John M. Cummins

[Coast Guard, November 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, internal Coast Guard documents reveal that the Coast Guard station at Vancouver airport was out of service on May 22 of this year. All its search and rescue craft were down. Lives were at risk.

The base provides rescue coverage for crashes on the tidal flats surrounding the airport. Its job is to coordinate the rescue of hundreds of passengers who might be involved in a crash, to take life rafts to the crash site and to pick up survivors.

On May 22 the Coast Guard advised the Rescue Co-ordination Centre and the Vancouver airport that the base was out of service, its vessels inoperable and advised them to find commercial helicopters to ferry life rafts to the site of any possible crash.

Since October 4 there has only been one hovercraft in B.C. That means that the airport is now regularly left unprotected as the remaining hovercraft is out of service for routine inspection and maintenance.

The Vancouver Airport is left with third world emergency rescue coverage. Shame.

[Petitions, November 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to present a petition signed by citizens primarily from the city of Maple Ridge, British Columbia.

The petitioners are expressing their concern about the Coast Guard, diving regulations and so on. They are concerned that the government is no longer providing adequate funding for the Coast Guard. They note that a new hovercraft is essential and that the old one needs to be replaced.

The petitioners call upon the government to separate the Coast Guard from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans so it can be a stand-alone body dedicated to marine safety and its other functions.

[Question No. 18, November 1st, 2002]

With regard to specific treaties with the crown and the following aboriginal bands or communities in the Maritimes; Abegweit, Lennox Island, Big Cove, Buctouche, Burnt Church, Eel Ground, Eel River, Fort Folly, Indian Island, Kingsclear, Madawaska, Red Bank, Oromocto, Pabineau, Saint Mary's, Tobique, Woodstock, Acadia, Afton, Annapolis Valley, Bear River, Chapel Island, Eskasoni, Glooscap, Membertou, Millbrook, Pictou Landing, Shubenacadie, Wagmatcook, Waycocomagh: ( a ) what is the specific treaty that covers each of these bands or communities; ( b ) when was each of these specific treaties signed; ( c ) where was each of these specific treaties signed; ( d ) which of these bands or communities are covered by the so-called Marshall or Halifax treaties; ( e ) which of these bands or communities are covered by treaties signed after the so-called Marshall or Halifax treaties; ( f ) which of these bands or communities are covered by the Miramichi Treaty of 1779; and (g) which of these bands or communities are not covered by treaties?

[Speech from the Throne, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it was delightful to listen to my friend from Malpeque and his comments about the great throne speech, but the member opposite has been the chairman of the House of Commons fisheries committee and not once in the throne speech was the word fishery mentioned.

I am absolutely amazed and dumbfounded that the chairman of the fisheries committee would get up and distribute accolades to the government for this throne speech when it never mentioned a critical area like fishery. He knows as well as I do the great problems that the fishing industry is having. He knows as well as I do about the shortage of money for the Coast Guard and the lack of resources directed toward it. There was not a word on it.

In fact, he was not even going to mention the word fishery until I gave him the opportunity with some well-placed comments, so I would like to give the member just a couple of minutes to correct some of his oversights.

[Request for Emergency Debate, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence in allowing me to address this important issue.

The safety of passengers on flights in and out of Vancouver International Airport is in jeopardy. The airport depends on the Coast Guard to provide round-the-clock hovercraft search and rescue services on the tidal flats adjacent to the airport. Such service can no longer be provided as one of the two hovercraft is permanently going out of service at midnight, October 4, 2002 when its safety and seaworthiness certification expires.

Internal Coast Guard documents advise the Regional Director for the Coast Guard that, “In October 2002 the situation will reach a point where the federal search and rescue program will not be able to meet its mandated responsibilities in the shallow waters surrounding metropolitan Vancouver. The department will be blamed for the loss of lives resulting from a failure to meet our legal duty of care”.

The hovercraft are staffed with rescue divers capable of rescuing those trapped in an aircraft that has been forced to ditch in the tidal waters near the airport. The airport's emergency plan is predicated on the availability of a minimum of two hovercraft on a round-the-clock basis to pick up passengers, ferry out members of the Richmond fire department and, in the words of the emergency plan, “to continue to provide transportation for casualties, rescue personnel and equipment until the need no longer exists”.

The Superintendent of Marine Search and Rescue has already advised local fire departments that hovercraft search and rescue will be unavailable for certain periods, such that they will be unable to provide a rapid response. The superintendent further advised that until the situation is rectified it is suggested that any contingency plans that include the use of hovercraft be modified in the interim.

Without hovercraft search and rescue services, the airport's emergency plan is compromised, as is the safety of passengers at the Vancouver airport. On August 13, the day of the Cap Rouge tragedy, only the retiring hovercraft was in service and it suffered severe mechanical problems while attempting the rescue.

The search and rescue operations report on the tragic loss of a mother, her two children and two crew aboard the Cap Rouge recommends a replacement craft capable of operating on the large Fraser River mud flats should be acquired as soon as possible.

We cannot afford another Cap Rouge tragedy, where the Coast Guard lacks the authority and resources to effect a rescue, leaving body recovery as the only option.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your consideration on this important matter.

[Petitions, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to present a petition from the residents of Galiano Island, home port of the Cap Rouge , which sank tragically last August.

The citizens of Galiano Island are noting that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans no longer provides sufficient funding for the coast guard. Their wish is that the coast guard be separated from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, that it become an independent body and that it be provided with sufficient funds to allow it to act and perform its functions.

[Coast Guard, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian labour code does not prohibit rescue dives. The fleet safety manual does. This minister's policy does.

The real issue here is that the minister and his senior bureaucrats have created a straw man. They would rather be held accountable for failing to communicate policy than putting in place a policy that may have cost five people their lives, including a mother and her two small children.

If that is not true, I challenge the minister to table the appropriate policy documents.

[Coast Guard, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on August 13 five lives were lost, including those of a mother and two small children, when the fishing vessel Cap Rouge II capsized. Coast Guard divers were directed not to attempt to rescue the persons trapped inside. Yesterday the Coast Guard commissioner stated that policy which would have permitted the divers to enter an overturned vessel had not been communicated to the divers.

What policy is he talking about?

The fleet safety manual prohibited divers from entering capsized vessels. Senior bureaucrats ordered them to stay out.

I ask the minister to table the policy which would have permitted a rescue attempt in this instance.

[Committees of the House, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts my friend from Cape Breton made when the committee travelled to the west coast to understand the problems that we are facing there.

With respect to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, my understanding of the act is that a country must be named in the regulations before Canada can take action to arrest a vessel from that country for violations under the Fisheries Act. I believe quite strongly that this is the first step in gaining control over the fishery. Once we have the ability to name those countries, then we have the ability to bring them to heel if they continue to ignore the moratorium and fish undersized species. It is critical that the action be taken. It is not unprecedented. We did it in this country of course in the mid-nineties. It is something that Iceland did a couple of decades ago when it declared its 200 mile limit.

However it is important to remember that we are not doing this strictly in our own self-interest. It is in the interests of all countries that fish the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. Custodial management means preserving the fishery for all countries that have an historical attachment to the fishery off Canada's east coast, on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap.

[Committees of the House, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that she has struck on a very critical point, that is, our ability to patrol our coastal waters. We simply lost that over the years. We do not have the vessels and the capability to adequately patrol our coastal waters.

I know my friend has long supported the notion that Canada should build those replacement vessels in Canada. I do not think there would be too much argument about that in this place. We need to have a shipbuilding program in this country because we simply need vessels, not just coast guard vessels and fisheries vessels to do these patrols, but naval vessels to maintain our sovereignty off our coast.

The issue today is about the fishery on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. In that regard we need to commit the resources to policing the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. That means the acquisition of new and additional vessels to allow the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to do the kind of surveillance that it needs to do.

My friend also mentioned the issue of the seals. I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to deal with that issue. I know seals are pretty to the folks from the cities. They see the little white pups on the ice and think they are cute. I grant that they are cute and that they have pretty brown eyes but the fact is that they do grow up and eat a lot of fish. They are also wasteful eaters. They do not lick their plate clean. They take a bite and move on to the next one. That is a serious problem. There needs to be a balance in nature. We harvest the fish and rightly so but we should be harvesting the seals.

The issue of the illegal fishing by NAFO nations and the ignoring of the moratorium has to be dealt with. There is no question that it is incumbent on the government to deal with that issue in a timely fashion if we are going to save the fish stocks.