John M. Cummins

[Petitions, November 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions today. The first petition calls on the government to re-examine the relationship between the Coast Guard and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The petitioners point out that the Coast Guard is not suitably equipped to perform the functions that are expected of it, whether it be the search and rescue functions on the coast at large or the functions as the primary rescuer for any mishaps off Vancouver airport.

They call upon Parliament to separate the Coast Guard from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

[Coast Guard, November 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on November 6, the minister for the Coast Guard advised the House that the men and women of the Coast Guard were answering the bell, yet on November 7 the minister was forced to admit to the House that the Coast Guard fleet on the east coast had been tied up because it had no money for fuel.

What he did not tell the House was that the Coast Guard on the west coast has no money for uniforms.

Internal Coast Guard documents reveal that on October 28 all Coast Guard vessels on the west coast were advised that “all uniform clothing requisitions dated from October 1, 2002, will not be processed until further notice”.

The men and women of the Coast Guard are trained to answer the bell when called to do so, but how can they do so without uniforms or without fuel for their vessels?

With winter fast approaching and with nearly five months left in the fiscal year, when will the Coast Guard be provided the uniforms it needs?

[Coast Guard, November 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, its responsibility suggests that it put the Coast Guard on the ocean, doing the job that is expected of it.

The Coast Guard in Newfoundland and Labrador responds to about 600 calls a year, half of them from fishermen. Along with protecting lives, the Coast Guard is our main line of defence against foreign overfishing.

Who does the minister think will patrol 20,000 kilometres of coastline in Labrador and Newfoundland if it is not the Coast Guard?

[Coast Guard, November 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Coast Guard in Newfoundland has been told to keep its ships tied up because the government cannot afford the fuel. To add insult to potential injury, the fisheries minister has asked the Coast Guard not to move them unless it has to.

The Coast Guard is not a cruise line. It is a search and rescue operation. Why are the Liberals not providing it with the necessary resources to do the job?

[Canadian Coast Guard, November 6th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, there are two issues I would like my friend to comment on. What we are talking about this evening is the drastic underfunding of an essential service. I have documents which I received through access to information that tell me quite clearly that the Siyay hovercraft is the only reliable SAR resource on the mud flats at the airport and we cannot afford to take these kinds of risks.

What he is talking about is using the hovercraft for what normally would be routine services. They talk, for example, about using it for navigational purposes and assistance on navigational buoys and that kind of thing. There was a request from Canada Customs to use it and it was told no, the hovercraft cannot be used for these activities because it is the only reliable search and rescue resource there is and the chance cannot be taken of using it on the mud flats off the Vancouver airport.

There is a serious bit of underfunding with the failure to provide an adequate backup for the Siyay. What is the reason for the underfunding? We have talked a bit about that.

This is the second point I would like to make. When we talk about money we have to talk about where it goes. If we look at DFO press releases this year, more than half that have been put out by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans announce money spent in Liberal ridings for small craft harbours, more than half of the DFO press releases. On one hand there is a serious gap in our ability to provide search and rescue and on the other hand there is a lot of money going into some perhaps questionable projects.

I wonder if my friend would care to comment on that.

[Canadian Coast Guard, November 6th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend for his speech. Earlier when it was asked if the minister would take some additional questions, my friend thought it was not a good idea, so I want to ask him a question that I had for the minister. Given the nature of his speech, he should be able to address this question anyway because it has to do with the provision of vessels for the Coast Guard.

Earlier today, as my friend knows, I asked the minister about the replacement hovercraft that is being looked at for the Pacific region, in particular, Sea Island. There is some concern about the performance requirements for that.

I have in my hand a May 2000 briefing note for senior management which suggests that in 1993, in recognition of the advanced age of the three SR-N6 type hovercraft we had, the construction of two AP1-88 hovercraft was requested in order to provide replacements for these three. I will note that in 1993 we did have three hovercraft based at Sea Island but we are down to one now.

We know that we did not get them, but we know that we now are looking at one in Britain. The one in Britain actually served as a passenger ferry and I guess the minister has the idea of converting it to search and rescue use. The government, in examining this hovercraft in Britain, suggests that the hovercraft be capable of operating at 2.4 metre waves or in 35-40 knot winds. The performance requirements in this May 2000 briefing note suggest that the hovercraft should be able to operate in wind conditions of up to 50 knots and in sea states of up to 4 metres.

There is a fair contrast between the bar that the government has set for this hovercraft that it is looking at in Britain and the performance standards that were set in this senior management briefing note. I would like to ask my friend if he could comment on that and enlighten us as to why the performance has been lowered, why the bar has been lowered for this potential acquisition.

[Canadian Coast Guard, November 6th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, I know my hon. friend across the way is a lawyer and I am feeling in need of a lawyer this evening. I want to ask him to clarify some issues for us here.

On August 28 the federal minister in charge of the Coast Guard said that government policy did not prohibit divers from entering a capsized fishing boat where five people, including two children, drowned earlier that month. Then, in the National Post , on September 7, he said:

...the divers are restricted, by regulations in the Canada Labour Code, to open water dives--that is, to diving outside the danger zone under a vessel where dangling nets, cables and other gear threaten to entangle a rescue worker.

There is a contradiction there. Earlier this evening I read the Coast Board fleet safety manual. It was quite clear that:

Penetration into capsized vessels, aircraft, or submerged vehicles and diving in the vicinity of underwater pressure differentials is strictly prohibited.

My reading of the Canada Labour Code issue is that it in fact requires the employer, the Coast Guard, to provide the proper safety equipment. I would take that to mean equipment that would enable the divers to do their job.

We have a contradictory statement from the minister. On the one hand, in August, he said that divers were able to enter, yet in September he said they were not. It is clear from the fleet safety manual that penetration dives are not permitted. The Canada Labour Code states that the onus is on the employer, the Coast Guard, to provide adequate equipment for its members.

Would the hon. member, my friend, who is a lawyer, clarify this complex problem for us?

[Canadian Coast Guard, November 6th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, I congratulate my friend on his speech this evening. I know he had business elsewhere this evening but he stayed behind to participate in this debate. It is a difficult issue and one which my friend has spent a considerable amount of time on, not only since the capsizing of the Cap Rouge II but on the Coast Guard fisheries issues in the years past.

He mentioned the feelings of the families and the people of the community that were affected by this tragic accident. I would like to know what the feeling is in the community about the response of the government, about the fact that the minister is giving one opinion that somehow the divers were entitled to enter the capsized vessel even though the ship safety manual clearly prohibits that. What sort of a feeling is there in the community about these confusing messages coming from the government?

[Canadian Coast Guard, November 6th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, I compliment the member for Egmont on that marvellous speech. It was undoubtedly prepared by the Coast Guard.

I know from internal documents how Coast Guard bureaucrats treat government members. I would like to quote from one such document of May 7. It was prepared by Mr. Henderson, the regional director of the Canadian Coast Guard. This was after the committee's visit to the Coast Guard station last spring. He said, “A member of the local media accompanied this standing committee when they arrived at the base. I explained to the member from Malpeque that we would prefer this working group to be restricted to standing committee members and their staff. The member from Malpeque agreed and she did not participate”.

So that was very cozy. Then he noted that the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton and the member for Malpeque talked at length about their pride in the Canadian Coast Guard. He said that a follow-up 45-minute meeting with members of the standing committee was scheduled for May 8, that Henderson, Wootton and Nemrava would attend and that the member from Malpeque and Bras d'Or--Cape Breton agreed it would be an in-camera session

As we read the document, we find that there is a very cozy relationship, that the Coast Guard bureaucrats feel in a way that they are herding sheep when they are dealing with these government members.

I would like to ask the member how it feels to be herded like sheep by a member of the Coast Guard bureaucracy?

[Canadian Coast Guard, November 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my friend has raised a very good point which has been raised by others as well. It has to do with the marine navigation services program. In the public accounts committee report, Mr. Adams, the Coast Guard commissioner, admitted:

We don't always get the buoys out of the water as soon as we would like before the ice comes in, and we don't always get them back in the water as soon as we'd like to when the ice goes out...some compromises are made as a result of the lack of funding.

That was said by the Coast Guard commissioner. I do not think the hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore could have said it any more clearly than that. He may want to comment on that.

There is another issue on which I would like him to comment. I appreciated his remarks about the Coast Guard auxiliary. It does a marvellous and outstanding job. There are a couple of auxiliaries that operate in my constituency and I am very much aware of what they do.

However, with these funding cuts to the department, there is a fear that the government may be trying to replace the regular Coast Guard employees with the volunteers in the Coast Guard auxiliary. It is clear in my mind that there is not really a duplication of services. One complements the other. However, if they are trying to accomplish replacing the fine work that the regular force does, there may be some problems. I wonder if my friend has some thoughts on that.