Debates of Nov. 6th, 2002

Canadian Coast Guard

[John M. Cummins, Canadian Alliance, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

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?

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Chairman, the only bovine that I have heard bang here tonight is the member for Delta—South Richmond. The government has a very important service in the Canadian Coast Guard which works with our military and RCMP and that provides the best service possible under the circumstances. It is doing a very effective job.

To have its efforts and the risks it takes in its daily operations undermined and basically reduced to a statement by the hon. member does a great disservice to a very proud organization.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that we must address the Chair and that you are always involved in the debates, but I would like to put the question directly. Here is my question.

In May, the Coast Guard commissioner said “There is too great a discrepancy between the Coast Guard's budgets and its mandates”.

I would like to know if the hon. member disagrees with the Coast Guard commissioner. I would like to know if he contradicts the commissioner's comments. I would like to know if he hopes the Coast Guard commissioner will resign, since he does not seem to agree with the comments that he made.

Is this what he really wants? Does he want the Coast Guard commissioner to resign? Because the commissioner himself said that the budgets allocated are inadequate and that we are not living in the best possible world. I would like an answer.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Chairman, nobody said that the Coast Guard was fully funded or funded to the capacity that it could be. Neither is the military and probably neither are most of our government departments.

There is a problem. There was a program review. There was a reduction of 30% in the Coast Guard's budget. There were increased user fees. All these things had to be done because we had to deal with a $42 billion annual deficit and we did deal with it.

It was not the only service that had to tighten its belt, to find new, better ways and ways to cooperate with other agencies, whether provincial or private. It is great to come in as the opposition and say that there should be money for every possible thing under the sun, that everything that their constituents demand or say should be there, should automatically be there. That is not the way the world works.

If we are to stay in a surplus situation, we have to use our money as wisely as possible. We will have to use our cooperative resources as much as possible to avoid duplication, as we are with our armed forces, the RCMP and our navy. We are making do. We are doing a very good job. We have one of the better search and rescue, if not the best search and rescue service in the world. We are getting the job done. We should be proud of our service.

We should not be doing what those people over there are doing by trying to blow holes in it to get some brownie points from the people back home or those who may be pulling their strings.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Chairman, the only brownie points to be gained here are by that member trying to get into the cabinet one day.

He wanted to know where we can save money: $211 million is being spent on a new Gothic building in the National Capital region; $100 million was spent on Challenger jets which DND said were not needed; and almost $1 billion on Bill C-68, the gun legislation, which was only supposed to cost $85 million.

The former Liberal minister of health, the hon. Monique Bégin, was in our caucus this morning and said that if the federal and provincial administrative aspects of the health care system were organized better, then 15% could be saved on costs. That means billions of dollars could be saved.

If the hon. member wants to know where the money could from without raising taxes, the government could do a much better job of managing the federal departments. It could then ensure that departments like the Coast Guard would get the funding they needed.

We are not here to score brownie points. We are here to convince that minister and this member that the argument is valid and true and that the men and women of the Coast Guard require more resources and better direction than they are getting now.

Could the member comment on that?

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Chairman, one place where the Coast Guard is spending some dollars is in Summerside, Prince Edward Island. A Canadian Coast Guard official said today in the local newspaper that the search and rescue station is a nice fit. It is in the process of building a search and rescue boat that is worth $2.5 million. One will be built also for the search and rescue station in Souris. A search and rescue station has been established for the Bay of Fundy and is situated in the City of Saint John. This is a brand new station, with brand new boats, and it is doing an excellent job in the Bay of Fundy.

Those services should be extended to the rest of Atlantic Canada. They should be extended to southwest Nova Scotia, to the new Coast Guard facility in Summerside and to a new boat in the Coast Guard facility in Souris. This is where resources are going. This is what we are doing to ensure that mariners who are in trouble will receive a quick response.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Chairman, when we started the question and comment period you mentioned that the member was removed from the rest of us. If I made a speech like that, I would want to be near the door also.

The member talked about a $43 billion deficit that the Liberals inherited in 1993. The Tory government left that $43 billion deficit because it inherited a $38 billion deficit from the previous Liberal government and ran up the extra deficit when interest rates were at 22%, 23% and 24%. Did it cut services? No, it did not. A plan was introduced to address it called the GST, which nobody wanted. Those guys campaigned against it and won an election, but it addressed the deficit.

Free trade, which also helped balance the budget, addressed the deficit. The Liberals had one novel idea that the Tories did not have. We had free trade and GST, a plan to address the deficit without cutting services, including the Coast Guard. They had a plan which included cutting social programs and cutting the guts out of health and education, which they did because it is on the record.

Between all of this the Liberals created a surplus and bragged about it. They should not have a surplus when there are needs in health care, when our children cannot afford to go to school and when the Coast Guard is looking for money.

The member told us that all the good work--

[The Chairman of Committees of the Whole]

I have been more than generous. I think the member for Egmont has a pretty good idea where we are going here.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Chairman, with all the work the Coast Guard does can the government not support giving it more money?

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Chairman, I am quite comfortable speaking from my own seat. I did not have to go up to the seat of the Leader of the Opposition to pretend that I am the Leader of the Opposition. He should have been over here opposite me. I know it will be many years before he has the chance to legitimately sit up there, but he will have to increase his numbers a lot more than they are now when his party is barely a party. One less seat and it would not be recognized as a party in the House.

The Conservatives get all excited about the great things they did when they were a government but they tripled the national debt. It went from two hundred and some billion dollars to over $700 billion. Now the member is taking credit for us getting them out of the hole. This is really unbelievable. It is new math, I believe.

One thing we can rely on our Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to do is to go to bat for the people for whom he is responsible in his department. I do not think anybody would undercut or second guess the minister in that regard.

We on this side of the House will be giving him every assistance possible through our Atlantic caucus or national caucus to assist him in his efforts to get more money for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and, in particular, the Coast Guard.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I will bring this back to a more sombre note. I rise with a heavy heart. This debate is about the future of the Coast Guard. The Canadian Coast Guard is filled with proud and capable men and women who give it their best. They are always out there and are always ready and willing. They have completely given us their faith do their job and it is time that we, as parliamentarians, gave them our faith.

As parliamentarians, we should be asking one simple question. What can we do to help them to do their job?

Five of my constituents lost their lives last summer when the Cap Rouge II capsized. Gone forever are Cathy Mabberley, her son Wyatt and her daughter Amanda, and Ron Wilson and Tony Head. Their deaths have shattered the close-knit communities on Galiano and Salt Spring Island.

No words in this place can heal this wound. I am also a husband and the father of two small children and I cannot imagine anything happening to my children. I offer the survivors, their families and the entire Gulf Islands community my very deepest sympathy, as does, I am sure, every member of the House.

Could these five people have been saved? We will never know, but we do owe it to their memories that when a tragic accident like this happens again, and I did not say “if”, the men and women of the Coast Guard have the resources and the tools to do the job.

The government must shoulder its share of responsibility for what has happened. It has cut Coast Guard resources and has tied the hands of Coast Guard staff.

My colleagues from the NDP and the Tories have talked a lot about the east coast. I will focus a little more on the west coast.

Excluding the Arctic, the B.C. coastline accounts for almost one-third of all of Canada, over 22,000 kilometres of coastline. It is a serious challenge to patrol and government cuts have not made it easier.

Spending on the Coast Guard has declined by over $100 million in the last six years, almost 20%.

Chapter 31 of the 2000 Auditor General's report cited the serious deficiencies in capital procurement at the Canadian Coast Guard. Two years and two budgets have passed without any substantive action. This is a chronic problem we have seen with the government. The Auditor General and many departments have come forward citing these deficiencies but nothing ever happens.

The problem is considerable. The 1999 estimates put the cost of replacing the fleet at a total of $2.2 billion. The lifespan of a ship averages 30 years and the average age of the larger Coast Guard ships is currently 22 years. The Auditor General stated that the department should be investing between $140 million and $150 million of capital funding per year. The actual investment has been somewhere around $30 million, which is about 20% of what it should be investing.

In December 2000 the Auditor General said:

Although the Department knows that the fleet is unable to meet even some of the most basic service expectations, it has not made a consistent attempt to either track or disclose the nature and extent of these gaps in service.

This is deplorable. The government has been told, not by us but by the Auditor General, a credible, independent source in 2000, two years ago. What has happened? Nothing.

Following the Cap Rouge II tragedy, I forwarded to the minister over 2,000 signatures calling for more search and rescue resources. Earlier today I tabled formal petitions, along with many of my colleagues. Again the hon. member for Delta—South Richmond was leading the charge on that, as he has on this issue for years. Hundreds and thousands of Canadians are calling for this.

Gulf Islanders in my riding make their lives upon the ocean. They have been warning the federal government for years that the resources have been stretched too thin.

At the Ganges Coast Guard base on Salt Spring Island, distress calls are routinely answered when it is simply too far for other locations to respond quickly. Mostly volunteers, these good men and women deserve the support of the government. Government cuts hurt these small, inexpensive bases most. We must support them, and I emphasize the auxiliary as well which has a base on Pender and on the peninsula.

The men and women of the Coast Guard put their lives on the line for us. They never question when they are called out to duty. They never even quiver. When they are called out, in any kind of conditions, they go. It is time we did the same for them.

Let me focus a bit on the dive policy. Money for the Coast Guard can be obtained by eliminating a little of the waste I would suggest, as was just mentioned. However some of the reforms will cost nothing to save lives.

Coast Guard divers were directed not to enter the Cap Rouge II on August 13. They did everything they could, apart from entering the vessel, but had to wait hours for a military dive team to arrive. Forcing these divers to sit and wait when they might have been able to rescue those victims is unconscionable.

We cannot blame the divers. I would argue that they are like firemen. When they go into a burning building they do not pull out their manual. They do not have a supervisor them it is on fire but they cannot go in. These are trained professionals. Let them make the decision whether they can go in and do something safely. We must give them the resources and the equipment to do the job and allow them to assess the situation. How can someone sitting in an ivory tower on a telephone decide whether they should be going in or not?

I think it is time we called a spade a spade. Even worse, there are reports that senior Coast Guard personnel specifically ordered these Coast Guard personnel who are trained divers not to enter the capsized vessels and, if they did, their jobs would be on the line. No one wants to say it but there are lots of reports out there. Hopefully when the inquiry is held, if we ever get one, this will all come out, because it is unconscionable. I know two inquiries are pending and they must also include a complete analysis of the diving regulations if they are going to have any meaning.

An inquiry is needed but common sense suggests that we must take immediate steps. As I have said earlier, these are trained professionals. We should let them assess the situation and determine whether they should be going into a capsized vessel. We should give them the discretion to assess the situation.

I appreciate that some of these waters can be dangerous but if cannot trust them who can we trust? The minister said that he was proud of the Coast Guard divers who responded to Cap Rouge II . I was also proud but pride is not enough. It is time the government put some bucks on the table. It is time it gave the resources. It is time it started dealing with some of the issues at the Sea Island base in the Lower Mainland by ensuring the resources are there. It is time it put an additional hovercraft there instead of just standing up in here and saying that they are proud of these men and women. We are all proud of these men and women. Let us show it.

The divers on site have bitterly expressed how disappointed they were that they were forbidden to enter the vessel. Michael Wing, national head of the Union of Canadian Transport Employees stated “We do not want to have more deaths associated with Coast Guard's mismanagement and inability to provide very clear communication and direction”.

Gary Biggar, friend of the Mabberley family said “The divers weren't confused. They know what they're doing. The government is confused on what's going on”.

I would like to thank the many residents of Saanich--Gulf Islands who collected thousands of signatures calling for change. They helped cause this debate. I thank Les Biggar, Drew Clark and Carolyn Thom for their dedication and commitment to this cause.

Today I ask the government to heed these voices. Do not let the deaths of these good people go in vain. It is time to do more than congratulate the Coast Guard on its work. It is time to put the resources into it. That is what Parliament needs to do.

[John M. Cummins, Canadian Alliance, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

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?

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chairman, in short, they are frustrated. They do not think they are getting straight answers from the government. When this happens people immediately go into cover their backside mode to ensure that everything is okay and that they did their best.

What should be done is to say they will make sure this does not happen again. There was a serious screw up here and it did not need to happen.

Again, I do not know if the outcome would have been any different. Nobody will ever know that. We do know there will be more accidents. That is a given. We want to make sure that this does not happen again. We want to make sure that they have the resources, the policy and the discretion to do the job. We want to make sure it is not a bunch of people in an ivory tower telling them how to do it.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Chairman, I know my colleague has to leave, but I do have a comment to put on the record.

My colleague represents the Gulf Islands. It must be difficult for him as he represents a community which lost five people in a tragic accident. I know he is not saying that the Coast Guard caused the accident. He is saying that an accident occurred and possibly the Coast Guard with a clear direction, the right mandate and proper resources may have saved a life or two. We do not know and we will never know.

Hopefully we can have an inquiry and get to the bottom of that situation. If and when an incident such as that ever happens again on the west coast or anywhere else, the men and women of the Coast Guard will have clear directions.

The Strait of Juan de Fuca is one of the busiest sea lanes on the entire planet. Nuclear submarines, commercial fishing vessels, recreational fishing vessels, oil tankers and military vessels go back and forth. Tofino is the ears and eyes for that seaway. When we were in Tofino they mentioned that they need $10 million more just to do the bare minimum of their job.

That is such an important commercial seaway. By the way, our United States cousins rely on us to be their ears and eyes and watch for them. Why would we in any way, shape or form even consider cutting in that type of area? It is simply unconscionable and unacceptable.

We had an incident with the Cap Rouge II . Imagine if a nuclear submarine hit an oil tanker because there were not the proper resources to warn the two of a possible collision. I do not want to be around the day an incident like that happens, and it very well could happen. We need to give the people at the MCTS centre in Tofino everything at their disposal to ensure they have every single tool and opportunity and trained personnel to do the job.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the member for Delta—South Richmond for ensuring that we had this take note debate. Attention should be paid to the members from the NDP, the Tories, the Alliance and the Bloc Quebecois. All the members are focused on the issue.

We are all talking of the seriousness of the issue. This is not about politics. This is about the men and women of the Coast Guard. It is a critical time for them and we have to give them the resources and the tools to do the job.

When all four opposition parties are speaking from the same page, something is wrong.

[Georges Farrah, Liberal, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to put a question to my colleague about the Cap Rouge II affair.

In a press release that he himself made public the day after the unfortunate incident, and in which he offered his sympathy to the family—and it was quite appropriate at the time—he said the following, and I quote:

“We need to let the investigators do their job before we draw any conclusions”.

Three concurrent investigations are now underway, following this incident: that of the Workmen's Compensation Board, the Transportation Safety Board and the provincial coroner.

In order to ensure I understand the member, given that he says we must await the conclusions of these investigations before making a definitive judgment and ensuring that are no more accidents such as this, I find it inconsistent that he makes a judgment, when in a press release, he said that we should await the results of the investigation. Obviously, the investigation has not yet finished yet.

I would like it if the member could clarify this situation.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I would be very pleased to. Quite quickly, I agree. We may never know, even after the inquiries. None of us will ever know if those lives could have been saved. I am not making a judgment on that. What we are talking about today is what we do know. We are talking about the facts. We are talking about the cuts to the Coast Guard. We are talking about the desperate need for resources.

The Cap Rouge II was one incident. It happened to be in my riding and it was terrible. My heart bleeds for those families. I am not trying to pass judgment as the investigators do their work. What the member for Delta--South Richmond and the others are talking about are the facts that we do know, the stuff that is public. That is what we are trying to bring to the attention of the government, that this is a critical issue and the government needs to put the resources in so that those men and women can do their jobs.

We know there will be more rescues. It is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when. We want to make sure that they have the resources to do the job. We do know today that they do not.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that the House has set aside some time to discuss this issue. I am very happy to see that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is here to listen to the comments that members have.

In the short time that I have and the comments that I intend to make, I am probably preaching to the converted if I were speaking to the minister. In all likelihood what I would like to say at the start is that really my comments truly will be directed to the Minister of Finance. I hope that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans takes these comments to the Minister of Finance as he prepares the next budget.

On October 18, 2001 as a member of the fisheries committee I sat with others and listened to senior officials of DFO and the Canadian Coast Guard along with the Canadian Coast Guard Marine Communication and Traffic Services officers from British Columbia.

I think it would be fair to say gently that the testimony we heard startled us. It startled us to the extent that we as a committee decided it was necessary to go and see for ourselves and determine if what we heard at that time was indeed accurate.

We rather hastily arranged a trip to the west coast from November 20 to 23. We visited Vancouver, Victoria, Tofino and Prince Rupert. In particular, our visit for all intents and purposes was to examine the Marine Communication and Traffic Services of Canada on the west coast. We did have other business which we conducted but what I am going to talk about today is MCTS.

I am holding a brochure from MCTS which describes its mission:

The mission of MCTS Centres is to provide marine communications and traffic services for the marine community and the general public in order to: (1) save lives at sea; (2) protect the environment; (3) promote efficient vessel movement; and (4) disseminate accurate marine information.

There was however a fifth possible service discussed at that time, bearing in mind what I said about the date of the meeting, October 18, 2001, which was shortly after September 11. The employees brought to our attention that they felt there were some significant gaps in Canada's security coverage of the west coast. They pointed out that Canada's west coast has vast unpopulated areas, which we all know, where drug and contraband smugglers, illegal immigrants and other people might try to enter without being detected.

It was pointed out that there are not a lot of radar facilities that MCTS could use. It was also pointed out that MCTS helps the Department of National Defence in observing the comings and goings of vessels. They also made some very specific recommendations. Further they said:

On a daily basis MCTS Officers witness unidentified vessels proceed to Canada unchallenged by any other authority. Realistically, Canada can't expect the U.S. to open their borders to Canada when we leave the majority of our coast completely unguarded.

Given that that might have been some hyperbole, it certainly caused us to sit up and take notice and we went out there to check it out. Sad to say, I think it is accurate that the committee found what I would call eight observations. By the way we did go to the east coast and it was also confirmed on the east coast later on.

The first observation was that MCTS is the victim of chronic underfunding year after year. There are morale problems. There is a crumbling infrastructure which our chairman at that time called “rust out”. This has to do with some of the radar facilities on remote islands which are constantly being pounded by the ocean surf, by spray and that sort of thing.

There was understaffing, which would be exacerbated in the future by the retirement of people who had given their entire lives to the service and were coming to the end of their careers and also by attrition. It takes over two years to become a fully qualified MCTS officer. It appeared to us at that time that there might be some gap between the time that people were retiring or would like to retire, because there were cases where people wanted to retire but they decided that they would not in the interests of the service because there was nobody there to replace them.

We also went to Seattle where we talked to the American coast guard, which has a slightly different role. Indeed, as the previous speaker said, it holds the MCTS in high regard and it is MCTS's job to patrol the Straits of Juan de Fuca on behalf of both countries. When I say patrol, I mean observe for the purposes of marine safety.

Seattle and the staff there told us that they had no doubts of the professionalism and dedication of MCTS officers. They had high praise for the cooperative vessel traffic service, which is a model of international cooperation, but they independently told us that their colleagues were spread too thin and they did not have enough money.

There is a lack of training. VTOSS, vessel traffic operations support system, is a system that was developed by a Canadian. It is praised by everyone, but it has not yet been fully documented. Both our Canadian and U.S. counterparts indicated that the gentleman who developed this system, Mr. Grant McGowan, should have at least two to three support staff to help him set this up properly and get it down on paper.

We had at that time some security concerns. We noted that the Coast Guard College on the east coast was also suffering from lack of funds. This is not good news because the Coast Guard and MCTS provide vital services and could be providing more of a service.

We are talking amounts of money that in the global budgets that the government is talking about are truly a pittance. At that time they were talking about $1 million short. We have heard different figures: $8 million, $9 million, $10 million and $5 million. That is all peanuts in comparison to the kind of money that the government spends. It is a tragic situation that a service such as MCTS is chronically underfunded and that the employees must come to a parliamentary committee in Ottawa to bring this to the attention members.

The problem is even further manifested because when we spoke to the officials in charge in British Columbia we were startled by the response. I am glad the minister is here because I want him to know that sometimes his bureaucrats will report things to him that certainly, from my own personal observation, are inaccurate. They said that they understood there was a shortfall, but MCTS was able to carry out its mandate, although this might entail the reallocation of funding within the existing Canadian Coast Guard Pacific Region funding envelope. In other words, bureaucratic bafflegab for “Look, we do not have enough money, but we cannot get it from anywhere so we will just pretend everything is okay”.

That is nonsense. We were shocked when we heard that. One would think the senior bureaucracy would come to the aid of the men and women on the frontlines and continue to press for more money. Perhaps they are, we do not hear about it. Perhaps it is only into the ear of the minister.

I say to the Minister of Finance, whom I believe still wears the minister of security hat, this is a shame. It is not to be allowed. It is not to be permitted to continue for the sake of the safety and security of our mariners and everyone on the oceans, and for the security of our three oceans. The Minister of Finance and I know the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is advocating this. We need further funding to help MCTS to protect our country.

[John M. Cummins, Canadian Alliance, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

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?

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I know that the hon. member is concerned about this issue. He is passionate about the issue of fisheries in general and the Coast Guard specifically.

I do not wish to make light of his question. However, I doubt very much that he is prepared to pay my hourly fee to examine the documents which he mentioned and provide him with a written opinion. If he is, perhaps we can talk about it afterwards but certainly not on the floor of the House.

I would not for a moment, as a lawyer, try to wing it, and offer free legal advice without having examined all of the documents, listened to all of the evidence, compared all of the inquiries that are going to take place, and then draw the appropriate conclusions thereafter. Without appearing to weasel out of anything, because my hon. friend knows that I do not generally do that at all, I am not prepared to offer a legal opinion without having examined all facets of the argument.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Chairman, my colleague from the Toronto area recently became the chair of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I take this opportunity to congratulate him.

I would like to address a problem that concerns the Great Lakes region, as well as the St. Lawrence River. I am talking about cost recovery for the Canadian Coast Guard.

What the industry and the Canadian advisory council, as well as the five advisory councils that make up the larger council, are saying is that this has had a significant negative impact on marine traffic on the St. Lawrence River, and even on the St. Lawrence Seaway and into the Great Lakes.

We are told that worldwide marine traffic is increasing because of globalization, of course. In our region, inland, on the St. Lawrence Seaway, however, traffic is declining because of the fees charged by the Canadian Coast Guard, among other things.

Here is how shipowners react: they touch in at port as seldom as possible, because each time they are charged the equivalent of $3,700, if memory serves, from December 22 to May 5, or something like that.

The industry made a proposal that would give us an agreement for 10 years at least. Would my hon. colleague agree to approve the Marine Advisory Council's proposal to phase out marine service fees and to a term of 10 years on the proposed agreement?

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I have not seen the proposal. I have not had a chance to read it yet. Naturally I would be prepared to consider any reasonable suggestion, but as a general proposition I have no particular difficulty with a cost recovery program where it is just that: the recovery of costs to render a service. If it becomes a tax rather than a cost recovery scheme, then of course I am opposed to it.

If for some reason a cost recovery scheme were to have an abnormal effect on the particular area to which it is being administered, then obviously we should have a look at it, but at this point, without having a clear understanding of what the owners are proposing, I would not want to make a commitment.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Chairman, I too, on behalf of our party, wish to congratulate the member from Scarborough for his election as chairperson of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

For the record, we are a committee made up of five political parties that works cooperatively together and is extremely apolitical. I must give the member from Scarborough a lot of credit. A lot of people have asked me, “You have a member from Scarborough on your fisheries committee, what does he know about fish?”

Well I have watched him work very diligently, and although he admitted he did not know the difference between a seiner and a trawler, the fact is that he is willing to learn, he is willing to understand and he is willing to ask the difficult questions when they need to be asked in a respectful but tactful and direct manner by cutting through the bush.

The member was in Tofino. He rightfully talked about the Strait of Juan de Fuca and how busy that traffic system was. We heard Mr. Henderson say in Vancouver that money was not a problem. We heard the people in Tofino say something completely different.

With his experience in bureaucratic bafflegab, why would the manager in charge of the Coast Guard on the west coast make such a bold statement in front of all of us, but when we went to Tofino we heard the workers and the managers there say something completely different? Why would that person say such a thing? I would like him to reflect upon that for a moment.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for his kind words. I may not yet know all the different types of nets but I do know a trap when I see one, and some of these questions bear a resemblance of a trap.

The observations of the hon. member were quite correct when referring to our visit to Tofino. The member will recall that we were all startled at Mr. Henderson's response. This may be hard to believe of a bunch of politicians, but we were startled, basically speechless, by the boldness with which that verdict was delivered by that gentleman.

I have absolutely no explanation as to how he could say that all was well when the people on the ground demonstrated to us that all was indeed not well. They talked about 25 year old equipment in Victoria, and radar sites on the islands falling apart and not being able to be serviced in the wintertime. We were so speechless we did not have the chance to ask him how he could make such a statement, but hopefully someone will.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Chairman, I want to start by joining with the member opposite in congratulating the member from Scarborough on being elected chair of the fisheries committee. I know we have a good chair. I welcome him as chair. I am pleased to have him as a colleague and if I am ever in need, judging by his answer to the member from Musquodoboit, I would love to have him as a lawyer.

I want to make a couple of points on what he said. He recognized that post-9/11, a lot of money was awarded to DFO to increase sea time for our fleets, to add aircraft patrol, to contract services with provincial airlines, and also with the military for Hercules aircraft.

We are currently in the process of modernizing our MCTS centres to world class centres using world class technology.