Debates of Nov. 6th, 2002

Canadian Coast Guard

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

Mr. Chairman, while the minister is saying that Mr. Adams said that the Coast Guard would answer the bell, the difficulty is that the bell is not ringing. A lot of the ships in Halifax harbour cannot leave because there is no budget for fuel. The military is being asked more and more to do search and rescue. For the minister to tie the purchase of the Cormorants into the Coast Guard debate is intellectually dishonest and simply is not correct.

[The Chairman of Committees of the Whole]

I just want to caution members to be very judicious. When we start using that word, sometimes it leads us into an area we should do everything possible to avoid.

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

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will retract the last part of that.

My question for the minister is quite simple. The Minister of National Defence was quite right when he stated in his speech in Toronto that his department was short of resources. He stated publicly that he would go to the finance minister and his cabinet colleagues and ask for more resources for the men and women of the military.

I would like the minister to stand on his feet and state that the men and women of the Coast Guard will have his support in fighting for more resources through his cabinet colleagues prior to the next federal budget. Will he at least tell the men and women that he is prepared to fight for them to get additional resources so they can do the job that he so eloquently quoted here tonight?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Chairman, I invite the member to read the transcript of the speech I just made. I indicated those points precisely.

My job as minister is to work with my colleagues in cabinet and in Parliament to get the resources necessary to protect the safety of Canadians and fulfil the mandate of the Canadian Coast Guard.

The member is wrong in saying that our boats cannot leave the harbour. We have the operational funds required for our boats and they are answering to all their tasks. We always use our money and resources efficiently and with the least waste possible to ensure we have those resources.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for being here tonight to participate in the debate. Unless we can get our information from him and he can get the answers to all of us we will never solve the problem.

The minister remembers last year that when we talked about marine infrastructure the officials would say, “No, everything is great. Our wharves and everything are perfect”. We then had hearings and people had to come and really discuss the problem openly. We were told that $400 million was needed just to bring marine infrastructure up to par.

We are hearing now from the minister's own people that $500 million is needed over the next few years to bring the Coast Guard up to par; $350 million roughly to replace an aging fleet and provide proper coverage, and $150 million or $160 million to keep it going. I wonder if the minister thinks these figures are accurate.

Second, in relation to seniority, could the minister tell us the status of people working in the Coast Guard?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Chairman, the second part of the question deals with labour management issues and questions pertaining to the contracts which I would not have any knowledge of. If he will send me a note, I am willing to look into the matter for him.

As far as the figures that were quoted which were presented by the commissioner before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, I understand the commissioner was speaking of capital fund requirements, both as an initial capital fund and an ongoing capital fund requirement for the fleet. They did not deal with operations. The challenge is not with operational funding. It always has to be watched closely and we must keep working at it. The big challenge we have with such a large capital investment and the age of some of that equipment is on the capital side.

The commissioner outlined one plan and others will be looked at. The object at the end of the day is to provide the resources necessary for the men and women of the Coast Guard to provide the service for the people of Canada and internationally.

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

Mr. Chairman, the essence of leadership is clarity. People who are working for us in the field must understand the regulations.

The fleet safety manual is quite clear. Subsection 3.3(4) states that a public safety open water dive shall be: “restricted to open water situations”. Subsection 3.3(6) states: “Limited to dives that avoid entrapment or entanglement situations and allow direct access to the surface”. Then it states that “Penetration into capsized vessels, aircraft or submerged vehicles...is strictly prohibited”.

Why does the Coast Guard go to the trouble of writing a fleet safety manual if it is to be superceded by the Canada Labour Code? I would like the minister to explain the contradiction.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Chairman, the Coast Guard dive team manual is not superceded by the Canada Labour Code. It is written to ensure that we meet the requirements of the Canada Labour Code. The Canada Shipping Act provisions come into play if the coordinator of search and rescue deems that the conditions are necessary. We recognize that the coordinator has that authority under the Canada Shipping Act.

I have said in the House and in many interviews that our managerial communications are weak and we are fixing that. However it is important that we set the record straight. Nobody has suggested that anything different would have been done or should have been done that day. Our Coast Guard response team personnel did a good job. I am quite proud of what they achieved that day. That was a tragic accident and we express our condolences to the families of the victims.

[The Chairman of Committees of the Whole]

Is there agreement?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Chairman, there are a number of members who wish to speak. It would be better to let all members have their chance to speak.

[The Chairman of Committees of the Whole]

There is no agreement so we will resume debate. The hon. member for Delta--South Richmond.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that the minister will not allow himself to be cross-examined in the House. It would have made a marvellous contribution to the debate this evening.

Nevertheless, the fact is that there is a sorry state of affairs at the Canadian Coast Guard. Most of us who follow these issues are aware of the leadership and equipment deficiencies that have been visited upon our military and, indeed, in this instance visited upon our Coast Guard to no less an extent.

There is a huge lack of leadership that is troubling to the extreme. The lack of leadership is evident when there is a lack of clarity in the rules, when the people who are running the operation do not have the skills and marine rescue experience, but are merely armchair admirals. It does not make things easy for those people.

The other key issue, aside from leadership, is that budget cuts have undermined the Coast Guard and its ability to do the job. In 1996 the government spent $542 million on the Coast Guard. In 2002 it spent $440 million. That is a drop of over $100 million over the last six years. That is simply inexcusable.

The Coast Guard infrastructure is badly strained and it has been recognized by many, including the Auditor General. The Auditor General noted in his report in 2000 the difficulties that were faced by those in the Coast Guard. He noted that the Coast Guard fleet in the last few years had dropped from 189 vessels to 104. He said that the first major challenge involved the need to replace aging vessels. The department estimated the effective life for ships was 30 years. The average age of its 41 large vessels was 22 years. The Auditor General noted that these vessels were fast approaching the end of their useful life, at a time when funds for capital projects were not plentiful. According to the department's own 1999 estimate, the cost of replacing all large vessels amounted to $2.2 billion.

Mr. Adams, a coast guard commissioner, told the committee that based on a renewal of the asset base of 4%, the Canadian Coast Guard should be investing between $140 million and $150 million a year in capital funding. He further noted that the need for action was urgent and well recognized.

There are two issues that clearly bring into focus the funding and leadership problems at the Coast Guard. First, the tragic overturning and sinking of the Cap Rouge II this past summer in the entrance to the Fraser River; and, second, the failure of the Coast Guard to provide the essential hovercraft coverage that is required by Vancouver airport.

Nothing speaks as clearly of the rot that has so devastated the Coast Guard as the failed rescue attempts or the inability of the Coast Guard to adequately perform its function on that tragic day of August 13. The Coast Guard divers were on the scene in 18 minutes. The difficulty was that when they arrived there they lacked the air supply equipment that had been disposed of when the dive team was disbanded in 2001.

The House will recall that an executive decision was made back in 2001 to dispose of the dive team. Within days of the disbanding of that dive team the Coast Guard got rid of the surface to air facility that the dive team had. It was gone. When the dive team was reconstituted they were missing that vital piece of equipment. They were unable to effect the rescue or to even penetrate the hull safely on that particular day. If they had been able to get into the overturned hull of the Cap Rouge II with their limited air supply it easily could have cost them their lives.

When questions were asked as to why the divers had not attempted a rescue, the leaders in the Coast Guard, these bureaucrats, ghoulishly suggested that the divers could have entered the Cap Rouge II if only they had known the rules, the rules that we were talking about only moments ago. That is shameful because no diver should have to sacrifice his life for the incompetence of the Coast Guard commissioner and his underlings, yet that is the issue that was here that particular day. Those same leaders know that if divers had attempted that dive without enough air to return to the surface, they could very well have been on a suicide mission. There is no question about that.

When the team arrived on site they were not able to use the latest hovercraft that was available. They were forced to go out in the old CG-045 which was retired this past October 4. When it arrived on the scene it was unable to stay very long because the team had some mechanical difficulties with it. They were concerned about its stability and it had to return to base.

Things are not well in the Coast Guard. In the Cap Rouge II report that was written after the capsizing, Rear Admiral Fraser had some interesting words. He pointed out that there ought not to be a blanket prohibition on rescue dives as presently found in the fleet safety manual. He said the decision to enter an overturned vessel cannot be legislated in advance by regulations. That in fact is the case.

The second issue, which reflects poorly on the Coast Guard and shows the underlying problem here and the lack of resources, is the failure of the government to replace in a timely fashion the hovercraft, which retired this past October 4. The Vancouver International Airport Authority emergency plan requires the availability of two hovercraft in the unlikely event a large passenger liner puts down in the tidal flats as it approaches Vancouver airport. Currently there is one hovercraft available. That hovercraft obviously has to be pulled out of service for routine maintenance and so on. When it is out of service there is nothing there to provide backup.

Just last spring, when there were two hovercraft available, the Coast Guard based at Sea Island had to go out of service for a time and had to advise the Rescue Coordination Centre in Victoria and the Vancouver airport that it was going out of service because both of the hovercraft that should have been available were not, and even the rigid hull inflatables at the station were not available. Vancouver airport was advised that it should contact a commercial helicopter operation so that helicopters could provide the necessary rescue service in the event it was needed.

A commercial helicopter is not an adequate substitute for a hovercraft in these instances. The extreme weather conditions that can be met off the end of the runways in Vancouver on those tidal flats and the water conditions all require the availability of a hovercraft. A helicopter simply cannot do the job. It cannot deliver the rescue platforms to a downed aircraft. It cannot be done.

The two issues that underscore the underfunding of the Coast Guard strike very close to home for us on the west coast. The response to the Cap Rouge II was feeble. It was not feeble because of the people of the Coast Guard. They performed an admirable job, as the minister stated so clearly, but the problem was that they were not provided with the equipment they needed. They did not have the equipment. The Coast Guard gave away the equipment they needed to do that job when it disbanded the dive team and it refused to resupply the team with the necessary equipment. That issue in a sense has passed. We want to see it corrected.

The real danger right now is the failure of the government to provide adequate hovercraft coverage off Vancouver airport. I cannot underscore too much how irresponsible that is of the government. It is beyond belief. It is an issue that has to be addressed.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will not bother with the issue of the dive team. I do not think the information he is presenting is 100% accurate and in many instances it would be misleading. I will not debate that any further. However I thank the member for his genuine interest in these matters.

Does the member not recognize that on the question of the Vancouver Airport Authority and its emergency measures response plan, would it not recognize that our hovercrafts are primarily search and rescue and could be on mission at any time? Would it not be true, as it is my understanding, that the airport's emergency response plan would foresee that? Would it also not be true that not very long ago there was one hovercraft? Now we have a modern one, a bigger, a brand new high tech one, and a second one coming in. We are doing the plans to bring in another one like the CG we have now.

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

Mr. Chairman, I find the question rather curious because the minister asked whether the Vancouver airport recognizes that the hovercraft could be dispatched on another search and rescue mission. Yes, that is a possibility, but a downed aircraft is a rescue mission and it requires a hovercraft to be there. In fact the Vancouver airport plan calls for two in the event that a large passenger liner ditches in the tidal flats, not one, but two.

Currently, with only one hovercraft available, there are periods of time when there is no protection whatsoever. If there were two, it is hoped that they would be able to cover off.

We cannot forget that the only vessel capable of performing a rescue operation in the tidal flats off the end of the Vancouver airport runway is a hovercraft. That is the only kind. A deep keel vessel cannot go in there. Even rigid hull inflatables cannot operate there in all weather conditions. The only vessel that is appropriate for use in those tidal flats is a hovercraft.

It is not the responsibility of the Vancouver airport, it is the responsibility of the Coast Guard. It is that agency's primary responsibility. That agency is responsible for providing those sorts of rescue operations on the high seas.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank my hon. colleague from the Alliance for his comments.

The member knows that at one of our committee hearings we had in Vancouver with Coast Guard management, when I asked one of the gentlemen, Mr. Mike Henderson, directly what the financial situation was of the Coast Guard and DFO on the west coast, he clearly said “Money is not a problem”.

We went out to all the regions, Tofino, Ucluelet, and all those other areas. Every single one of the managers and the people there said that money was so tight that one woman worked every day in August. They did not have enough people for the training. There were serious financial concerns. The manager in Vancouver said that money was not a problem and in his jurisdiction every one of his people said it was the number one problem.

My hon. colleague was there at that time and I would like him to comment on that.

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

Mr. Chairman, my friend is quite correct. The head of the Coast Guard on the west coast was clearly asked if money was a problem. He said it was no problem at all.

A picture comes to my mind when I think about the shortfall of funding in the Coast Guard. The committee travelled to Prince Rupert. We have all seen second world war movies where the progress of convoys was plotted across the north Atlantic. There was a big table with a chart on it and little ships were moved across the table. When we were in Prince Rupert they were plotting the position of ships entering Prince Rupert harbour on a table. It took me back to World War II.

This is the computer age. It boggles the mind that we have to rely on moving little wooden boats across a table to show us where ships are. What good is that in foggy conditions when two ships are on a collision course and someone has to notify them of their problems given that there may be communications problems or radar problems with those vessels? What good is it? It just defies description.

The Coast Guard is sadly underfunded. There is no question about that. It is scandalous that the Coast Guard was unable to provide a continuous air supply to its divers. It is scandalous that it was unable to provide adequate hovercraft coverage for Vancouver airport.

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

Mr. Chairman, following up on the question from my colleague on my right who is ordinarily on my left, I also attended many of the committee meetings on the west coast. I wonder if my colleague from the Alliance would comment on two different aspects of the information we received.

We were told that funding was so short that regular maintenance was no longer being done at the remote radar sites. The only time a site was serviced was when it went down. These sites are remote. Consequently, when they went down, accessibility was always a problem, especially in winter and during bad weather. When they got to the site, if they did not have the right parts to fix whatever was wrong, quite often a second or third trip had to take place. If it became dark, they had to get out of there before the work was finished and the situation was further aggravated.

We heard horror stories of what happened in the interim, including a fisherman who got a jigger in his eye and there was no way of hooking up to a hospital to receive guidance as to what to do.

The committee also visited the coast guard set-up in Seattle just across the border. I wonder if the member would compare what he saw in Seattle with what we saw along the Pacific coast in British Columbia specifically.

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

Mr. Chairman, there is no question that the budget cuts have hurt. The instances my friend has advised the House of are true.

The Union of Canadian Transportation Employees has compiled a list of issues and occurrences where lack of funding could have actually caused harm to employees. One of the documents talked about one employee who was working on a radio tower at Inuvik. He took a coffee break and while he was on the coffee break, the darn thing fell down. It is incredible.

If we compare what was happening with the Canadian Coast Guard with the coast guard in Seattle, it is like night and day. The head man for the American coast guard addressed our committee in Seattle. He was probably one of the most impressive people that I have met in my lifetime. He was not a huge man, but by his very presence he filled the room. I know that all my colleagues were absolutely taken by the marvellous knowledge that Admiral Brown had and his command of the issues.

We met with the head of the Canadian Coast Guard in Vancouver. He has a Ph.D. in biology. I am sure he is a very nice man. I am sure his wife and kids love him. I am sure he is a fine biologist, but I will say that his knowledge of marine rescue issues and Coast Guard issues is sadly lacking.

It is a sad commentary on the bureaucracy that the government has put in place to provide rescue services for Canadians.

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

Mr. Chairman, I listened to hon. members talk about the coast guard and about what, in my view, is the main problem, namely underfunding. I want to say from the outset that four major principles should apply when it comes to the Canadian Coast Guard.

The first principle is that the Canadian Coast Guard should be able to fulfill its role and duties as they relate to the needs of the marine industry, the fishery and the public. This is a basic principle which, I think, is not respected at present, because, in my opinion, the coast guard does not have the means to fulfill such a broad mandate.

The second principle is that the coast guard should have the necessary means to fulfill the multiple and complex tasks that it faces. Among other things, there is a whole set of tasks that the coast guard must do and that I will mention later on. These are tasks that very few people know about and that the general public is probably not aware of.

The third principle is that the coast guard must serve as a tool to maintain and develop the shipping industry, and not as a collector of funds, which is what it has become since 1998, with the introduction of icebreaking fees, among other things.

The fourth principle is that not only should coast guard services be effective, they should not be provided on a cost sharing basis with the marine industry or with any of the users.

I should point out that, at present, the shipping industry is the only one that pays for coast guard services. Boaters do not pay for these services.

However, the main problem for the coast guard is undoubtedly underfunding. The coast guard was established in 1962, under the government of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker. It was the hon. Léon Balcer who, at the time, created the Canadian Coast Guard. The coast guard functioned well, with the means that it had at the time, until 1995, when it was transferred from Transport Canada to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, at the time when the Department of Transport became more of a regulatory body than a department with real duties.

Following the December 2000 report of the Auditor General, some measures were taken by the department, but were they sufficient? The Auditor General said in his report, and I quote:

The Department has not established clear, concrete, realistic and agreed-upon performance expectations for the fleet.

Has this situation been rectified today? I do not think so. We spoke about this earlier, we could provide the figures on the aging fleet. Today, it would cost $2.2 billion to replace the Canadian Coast Guard's vessels that are—or will become in the coming years—completely obsolete and unusable by the Coast Guard. We are talking about $2.2 billion. I do not believe the government has the will to invest that kind of money just to replace the CCG fleet, which is in the process of becoming completely obsolete.

According to the Auditor General, there is only a one-year funding horizon for the fleet, when what we should really be doing is maintaining the fleet in good repair, as homeowners do, and replacing vessels as they needed. Instead, today we are faced with an enormous expense because we did not really maintain the fleet in the past. We were too shortsighted to invest over time and replace the fleet gradually. I am talking about the fleet, but I could also talk about the equipment. The same is true for all of the Coast Guard equipment.

Earlier, members spoke of the hovercraft issue. In British Columbia, there is one that is grounded, unusable, that the government is trying to replace right now.

Another point was raised by the Auditor General: the internal budget process does not promote accountability for fleet activities. More specifically, this means plainly and simply that the Auditor General felt the internal management of the coast guard was not great.

Coming back to statements regarding the problem with the coast guard, let us see what coast guard commissioner John Adams said in May 2002. One must read between the lines. He said that the commissioner was concerned about the post-September 11 security challenge.

It is true that the government woke up following September 11. It realized that the coast guard was terribly lacking in equipment and, as colleagues mentioned earlier, there were huge areas, particularly on the west coast, where it was practically impossible to detect ships approaching the shore and, by the time they were detected, it was really too late.

The commissioner also raised the issue of marine service fees and the scrutiny of tariff agreements. He added that appropriate fees must be restored so that everyone benefits. For the industry, he agreed that an increase would be unacceptable. Negotiations are underway, and the marine service fee agreement is expiring in December. The agreement in place since 1998 is expiring in December.

Is the department prepared to respond positively to the industry's requests and its recent proposal? Is it prepared to continue negotiating with the industry to ensure that these fees are at least reduced, particularly with respect to the St. Lawrence River. The industry contends—naturally, this needs to be checked—that because of globalization, marine transportation is increasing worldwide. Only on the St. Lawrence River and the Seaway is traffic tonnage declining.

This comes as quite a surprise given that in U.S. harbours, in Boston, New York and elsewhere, and even in harbours on the east and west coasts of Canada, marine traffic is increasing. Yet, it is declining on the St. Lawrence River.

The reason is a very simple one. When you have to pay $3,700 in fees every time you enter or berth at a port, well then you will go to one a bit further along, or you will ship by train or truck. You will not use ports where there is a $3,700 fee. That is what the Canadian Coast Guard is currently charging at the St. Lawrence ports between December 21 and the beginning of May every year. Obviously this reduces ship traffic on the St. Lawrence and has a considerable negative impact on the ports along the St. Lawrence, whether Montreal, Quebec or elsewhere. Then they are surprised that ship traffic is decreasing on the St. Lawrence.

Returning to a remark by the commissioner, and one has to know how to read between the lines, the commissioner said that negotiation is currently under way and this problem needs to be solved. He also says that any increase in fees would be totally unacceptable to the industry. That is what the commissioner said.

It is worth pointing out, however, that the commissioner is not totally in agreement, in my opinion, with the Coast Guard being turned into a government tax collector. That is, basically, what we have made it into.

The commissioner mentioned another challenge: the financial issue. He said that there was too much disparity between the budgets allocated to the coast guard and the tasks it is assigned. That is what we keep hearing, that insufficient funding is provided to the coast guard. It is asked to carry out tasks, but not provided with sufficient equipment. And this has been going on for years.

Today, the people opposite seem surprised that there are problems with the coast guard. Following September 11, they woke up and figured they ought to do something about it. They did invest in the coast guard recently, but this money should have been flowing its way over the years, so that today we would have an efficient coast guard capable of fulfilling its mission and all the tasks it was designed for, as well as providing services to all of the industry, including fisheries and transport, and to the public in general.

I will close by saying that for years, the government did not provide the coast guard with the means to fulfil its mission. As a member of the Bloc Quebecois and my party's critic for fisheries and oceans, I urge this government to make an effort and provide the coast guard with what it needs to fulfil its mandates.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments. When one listens to opposition members, ones wonders if the coast guard does anything good in this country.

It is perfectly legitimate to show the concrete and effective action of the coast guard across Canada. Having said this, the issue of funding can indeed be raised. Every organization and department may need funding. However, it is important to note that the coast guard, along with its partners, saves some 3,900 lives in Canada, including 1,500 in British Columbia alone.

It should also be noted that, in the area of environmental protection, the coast guard has, along with the industry, followed up on 1,594 marine pollution incidents in 2001. As regards pleasure craft, the number of fatal accidents in Canadian waters has diminished drastically since 1991. This is partly because of the work of the coast guard and because of all the public awareness campaigns to encourage responsible boating.

I am asking the hon. member if he sees positive things about the coast guard, or if he thinks that all coast guard employees are incompetent. The hon. member could not give us an example. When we look at the global picture in terms of achievements, we see that the coast guard is effective and this should be pointed out.

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

Mr. Chairman, in no way did I criticize Coast Guard staff. I did not criticize Coast Guard employees in any way. What I said, and what I asked for, was that it be given the funding required to provide the services, to have acceptable equipment available and to be able to work in reasonable conditions, which is not the case in many areas.

Take the example of the fleet. With an obsolete fleet—the average age of the large vessels is 22 years—that has never, or virtually never, been repaired, it is fair to wonder about the equipment these people have at their disposal to provide services.

Obviously, a few vessels have been added over the years, but very few. Ask these people what kind of equipment they have. Go to the east coast or west coast and see the conditions in which these people are working.

We toured coast guard facilities, particularly those in the Maritimes and in eastern Quebec. They had just received laptop computers. They had computers, but they were virtually non functional for years. It is as simple as that.

However, I remind my colleague that if we compare the Canadian Coast Guard to the American Coast Guard, the contrast is stark. Yet, Canada and Quebec together have the longest coastline in the world. Our coast guard should be bigger than the American Coast Guard. However, this is not the case. Far from it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question of my friend from the Bloc Quebecois. The Liberal member told us that everything is fine and that the coast guard has enough money. This is not the case in Newfoundland. Is this true for Quebec?

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

Mr. Chairman, we also visited the facilities in Newfoundland, as well as in Quebec and the maritime provinces. The situation is the same in Newfoundland. Things are the same there because there has been no funding in past years, except perhaps just recently.

Since 1993 or so, the coast guard has seen its budget slashed quite drastically. Its budget has gone down, not up. As well, it has been asked to become a tax collector for the government.

Could we find out what the situation is in other countries. Does the U.S. Coast Guard collect fees for instance? Absolutely not. It reports to the U.S. Army and has a sizeable budget, compared to here.

In my opinion, the Canadian Coast Guard is a totally forgotten institution, one that has been totally destroyed since 1993, and has received nothing. Budgets have just started to go up again very recently, but that is probably the result of September 11 and the wake-up call we got from that .

[André Harvey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Chairman, I always appreciate comments from my opposition colleagues. I would like to try to clarify things for the Bloc Quebecois members, in particular the member who just spoke. If there were not already such a thing as negativity, the Bloc Quebecois members would have invented it. Allow me to illustrate this quickly.

They make all sorts of demands: wharf repairs, highway construction and tonight they are calling for more money for the Coast Guard. I ask them, with all the humility I can muster, if they might not be a bit more consistent when, for example, the government comes up with tools to carry out major infrastructure projects.

This was the case a few weeks ago. Bill C-49 created a program specifically for strategic infrastructure projects. Nothing is more strategic than highways, wharves and major projects.

They voted against the bill. It was not even a general budget, where it is always possible to find some grounds for voting against it. They voted against a strategic infrastructure program. Can the members of the Bloc Quebecois, who, incidentally, campaign against me year round—which I quite like, I quite like them during election campaigns, and they will be in the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean—tell me why they voted against these specific measures? Then, they come to the House asking for money. When we carry out projects, they say, “it is thanks to us”.

Let me give another example. I know that you are very tolerant, Mr. Chairman. It is nice this evening—

[The Chairman of Committees of the Whole]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. The hon. member for Matapédia—Matane.