Debates of Nov. 6th, 2002

Canadian Coast Guard

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this take note debate on the Coast Guard.

I will begin by saying that, in the traditional definition of the roles, responsibilities and mandate of the state, there is this obligation to ensure the construction and maintenance of the various lines of communication, so as to guarantee the free movement of goods, services and money. In the case of Canada, this is particularly true for seaways.

Of all the world's countries, Canada is the one with the longest shorelines to patrol. The various seaways of the country are truly impressive. We are talking about 243,792 kilometres of shoreline, or 25% of the world's total. This is not to mention the numerous rivers of this vast land.

Under the Liberals, the federal government seems to have found another definition for the word “communication”. For this government, “communication” has become synonymous with “propaganda”. The government has gone from being a provider of services to being a provider of sponsorships and contracts to its friends. But this has not diminished its appetite for tax levies, with the result that, in spite a world economic slowdown, this government has managed to accumulate a surplus of close to $10 billion.

And for good reason. As I said earlier, the government chose to reduce services and, in a number of cases, to increase revenues. Under these circumstances, it should come as no surprise that the government can accumulate significant surpluses. However, the situation of the provinces is just the opposite and this is what we mean by a fiscal imbalance. The provinces have much more important responsibilities than the federal government does, but their financial resources are much more limited.

The Coast Guard has also been affected by the approach of the Liberal government since it took office, and it has been the subject of cuts, while the government has also decided to make users pay.

We are talking about large sums of money. Earlier, the hon. member for Matapédia—Matane referred to the fact that the Coast Guard wanted to impose on all the ships sailing in eastern Canada a fee of $5,700 for each call at a port, up to a maximum of 12, for a maximum cost of $68,400 per ship. The fact is that 80% of the calls made by ships are at ports along the St. Lawrence River, between the Atlantic Ocean and the Great Lakes.

Most fortunately, after much negotiation and pressure from the Bloc Quebecois, an agreement was reached to charge the shipping industry fees amounting to 50% of what they were initially wanting to charge for the various Coast Guard services, particularly navigational aids, vessel traffic services and ice breaking.

The disadvantage of the fee structure is that, since 80% of ships' calls are along the St. Lawrence Seaway, Quebec is penalized in the end because the shipping industry in Quebec has had to bear 80% of costs, while only one third of services provided by the Coast Guard are provided on the St. Lawrence.

One might well wonder, then, why suddenly the government comes along this evening with a take note debate on the Coast Guard. Perhaps one of the answers to this is that the agreement with the shipping industry ends in December 2002 and obviously new negotiations will be necessary for a new agreement the government hopes will enable it to continue to collect certain fees from the shipping industry.

That said, it is important to take another look at the argument used by my colleague from Matapédia—Matane just now. He said that the result of these fees being charged on the St. Lawrence has been a considerable drop in ship traffic. This runs counter to what is going on in the rest of the world, in this era of globalization and increased world trade, characterized by increased river and ocean transportation. Yet, because of these fees, the traffic on the St. Lawrence Seaway has decreased.

This is reason for concern and for suggesting that these fees not be renewed, as the ship industry has done, because we have seen what negative effects they have. Granted, the Coast Guard's funds are getting scarcer and scarcer, and are no longer sufficient to allow it to carry out its mandate properly.

I would like to continue on a subject that is of the utmost concern to me because it affects my riding directly—the riding of Verchères—Les-Patriotes—on top of the issues that I just raised, navigational aids, ice breaking, and shipping services, and that subject is shoreline erosion along the St. Lawrence. I would like to address this from two different angles that have to do with the Coast Guard. First, some years ago, the federal government established a shoreline protection program, which was run by the Canadian Coast Guard. I am going to approach the issue from this angle.

In the aftermath of the budget cuts that followed the Liberals' rise to power, a number of programs were cut, including this one. The end result is that all of the construction that had started along the St. Lawrence under this program was stopped. There was no periodical maintenance of this work, so the riverbank erosion problem continued for those who did not benefit from any federal government construction on their property. Every year, they lose several feet of property to erosion.

As for the people living along the shores who had their property protected by works of some kind, because of neglect, not only did these works no longer do what they had been built to do, but they had become dangerous over time. The problem these people are facing is that they do not know whether they are allowed to maintain something built by the federal government, because the issue of ownership remains unclear.

Theoretically, these works belong to the federal government, and the people living along the shores are wary of starting to repair these protection structures without first determining whether the government would ever consider suing them for altering its property. This raises a number of problems that will inevitably have to be addressed.

What members whose ridings are along the St. Lawrence River and I keep hearing from successive Ministers of Fisheries and Oceans is answers along the lines of “This is not the federal government's responsibility. We used to do it, but not anymore”. But it is not true that the responsibility does not rest with the federal government, even if only from the angle of the Coast Guard.

The paltry resources available to the Canadian Coast Guard have affected the efficiency and work of its members.

There are fewer and fewer vessel trips. As a result, the monitoring of ships on the St. Lawrence is declining, which makes it difficult to enforce speed limits on the river. In turn, this results in increased shoreline erosion.

All this to say that the federal government has a responsibility when it comes to shoreline erosion. This concerns the coast guard directly, and we expect that, in the next few months, the government will address this problem, finally take its responsibilities and provide assistance to the people living along the shores of the St. Lawrence River.

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

Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent speech and I would like to add something to what he talked about.

Of course, he talked about icebreaking, about the fees charged by the Coast Guard, but he also talked about the shoreline protection program, a program that was abandoned. However, I would like to add something, and I will ask him my question after briefly describing another problem that occurred in the St. Lawrence Seaway because of the fees charged by the Coast Guard.

It concerns dredging. Currently, the Coast Guard charges dredging fees, in the St. Lawrence channel, to ships that call at a port located in the Seaway and in the St. Lawrence. Fees are not charged to ships that, for example, use the Seaway to travel to and from an American port. The Quebec and Canadian shipping industry is penalized once again. The Quebec and Canadian shipping industry is forced to pay for ships that are just passing through, that simply come from an American port or that come out of the Seaway or a port, or that travel the St. Lawrence to go to an American port. They are basically being asked to pay for competitors, to pay their way.

My question is this. Does the member think that it is acceptable that the government has used the Coast Guard as a tax collector and that there is so much injustice toward the Quebec and Canadian shipping industry?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Matapédia—Matane for his eloquent presentation earlier tonight. By the way, he is the Bloc critic on these issues.

To follow up on what I have just said, no, on the contrary, I do not think it is appropriate for the Coast Guard to have been turned into a tax collector just because of the government's financial requirements, which far exceed its responsibilities.

I think the member drew a pretty accurate picture of the situation, but let me add that the marine industry in Quebec and Canada is being asked to fund to some extent its own competitors that travel on the St. Lawrence on their way to and back from U.S. ports, without stopping anywhere in Quebec or in Canada in order to avoid paying the infamous fees being collected by the Coast Guard.

Such a situation has an impact not only on the marine industry in Quebec and Canada, but also on the communities where the ports are located. We cannot ignore the fact that port facilities create a lot of local jobs. So, there are economic spinoffs in these port communities. The slowdown in traffic due to the fees collected by the Coast Guard does have an impact on local economies. It is unfortunate not only that the Coast Guard has been turned into a tax collector, but also that the decision made by the federal government has had such an adverse impact on the economy of port communities.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank my hon. colleague from the Bloc for bringing up the concerns about these fees and the devastating effect they will have on inland communities along the St. Lawrence.

Could he elaborate a bit more about what happens in communities like Sept Îles, Quebec City, Montreal and Rimouski, as a result of these fees and lack of services on top of that? Those communities pay federal taxes to have the Coast Guard in effect operating as it should. Then on top of that they have to pay additional fees for the service. Could he elaborate a bit more on the concerns that the communities and businesses have, in his particular riding and those along the Quebec shore?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for the question. He is absolutely right. I said that just a few minutes ago. The economic impact on local communities is considerable.

For the stretch of the St. Lawrence between Montreal and the upstream tip of Île d'Orléans, for example, there are dredging fees charged according to gross tonnage, at the rate of $0.0345 per tonne each trip. Obviously, the net effect of these charges is that any ships headed for the United States avoid as far as possible putting in at the various Quebec and Canadian ports along the St. Lawrence, in order to avoid paying these fees. As I have already said, this has negative effects on the local communities. Traffic decreases and fewer ships berth in their community. This leads to lay-offs and to indirect economic spinoffs that have a negative impact on the various suppliers to the port facilities. The impact is, therefore, a heavy one.

I believe my colleague has also pointed out that, despite the fact that the shipping companies, and the people of Quebec pay taxes to Ottawa, they have to pay the fees imposed by the Coast Guard in addition. And what services are provided in return? I have already said, the services provided by the Coast Guard are constantly decreasing in number, and so there are fewer and fewer vessel-trips. The effect of this, as I have also pointed out—one more negative effect—is that there is less monitoring of the cruising speed of vessels on the St. Lawrence. As a result, they are going faster. Obviously, they want to get to the U.S. ports as quickly as possible, so they increase their speed. This leads to erosion of the shores of the St. Lawrence.

As for the government's decision, it would appear they want to continue with it. I would like to see them come to the realization that this has had negative effects on the communities along the St. Lawrence and it is high time these fees were eliminated.

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

Mr. Chairman, first, I want to congratulate the hon. member on how he presented his arguments. All these issues were raised on a number of occasions by the industry.

However, as regards certain issues raised in the debate—and I am not taking sides—I would like to ask the hon. member to consider the following points.

He mentioned the issue of competitiveness. He said that there could be a smaller number of users because of the costs. I am not sure that this is true. If it is the case, I am sure that it is not good from a competition point of view. If there are some users of services who have to pay for costs and others who do not, this would normally have an impact on competition.

There is also the issue of users. Users pay reasonable costs. Would the hon. member agree with this type of costs charged to users, if we can find a way, through negotiations and discussions with the industry, to impose reasonable costs that could be negotiated?

There are currently representations being made in this regard. As to whether or not they will be successful, it is too early to tell. I invite the hon. member to reflect on this.

The other issue raised by his colleague earlier has to do with asking us—and this is a request from all sides—to find additional resources for the Coast Guard. This would produce another shortfall. Did the hon. member take that into consideration?

We can always say that we will find money elsewhere, but sometimes it is harder than it seems. As the hon. member for Egmont pointed out, there is the issue of health care, the issue of the military, the issues relating to the environment and the other pressures that the government has to deal with.

I will stop here and ask the hon. member to comment.

[The Speaker]

I would ask the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes to give a short answer.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Chairman, the answer will be as short as the question.

First, I would like to thank the minister for his question and to congratulate him on his work. I think that he, as much as we tonight, earnestly wishes that the resources provided to the Coast Guard could be increased.

I believe that there is no doubt whatsoever that the fees that have been charged by the Coast Guard over the past number of years have had a major impact on the reduction of traffic in the St. Lawrence and a major impact on the reduction of the number of stopovers in Quebec ports.

To answer his questions, I would simply say that, yes, it is important to find the resources required for the Coast Guard. I wonder about the fact that, in this period of budgetary surplus, we act as though we were in a period of budgetary restraints, as was the case at the beginning of the Liberal regime. We still get the impression that we have to cut to the bone, when we have the resources to ensure that the government can carry out its mandate, which is to provide a number of services, particularly with respect to transportation corridors.

If we must ultimately resign ourselves to charging fees for icebreaking, navigational aids and marine services, I would like them to be charged to the Canadian marine industry as a whole, and not simply to the marine industry in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and in the St. Lawrence.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Bras D'Or—Cape Breton, NS]

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to join in the debate this evening. My initial thought was to deliver my speech from my seat at the far reaches of the House. Being an elected official from the east coast of Canada, and probably there are very few in the House who represent constituents from as far east in the country as I do, I am quite comfortable with taking that perspective from the far reach.

I find it is the greatest challenge coming to Ottawa because the people, the bureaucrats and the decision makers in Ottawa believe that this is the norm of the country. One of the greatest challenges we have in coming from the regions is bringing our stories to the nation's capital and working on behalf of the people who make up such an integral part of our country's mosaic.

It is a great pleasure to take part in the debate this evening and add to what the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has said already about the Canadian Coast Guard.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, I too greatly appreciate the fine work this great institution does 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. This record of success speaks for itself.

I also appreciate the important role of the Canadian Coast Guard in the everyday lives of coastal and northern communities. As I stated, like the minister, I too come from a coastal community. I know the people of Bras d'Or—Cape Breton and, indeed, all coastal communities, place great value in the Coast Guard's strong presence and the service this key Canadian institution provides.

While it is certainly true that there have been funding challenges in recent years, the Canadian Coast Guard has done much to continue providing the highest calibre of service to those who rely on it. It is no easy task, but the truth of the matter is that to have funding in place for any and every marine incident that may arise, is totally unrealistic. Governments everywhere understand that it is impossible to fund every what-if scenario. However, we still have a top-notch, marine response capability that is second to none in the world. We have comprehensive contingency plans and a team of highly skilled men and women ready and able to deal with marine emergencies.

Let me assure hon. members that funding challenges or not the Canadian Coast Guard remains committed to ensuring that public safety is not compromised. This evening I would like to outline some of the steps the Canadian Coast Guard has taken not only to continue providing its excellent service in the face of funding challenges, but also to strengthen these services and make them as efficient and cost effective as possible in years to come.

Perhaps the most obvious evolution in the Coast Guard's work is technology. As hon. members know, the range and accuracy of marine and navigational technology growth in recent years is truly staggering. The Canadian Coast Guard has a long tradition for embracing technological innovation. It is a tradition that continues today. Through its use of new navigational technology, like the Differential Global Positioning System or DGPS and INNAV and its exploration of emerging technology like the automatic identification system, AIS, the Canadian Coast Guard is finding new ways to improve marine security and the level of vessel safety on Canadian waters.

In fact, the Canadian Coast Guard has become a leader in finding the most innovative ways to use this technology. This leadership was recently acknowledged when the Coast Guard received a number of awards for advancing the use of modern marine technology to reduce environmental impacts on our oceans.

Technological advances like these mean change and the Coast Guard can also become a leader in finding the most innovative ways in to adapt its services to fully benefit from this technological change. The organization is implementing new cost effective business practices and life cycle materiel management to ensure that equipment is not only high performance but also requires less maintenance. This approach also means finding more ways for the Coast Guard to work with its partners to increase operational efficiency and cost effectiveness without compromising marine safety.

Oil spill preparedness and response is one example. While the Canadian Coast Guard remains the lead agency in this area and maintains its own federal response capacity for spills north of 60° north latitude, the organization has worked closely with its partners in the private sector to find ways for industry to clean up its own spills.

This innovative regime was established in 1995 to enable industry to respond to its own oil spills of up to 10,000 tonnes within prescribed time standards and operating environments. Under this regime, designated oil handling facilities and all ships of a certain size are required to have an arrangement with the Canadian Coast Guard certified response organization, or RO, which can respond in the event of a pollution incident.

For its part, the Canadian Coast Guard sets the standards by which these organizations are certified, ensures their continuing compliance with those standards and closely monitors response operations. This is one area in which the Coast Guard has found an innovative way to work with its partners to increase efficiency and cost effectiveness.

The Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary is another good example. The volunteer based auxiliary was formed in 1978 in order to enhance search and rescue coverage and capability and to better coordinate volunteer efforts. The organization has been saving lives ever since. Today its 5,000-plus members are dedicated to search and rescue and to safe boating activities. Auxiliary members are primarily pleasure craft operators and commercial fishermen who use their own vessels or community owned vessels for search and rescue operations and safe boating activities.

Last year the auxiliary responded to over 2,000 search and rescue taskings, or 20% of all our maritime search and rescue incidents across Canada. They also conducted over 3,200 pleasure craft courtesy checks and participated in nearly 1,200 training exercises. Their local knowledge, maritime experience, seafaring talents and professional conduct make them another good example of how the Canadian Coast Guard is finding ways to work with its partners to continue providing the most cost effective delivery of key Coast Guard services.

These are just a few examples of how the Canadian Coast Guard is making the most of what it has and what its partners have to offer in continuing to give Canadians the high level of service they have come to expect.

But the fact remains that funding is a lingering issue. As the minister indicated earlier, the Canadian Coast Guard's fleet capital needs exceed available funds. Therefore, fleet recapitalization is a high priority for DFO, but to say that the Canadian Coast Guard has no new vessels is totally misleading. Earlier the minister mentioned the investment of $115 million, over three years, to our search and rescue program, in 2000. He mentioned the 31 new lifeboats, 7 of which have been built, with 24 more contracted for construction.

In addition, the Canadian Coast Guard has worked hard to ensure the most effective match between the types of Coast Guard vessels available and the jobs they have to do. Through the base fleet review, the Canadian Coast Guard found a number of ways to improve the operational efficiency and cost effectiveness of their vessels, and new life cycle management practices are being put into place to better manage and maintain the fleet.

At the end of the day, the Canadian Coast Guard is fully aware that vessels cannot last forever, especially in their harsh operating environments. That is why, as the minister mentioned, fleet recapitalization remains a high priority for DFO and for the minister himself.

While the department puts its case together, let me add my voice to the minister's in assuring the House that public safety is at the heart of the Coast Guard's commitment to Canadians. The Canadian Coast Guard stands ready and able to respond to a wide range of marine safety needs of Canadians. Sometimes it means shifting resources from one place to another, like the Canadian Coast Guard did during the Saguenay floods. Sometimes it means having a contingency plan to deal with any eventuality. But in any case, Canadians can rest assured that these types of incidents will be responded to by the Canadian Coast Guard in the professional and capable manner for which this organization is world renowned.

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

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.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Bras D'Or—Cape Breton, NS]

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for that question and for saving it for me in the absence of the minister.

Members of the fisheries and oceans standing committee had the great pleasure last year of travelling to the west coast where we had the opportunity to go to the search and rescue base just outside Vancouver airport. The first thing that had an impact on me was the staff there. I know the feeling is unanimous among all members taking part in the debate tonight in regard to the commitment, the ability and the professionalism of the people who are employed by the Coast Guard.

While we were there we had the opportunity to go out on the hovercraft vessel, Siyay , located at the base. The Coast Guard had an opportunity to show us the capabilities of the craft and it certainly was an impressive display. At the same time we saw the backup vehicle that was soon to be a surplus vehicle because of a certain state of disrepair. It was shared with the committee that there was a great deal of concern about the acquisition of a second backup vessel.

Since then, the Coast Guard has embarked on a procurement exercise. Senior officials have indicated that the vessel they are soon to take ownership of and which will soon become operational will satisfy their short term needs as a backup vessel. I understand that the Coast Guard's long range plans are to acquire a second hovercraft vessel similar to the Siyay , which would give it full capability and full capacity. This is long range and I guess we just cannot do it all overnight. Decisions have to be made through procurement, and the recapitalization program is vital.

As we are looking at the boats being built, I made reference in my speech to the lifeboats, those that have been secured already as well as the ones contracted to be built. I might add that these boats are being built in Canadian boatyards in B.C., resulting in jobs and additional benefits going to the people of B.C. and to Canadians.

Tough decisions have to be made with those procurement decisions. I am confident and senior Coast Guard officials believe that this interim measure of securing this hovercraft will at least serve as a backup until we can secure a vessel like the Siyay as a permanent backup.

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

Mr. Chairman, as we get toward the end of the debate tonight I would be remiss not to recognize the fact that the minister has stayed here all night. We appreciate that. I think it also shows his interest in what is going on. As well, we do have the brass as it relates to fisheries here. The parliamentary secretary also has stayed with us, along with the new chair of the committee. We look forward to working closely with him.

[An hon. member]

It's pretty top-heavy over there.

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

And the member who just spoke is the vice-chair.

Let me say too that as we went through the early stages of this debate, I am sure a lot of people listening across the country wondered if all the opposition does is complain and exaggerate, but I was extremely pleased when the new chair of the fisheries committee, a Liberal member, stood up and repeated every concern that we raised tonight. We appreciate that, because people can see that this is not a partisan effort. It is an effort of concern to try to highlight the needs within the Coast Guard.

I have something to ask the member who just spoke, seeing that he told about all the good things that are happening in the Coast Guard. And we have no doubt about that. We have never argued the fact that a lot of good things are happening. But the member was in British Columbia with us last year. We shared the same taxi to the hotel, if he remembers, all the way from the airport to hotel, but I will not tell about that. It took us about 30 seconds.

He saw at first hand, as the rest of us did, the state of the Coast Guard stations spread across the Vancouver coast. When he talks about all the lifeboats being built in British Columbia, I will say to him that a lot of them could have been built more cheaply in Newfoundland if the rules were not the way they are. I will also say that I hope we do not have to wait as long to get the rest of the boats as we have had to wait for the helicopters. All in all, despite the fact that we agree with the good things, does he not agree that the concerns raised by his new chair, his Liberal colleague, and the rest of us are very legitimate?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Bras D'Or—Cape Breton, NS]

Mr. Chairman, to reiterate my colleague's comments, I agree too. It has been a great pleasure to work with the fisheries and oceans committee in the last year and a half. I think the partisan attitude is most times set aside to deal with the real issues.

In acknowledging the capability of our newly elected chair, one thing all members can unite behind is that he has the ability and has proven that ability to see through the fog, get to the crux of an issue and to not accept the answers from bureaucrats but to challenge them.

I am sure my colleague on the other side, as he stands on the wharf and speaks to fishermen and fishermen groups, the line that continues to come back all the time is that they are not getting their message to DFO and that DFO officials are not listening to them. There seems to be a problem with getting through to some DFO officials.

I was as taken aback as the committee was with the response of the individual in Vancouver who said that the department had enough money to address any concerns, and then going out into the department and finding there were a number of shortcomings and concerns. I think it is imperative that senior management have the vehicles and tools in place that allow this information to be shared so we are prepared when it comes budgeting time.

I think this is a fruitful and beneficial exercise that we are taking part in this evening to bring forward the importance of secure and maybe increased funding to our Coast Guard. I wish the minister all the best in his deliberations with cabinet.

[The Speaker]

I know there are lots of other questions but I am afraid the 10 minutes for questions and comments on the hon. member's speech have expired.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Would my colleagues give their unanimous consent to my asking a question to the previous speaker?

[The Speaker]

I am sure this is very tempting.

However, there is a problem, because I may not ask the unanimous consent of the House during a take note debate. This is part of the Standing Orders. I cannot even submit such a request to the House, unfortunately.

Obviously the minister has the opportunity to spare the member certain questions, as the member spared the minister. It was mentioned earlier.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I wish I could approach this take note debate with a light heart but I am afraid I cannot do that.

There needs to be an inquiry into the destruction of the Canadian Coast Guard since it was absorbed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and it is a sad tale indeed. One cannot live on the British Columbia coast without becoming aware of what is happening to what was a very proud service.

I am a former member of the fisheries committee. I have worked with most of the members who have spoken tonight. I think they are quite in tune that when it comes to marine issues, I am fairly up to speed.

What is happening with our Coast Guard, albeit that it is much smaller than the Department of National Defence, is similar from the standpoint that it is underfunded, suffering from rust out and is somewhat lacking in leadership at some critical positions.

Why is it, I keep asking myself, that our most valued services, the ones that the people believe are central to the goal of their federal government, are always the ones that get the short end of the stick? If we look at budget reductions to the Canadian Coast Guard since 1995, it has lost $100 million. Those are non-inflated dollars, which means a drop from $542 million to $442 million. There is a very significant drop in coast guard figures. Those are from public accounts.

Why is it that every time I make a speech in British Columbia and talk about the Coast Guard and say that it is time to take it out of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and either stand it on its own or put it in with the armed forces, of all outfits, I get an immediate, spontaneous ovation? It is ironic, given the public concerns that are also apparent about the chronic underfunding of the Department of National Defence. Still, with all that baggage, they would prefer to see that rather than what is happening with the Coast Guard before their very eyes.

We know that in order to maintain our asset base we need to reinvest. The Canadian Coast Guard commissioner himself has said that requires about $140 million to $150 million of capital funding each year. In contrast, over the last 10 years the average has been in the order of $30 million or $40 million.

An audit was done by the Auditor General and the December 2000 report was considered by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The central conclusion arising from the audit was that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was not managing its fleet in a cost effective way. Almost all the elements that would discourage good management and functional accountability in any organization are to be found in the Canadian Coast Guard.

We have a problem. Here is just a symptom. I like real life examples. We have the Canadian Coast Guard with its director of operational services saying to his commanding officers of coast guard ships, “I have some concerns with regard to keeping the regional fleet on budget on the operating and maintenance fuel allotment side. In light of this I am requesting that you take extra measures to reduce fuel consumption. They are short of dollars. I am aware that commanding officers are already taking steps to conserve fuel, such as reducing speed and operating on fewer engines where possible. However, as of today's date, September 26 of this year, I am directing commanding officers to reduce discretionary steaming to a bare minimum”.

This is the kind of thing that is going on with our once proud services. They have been reduced to beggars and to second tier in DFO ranks. Basically the feeling among Coast Guard personnel is that all DFO wanted was their budget. DFO in the meantime has lost its moral right to manage the fishery. At the same time it has lost its moral right to carry out the search and rescue function.

We had protests from the commercial fishermen this summer who, as a direct consequence, thought that their livelihood was at stake. After years of being treated poorly by DFO they saw that this was the year they had to take a position.

We have the ongoing saga of an aboriginal fishery pilot sales program that has been found wanting for statutory authority which the minister continues to operate to the point where he was turning a blind eye to openings this summer rather than announce them simply because it was another way to circumvent his problem rather than deal with the real issue.

In terms of the search and rescue function being completely turned on its head, we have two prime examples of where this has been completely mismanaged on the west coast. We have the example of the hovercraft which has been well explained. This is unconscionable.

The Vancouver Airport Authority emergency plan requires two hovercraft. We have one hovercraft. We do not know when the other one will be delivered. Every hovercraft has to be taken out of operation for servicing. When that happens there will be no coverage for the Vancouver airport or for the flats. If there is an accident out there, a major loss of life could be involved.

The other example is with the Coast Guard rescue divers. I want to review that from my perspective. The ministerial actions in terms of the lead-up to the Cap Rouge II disaster have led to what I consider an incomprehensible cop-out by the minister in terms of accepting responsibility for a very serious tragedy.

We had loss of life which led the previous minister to cancel the Coast Guard rescue diving program on the west coast and turn it over to the armed forces. In February 2001, I warned the minister in the House of Commons that this was not a good move. I said:

it will not work to drop the coast guard rescue diving in the Vancouver area and substitute the Department of DND from Comox or Esquimalt on Vancouver Island to do the rescue diving.

The Vancouver coast guard rescue diving program record over the last six years demonstrates that the vast majority of calls were responded to within 20 minutes. For example, mobilization and flight time for DND from Comox is one and a half hours and it is worse on nights and weekends. The minister is saying that these are equivalent services when they are so obviously not.

That is the crux of the matter. After the Cap Rouge II the opposition was accused of federal opportunism to be critical of the west coast search and rescue capability. I find that quite unconscionable.

Rather than the minister accepting responsibility for the lack of direction that the divers were under when they had previously been told that they could not do these dives, it has led those divers into a no win situation. What does a diver do when the media and everyone are second guessing the next incident? This is life threatening for them.

I will conclude with that because I am getting the time sign. I certainly would have a lot more to say if I had the time.

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

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.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Chairman, first of all, good governance involves setting priorities. I cannot see that there is a much higher priority than the safety of our citizens and people who are travelling to visit our nation.

What is happening with the lack of hovercraft coverage at Vancouver airport is unconscionable. We knew there was a plan to retire the second hovercraft. We knew what the retirement date was and at the same time we knew that the second hovercraft was still not basically secured. It is still not basically secured to this day.

In terms of why the Coast Guard is not doing well under the new regime since it was moved from the Department of Transport to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is simply a function of what happens when there is a merger. Often there is a winner and a loser. I have seen it happen in the corporate world. What has happened with the Coast Guard is it has lost.

We have a situation where the senior Coast Guard personnel are junior in the DFO hierarchy and simply cannot put their stamp on the priority that they deserve within the larger organization. They have lost the power and influence game. It is up to the minister and political masters to effect change which will bring sensibility back and put public priorities in the right order.

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

Mr. Chairman, I agree with my hon. colleague from Vancouver Island North that an inquiry into DFO and its management is definitely required, as is a discussion and a serious look at the merger of the Coast Guard into DFO. He is right. When it comes to winners and losers, from our perspective we believe that the Coast Guard was the one that lost on the merger.

He well knows of incidents that happened when Brian Tobin was the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and used a Coast Guard vessel as a personal pleasure craft, with his cabinet, to take a little swing around St. Anthony in Labrador. He also knows of an incident that happened in St. John's harbour when Coast Guard officials used a Coast Guard vessel for a little wine and cheese party one evening.

The fact is this was at the time when the member for Egmont was saying that the government had to make cuts to balance the books. While the government was cutting, cutting, cutting, influential people in Newfoundland and in the Coast Guard were using valuable vessels as their pleasure crafts. It is unconscionable that they would do that and think they could get away with it when the men and women of the Coast Guard are scratching for every dollar they can get in order to do their jobs.

My hon. colleague from Delta—South Richmond indicated a very serious concern about the government actually not abiding by its current regulations that it has and downsizing requirements to make the purchase of a hovercraft when it will not meet the needs of its own regulations. I would like him to comment more on that. I find it unconscionable that there are regulations in May 2000 which state what is needed and then the government turns around and, because it wants to get a vessel that does not even meet those requirements, it lowers the standards.

When it comes to safety, we should not second guess. We should be following the regulations to the maximum in order to have maximum coverage in the event of a serious emergency. I would like my colleague to comment on that please.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I do not quite know where to begin to respond to that. I do agree that we need a lot more than a take note debate on this issue. We need an inquiry into the functioning and effectiveness of the Coast Guard. We have now had this circumstance for a number of years. Basically from all reports it is not working.

We have had simple things. For the Office of Boating Safety, for example, there is new legislation. Legislation was created where everybody who runs a recreational craft under four metres in length is supposed to be licensed as of September 15.

I live in a part of the country where everybody has a boat and many of them are under four metres in length. What are the audits saying? That the Office of Boating Safety endeavour to operate in basically an unfunded state with few to nil resources. That is no surprise.

The local newspaper stated: “Efforts by The Record to obtain information where local boaters can take this test proved futile. The operator of the local office of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was not available so a call was placed to the Campbell River DFO office. In turn, we were referred to the boating safety hotline, who in turn referred us to a media consultant in Vancouver. This person told us we should be calling the Boating Safety Office in Victoria. Upon calling that number we found there was no one available. A call back to the boating safety hotline to ask for further assistance had us referred to the directory for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. There was no one answering that telephone either”.

This is the kind of behaviour we are getting. We are getting new initiatives that are not funded. We are getting priority activities of the department that are basically being underfunded.

The same thing is happening to the Coast Guard that is happening to our armed forces. It is rust out, it is burnout and it is time that the government made a decision that those are priority activities that it must deliver. It has a constitutional priority to deliver those kinds of programs to the public. It is not happening to the degree it should.

The minister is the one who is responsible to try and effect this change. I hope and wish him well in those endeavours.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Chairman, my speech will be very short but as you know, any time there is a debate on resources, I always have to talk about my riding and make sure that we are not forgotten or left out as occurs sometimes.

We have one application for the Coast Guard, as people are asking for more resources. As a result of global warming, the northwest passage is opening up. It is predicted it might be completely open by 2010. This is causing a security problem for Canada. Members probably have heard the three northern MPs speak about it before in relation to national defence. The Coast Guard also has a role.

The passage is opening and now there are ships coming in, various vessels from around the world, sometimes without surveillance. Sometimes they get through without being seen because of course it was all ice and we had no patrols there before. It is very important for a number of reasons that we adjust rapidly to this situation. Unfortunately for certain departments this will require more resources.

The problem is that when ships come in from other countries, they can bring things in their ballasts that will hurt our environment. They can bring illegal immigrants. They can smuggle things in. There have been a number of stories already of how they just pull up to shore and have never been questioned by anybody. They are hurting our environment. They can dump oil.

Most important for our sovereignty, there are countries in the world that do not consider the northern archipelago to be a part of Canada. We see maps of the United States and they do not necessarily see that that is our nation and our land. It is very important for patrols to be a presence to manifest our sovereignty there.

Any time we have any activity, whether it is a Coast Guard vessel or whether it is a just a building where they get supplies, a National Defence presence, a supply depot or a small northern community, it helps show our sovereignty in the area. It makes sure that a very important, huge piece of land, as big as Europe, and all its rich resources, will remain part of Canada.

The Coast Guard is only one piece in this puzzle. There are many players that have important parts. I am sure my colleagues have mentioned the Aurora flights. People have mentioned the National Defence boats. There are also the rangers. I am happy that defence has increased the resources for that. The northern rangers and the northern junior rangers are indigenous people. They are out on the land and sometimes they see things and can report them back to the system, but they are not always on the water where the problems might be.

The Coast Guard, which operates up in that area primarily for safety reasons, does have a role. There is not a simple answer. It is not one person's responsibility. Everyone in an area of scarce resources and thousands and thousands of kilometres of land has to work together and have a system of reporting to each other. The military has to have a good presence. The local indigenous people have to have a good presence, training and contacts where they can report things. Of course the Coast Guard has to play an important role there too.

I hope that my colleagues will be sensitive to the need for the Coast Guard in the north and the valuable role it plays there, and the more and more open water on which it needs to play that role.

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

Mr. Chairman, since we are nearing the end of the debate, before I ask my question, I would like to thank my colleagues for taking part in this debate. It was a most interesting debate. I would also like to thank the minister for his presence.

I would like to reassure my colleague from Yukon that throughout this debate, we have been very conscious of the state of the Coast Guard in his region. What all of us here want, and I hope he agrees with us, is to ensure that the Coast Guard really is able to respond to the what the government is asking it to do. In other words, a lot is being asked of the Canadian Coast Guard right now, and it is not being given much when it comes to its means.

Furthermore, and this is important, as I said during the debate, it has become a collector of taxes for the government. I do not believe this is its role.

I would like it if my colleague could tell me if he agrees with us that we must, as much as possible—obviously one has to take into account the fact that everyone has their priorities—increase funding to the Coast Guard to ensure that it fulfills the mission it has been given, and that this organization can someday function under reasonable conditions, which is not the case right now.