and cites marine and aviation weather as important to the Tofino area. Boaters need site-specific reports on sea state and fog conditions. The GPS, or global positioning system, available to boaters is not infallible, and the LORAN system used by commercial fishermen is due to be decommissioned.

    After overnighting in Tofino, we awoke to reports of hurricane winds north of Tofino and storm warnings for the south. We've all seen the damage that storm has caused. We landed in rain and wind at Pachena Point, established in 1908 after the shipwreck of the Valencia and near the popular West Coast Trail, which can take six to eight days to traverse.

    Peter Redhead, a veteran of 32 years on the lights, serves as unofficial park warden. Pachena light station recorded 6,000 visitors on the West Coast Trail this season, some needing first aid and other services; the trail is so popular that you have to make reservations to go on it. He also reported illegal immigrant activities in addition to his regular duties.

    At Carmanah Point farther south, known as “the graveyard of the Pacific”, the keepers also aid injured hikers. Established in 1891, Carmanah became the first traffic control centre, and keepers have reported oil spills and other pollution problems.

    Visibility was deteriorating and the wind and the surf were rising as we approached Carmanah, and the weather report from the lightkeepers was discouraging. We touched down on the helipad only long enough to heave the mailbag at veteran keepers Gerry and Janet Etzkorn, who were standing in their raingear with their backs to the chopper's wake, before heading back to Victoria ahead of the approaching storm.

    What does all this cost? The fact is that nobody knows. In her letter to me dated December 19, 2002, Auditor General Sheila Fraser said she noted in her annual report that the department didn't know the costs involved in maintaining and operating staffed light stations and therefore it doesn't know if it has been given the appropriate funding.

    Your clerk has a copy of that correspondence, Mr. Chair.

    Ms. Fraser wrote:

We found that the department was not tracking the cost of maintaining staff at light stations, nor had it developed a long-term strategy for the future of light stations, recognizing its mandate for safety and considering the government's heritage objectives.

She added that she expected the review required by Treasury Board would consider these elements and include an analysis of costs.

    In fairness to the coast guard, it's not easy to identify staff costs beyond the relatively low salaries and support costs. Presumably the coast guard will still need its ships and helicopters to maintain aids to navigation that keep the channels marked and the beacons and buoys in operating condition. The option of rotating staff on a seasonal basis only will require salary increases to offset the higher costs of maintaining families in coastal communities rather than the isolated light stations. Service to the public costs money.

    But what should they do? Under the coast guard's existing mandate, the role of light stations as aids to navigation is decreasing as big ships increase their electronics and small boats have, or should have, hand-held navigation aids like GPS.

    My answer is to expand the mandate of the coast guard to take into account its changing clientele in the 21st century, just as the original light stations adapted from the era of sailing ships. Multi-task some light stations, such as those I visited on the “west west coast”, to encompass all the activities they already supply without cost recovery from the government or the public, and expand these duties to include defence and security activities important to our safety. After all, light stations tend to be located at the most strategic points on the coast.

    I first raised this option of multi-tasking light stations in March 1994, when the Senate authorized public hearings on expanding the mandate of the coast guard to accommodate the increase in marine traffic, including recreational users. When the hearings were subsequently cancelled, Senator Mike Forrestall, who is with me today, MP John Duncan, MP John Cummins, and others held them anyway, forming the Ad Hoc Parliamentary Committee on Lightstations, which reported on June 25, 1995. You have French and English copies of that report.

Á  (1125)  

    My second recommendation is to realize that each light station is different and each may play a different role. Some might be suitable for multi-tasking, while others may be decommissioned and released for other public uses, which is the rationale behind Bill S-7, An Act to protect heritage lighthouses, which is now before you in the House of Commons. Other light stations, such as those on the mid-B.C. coast and isolated sections of Newfoundland and Labrador, must and should be retained to provide aids to navigation services in the maritime and aviation communities until acceptable automated devices can replace people on the light. Whether this is done by the coast guard as part of a department or as a stand-alone agency is not, to me, as important as the fact that it must be done if the coast guard is to live up to its motto of “Safety first, and service always”. We need our coast guard, but it needs to adapt to meet the changing requirements of the coastal communities it serves if the coast guard is to be relevant today and in the future.

    Thank you for your time.

    The Chair: Thank you, Senator. It was 15 minutes, 43 seconds, right on time. It was an excellent, very interesting presentation.

    Hon. Pat Carney: I'm good!

    The Chair: Now we'll go to Mr. Cummins for ten minutes.

    Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    A special welcome to Senator Carney, a former member of this place, a former cabinet minister, so well familiar with our procedures and what goes on, and certainly a distinguished member of the Senate. It is indeed a pleasure and an honour for us to have you here before us, Senator Carney.

    I'd like to extend my welcome also to Mr. Strong and say how pleased we are that he is able to be in attendance this morning.

    To begin with, I'd like to direct my questions to Senator Carney. I'm told that the fellow who made the cuts to the light stations on the east coast is now the one who is going to be writing the reports on the west coast. On the east coast, he cut the stations near the towns first, saying they weren't needed, and then he cut the remote stations, saying they were too expensive. Basically, in the end it's all about cutting. I understand he is one of the chaps who was with you on your tour.

    Is that the way you see things, Senator?

    Hon. Pat Carney: As I said, I don't have personal experience of Newfoundland and Labrador, but I was with the official who was writing the reports, and he told me he's writing options, not making decisions. I hope I was able to be persuasive on the need to multi-task some of the stations. He certainly learned the value of weather reporting, given the fact that we were running in advance of the storm that caused such havoc. Hopefully, it was a learning experience for him.

    I wanted to point out to your colleague Andy Burton that one of the issues that are up for examination is the famous Sikorsky helicopter out of Rupert, the only support there is, and that the coast guard themselves tell me that the cheapest and most efficient way of moving personnel and equipment is with helicopters. There are no roads. It's hard for people who don't live on the coast to understand that for hundreds of miles there are no roads, and a helicopter is the cheapest way to move. If it takes me 45 minutes to fly from Victoria to Cape Beale, it can take days on the West Coast Trail. Therefore, cost cutting is not necessarily the most efficient.

    They are doing some really good things in the coast guard, which I'll tell you about if you ask me.

Á  (1130)  

    Mr. John Cummins: Senator, in your presentation you talked about the Auditor General's report, and the suggestion you make is that the Auditor General, I guess, is not really sure about what it costs to operate the light stations and so on. Some of these folks who are seen as cutters of the coast guard--and I'm obviously not referring to the vessels--say they can save $10 million by closing or de-staffing light stations. Yet my understanding is that in 1998, when there were 35 stations, the actual staffing cost was $2.4 million and the net cost was even less. There are only 27 stations operating now, so I wonder, is it your experience that the savings being floated around on these coast guard stations are real dollars, or are they someone's more imaginative figures?

    Hon. Pat Carney: I have two answers to that.

    The rough-cuff estimate I got from the coast guard officials on my trip was that it costs about $9 million for all those light stations. But my point in my presentation was to ask how much you are going to save, because you'll still need the helicopter support. A lot of that is helicopter support, a lot of it is capital costs, a lot of it is shipping support, and you're going to need that anyway. So some of the savings have been illusory; it costs a lot of money to de-staff some of the lights.

    My second point is that the coast guard tells me that as aids to navigation, which is their mandate, the lightkeepers can be surplused because of the lights. But my point is that if this 20-watt bulb doesn't serve the public, or a 35-watt bulb may serve the public, then what...? Their mandate is to serve the public, and if they're supplying a bulb that kayakers and boaters can't see, then maybe they should re-evaluate the so-called cost savings. If they shut down the entire navigation system on the coast, maybe you could save the rest of the budget. But the Auditor General made the point clearly in her letter to me that the coast guard doesn't know what the costs are and they've been trying to establish that.

    My point is that the cost of trying to supply the services that lightkeepers already supply in those range of services...if you tried to replace the environmental and RCMP services that lightkeepers supply, you'd spend a lot more money. The last time I checked with the RCMP, who support the idea of multi-tasking light stations, their mid-coast marine policing capacity was literally two men in a Zodiac. So if you take the light stations out of that as a security system, it would cost a fortune to replace them. However, if you use those light stations and mandate the coast guard to do all of the things those light stations are now doing, such as I've outlined in my report, and added the security concerns to them, you have a very powerful security and safety system already in place. To duplicate that system in any other way would be horrendously expensive.

    Yes, they have cut costs in aids to navigation, John. They have developed, with a Victoria company called Carmanah Technologies Inc., a BIC lighter light for the buoys. Instead of paying $5,000 for a light for a buoy that has to be replaced, they've developed this BIC lighter light that has a five-year capacity. It is solar panelled, and you throw it out at the end of five years. They have maybe 24 of those and they hope to have 50 more out. That costs $465 and doesn't need the resupply costs. So they're doing some really effective things in aids to navigation.

    However, my point is that they do a lot of other things that are not within the coast guard's mandate. So if the coast guard is to secure our coasts and to supply safety, which it does through the excellent work of the auxiliary, if it's to be our secure system, then why don't you mandate it to do all these things they're doing and make sure they get paid for it?

    The coast guard talked to the other departments about that, and they said yes, we love to use your stations, but we don't want to pay for it. Parks Canada should be paying money for the warden work. Environment Canada pays some of the costs of environmental monitoring, but one lightkeeper told me he got $3 a month or something. It's very small compared to the work they're doing. The policing work they are doing is incalculable in terms of spotting illegal activity--the little planes that circle around dropping little bundles into little boats that move around in those isolated waters.

    That's why I say expand the mandate of the coast guard. Make sure the government is paying it for the service it supplies, because if you de-staff the lights and take those people off, none of those other services get done.

Á  (1135)  

    Mr. John Cummins: I think one of the key issues here...and I'm speaking as someone who has run a small fishing boat from the state of Washington all the way up to Alaska--in other words, I've covered the British Columbia coast. I think the thing that doesn't get written about is the fact that as a small boat operator travelling the lonely west coast of our province, you can radio ahead to get up-to-the-minute weather reports from these coast guard folk, and then the fact is that they know you're there. Oftentimes they're the only ones who really know where people are, so if something happens, they are the first to know.

    You mention in your report the aviators and how that weather information is important to them, and I think that bears repeating. The information given not only to mariners but to aviators as well is just irreplaceable, and you can't do it with an automated station.

    Hon. Pat Carney: Right.

    The other point is that the aviation reports have actually been cut. They've been reduced from aviation reports.... Lightkeepers are trained to international aviation reporting standards, but because Nav Canada doesn't have any money and government don't want to pay for it, they've been cut to making comments, which are then reported in the marine weather forecasts. But they still give visibility. They don't give sea state, which is important for float planes.

    But as we found on our trip down ahead of that storm, there's no one else out there to tell you that it's really getting unpleasant at Carmanah. There are not a lot of alternatives. We're flying in a Messerschmidt with no automatic pilot and no floats, because they're in for maintenance. So as the light stations say, I think the weather reporting they do is their most important function. Now, on the Newfoundland and Labrador coast they may have different priorities, but on B.C. coast the weather reports are very important, and I've campaigned to have the aviation reports restored. But as I say, every light station is different.

    The point I want to make is that while we can multi-task the light stations and pay the coast guard for all the work those lightkeepers are doing, there are other stations on that mid-coast, if you look at the map, north of Vancouver Island on the coast running north up to the Charlottes and Prince Rupert. Andy Burton has left, but I can tell you there is nothing there but those light stations. So if you're serving a logging camp or fishing camp or a sports lodge, you need the light station to report.

    On a personal note, I just want to say that I have personal experience of this, because I've travelled this coast for 40 years and I've sailed it with my brother. My son is a pilot and has spent years flying this coast. My daughter and her husband were commercial fishermen and spent years fishing this coast. So we know what those light stations can mean. If you look at the ones at Pine Island, Egg Island, and Addenbroke, those are vital for marine and aviation reports.

Á  (1140)  

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Roy, you have five minutes.

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Madam Senator, I would like to get back to the costs and reputed savings at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The Lightstation Automation Program was launched in 1970, if I remember correctly. In 1983, the Auditor General had a study done on lighthouses and the savings the Department of Fisheries and Oceans could realize by automating lighthouses. What the Auditor General said at the time is that the Canadian Coast Guard did not know what the real savings were following the automation of the lighthouses. What the Canadian Coast Guard said at the time is that there were savings of about $50,000 per lighthouse. What you are telling us is that today, 30 years later, the Canadian Coast Guard still does not know what savings would be realized by automating certain lighthouses and decommissioning others.

    Am I mistaken to say that? This means that 30 years after the automation program began, we still do not know what the reputed savings are at Fisheries and Oceans.

[English]

    Hon. Pat Carney: That is correct; it's what she says to me in her letter that I quoted from. They do not know what the cost of the de-staffing is; they do not know what the cost of the light stations are.

    One reason I point it out is that you can't take the people out of the system, because the big cost is keeping the lightkeeper warm and landing fuel. They're developing solar panels and other technologies, which are reducing costs, but if you replace that single.... On the light, there's usually a lightkeeper and an auxiliary, and then there are usually a lot of staff buildings; there are staff houses, extra bunks, and there are three extra bedrooms here. You can put up twelve people, and you can put up scientists and other people. The cost of trying to duplicate that kind of facility on the coast, I think, would be huge.

    But to answer your question, they do not know. Also, the coast guard has told me that when they did de-staff some of the stations in 1998, they didn't take into account the cost of de-staffing and what the overall costs of that were.

    My point is that if you rotate the staff in and out, you're going to pay them more, because you can't live on the Vancouver coast for $28,000 a year, and I doubt if you could do it in Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: At the same time, in the report he submitted that year, the Auditor General stated that it cost approximately $125,000 a year. What you have just said is quite accurate: all of the savings were finally absorbed by the automation of the lightstations, which means that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans did not save any money. The fact that 30 years later we still don't know what is going on is quite surprising and very representative of a government that does not know how to run things. That is a personal comment.

    I would like to get back to Bill S-7 which you referred to and which was introduced by Senator Forrestall. I have only one problem with this bill which is before the House of Commons at this time, and I will tell you what it is. No criteria are provided in it as to the characteristics of a heritage lighthouse. We know that currently Parks Canada, Heritage Canada, has a definition of what it considers a heritage asset. Parks Canada has a very specific definition but in the bill no mention is made of Parks Canada's definition of a heritage asset.

    It has been said that there are 500 lightstations in Canada, but I do not know how many lightstations the Department of Fisheries and Oceans wants to relinquish. In the bill, there is no definition of a heritage asset. How can we determine that one lighthouse is a heritage lighthouse as compared to another, and follow up on the suggestion you made, to multi-task certain lighthouses?

Á  (1145)  

[English]

    Hon. Pat Carney: You've asked me two questions, so I'll try to answer them.

    You asked me how Bill S-7, co-authored by me and Senator Forrestall, who is here, fits into this. Where those light stations are decommissioned, there is no way of disposing of them or protecting them with public consultation. Some have been blown up or demolished. Some of them, like at Nootka, where they had a wonderful early 1900 cement structure, were literally blown up and replaced with an asbestos siding light tower. There is no adequate way for the coast guard to dispose of them or to designate them for public or other uses. At the present, there are criteria under the historic sites; but in B.C., for instance, only about three of the 52 student light stations qualify for that, and it's only for their architecture, such as a special flying buttress or raised rock, that they qualify. For the east coast, the people who have been working with us on the bill have told us the designation of heritage under the existing legislation is so difficult that none have been designated.

    This bill gives the minister five years to develop the criteria under regulations and to have some public input into them. Is it because it's a tourist site...whether it has heritage designation? Then Bill S-7 sets out a method of having public consultation. It “may” have public consultation; it doesn't say the minister “must”. It just provides a way of selecting heritage light houses; of having a process so that there is public consultation; and third, and also important, of maintaining them so they can't be turned into a McDonald's or Mickey Mouse theme parks or other things, so that if you have a heritage light, you have to maintain it.

    Senator Forrestall is here, if you wish to ask him.... This bill has taken us three years, and it's the third bill presented to the Senate.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: My problem is, what happens in the meantime? The bill provides for a five-year period, but as we speak, some lightstations are in very poor shape and the department no longer does maintenance on some lightstations. The bill would have to require that the government maintain the lightstations, because at a certain point, even if we want to decommission or upgrade some of these lightstations, they will be in such poor shape that this would be pointless and would cost a fortune because currently no maintenance is being done on them at all.

[English]

    Hon. Pat Carney: I agree. On my island, Saturna, which has a historic light right at the entrance, on the international boundary, the second lighthouse keeper's house was destroyed just recently, because while the coast guard turned it over to B.C. Parks to be used as a park, there was no means of looking after the staff building--no one had the mandate to go in and fix it up. The community would have, but they didn't have a mandate, and there are always liability questions. The coast guard said they had to destroy this building because the community didn't look after it, and the community said they didn't have any right to look after it.

    This bill is based on personal experience, and it would give us a way of dealing with that.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Leblanc, do you have any questions?

    Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

    Senator Carney, it's nice to see you and nice to hear you speak so knowledgeably and passionately about an issue that's important to people in the province I represent, New Brunswick.

    Mr. Strong, I also appreciated your presentation. The coast guard auxiliary on the east coast of New Brunswick is often called upon at various fishing harbours near where I live. There are many members of your auxiliary who, I agree with you, do remarkable work.

    Mr. Chairman, I just had one question for Senator Carney and then a question for Mr. Strong, so I'll put the two of them together.

    Senator Carney, the issue of staffed light stations obviously has considerable interest on the east coast as well. I agree with a great deal of what you've said. It's a perspective I hadn't reflected on much in terms of giving the coast guard in changing circumstances a different security environment, a different financial environment, different tasks, additional and diverse tasks.

    Just to hear you talk about some of the light stations that I haven't had a chance to visit on the west coast, as you went through your presentation.... I'm wondering what recommendations you would have specifically. You talked about environmental monitoring. You talked about some assistance to aviation. There's obviously the security component, the policing component. How would you package all that up and say to the coast guard...? And I know that's one of the reasons the chair and members of the committee want to look at the coast guard. Have you gone through all the suggestions that we could perhaps ask the government to consider for the light stations? How would you summarize that? I'm very sensitive to that.

    To Mr. Strong, just quickly, I hadn't heard of the insurance issue with respect to members of the auxiliary. Some fishermen near where I live talk to me about the work they do, and I think it's worrisome. We went through a provincial election in New Brunswick, and insurance premiums all over the place are becoming a source of major concern to individual small businesses and now, I guess, to the Coast Guard Auxiliary.

    What willingness has the government--Fisheries and Oceans--or the coast guard itself shown to adjust for this circumstance, which clearly isn't your fault? If it ends up cutting back on services or the availability of resources because somebody has to pay an insurance premium, I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense. I'm curious to hear where your discussions are with the department or the coast guard with respect to trying to get additional resources to solve that.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Á  (1150)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    We'll go to Senator Carney first.

    Hon. Pat Carney: I just want to bootleg in a comment that last week the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary won the first Service on the Sea award--so did two lightkeepers from Nootka--because of the fantastic work the auxiliary did in saving the life of our former premier Mike Harcourt in B.C., which is a real-life example of some of the things the coast guard does.

    You're asking me how the government would deal with these mandates.

    First of all, under the Financial Administration Act, any moneys collected by the coast guard for some of these services just go into the black hole called general revenue. My own view is to accept the fact that the coast guard is doing these services for the public and make sure the money is there to provide them. Now, whether the money comes from other departments, like having Environment Canada pay some of it, is something that can be worked out within government. If the Department of National Defence is using these sites as they're looking out for radar installations, then the question is whether you're going to stretch DND's tattered budget to do it or whether the government should just say, look, the coast guard is performing these services, and the cost of them is considerably cheaper than the alternative of trying to create them outside the lighthouse system, so just pay it.

    If they can identify the costs, if they're $9 million on the west coast, well, $9 million is a drop in the bucket for our security and protection. Trying to increase the capacity of the RCMP to police our coast of 27,000 kilometres would be infinitely more expensive than paying for the security and safety net we already have in place.

    I used to be President of Treasury Board. Sometimes, you know, it's just easier to say, rather than fretting about those 22 parking spaces in the Calgary office building, just put it in the budget and pay for it as part of aids to navigation or whatever. Put it in the budget.

    The point I'm making is that the coast guard mandate does not include all these services they are doing. My answer is to amend the mandate of the coast guard to include the services they're already doing and add flexibility to perform future services such as security and DND. You can do that by consultation and regulation. The government can do it by regulation, and then the money can be provided for it.

    The coast guard tells me they cannot justify staffed lighthouses for aids to navigation. Okay. Well, you can justify them as aids to navigation, weather, assistance to the public, looking after the automated systems, and service to other government agencies. So change the mandate. Pay them for the mandate. It's cheaper than the alternatives. And make sure they can collect the money. If you did that, there would be ways to collect funds that they now don't have.

Á  (1155)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Senator Carney.

    Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: Thank you.

    The Chair: Mr. Strong, do you have any comments on Mr. LeBlanc's question about insurance and whether discussions have ensued with the coast guard?

    Mr. Harry Strong: Yes, every time I get the opportunity to talk to the commissioner of the coast guard--and that's quite often; I spoke to him yesterday afternoon--I always tell him that we need more money, basically. So far we have not had to curtail any operations. We're split: operations versus administration. Administration is the paper and pens, the boat shows, and things like that, but our operations budget is firmly in place. We have not had to make any changes in that so far, no reductions.

    We have been told by our insurance brokers that this year should be the end of the increases for a while. Who knows? We don't know. We have a really good working relationship with this broker, and we've had nothing but the greatest cooperation there. Basically, unless something unforeseen happens again, we should be okay with the insurance.

    As I said, if we have to shift money from some other programs to look after the insurance, we'll certainly do that, but it won't affect our operations. Our primary operation is the search and rescue.

    Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: Thank you.

    Hon. Pat Carney: Can I make an addendum to that?

    I think members should be aware that the auxiliary raises a lot of its own money. It has a problem sometimes with the public because the public says, you are paid anyway, we taxpayers pay it. For the auxiliary, the volunteers do raise a lot of money. For instance, the Gibson Coast Guard Auxiliary has finally a new search and rescue boat, but they don't have the $70,000 to pay for it yet. Their old boat was so leaky that during a rescue mission it partly deflated from the pounding of the waves. So they have gone out and got themselves a new boat and now they'll raise $70,000.

    And I know Mr. Strong will agree that they raise a lot of their own money for the joy of coming and pulling us out of the water.

    Mr. Harry Strong: We do have a “two-tier” system, for the want of a better word. We have vessels privately owned by the individuals. And what the senator is talking about is what we call community-owned vessels, and these operate something like a volunteer fire department. These people raise the money, they operate their own vessels, and they become units of the Coast Guard Auxiliary. When they're on authorized activity we pay them the approved rate, so they get some money back there.

    Certainly in her part of the country there's quite a lot of fundraising done by the auxiliary.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    We'll go to Mr. Cummins for five minutes, followed by Mr. Hearn for five minutes.

    Mr. John Cummins: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Strong, you said that there were no cuts to the auxiliary and yet you noted in your document, under “Increases in Insurance Premiums to Cover the Volunteers”, that because of the rise in insurance premiums, some of the programs of the auxiliary had to be curtailed to allow us to cover these increases in insurance costs.

    So what was cut, then?

    Mr. Harry Strong: Nothing was really cut except possibly our attendance at a boat show or some pamphlets that had to be printed. Rather than printing those pamphlets, we moved it into the next year's budget. As I said, our basic mandate is search and rescue, and we won't cut that. We'll cut--

  (1200)  

    Mr. John Cummins: But you were required to cut public education, which in fact would hopefully reduce incidents.

    Mr. Harry Strong: Hopefully, yes. I wouldn't use the word “cut”, sir. “Curtail” is probably a better word.

    Mr. John Cummins: Well, “curtail” means “cut” to me.

    Mr. Harry Strong: Okay.

    Mr. John Cummins: Either one of you may want to respond to this. In an update from the deputy minister in August, he said, and I quote:

To ensure that we make real progress with internal reallocation, we have also agreed to begin examining the potential for generating savings to reallocate from lower to higher departmental priorities.

And that was in 2003, in this year.

    In a change-in-initiative draft from March of this same year, Terry Tebb, who was the acting regional director in B.C. at the time, gave this figure. He was talking about the fact that the light stations represent the largest single area of potential operating costs, at $10 million annually. And he said it may be possible to reduce expenditures associated with light stations without affecting Canadian Coast Guard levels of service.

    Are those words somewhat ominous for you, Senator Carney?

    Hon. Pat Carney: Yes. Given the fact that the B.C. division is already running a deficit, I think the coast guard will look at cost cutting and de-staffing and these other measures. My point is that it's going to cost us all, as taxpayers, even more money to replace those services.

    Another essential problem, Mr. Cummins, is that the coast guard doesn't have a budget for aids to navigation. Its main job on the B.C.coast is aids to navigation. It doesn't have a budget for all those buoys, the lightkeepers, the beacons.

    The Library of Parliament has prepared a paper for me, which I have given the clerk and it's being translated, which states this. It says:

The expenditures on aids to navigation are the result of trying to meet the level of service required, given competing demands for funding from other services provided in a given year, within the overall budget.

And the figures the library has presented show that operational expenditures on aids to navigation has declined by 9% since 1998. In a five-year period there's been a 9% decrease, from $98 million to $89 million per annum. Now, some of that has been, as I say, replacing the hard-to-maintain lights with the BIC lighter lights, but the other part has just been the cancellation of service.

    We have one of the most heavily travelled coastlines in the world. Think of all those cruise ships, freighters, and tankers, plus the 1.6 million pleasure boats. And at some point the level of service is cut to a point where it's no longer serving the public.

    Mr. John Cummins: This is for the information of the committee--and one of you may like to comment on this--but I think it shows the precarious state of the coast guard.

    Last Friday, I'm told, the Gordon Reid coast guard vessel went aground on an uncharted reef and suffered about $1 million in damage. We're told that the coast guard has no money to repair that vessel, so it's going to be parked, tied up. I'm also informed the coast guard recently sold a sister ship, the John Jacobson. Some say it was sold for only $2 million because they couldn't afford to operate it.

    I'd say there's a crisis situation here, Senator Carney, and I think the reality is that these light stations are going to be chopped as soon as Parliament rises, even though the commissioner denied that before this committee recently.

    Hon. Pat Carney: It's my hope that the work of your committee will help forestall some of those independent measures that undercut the service provided by the coast guard. You've already addressed many of those issues in your committees. You've had the people who pay the maritime fee before you; they don't pay for light stations, they don't want to pay for light stations, and they have some justification for that position because they may not be the users of them.

    The point is that if you're going to provide service to the public.... You can replace old lights, you can put in solar panels, you can chop boat time, and you can cut helicopter time, but at some point you become irrelevant and unable to deliver the service. My whole argument is to change the mandate, fund the services that are being required, and support the coast guard.

    I don't know why they can't cost aids to navigation, if that's their most important function. But that's not as important as the fact that the commercial fishing fleet on the west coast doesn't much trust the coast guard beacons anymore--I don't know, John, if you've had that experience--because they are often out; wave buoys don't report, and lights don't report. I would agree it's a crisis situation.

    The B.C. marine pilots' association has told my office that the cuts to the coast guard have so decreased services that the marine pilots who pilot all those big vessels feel that the coast guard is becoming unable to deliver the level of service they require.

  (1205)  

    The Chair: Mr. Hearn.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    I'd also like to thank Senator Carney and Mr. Strong for coming in.

    Senator Carney has been an advocate on this topic for quite some time. Those of us who meet her on a regular basis are well aware that she always keeps whispering her concerns in our ears, and rightly so, because that's how you get things done: you keep the issue in front of those who can make a difference.

    I have a couple of questions. First of all, let me comment on something Mr. Cummins just said. He mentioned that the commissioner, when he was here, denied that any lighthouses would probably be done when the House closed. He did, and I paid very close attention to what he said. I believe it was in an answer to a question from Mr. Cummins, but the term that was used was “close down”. When the question was asked if he was going to close down lighthouses when the House closed in December, he stopped and said no, we're not going to close down lighthouses. He did not say that the automation policy would kick in. I remember taking the note, but before my time came around again, we had run out of time.

    The point is that they may not be closing down a number of lighthouses, but a number of those they had originally threatened to automate they put on hold for a number of years, and I think therein lies the catch. It might be worthwhile for us to follow up on that, because it was the way he stopped and reiterated: Close down? No, we're not going to close down.... So we probably should follow up on that.

    Mr. John Cummins: The commissioner has been caught in those word games before.

    Hon. Pat Carney: I agree with that. The automated lights will continue. They already continue on the 52 minus 27, or whatever it is. There are automated lights that don't have staff on them, so he would say they're not closing them down, because the lights will remain in an automated state.

    In defence of the coast guard, I would point out that they will tell you their mandate is only aids to navigation and that this 20-watt light bulb is their mandate. It is not pulling people out of the sea, it is not providing weather reports, and it is not reporting illegal activity; it is not doing all these things the light stations do. He's speaking from a narrow focus, but he is speaking from the limited mandate he has.

    The Chair: Excuse me, Senator, this won't take away from your time.

    Surely it is the mandate of the coast guard to pull people from the sea. Search and rescue is part of the coast guard's mandate.

    Hon. Pat Carney: But it's not the mandate of the lighthouse keepers, yet they do that. The lighthouse keeper's mandate is limited to mowing the lawn, checking the light, and painting the tower. The coast guard cannot deliver the search and rescue capacity at light stations if there aren't people there from Mr. Strong's association to do that. Where there are, they work well, but there are only the lightkeepers at these posts.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: I'll just throw out a couple of questions, one to each of the individuals, Mr. Chair, and then they can answer.

    Mr. Strong, I'm a very strong supporter of the auxiliary force because, coming from Newfoundland, I see it in action every day. One of the concerns I have generally, and you mentioned it, is the expansion into the north. That's where a real auxiliary force is so necessary, particularly in the spring, when we have severe ice conditions. The sealing industry is reviving again in Newfoundland. However, you're no longer allowed to go to the gulf in large boats; it's the ordinary fisherman in the smaller boat.

    The other thing that's happening is, as the resource gets scarcer, the fishermen are pushed farther and farther out to sea. The government has yet to make a decision on whether or not they can move up as they replace their boats. They still have to replace the 45-footer with a 45-footer, etc. That means you're going with a 40-footer into areas where 65-footers went and going with your 65-footer into areas where only the over-100-footers went. That means that more and more boats, large numbers, could easily be in trouble, and they depend more on each other than on people in the auxiliary coast guard.

    Certainly in a case like that expansion is necessary, I believe, and that calls for resources. The coast guard will argue they have not had a cut in their budget, but 15 years with no cuts still means, with the increase in the cost of everything, you don't have as much money to operate with every day, and therein lies the problem. I'd like your comments on that.

    Senator Carney, just recently I saw some invoices for painting buoys. I guarantee you, I wouldn't mind having the job. We heard about six buoys being painted for $37,000. Now, $37,000 is approximately the salary of a lighthouse keeper. Say we change the requirements to include all of these things you mentioned, such as rescuing people from the sea and providing weather forecasts. Since all of these things are done through the provision of government money, surely to God, if there was some coordination, we could get a better bang for our overall buck.

    The lighthouse keeper, some people will admit, doesn't have a lot to do except to make sure everything is maintained and to keep his eyes there. There are lots of activities he or she would love to do on site that would pay for his or her salary. Let's have some proper coordination. I've always maintained--and I can cite examples--that having eyes on site has averted major tragedies; by being stationed in those lonely areas, lighthouse keepers have saved a number of lives.

    If a light goes out...and we learned when we were on the west coast, Mr. Chair, in relation to the radar sites, that there are times when they go down, and because of weather conditions and the remoteness, it takes weeks sometimes to get them up and running. The same thing can happen with an automated station. You have to use choppers to get there. Three or four chopper trips a year, again, pay the salary of a lighthouse keeper.

    I don't think any savings occurred when they automated some lighthouses on the east coast. I really think there's not a saving here. For the sake of the people, the manned lighthouses, particularly in areas such as Cape Race and my area, the foggiest area in North America--the area is called the graveyard of the Atlantic--the eyes and ears are so important.

    I've gone on too long with that. I'd like your answers.

  (1210)  

    The Chair: In consideration of our witnesses, I'll point out that there were two questions hidden in that six-minute, 41-second speech.

    I'll ask Mr. Strong to go first because he was asked the question first.

    Mr. Harry Strong: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I just want to echo your comments. You missed one important thing in the north. Besides the fishery and the industrial things that are happening on the Labrador coast, there's quite a bit of tourism taking place on the cruise ships. We have discovered, and the coast guard has discovered, that if a cruise ship had an accident on the Labrador coast or in the eastern or the western Arctic, there's nothing up there at all. This is what we are looking at.

    We started to do this four years ago. We were asked to try to expand in the Arctic through the central region and, at the same time, in Newfoundland. At that time we built in money in the budget. We were successful in the central region in getting a NIF bond. I don't know if you're familiar with them. Those are new SAR initiatives that come from the NSS people. That fund will run out this year in the central and Arctic region.

    The Newfoundland region is not quite as large as the central and Arctic problem, so we're working on it. The auxiliary on the east coast is made up primarily of fishermen, as you're well aware. We have fishermen operating to the 200-mile limit and towing in vessels that have problems. We've also had vessels in the Davis Strait, where that fishery is taking place. We had occasion, not this summer—knock on wood, not yet—but last year, and the year before we had a case where the nearest port of safe haven was Greenland. We had to tow the vessel to Greenland or wait for God knows how long for a coast guard ship to come from wherever they were.

    As I said, right now with our budget we're okay, but when this thing happens in the central region—when that program is finished—we'll have to come up with money to try to continue it. To bring a couple of people down to our conference from Iqaluit to Kingston, where we were last week, cost $5,000 a trip. It's not cheap.

  (1215)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Senator Carney.

    Hon. Pat Carney: I'm trying to remember the question involved in the early part of the questioning, but I wanted to comment on Mr. Strong's point. Some of these light stations on the west coast are isolated, but they're not lonely. The point I've made is that in some of those stations, with the increase in tourism and traffic, they're isolated, but their clientele is actually increasing. There's no one but the light stations to deliver the service, and that's true in the Arctic.

    The other thing I wanted to point out is that the budget has been cut. The Library of Parliament material says the authorized budget for the marine navigational services program, of which the aids to navigation system is a part—and you've had testimony on it—has been cut 22% from 1997-98 to 2001-02. So in a four-year period you've lost 22% in the program that includes the aids to navigation, which includes all the buoys, and the beacons, and the services of the lightkeepers. The problem we have that the Auditor General has pointed out is that they haven't been able to allocate money to each of those components.

    As a former President of the Treasury Board, I'd say let's not carry this stuff to extremes. If they're aids to navigation, why don't we just call them aids to navigation, however they're delivered, whether it's by a BIC lighter light, or a keeper, or a beacon. There has been a genuine cut in the maritime navigation services budget, and as you know, there haven't been any off-setting increases.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Stoffer.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Unfortunately I have to leave, but I want to thank both of you, Senator Carney and Mr. Strong, for your efforts for the men and women of the Canadian Coast Guard and the Coast Guard Auxiliary.

    Coming from Nova Scotia and formerly of British Columbia, I've travelled many of the same routes as you have. I've noticed that in Nova Scotia we don't have any manned light stations, which is an extremely disappointing thing.

    My question to you, Senator Carney, is this. Because they removed them in Nova Scotia, and did it for the sake of cost savings and what they call fiscal responsibility and accountability—of which we still don't have any proof yet—I fear they're going to do it in British Columbia as well, because if they don't, then we in Nova Scotia are going to say, why didn't you do it there when you did it here? That's going to be one of the political problems I see the government in. I'd like your comments on that.

    Mr. Strong, I personally want to thank you and the auxiliary for the great work you did, not only during the Swissair disaster but through the recent Hurricane Juan. As you know, many of our fishing villages were in dire straits. A lot of the auxiliary came out of nowhere to help them out, and they're still helping out. You should be congratulated on that.

    One of the concerns I have arises when, in one of her reports, the Auditor General talks, I believe, about safe boating—all the new regulations that came in. The Canadian Coast Guard came up with this plan but more or less has no resources to administer it, to see if indeed people are adhering to this plan of safe boating regulations and everything else. I'm asking, has the responsibility or duty fallen upon auxiliaries to check to see if indeed people are following safe boating guidelines and the new measures that are required under the act?

    Along with that, how is your relationship with the Canadian Coast Guard, in terms of its unionized employees and management employees, throughout the country? How is that relationship going?

  (1220)  

    Hon. Pat Carney: I don't really want to comment on the relationship with the union.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: No, that's for him.

    Your question is, how do you feel regarding what happened in Nova Scotia? Do you feel the same thing is going to happen in B.C.?

    Hon. Pat Carney: I hope not. The difference between Nova Scotia and B.C. is that possibly these services can be delivered by an alternate method. Maybe some of those lighthouses are attached to communities where you can deliver the service by an alternate method. Some of the lightkeepers in Newfoundland, I've been told, have been repositioned in other centres. My point is that in British Columbia there is no alternative delivery system for the services lightkeepers are delivering. In other areas where there is an alternative, maybe that alternative is the most effective. That's my answer to you. If you remove a service from the B.C. lights, there's really no one else there to deliver it.

    The second point, which is really controversial, is that some of those light stations should be re-staffed. If you look at your map you'll realize that on my island, Saturna, you are commanding the three biggest waterways on the coast: the Gulf of Georgia, the Juan de Fuca Strait, and the Puget Sound running down to Seattle. The smuggling activity is historic on my island. Some of the best fortunes in Vancouver were made during prohibition. Given the tankers that go through there, there may be ways to use that site on a renewed mandate. I'm saying, quite simply, expand the mandate to cover these services that people are requiring to live in the 21st century and then re-examine it.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Strong, before you answer your question, as you know, Madam Carney, we asked the Canadian Coast Guard commissioner whether it is his mandate to guard the coast. He said no.

    Mr. Strong, in saying that, I'd like your comment on it.

    I even asked the question in the House: whose mandate is it, then, to guard our coastline if it's not the Canadian Coast Guard's? We got all kinds of various answers, but the reality is that it's supposed to be done between the police forces and DND, and they don't have the resources or materiel to do it.

    So Mr. Strong, who is guarding our coastline?

    Mr. Harry Strong: You're asking the wrong man here, because in my opinion it's the Canadian Coast Guard's job, but that's another story.

    Hon. Pat Carney: Just remember the coast guard has the real estate. They may not have the money, but they have the real estate; they have those locations, which are superb.

    Mr. Harry Strong: You asked me about the enforcement issue, and there is a section within the coast guard called the office of boating safety. They are the people who do the regulations. Since they brought in the pleasure craft operator's card, we have seen an increase in people getting educated and knowing what they're doing.

    We do a fair number of boat shows, and somebody has a program--I don't know if it's the office of boating safety--where they go into schools. We find that children who are 8, 10, or 12 years old are coming up to us and saying, “I know what that is. It's a life jacket. I know how to put it on”. They learned that in school. That is part of the office of boating safety.

    The auxiliary is not involved in enforcement. We've made that clear. We're not interested in enforcing regulations. You have to ask us to do the courtesy checks we do on the boats. We will not come aboard and demand to do that.

    So enforcement is basically now between the office of boating safety and the police. Some provinces--and I'm not sure if they're all involved yet--have something called the contraventions act, and they can issue tickets. Before that, it was a summons and you had to go to court. So the office of boating safety is involved in enforcement. We don't want our volunteer members to get involved in something like that, where somebody could take a shot at them. The only thing we have agreed to do is provide a platform for transportation, if they want to go.

    On taking coast guard jobs, we're on record that we will not--

  (1225)  

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: No. I asked how is your relationship with the management and unionized workers.

    Mr. Harry Strong: Just let me continue.

    We are on record saying we will not support anything that takes away coast guard jobs. We will not take part in the activity. I travel quite a bit across the country in the position I hold, and I have not heard anything, one way or the other, about coast guard jobs. If that should happen, we would shut it down very fast.

    The Chair: I'll ask my questions now, and then we'll go to Mr. Burton. He'll have the final word on the subject.

    First I'd like to address Mr. Strong. On behalf of the committee--as Peter Stoffer has already said--it's amazing what you folks do. It's really an example of volunteerism that is a benefit to Canada, a benefit to individual Canadians, and obviously a benefit to the Government of Canada. So I want to thank you, on behalf of all those people, for the work the volunteers do.

    I think the tale is told on the first page of your presentation, where you talk about the monetary value of what you operate and what you give. In particular, where can you get a better investment than $37 on each dollar invested? It seems to me it's absolutely critical for the coast guard and for the government to continue to nurture the auxiliary and let it grow, because the return on investment is so huge. So I'm 100% with you there.

    I would like to ask you a couple of things on the insurance. You entered into a new contribution agreement that was signed in 2002, post 9/11. Had it not become clear at the time of the signing that insurance rates were rising?

    Mr. Harry Strong: Not in the industry in which we're involved.

    The Chair: So this was something new after the signing? All right.

    Mr. LeBlanc asked you something, in a manner of speaking, and I'll ask you more directly. I understand that sometimes in the NHL, for example, somebody signs a contract for a certain amount of money, and then they turn out afterwards to be a superstar and ask for a renegotiation of the contract, in consideration of the excellence they're offering. Have you considered asking the coast guard to renegotiate the contribution agreement, considering the unexpected rise in insurance costs?

    Mr. Harry Strong: We haven't asked formally, but informally we have mentioned to the coast guard that if this continues we're going to have problems and we're going to have to do something.

    The Chair: May I recommend that you formally do so? A 75% increase in three years could not have been foreseeable, and as you say, if you wait any longer it's going to a 100% increase or more. By then you'll be scrambling.

    Mr. Harry Strong: That's the thing. We've been told that it should be stable, but you know....

    The Chair: You can't trust the insurance industry. They cannot foresee disasters that may occur and could cost them huge amounts of money, so I would urge you to make this a formal priority and ask for a reopening of the negotiations on the contribution agreement because of these unforeseen things, particularly because of the return on investment that the coast guard gets. I leave that with you.

    Senator Carney, that was a great presentation. Thank you for your interest in this issue. The personal anecdotal evidence I find to be very compelling, because that's exactly what happened to us. We heard evidence here, but it's an entirely different thing when you go out in the field and talk to the people in the field, when you see the kind of equipment they're using and see what they're faced with. It simply puts the meat to the bone. So thank you very, very much.

    I'd like to ask you, what's going on in Alaska? Does Alaska have manned light stations? Are they going through the same kind of debates as we're going through, or what are they doing?

  (1230)  

    Hon. Pat Carney: I don't know what's happening in Alaska. I'm so busy with our 27,000-kilometre coastline and trying to keep track of what Newfoundland and Labrador are doing that I haven't had a chance to ask about Alaska.

    They have a different settlement pattern than we have in some of the areas. Most of the people live in Anchorage or Juno and Fairbanks. But I can't comment.

    The one thing that I wanted to augment my reply with is that when Loyola asked me about the extravagant marine painting jobs, I wanted to remind him.... I finally remembered what his question was. If you don't know your costs--and the figures show they don't have a budget for aids to navigation and they don't know what lighthouses cost--you don't know if you're paying too much for repainting the buoys.

    I'd love to find out what's happening in Alaska, but remember, the one difference is that the coast guard in America is part of the military. It is not in Canada. Behind every de-staffed light on the west coast of the United States, there's a big military base, and they do the search and rescue.

    One of our problems on our coast is that we tend, as we reduce our own capacity, to say let the Americans save us, let's call in the Americans. If we can't look after ourselves, we call on the Americans. Well, at some point the Americans are going to get fed up with doing the job that our coast guard should be doing.

    The Chair: For those who favour the closing of lighthouses, the reason I asked the question is that one of the arguments you hear is that everybody's doing it. There are no manned lighthouses in Norway. There are no manned lighthouses in the United Kingdom. So this is the way of the world. If it were to be the case that this is how it's developing in Alaska, we could clearly hear the argument coming forward, well, Alaska is very similar to B.C., the same kind of coastline, and they're going automated, so why shouldn't we? I was trying to anticipate a potential argument in favour of decommissioning lighthouses, or at least demanning them.

    Hon. Pat Carney: Lights in B.C., and in Newfoundland are already automated. There's only one mercury light on the B.C. coast, and that's at Langara Point at the top of the Charlottes. That's the big six-ton mercury light that throws that beam well out to sea. The rest of them--one of them is at Cape Beale, which is an aviation light--are being replaced with these little bulbs.

    The Chair: That reminds me, Senator, my final question is about those little bulbs. You said on page 7 of your presentation: “When Kip said boaters are complaining they can't see the beam from the 20-watt bulb, the coast guard officials told him to apply to change the bulb to 35 watts.” Has he done that, and what's the big deal on that? Is there a huge cost difference? Why wouldn't the coast guard officials simply give him a 35-watt bulb?

    Hon. Pat Carney: Because he has to fill out a lot of paperwork to change that bulb. It is the coast guard and you have to fill out all those forms, including the form saying whether or not MPs and senators called the coast guard person. But in this case the people I was with told him to collect the complaints.... In other words, it's a paperwork exercise before he can get this 35-watt light bulb.

    The Chair: But you don't have any physical evidence to tell us the cost of a 20-watt as opposed to a 35-watt bulb.

    Hon. Pat Carney: Peanuts, that's what I would think. But the point is that if your clientele are small boaters, recreational boaters, kayakers, and commercial fishermen, and they can't see the light, maybe you should examine the nature of the light you're putting out. This little bulb can reach 15 to 18 miles, but as you approach the light, it gets dimmer and dimmer and narrower and narrower. So you have to ask yourself, if you are on a small boat or a commercial fisherman and the light gets dimmer and dimmer and narrower and narrower, is that really serving the clientele that are out there?

  (1235)  

    The Chair: Mr. Burton, you are the last questioner.

    Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I want to thank you for your presentations, Senator Carney and Mr. Strong. They were very, very interesting. I apologize that I had to leave for a while, so if my questions have already been asked and answered, please say so and we'll move on. I apologize if that happens.

    One of the things that really interested me in the first page of your presentation, Senator Carney, was when you questioned whether it should still be under DFO or transferred to another department, or structured as a stand-alone agency with a revised, renewed mandate. I would really like to have you expand on that, if you can. What do you envision here in terms of the best way to go? I think that's what we're trying to get the answer to as a group. We've travelled in Europe and heard some different solutions, but what do you see as a solution?

    Hon. Pat Carney: I will answer that question. I think the solution has to be something different from what already exists. First of all, the commissioner of the coast guard made a major step forward when he finally got all those five regions of the coast guard reporting to him recently. Before that time, all the five regions reported on coast guard through the regional directors of DFO and they were only one of many agencies reporting to DFO. But now he has some control back, because those coast guard directors now report to him.

    Second, everyone seems unhappy with being in DFO, although the commissioner told you that one agency is as good as another with him. The original idea was putting fish and ships together, but as you've heard testimony from the union men, the vessels are different and there haven't been the cost-efficiencies that were required.

    Third, I do not think putting the coast guard under DND would be helpful, because unlike the U.S. or other countries, we don't have the defence capacity in National Defence to take on the additional responsibility.

    I would say that the committee is doing useful work in examining a stand-alone coast guard. I know that the Senate security and defence committee have been looking at that. My own inclination is that it should be part of a government agency, although that's more a hunch. I don't know whether it should go back to Transport or whether it should have a redefined role in DFO. I don't know if it needs a mother ship to look after it, because stand-alone agencies tend to have their budgets cut. But I think the more testimony you can look at as to whether or not it should be a stand-alone agency.... It certainly should have more in today's world, post 9/11, of a security emphasis. It should have more of an ability to secure our coasts from illegal activity, let alone military activity, and I would recommend that you look at three options: one, leaving it where it is, but beefed up with more control under DFO, as the commissioner has tried to do; two, look at returning it to Transport, although I'm not an expert in where Transport is going these days, and it didn't seem a good fit when it was moved; three, look at a stand-alone agency with a renewed mandate and adequate financing to do an expanded job.

    Central to my role is this: let's bring it into the 21st century, let's fund it and equip it and train the people to do the job that we require today, not in the past.

    Mr. Andy Burton: On the Alaskan issue, with all due respect to the coast guard out of Rupert, I do know that quite often the U.S. Coast Guard ends up performing missions on behalf of our coast guard, because ours can't respond quickly enough or whatever. It comes out of Ketchikan very quickly. It has been used quite often. It has actually saved lives on the north coast.

    Hon. Pat Carney: We don't want to discourage them, but we should be able to do some of our own work.

    Mr. Andy Burton: Absolutely. I agree. We have to deal with our own problems.

    On the weather reporting, my colleague John Duncan and I met recently with a group called the West Coast 703 Floatplane Association. They have some real concerns about the adequacy of weather reporting. You mentioned that the lightkeepers do weather checks and so on. The information is passed on to their superiors or higher up the ladder. But is it actually getting disseminated to where it should be going? We're hearing that it's not, or maybe not at all times. Can you enlighten us on that?

  (1240)  

    Hon. Pat Carney: I hope I can enlighten you on it.

    The lightkeepers report every three hours on weather conditions.That information goes to the coast guard, and it also emerges in some form in the marine weather reports that are issued. The problem is that aviation weather has been downgraded to comments, and aviators no longer get the kind of information they used to get, which is aviation weather. They simply get the comments on visibility, which they are grateful for.

    The light stations provide local weather. For years they've paid for their own equipment. When we flew into Carmanah Point, we asked that lightkeeper 25 minutes ahead of time what it was like at his spot. That is important, the ability to phone someone on site and ask, what is it like there? My son, when he flew, said you could turn a corner on the coast and be in fog. The other point that's important is that you're flying into a system. One light is not as important as three lights reporting into the system.

    The aviators will tell you that they really miss the aviation reports. Inexplicably, the coast guard has removed the foghorns on the coast, except at two points, which are Cape Mudge and Ucluelet, I believe. But the nature of the weather reporting is down to bare bones.

    Mr. Andy Burton: That is a real concern on the coast, especially for aviation.

    Hon. Pat Carney: The lightkeepers say it is the most important service that is supplied. The aviation weather, which is a specific kind of weather report--it's incomprehensible to me but not to a pilot--should be restored.

    Mr. Andy Burton: I have one last question, Mr. Chairman. You mentioned that you had been told about some illegal immigrant activities. You also mentioned the lack of radar, and we're quite aware of that on the north coast. There's no coverage, basically, north of central Vancouver Island. Were there significant reports of illegal immigrant activities, rogue vessels, and that sort of thing? How important do they think it is to have expanded radar coverage on the north coast?

    Hon. Pat Carney: It was felt that Estevan, where DND is looking at installing radar, would be an excellent site. There's a long headland, and they could monitor ships entering and leaving waters.

    I had a survey form for each light station. It asked: Do you do environmental monitoring, do you do weather, do you do academic research? What is the nature of the activities? I filled out this form at each site. All of them report RCMP coast watch activities. Half of them reported illegal immigrant activity. One of them reported a boat that just appeared and disappeared, and no one ever tracked it. We don't know what that boat was doing. I would say the mid-coast light stations would tell you that. A boat shows up. Nobody knows where it's from. It doesn't fly any flags. It disappears into the fog, and nobody knows what happened to those people.

    Our coast is vulnerable to anything. The lightkeepers monitor tsunamis. We are very vulnerable on our coasts, and I think we should be ashamed of ourselves because we're exposing the whole country to risk.

  (1245)  

    Mr. Andy Burton: Thank you.

    The Chair: Mr. Strong, thank you very much for interesting and powerful testimony. We certainly appreciate it. We appreciate the candour of your remarks.

    Senator Carney, thank you in particular for your very specific suggestions as to what we should be considering.

    We will, of course, be carrying on. It's a very complex problem, as you've pointed out, and we have to come to grips with it. I certainly agree with you that our coastline is vulnerable on a variety of bases, including security. We have to admit that and we have to come to grips with it. So thank you very much for your evidence today and for appearing.

    Committee members, for your information, on Thursday we will begin consideration of our report on the Atlantic fisheries issues. The first draft of our report should be in your offices now. I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at it before Thursday so we can hopefully barrel through it. There are a number of issues, all of which are relatively short and have been dealt with in one page, more or less. We should be able to crank that through so we can present it to the House before any potential adjournment.

    Finally, Mr. Cummins has given notice of a motion, which we can't deal with because we don't have quorum at the present time. However, it is a very interesting motion and a very interesting issue. I wonder if John would say a few words on it.

    Mr. John Cummins: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I think it is a controversial issue. The issue revolves around decision-making in the department. I think that's the key issue.

    This one has to do with halibut allocation on the west coast and a process of arbitration that was put in place, which everyone will concede was not influenced by politics. I think just in the material we heard on the east coast, there's considerable concern with departmental decisions and the fact that it's seen too often that someone who has the ear of the minister gets a decision that is favourable and someone who may not be seen in such favour doesn't.

    I think the committee may find the way this matter was handled interesting. They may find it appropriate, because it was an independent arbitrator, a decision was rendered, and regardless of the outcome, I think the process was one the committee may want to endorse.

    I hope we have quorum shortly and are able to address this issue, perhaps at some length, because I do think it's important.

    The Chair: This appeared in my office. It's called Briefing Book: The Allocation of Pacific Halibut between the Community & Recreational Fishing Sectors. Do other members have this? Have they seen it? I don't even know where it came from.

    Did it come from your office?

    Mr. John Cummins: They should have it. It didn't come from my office; it came from those folks who appeared before us. One section in it has that report, actually.

    The Chair: I've reviewed it. It's very interesting. If I remember, after many, many promises the timeline was that a decision would be made by the end of September. We're now close to November, and no decision has been made. That's three years in the making.

    I want to suggest to members that we might want to consider a special meeting to hear from Pat Chamut on the latest NAFO hearings, and we may want to schedule a special meeting on this issue just to indicate to the department, perhaps--if we get consensus--how concerned we are about what appears to be foot dragging in the decision-making.

    I'll leave it at that, but I'd like people to think about this. We'll have to have special meetings for these, because we don't have enough time left.

    Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.