Loyola Hearn

[Canadian Coast Guard, November 6th, 2002]

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?

[Canadian Coast Guard, November 6th, 2002]

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.

[Canadian Coast Guard, November 6th, 2002]

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

[Canadian Coast Guard, November 6th, 2002]

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--

[Canadian Coast Guard, November 6th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, I think the minister answered the question earlier when he talked about cost recovery. It is getting to the point where we pay for practically everything. The government argues, the minister will argue and other ministers will argue this way: “Is it not fair that people pay for the services provided?”

If we are dealing with the private sector, these people are in the business to make money and we know what we are getting at first hand. If we are dealing with services provided by government, unless I miss my guess entirely I think we pay for the services. We pay taxes so that government provides services to people, not on a cost recovery basis but because it is prepaid and paid for by a lot of people who will never need the services.

I will say to the member that I think we are going to see more and more of this cost recovery, because as government siphons off money into foolish programs that are not necessary and gives lucrative contracts to its friends, somebody has to pay for it. Who pays for it? The ordinary taxpayer. And we are already paying enough to provide the services we need.

[Canadian Coast Guard, November 6th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his questions.

When we were in British Columbia and toured practically every station along the coast, we heard basically the same story at all of them, a story completely opposite to that which we heard from the regional director's office when we stopped over. Members might say that they were telling us stories behind management's back, but that was not the case because we had management officials with us who were undoubtedly sent to make sure that nobody spoke out of line. The people in the stations were so fed up with the situation they did not care who was there. They were laying the truth on the line.

In relation to training, there were a couple of major concerns. Our sites on the west coast, and undoubtedly those on the east coast, were so tightly manned or so undermanned that quite often they could not find time to let people off on leave to go for training. When the opportunity arose only a few could go. As the member said in regard to the training centre in Nova Scotia, the principal of which, by the way, is a good Newfoundlander and it is certainly not his fault what is happening, because of the way the work is dictated people are coming from all over the country and all over the world to be trained, as they are in other parts of the country.

We have so much potential in relation to ocean technology and naval possibilities it is unbelievable, but we are not taking advantage of it. Very few people can get training. We have an aging population of people with the expertise in manning these sites. Unless we can train young people, who are so ready and willing to go, we are going to lose this expertise very quickly.

The other thing we found at a lot of these stations, with examples given to us, was the concern about near misses of large ocean liners because they could not be detected, with sites down, with areas that were not covered by radar, along with weather conditions when the weather deteriorated and loss of visibility and such. Actually in one case the person telling us the story had tears in her eyes because of the impact it had on her.

It is no pleasure to work in the Coast Guard because of the responsibilities. It would be a little bit better if they were not, as we say in Newfoundland, overworked and undernourished.

[Canadian Coast Guard, November 6th, 2002]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do suggest that you stay around.

I say to the minister in answer to his five questions, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. I am very much aware, and I wish the minister were as much aware of what is going on with the Coast Guard as most of the members here. I do not mean to slight others, but many of them are on the fisheries committee and live in fishing or marine areas and are well aware of what is happening.

I will deal with the questions very quickly. In relation to the funding for the auxiliary, I congratulate the minister. It was a tremendous move. It has done a great amount of work, but it was like always when the government announces money. Everyone says, wow, it is a lot of money, but it is over 5 years, 10 years or whatever and is announced 15 times, so when it gets to the people who need it, there is not so much money. Right now, halfway through the year, as I said to the minister, the auxiliary is out of money. What good is the money if it is not there when the real time of need arrives?

Let me also say to the minister that I was intrigued when he said we are protected in relation to security because we have now increased notice time to 96 hours. That is like making a reservation at a hotel. When we go to a hotel now, the first thing it wants is our credit card, and if we do not tell them we are not coming, it will charge us anyway if the reservations are not made ahead of time.

What we are really saying to terrorists or anyone else if they want to come to our country is that instead of calling us 24 hours before they come in, as they used to have to do, they have to call us 96 hours ahead of time. I am just wondering how many terrorists or drug smugglers pick up the phone and call the Coast Guard to say “we are coming into Newfoundland” or coming into British Columbia. The only way we know they are coming in is if we pick them up on radar or our boats see them while at sea. If our boats are not at sea, they cannot see them.

As well, many parts of our country, regardless of what the minister says, are not covered by radar. We do not have enough to cover all the coasts. If I know that there are places where we can come in without being seen, if the members know that there are places where we can come in without being seen, if the minister knows, whether he will admit it or not, that there are places where we can come in without being seen, do we not think the drug pushers and terrorists also know? I rest my case.

[Canadian Coast Guard, November 6th, 2002]

I'll send you a copy of Hansard.

[Canadian Coast Guard, November 6th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, it is certainly a pleasure to speak to the resolution that is before us. We are not the first ones to kick it off. A few days ago the other house through Senator Carney raised the issue publicly in a press statement which was followed up by a news conference. It was a news conference participated in by many of my colleagues here and is one which drew attention from the Coast Guard.

The commissioner was not very happy with some of the stuff we said. It was interesting after he had done his presentation on the radio. The people who actually work in the Coast Guard, are hardworking people whom the minister said he is so proud of. We are all very proud of the workers in the Coast Guard because they are the ones on the front line. They are very seldom called out when everything is going well. They are called out to do their jobs when things go wrong, when the weather is bad, when there is danger. Many of them always put their lives on the line.

When we talk about the example in British Columbia, the people who were not rescued, it was not because the Coast Guard people were afraid. They go out there as firefighters and policemen. They know what is ahead of them when they go to work. It is not all hunky-dory, sailing around in a nice big ship. No, when they go to work, their lives are on the line every day and every night.

The commissioner said he did not agree with a lot of what we said because things are much better than we portrayed. That is not what the average person who works in the Coast Guard is saying.

We are not here to be popular with the commissioner. We are not here to be popular with the minister. We are not here to be popular with the government. We are here to get a job done. We are here to make sure that the Coast Guard that protects the people who travel our oceans are safe and looked after and that the Coast Guard people who work in that great institution can fulfill their other objectives as well.

Having said that, I say to the minister that we are not here tonight to criticize, as was mentioned by the parliamentary secretary, and tell how bad things are in the Coast Guard. We are here to give examples of what we are hearing, not from people who are not connected, but from people who work in the institution. They see what is happening to them.

We are here to support the minister as he goes to the government, to Treasury Board, to the Minister of Finance as he prepares his budget, to look for money.

I remind the minister that just a year ago we were discussing the state of our marine infrastructure. It was the fisheries committee and the presentations that were made that embarrassed the government. The government was told by its own people that $400 million was needed to bring the wharfs up to par, that 21% of the wharfs were unsafe. It was because of what came out truthfully from the witnesses that the government was embarrassed to the point that it gave the minister $100 million over a five year period on top of what he gets for the small crafts harbours division.

If as a result of our input here tonight and the other things we are doing outside, the minister receives money to keep the Coast Guard not in the state in which it is in now, but in the state it should be, our job will have been well done.

We have heard members talk about the west coast and about Nova Scotia. In the few minutes I have I want to zero in on Newfoundland and Labrador.

A number of duties are outlined for the Coast Guard. Let me just read them out in case the minister does not know:

Responsibilities: Safety of life at sea; protecting the environment; vessel screening; safe and efficient movement of traffic; broadcasting vital information such as notices to shipping of weather warnings; supporting other government agencies.

That is quite a chore. When it is being cut and cut, it is very hard to fulfill all those needs.

I have raised safety issues with the minister before. He has said that along with our own boats, despite the fact we are taking the odd one out of service, we now have an auxiliary. We have a great auxiliary back home. People train through the Coast Guard to effect search and rescue with smaller boats because of our changing fishery.

They can do their job as long as they have the resources. We are halfway through the present year in terms of budget, approaching the season when the needs are greater. The auxiliary does not have any money, nor does even the minister's own department, his own Coast Guard boats.

I have memos to prove it from his own people to his own people telling them to conserve fuel, to only use the boats when they have to and to reduce speed because it saves time. The skipper of a ship on an ocean in times of search, rescue or even travel, because of sea conditions, wind, storms, ice or whatever, does not want somebody in Ottawa telling him how fast he should move that ship along because of the safety of the people involved and the needs of the people with whom they probably will be involved in terms of search and rescue.

I did not pick up who, but someone said why not. Perhaps that person could picture somebody sitting in an office in Ottawa telling someone how to operate a ship on the Grands Banks of Newfoundland or on the coast of Labrador when the ship is surrounded by ice or there is a storm and they are trying to rescue a small fishing vessel.

We have a change in fishery in Newfoundland. Some years ago when the Coast Guard was much stronger and when we had more boats, more facilities than we have right now, we had big boats and we had little boats. The major fish companies had big draggers that were as big or bigger in a lot of cases than the Coast Guard boats. They could look after themselves quite well. We had small boats that operated within sight of land, practically inshore.

The fishery has changed. Not only have we gone from the 25 foot or the 30 foot trap skiff, to 45 foot and 65 foot long liners, almost everybody has gone to the midsize boat, anywhere from 35 foot, decked over and made into a small long liner, as we say, to the 65 foot or even to the 100 foot class. Not only have they moved up a little bit, they have had to move further and further from shore to get the meagre resource that is left. The small boats that fished within sight of land or within a few miles of land are now fishing out around and even outside the 200 mile limit.

The fishermen themselves, and we have them here tonight, members of the auxiliary, members of the Coast Guard, will tell us that all that is needed is the perfect storm and we could have major disasters. Every day in relation to the fishery and during the winter in particular with the seal fishery, many, many times the Coast Guard is called upon to assist people in search and rescue. The needs are greater than ever they were.

On top of that there is extra traffic in relation to the oil development off our coast. We talk about protecting the environment. There is an example. If there is ever a disaster, who do we think would be called upon? It would be front and centre the Coast Guard.

I talked about security. I have always said anybody could get into this country by plane or car, but they would be searched and so would their car, bumper to bumper. However if they used a boat, a dory, and it was a foggy day or night, there are many parts of our country, whether we are talking about terrorists or drug traffickers, they could move into this country without even being noticed. If members do not believe me they should ask the people who operate the radar.

The minister says it is an RCMP problem. It is, but who do the Mounties call when there is a case in relation to security on the ocean? It is certainly not ghostbusters. They call the Coast Guard.

I wish I had more time to speak because there are so many things I could put on the record. Let me say to the minister that we are not here to complain. We are here to highlight concerns that I hope you and the government will listen to, to make sure our Coast Guard can continue to do the type of work it originally was intended to do and not be hamstrung by the type of operation that we see at present.

[Canadian Coast Guard, November 6th, 2002]

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?