Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 2 - Evidence - April 13, 2010
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 13, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 6 p.m. to study issues relating to the federal government's current and evolving policy framework for managing Canada's fisheries and oceans (topic: Canadian lighthouses).
Senator Bill Rompkey (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I am Senator Rompkey, the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Senators, as we are on television and you will be appearing at some future date on CPAC, I would like you to introduce yourselves and to say what province you represent, starting with Senator Raine.
Senator Raine: I am Senator Nancy Greene Raine from British Columbia.
Senator MacDonald: I am Senator Michael MacDonald from Nova Scotia.
Senator Marshall: I am Senator Elizabeth Marshall from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Manning: I am Senator Fabian Manning from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I am Senator Nancy Ruth from the Georgian Bay region of the Great Lakes.
Senator Patterson: I am Senator Dennis Patterson from the Territory of Nunavut.
Senator Watt: I am Senator Watt from Nunavik.
Senator Hubley: I am Senator Elizabeth Hubley from the great province of Prince Edward Island.
Senator Poirier: I am Senator Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick.
Senator Dallaire: I am Roméo Dallaire and I represent the Gulf of St. Lawrence in Quebec.
The Chair: Minister, you can see we have three coasts represented and also the Great Lakes, so we are well away. We would like to welcome you, minister, for agreeing to appear tonight and to kick off our study of lighthouses. We did have a letter from you and, as you know, I replied that we agreed to undertake the study of lighthouses. The steering committee has drafted some terms of reference for our own guidance, which I think everybody has. I should add that another meeting is being organized for next week so we can carry on our discussion with officials.
You have about an hour, I understand. We are looking forward to hearing from you. Perhaps you might want to introduce the officials you have with you before you begin.
The Hon. Gail A. Shea, P.C., M.P., Minister of Fisheries and Oceans: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and senators. I want to thank you for inviting me here today. I do have with me the Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard, Mr. George da Pont, to my left, and to my right I have Krishna Sahay, Director General of Real Property, Safety and Security, with our department.
I am pleased to appear before you today and I am very pleased that you have decided to take on this task of doing a review of the de-staffing of lightstations. In recent years there has been significant debate about the de-staffing of automated lightstations and additional services that are provided by lightkeepers in these locations. The Coast Guard, its employees and its clients all have a strong interest in seeing a satisfactory resolution to this matter.
Lightstations in Canada are not only symbolic of our rich maritime history, but the lights are necessary for protection of all mariners. For centuries, these lights have been at the heart of safe marine navigation. They have been appreciated by mariners as beacons providing situational awareness and warning of dangers to navigation.
However, over the past decades, the nature of the work traditionally done by lightkeepers has changed considerably. In the past, lightkeepers were responsible for maintaining the lights to ensure the continued operation of our aids-to- navigation system. Mariners have relied on aids-to-navigation systems for centuries and they still do. The important work of lightkeepers was integral to the safety of every mariner here in Canada and around the world, and we appreciate and respect their contributions.
With today's proven technology, the same aids-to-navigation service is being delivered in un-staffed lightstations. Improvements in technology such as reliable solar power, accurate rain charts, real-time radio communications and the use of global positioning systems have been introduced across the globe and continue to provide mariners with effective and reliable aids-to-navigation services.
Automated de-staffed lightstations have operated successfully in Canada and throughout the world for decades. In fact, every developed country in the world has de-staffed its automated lightstations. At one point, there were about 264 staffed lighthouses across Canada. However, with changes in technology, only 51 staffed lighthouses remain. The de- staffing process was halted about 10 years ago because there was not complete comfort with the reliability of automated lighthouses, and there were concerns regarding the additional services that are provided by lightkeepers.
We now have many years of experience with automated lighthouses, both here in Canada and in all other developed countries. We now can document that they are as reliable as staffed lighthouses. We are not aware of any evidence that automation creates any risk for mariners.
Therefore, we felt it was an appropriate time to resume the de-staffing process. Doing so would enable us to deliver the same service at a lower cost. In addition, there would be other indirect savings for things such as vessel and helicopter time used to maintain staffed lighthouses, that could be redirected to other Coast Guard services. However, efficiency and cost-effectiveness were not our only considerations. We knew that about 110 loyal Coast Guard employees would be affected. Like many other public sector organizations, the Coast Guard is aging. Therefore, we felt it would be an ideal time to complete the de-staffing process as this situation enables us to assure lightkeepers that we would be able to find other jobs for them within the Coast Guard.
The outstanding issue to successful de-staffing remains the additional services taken on formally and informally by lightkeepers over the years. This has been rightfully pointed out by stakeholders following the announcement to resume de-staffing.
These services include monitoring the coasts for safety, security and environmental purposes. They also include providing weather and sea-state information such as wind speed and direction, ice conditions, wave heights and cloud conditions for mariners and aviators.
While these services are appreciated by aviators and mariners, there is a need to assess whether they are necessary. If so, we should seek to determine whether they are best left in the hands of those with the mandate to perform them. Indeed, as part of our initial de-staffing plans, we committed to working with organizations whose mandates were more in line with providing these services, to find viable alternatives.
In making this assessment, it will undoubtedly be necessary to engage lightkeepers to get a good understanding of exactly what additional services they are providing and to whom. Then it would be important to hear directly from the users of those services and those organizations who may have a clearer mandate for some of the activities, such as Environment Canada or Nav Canada.
That is why I am seeking the agreement of this committee to conduct a review of these additional services.
I value your opinions as arm's-length observers with a demonstrated previous interest in this matter. You come from many different backgrounds and have the ability to examine the issues from a variety of viewpoints. Your deliberations and input will be invaluable in the decision-making process.
The outcome of this review should provide clear advice and recommendations to all stakeholders, including members of the public, lightkeepers and government, on whether the additional services currently provided by lightkeepers at automated lightstations should be continued and, if so, the best way to deliver these services.
I would like to make it clear at the outset that any de-staffing of lightstations will have no impact on the implementation of the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act. This act will come into force at the end of May and establishes a formal process whereby a petition can ask that any federal lighthouse receive a heritage designation in an effort to conserve and protect its character for the benefit of future generations of Canadians. All federal lighthouse properties, whether staffed or not, are eligible for heritage designation under the act.
Resolving this matter is important for mariners and aviators who depend on the navigation services provided by the Canadian Coast Guard. It is also critical for the Coast Guard itself, so it can effectively move forward with ensuring it provides the services needed by today's mariners. Additionally, it is important to the lightkeepers themselves, who certainly deserve certainty on this issue. I sincerely hope that you will play a role in bringing this important matter to a satisfactory conclusion.
Information packages are being prepared for every member of the committee. Again, I thank you for taking this task on. I would be happy to try to answer any questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, minister. Before we go to questions, I need to say that we agreed to take on the study and that we hoped we could have the services of a designated member of your department to help us as we go along. We found this very useful in other trips. When we were in the Western Arctic, the Fisheries people were very helpful to us. As a matter of fact, I think it is fair to say we probably would not have done the kind of study we did had they not been with us and guided us. We were not always in agreement with one policy or another, but the fact that they were there helped us. I have had the same experience in the Standing Senate Committee on Security and National Defence. We had people seconded from the Department of National Defence to help the committee in its deliberations.
I just wanted to raise that with you.
Ms. Shea: We will provide whatever services we can to ensure that you have the expertise and the knowledge in your committee to ensure you can do an effective job.
The Chair: Thank you. Now we will go to questions.
Senator Patterson: Welcome, minister, and thank you for your remarks. I wonder about the term "automated." Does an automated lightstation always mean that the station has no staff, or do some of the automated lightstations still have some staff?
Ms. Shea: It means they can operate without having staff. These stations have a source of power, such as solar energy. If it is in a remote location or the power goes out, there is no break in service from that lightstation.
Do we have some staffed lightstations that are automated?
George Da Pont, Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Yes, absolutely. In British Columbia, we have 27 staffed lightstations, if memory serves me well. Eight of them are automated. We have 23 staffed lightstations in Newfoundland, and I believe they are all automated.
Senator Patterson: What do the staff do? Why are they required in a so-called automated lightstation?
Ms. Shea: They continue to be there because we made a decision to stop the de-staffing about 10 years ago. They do coastal watch and they report the weather. Sometimes we have a contract with Environment Canada to provide a service. Therefore, some of our lighthouses provide those services on a contract. They are things that could be done elsewhere but we do them because we are there.
Senator Patterson: Thank you. I guess automating a station does not necessarily mean that it is completely without staff, does it?
Ms. Shea: Not currently, no. However, it allows it to be without staff.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
Senator Manning: Thank you, minister, and your colleagues for being here. To reiterate, are there 51 staffed lighthouses in Canada at the present time?
Ms. Shea: Yes.
Senator Manning: Could you give us a break down, again, just for the record? I think it is British Columbia, Newfoundland, and New Brunswick has one.
Ms. Shea: Twenty-three of those are in Newfoundland and all are automated with 56 lightkeepers. There is one in New Brunswick that is on Machias Seal Island, and that is not targeted for de-staffing because there is a sovereignty issue. That one has four lightkeepers. There are 27 in British Columbia. Nine of the 27 lightstations in British Columbia are currently automated and they have 54 lightkeepers.
Senator Manning: Would some lighthouses have two or three lightkeepers?
Ms. Shea: For those lighthouses that are in remote locations, you must have at least two staff on at one time. That is the law. Those are labour laws.
Senator Manning: When the discussion was being held last year on the de-staffing, there were many concerns raised in Newfoundland and Labrador in relation to other activities of the lightkeepers, such as those you just touched on a few moments ago in regards to reporting the weather and coastal watch. On the island of Newfoundland, fisheries are a very important part of our livelihood and certainly the lighthouses play a key role in that industry.
From the department's point of view — and I am sure it has been raised with you before — how do you address those issues when they are raised by community leaders or people who are in the fishing industry and so on? They will be the issues that we will confront as a committee as we go forward with the study. I am just seeking some advice from you or Mr. Da Pont. How do we deal with those issues?
Ms. Shea: Obviously, technology has evolved to the point where the department feels that we can safely de-staff lighthouses. As I have said in my remarks, many countries around the world have de-staffed lighthouses. If you look at our own country, and if I look at my own province, we do not have any staffed lighthouses. New Brunswick does not either, except for that one on Machias Seal Island.
I guess that is what this committee is tasked with: To go and determine if the services provided by these lightkeepers can be provided by other means, or if they are necessary at all.
I have talked with many of the lightkeepers, and they have relayed instances where they have played a role in search and rescue, just because they happened to be there. We do have search and rescue capabilities across the country. I think that is why it is important that your committee listen to all sides of the issue and make recommendations, and that is why we are asking you to do that.
Senator Manning: Looking back at how things were done in the past, could you just go through the process of how a decision is made to de-staff a lighthouse?
Ms. Shea: Since Commissioner Da Pont was here the last time around, maybe I will ask him to answer that.
Mr. Da Pont: Thank you very much, minister.
I have to go back 10 or 15 years since we have not done it in that time frame. The first step is to automate the lightstation, as has already been noted. Once automated, we must make the decision, as the minister indicated, that, for the purposes of marine navigation and safety, the automated station is just as effective and reliable as the staffed one. With respect to the other services that you talked about, the process we followed when we went through de-staffing processes in 1990s was that we sat down with individuals to assess whether the services were actually required. That is, to look at some of the same things we are asking this committee to do. In some cases, the decision was that they were not.
In other cases, the services were required but could be provided by different means. For example, there were many other instances where lightkeepers were providing, say, local weather information that continues to be available even if there are no staffed lightstations.
In the past, recognizing the sensitivities, the issues were looked at the issues one by one. They were tied to the location because not every lightkeeper provides the same services. Some do not provide any additional services. Some provide a different mix.
It was approached case by case, looking at the service, assessing whether it was needed, and looking at the most appropriate delivery mechanism.
I think the only other point I would add is that, from the perspective of the Commissioner of the Coast Guard, most of these additional services are not part of the mandate of the Coast Guard. They are parts of mandates of other government departments or other entities which. This is a factor for me in particular, but is less so from a Government of Canada perspective.
Senator Manning: I have one quick follow-up on that. In regards to de-staffing, do union issues have to be dealt with in different parts of the country?
Ms. Shea: The union was part of the discussion prior to starting this exercise, and the plan for de-staffing was a plan of attrition so no one would lose their job. We ensured that. For those people who were not at retirement age or who were near retirement age, we would ensure that they would have employment somewhere else within the Coast Guard. There was a lot of discussion with the union on this issue.
Senator Manning: One last question for now. In regards to the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, if a lighthouse is de-staffed and automated, is it still possible for a community group to apply for and receive heritage status? Your department will still have a presence there in regards to the automation. I am just wondering from a community point of view how that would work.
Ms. Shea: That is the case. In some cases now we still have a working light but the community operates the actual building.
Senator Manning: Then you would have some kind of agreement with the community group to do that.
Ms. Shea: That is correct.
Senator Manning: However, your department would still be responsible for the automated light?
Ms. Shea: That is right.
The Chair: Once the heritage designation is made, are there any funds that a local community group could access for maintaining or enhancing the lighthouse, to your knowledge, minister? I think in the United States there is an association with a function in that regard, but I wonder if it is the same in Canada. Once a lighthouse had heritage designation, are there funds available to the community?
Ms. Shea: I am not aware of a fund specifically for that, but there are government organizations, government departments, that do fund non-profit organizations for community-based projects, such as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Provincial governments also tend to have funds that would fund non-profit organizations.
Krishna Sahay, Director General, Real Property, Safety and Security, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: I think the minister has provided a fairly complete answer. We do not have specific funds identified. As part of the process of designation, a community group seeking to designate a lighthouse would put together a business case for discussion. That would all happen on a case-by-case basis.
The Chair: Senators, maybe we could ask our researchers to deal with that question and search around various governments and various non-profit organizations to see what funds might be available. Would that be agreeable?
Senator Patterson: Agreed.
Senator Manning: As a point of clarification, when the act was brought before the house, finance was one of the main issues, and that is why they did not decide on having a fund. They were asked to go to other agencies already in place instead of having a designated fund within the department.
The Chair: We have to search for funds, and we will ask our researchers to do that.
Senator Dallaire: At a time when your budgets are being compressed, I am not sure that your colleagues will be happy to take on whatever tasks these lighthouse keepers are doing now and add that to their operating budgets. We will certainly need to communicate with them.
If you de-staff, there is a cost for automating some lighthouses that have not been automated. You have maintenance costs which you are contracting out, I gather, which will now be done by someone other than the people who are there. You will save over 100 PYs; am I correct? Will those person years be given to the Coast Guard to flesh out its establishment or will it be turned into capital money to fix Coast Guard ships or will it be simply a reduction in the size of your department?
Ms. Shea: No, the cost savings from de-staffing completely would be about $8 million a year which would then be targeted to other priorities within the Coast Guard. There would be a one-time investment of $5-$10 million to automate all of our lighthouses.
Senator Dallaire: So it is a one-time expense versus an $8 million yearly savings and you will not use the persons as PYs? You will turn it into other usage of the funds?
Ms. Shea: Yes.
Senator Dallaire: It may be that the departments who have to pick up some of the jobs you will dump on them will want a few of those dollars.
Ms. Shea: In a few of those cases now, they probably compensate us for some of the information we provide to them, but not in very many cases.
Senator Dallaire: That is right.
I will come back to the heritage component of this, if I may. Some departments have many responsibilities on heritage. The Department of National Defence has a section that does heritage work. It has to invest significantly in heritage buildings to maintain them. When it disposes of those buildings, there have been cases where the department has continued to provide maintenance funds for the heritage building as it is handed over, let us say, to Parks Canada. That is, the department continued to provide money for the maintenance of the heritage dimension, even though it is being maintained by local people. There was a federal government position, a semi-ethical one, that we created these things, they have become heritage and we just do not hope that somebody will pick it up the responsibility but that there is a continuum of responsibility.
Has that been anticipated at all by you or do you really see the act dealing with that? I have not read it, I am afraid. Does the act actually take you out of the loop completely with the hope that someone will pick up the bill to maintain them?
Ms. Shea: Someone has to request a designation. That would more than likely be a community group.
Senator Dallaire: You will not do that? These lighthouses that you own are not now identified as heritage buildings?
Ms. Shea: Not to my knowledge. I will ask Mr. Sahay to respond to that.
Mr. Sahay: The heritage designation process is outlined in the act, and as such, that is what the process will be. Once the act comes into effect at the end of May, the heritage process will come into effect.
A small percentage of lighthouses are already covered under the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office, but generally speaking the answer is no.
Senator Dallaire: That is rather interesting. I would have thought that would have been a responsibility that we would have imposed upon your department a long time ago. I would have expected that Heritage Canada would have done the evaluation, said they are heritage buildings and you would have had a responsibility to maintain them and, as you hand them over, there would be a continuum.
Ms. Shea: Several of them have been under the previous process, yes.
Senator Dallaire: Thank you very much.
Senator Hubley: Thank you, minister, for being here. I will follow along on the same line of questions, and that is the role of lighthouses to tourism, particularly with reference to our experience on P.E.I.
Lighthouses are definitely part of our seascape and landscape and community pride. We are small communities and most of them can identify the lighthouse as part of their community. I think we have seen some successful economic activity surrounding lighthouses, sometimes innovative activity as the lighthouses are turned over. Do you see the lighthouses being used again in any sort of a temporary way, say during the fishing season? Or do you see them as strictly structures and that it will be up to the community to come up with an innovative idea if they hope to keep it through the years ahead?
Ms. Shea: Because of the advance in technology, I would not expect that the structures themselves would be needed. Many times now lights are just on a stick.
Senator Hubley: Yes.
Ms. Shea: They are beautiful structures, but there is the question of what we do with them now. We have to engage the communities. It is my understanding that the list of surplus lighthouses will go out for community consideration in late May or early June. We will have to work with community groups.
I was in the provincial government when we were having discussions with the federal government because under the old process, they are offered to the provincial government first. The provincial government had to decide whether it wanted to take them. There was hesitation on our part as a provincial government to take many lighthouses because it is a big responsibility.
Senator Hubley: I hope through our study that we will be able to identify some of those successful economic projects that do surround lighthouses. Thank you.
The Chair: Just to be clear, the lighthouses are not like other federal assets? There is no feeding chain, as it were? For example, you go to the province first, then municipality and so on and so on? That does not happen?
Ms. Shea: There was in the old process and I do not know if there still is in the new process. That would be part of the new act.
Mr. Sahay: Without designation, the Treasury Board's policy on disposal of federal assets applies, which is the process that you just described. This new process is a heritage designation process. The other one was a process just for —
The Chair: And it does not apply anymore?
Mr. Sahay: It can apply if it is not designated heritage and a person or a provincial or municipal government wants to acquire it.
The Chair: Do you have two possible processes?
Mr. Sahay: There are two distinct processes. One is the property disposal process under Treasury Board policy. The heritage process is different. It is a heritage designation process and it imposes a set of requirements.
The Chair: If it is designated as heritage, the previous policy does not apply; is that right?
Mr. Sahay: To be designated heritage, a community or non-profit group would have had to have asked for the designation.
The Chair: Once that happens, you do not go through the old process of provincial, municipal and so on, do you?
Mr. Sahay: We do not anticipate doing that, simply because the community group would have already undertaken to take it over.
The Chair: I am just trying to be clear on the process.
Senator Dallaire: Because the department has not established them as heritage buildings, they can dispose of them, and if no one picks them up, they will crumble and that will be it. I am a bit surprised that the Coast Guard has not already designated them as heritage, or that Heritage Canada has not come aboard, if I may use a naval term, to designate them heritage so that you have to go through the process of disposing of a heritage building, which may have a legacy cost.
I feel you are getting away with a pretty interesting exercise there, which I am not sure is right, because lighthouses are a significant part of the heritage of our country.
The Chair: I did not want to interrupt the questioning. I want to be clear in my own mind on what happens to a lighthouse. If it is designated heritage, that is fine. If it is not designated heritage, as I understand it, it goes through the old process of disposal.
Mr. Da Pont: With the new Heritage Act, as the minister indicated, by late May or early June the Coast Guard will be required to provide a list of surplus lighthouses. That will be publicly available information. Anyone who wants to petition to have one of those lighthouses designated heritage will have a certain period of time under the act and a certain process to follow under the act. If they follow the process and the lighthouse is designated as heritage, the act applies. If no one petitions and there is no request to make it a heritage lighthouse, then the property disposal process would apply in the future, as Mr. Sahay has outlined.
Senator Watt: I will start with a supplementary question. I thought I understood, but I need further clarification on this matter, too.
Are you asking this committee to undertake the responsibility of determining what falls under what and to recommend which lighthouses are surplus and which are not?
The Chair: We can make recommendations.
Senator Watt: Is that what you are asking us to do?
Ms. Shea: We are asking the committee to determine whether there is a need to continue to have staffed light stations in Newfoundland and British Columbia.
Senator Watt: Did I correctly understand you to say that the decision has already been made in terms of what falls in what category?
Ms. Shea: No. I think we perhaps got off track a little with the tourism value and the Heritage Act. We are not asking you to look at that, because that was looked at a couple of years ago. We are asking you to determine whether it is important for the health and safety of the country to continue to have staffed light stations.
Senator Watt: Are you asking us to look at it on a regional basis rather than at the country as a whole, and to determine in which regions lighthouses are more important, depending on the nature of the region and the activities that take place there as they relate to safety?
Ms. Shea: No. We currently only have staffed light stations in Newfoundland and British Columbia, which is why we are only asking you to look there. The other light stations were part of a de-staffing exercise years ago.
When we wanted to proceed with de-staffing, many people came to us with concerns that if we removed staff from the light stations it would jeopardize public safety. I want to ensure, before we continue with this exercise, that we are not compromising public safety in any way.
Senator Marshall: Thank you, minister. I am wondering about costing. Has there been any analysis with regard to projected savings? There were discussions earlier about $8 million in staff savings and $5-$10 million capital investment savings. Is there something more detailed than that? Does staff savings include staff benefits and overhead costs?
I am trying to understand exactly what volume of savings could be anticipated. If something has been done, would it have been done by lighthouse or by region? How much detail is available?
Ms. Shea: Are you asking whether a study has been done on what the savings would be?
Senator Marshall: Yes.
Ms. Shea: That would have been done by Coast Guard.
Mr. Da Pont: Yes, we did a fairly exhaustive study to get the most accurate handle we could on it. It would be one of the documents we provide to this committee.
Senator Marshall: When was that analysis carried out?
Mr. Da Pont: We carried it out in the course of 2009. The report was finalized late in 2009, so it is quite current.
Senator Marshall: Is it by lighthouse or by region?
Mr. Da Pont: It focused just on the staffed lighthouses, so just on Newfoundland and British Columbia.
Senator Marshall: It compares the cost of operating the staffed lighthouses versus the cost of maintaining and putting in place the automated lighthouses?
Mr. Da Pont: Yes. It tries to lay out what the savings would be if those lighthouses were de-staffed. It did not get into a lot of detail about what it would cost us to automate the remaining ones.
Senator Marshall: Do you have any preliminary information you can give us now? Is there a net savings figure you can give to us now?
Mr. Da Pont: Yes. As the minister indicated, we feel that once all light stations are de-staffed, with the exception, obviously, of Machias Seal Island, we would have direct savings of about $8 million and indirect savings of $3-$3.5 million. We would also avoid some major capital investment costs that we would incur if the lighthouse remained staffed.
Senator Marshall: Would that information be available to the committee?
Mr. Da Pont: Yes.
Senator Marshall: That would be very helpful.
Mr. Da Pont: It is in a fair bit of detail.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much.
Senator MacDonald: I will direct my first question to Mr. Da Pont because he should have the answers at his fingertips. When it comes to surplus designation, what criteria do you use to determine what lighthouses are being designated as surplus?
Mr. Da Pont: I would draw a distinction between the lighthouse structure and the light itself. In almost all cases we could do without owning or maintaining the actual structure. What we need to continue in almost all cases is the actual operation of the light.
As the minister indicated, we already have a number of examples where over the years the lighthouse structure was transferred to community groups and other organizations and we simply entered into arrangements to continue to have access to and maintain the light. Almost all of the structures we would ultimately declare surplus.
Senator MacDonald: When you say surplus, I am not thinking so much of the structure but about having a light on a specific point of land. If you were determining that a lighthouse was determined to be surplus, I assume that means you would take the lighthouse down and remove the light?
Mr. Da Pont: No, that is the distinction I was drawing. With the light itself, it is based on criteria in terms of the need for safety in navigation.
Senator MacDonald: I do not know how many lighthouses are in the country. That number is in the notes. Are there a number of lights that in your estimation no longer have to exist at all?
Mr. Da Pont: No, in the vast majority of cases, even if we declared the lighthouse structure surplus, we would want to maintain a light. As the minister has indicated, though, with technology and the way things have changed, we now have options for the light that were not there 20 or 30 years ago. We could simply build, in essence, a very cheap tower, put the light on it and have exactly the same service in terms of the light. Obviously it is not as physically attractive. The way technology has moved, if you look at it from just a purely operational and cost perspective, for the Coast Guard, that would be the cheapest and most efficient way to maintain the required service. Then we would no longer have to invest in the rest of the lighthouse infrastructure which, because of how technology has changed, is no longer essential to provide the service.
Senator MacDonald: I will reflect for a second on my own experience. You mentioned that the first lighthouse in the country was at Louisbourg. That is my hometown and the current version of that lighthouse, the fourth one, is there now. It was built in 1922-23. It had a magnificent lighthouse keeper's house and the foghorn there was the loudest foghorn in the world. It was a steam foghorn and is now in the Canadian Museum of Science and Technology in Ottawa.
I should put this on the record: When the Government of Canada expropriated all the land to rebuild the Fortress of Louisbourg, the lighthouse area of the harbour, which is on the other side of the harbour away from the fortress, was expropriated as well. The first thing the government did was go in and tear down the lighthouse keeper's house and move them 300 yards away and put temporary homes up for them. From that point onward people were upset with the way the government handled the lighthouse facility there.
We have seen the foghorn taken away. There is a whistle there now that cannot be heard when the wind is blowing the wrong way, and the light is a much dimmer version of the light that used to be there. There are constant complaints from mariners and locals in the area who remember what used to be there.
In terms of solar powered lights, and in terms of lights around the country, have most of them been converted to solar power? Are there some still driven by electricity or oil?
Mr. Da Pont: Where we have light stations in areas where they can connect easily into the power grid, they are run by electricity. Where we have remote sites, I would have to ask some of the technical people to come back next week to give the specific details. Many of them have been converted to solar, but there is also a backup diesel system.
Statistically, on the reliability of the light, we can document pretty well there is no difference between a staffed light station and an automated light station in terms of the reliability of the light.
Senator MacDonald: Over the years when these conversions have gone on, have you received many complaints like the one I just mentioned in regards to the power of the lights?
Mr. Da Pont: I am aware of a few and my understanding is when that happens we sit down with the local community and try to work out an arrangement that is satisfactory to them. At the same time I have also received complaints that the foghorns are too loud. We get complaints on both sides of the equation on some of those issues.
Senator MacDonald: I know this is not great for tourism, but Louisbourg is one the foggiest places in North America and it is a place that requires a very strong light. One of the concerns I have heard many times is the reduced power of that light. These are scientific things; I am not a scientific expert, but I am curious. What criteria are used to determine what strength of light should be there? Are there different strengths for different areas of the country?
Mr. Da Pont: Not that I am aware of, but I think, senator, I will come back next week better armed to answer that particular question.
The other point I would make is that, today lights are part of a navigation system that also includes global positioning, real time radio communications, electronic charts, a variety of mechanisms that were not there 30 or 40 years ago. When we look at things, it is the combination of ensuring the safety to the mariner and how the system as a whole works, of which the light is still an important part but not the only part.
Senator MacDonald: But if everything is lost there is still the light.
Mr. Da Pont: Exactly.
Senator MacDonald: I have many more questions but I will wait until next week.
The Chair: I was going to ask how the foghorn was determined to be the loudest in Canada but I am not going to ask that question.
Senator MacDonald: I have actually read that on the description of it in the Canadian Museum of Science and Technology. I can assure you, when I was a kid growing up, you would go to sleep with that foghorn because when it blasted you could hear it bounce off Rochefort Point, then off Black Point, then off White Point and all the way down to Gabarus Head about five miles away. It is a loud foghorn, no question.
Senator Raine: I want to switch coasts for a minute now and I would ask about two things. I believe one of the reasons people in British Columbia fought hard to keep their lighthouses manned is that there is a lot of recreational and fishing traffic along the coast. At least 10 years ago, when they were doing it, not everyone had GPS and all the modern technology.
Are pleasure craft and fishing boats equipped with adequate electronic technology to not require the lighthouses?
Ms. Shea: It is not a matter of not requiring the lighthouses because they are required.
Senator Raine: Will you still have the lights on?
Ms. Shea: We are still going to have the lights. We are not talking about taking away the lights, but simply the staff. The lights will continue to be there.
Senator Raine: What about the other services that are being provided?
Ms. Shea: They vary at different lighthouses.
Senator Raine: In regard to larger boats, are all foreign vessels coming into Juan de Fuca Strait required to have the same level of equipment standards as North American vessels?
Mr. Da Pont: Yes; almost all of the regulations and standards are the same worldwide. They are set under the International Marine Organization so there is a base standard that all vessels have to meet to get the appropriate certifications.
Senator Raine: Will all the lighthouses that manned at present, continue to be lighthouses? That is, they just will not be manned?
Ms. Shea: That is correct.
Senator Poirier: Thank you, minister, for the presentation. I have a couple of questions. Many have been touched upon, but I want more clarification. You mentioned that a community not-for-profit organization or a municipality could apply to have access to the infrastructure of the lighthouse. Do they have to pay for it or is it a transfer?
Ms. Shea: You mean as far as transferring the infrastructure to them?
Senator Poirier: Yes.
Ms. Shea: Under the new act, the not-for-profit organization would present a business case and each case would be looked at on a case-by-case basis when it comes to divesting the lighthouse to a community group.
Senator Poirier: There is a money transaction?
Ms. Shea: Not necessarily.
Senator Poirier: In some cases, it could be donated, then.
If the community or someone in the community makes that application and they do get access to it, and if you maintain having automated light within that infrastructure; is there an agreement that you look after the maintenance of your own light? Is there a rental fee? How is that worked out?
Ms. Shea: I would expect that is part of the case-by-case negotiations between our department and the community group.
Senator Poirier: In the ones that you have already automated, do you have a percentage or a number of how many of them have been destroyed over the years and how many have been taken over by a community as a heritage infrastructure?
Mr. Da Pont: I do not have the number of how many have been transferred to other entities. I think we can easily get those numbers for next week. Many of those that have not been transferred have been destroyed, but I would have to look at that more precisely.
Senator Poirier: Finally, maybe I misunderstood something along the way, but I understood you to say that you thought that by de-staffing there would be a saving of roughly $8 million. At the same time, I also understood from you that there had been some ongoing negotiations with the unions so that these people would not be losing their employment or jobs. I am having a hard time understanding where you will find the savings. If you are de-staffing the building but at the same time keeping the employees to do something else, where are the savings?
Ms. Shea: The employees would be put into existing positions with the Coast Guard that are currently vacant. That is where you would get the savings. There would also be indirect savings, saving the cost of having to take staff out to a remote lighthouse. That involves helicopter time or ship time, which is about $3 million in the run of a year or more than that.
Senator Poirier: The ones that were de-staffed years ago seem to be providing the same level of service as the ones that are staffed. At the end of the day, this is a cost savings. That is the reason we are doing this. Is that the main reason?
Ms. Shea: Yes. There are other priorities within Coast Guard, and just because we did something 50 years ago does not mean that we still must continue to do it. We are asking the committee to determine whether or not we are compromising any type of safety by going ahead and de-staffing the rest of the lighthouses in the country. The argument has been made, for example, in British Columbia, by several people that "We have a rocky, dangerous coastline and we should have a staffed lighthouse." Is that necessary? That is what we are asking this committee to determine.
Senator Poirier: The money would stay within the department for other needs, then?
Ms. Shea: Yes.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Minister, to clarify, there are 51 staffed lighthouses now. You have said two or three times that if these are de-staffed, employees would be transferred into other jobs that are available. How many positions are you now keeping open for the possibility of these 51? What are the consequences of having these jobs unfilled at moment?
Ms. Shea: We are not actually doing that. A number of staff are getting near retirement age. A lot of these lighthouse positions would be gone through attrition.
Senator Nancy Ruth: If there is some overlap, you would simply carry those who are de-staffed until there is a vacancy that they would be qualified to fill?
Ms. Shea: Yes. In our discussions with the union, we ensured that no one would be out of a job.
The Chair: Is it not true that the Coast Guard needs to recruit and needs to fill positions now? As I recall that was one thing that we found, namely, that there was a need for replenishing the Coast Guard.
Mr. Da Pont: Yes, senator; that is exactly it. We have done a fair bit of examination of our demographic profile. We anticipate replacing 20-25 per cent of our existing workforce over the next five to seven years, given the age group that the bulk of our people are in. That is why we felt that over a few years we would not have any difficulty finding alternate jobs for lightkeepers, given our need to replace so many people.
Senator Nancy Ruth: In the hiring of this 25 per cent, and so on, is there a gender equity component to your hiring?
Mr. Da Pont: We are trying hard to do that. That is something that we have put a great deal of effort into in last few years. About four or five years ago, the Coast Guard had a large gap in terms of its representation of women. We have come close to closing that gap and to being at what is deemed to be the labour market availability.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I am glad to hear that because in towns like Bamfield, British Columbia, the Coast Guard is one of the few sources of jobs for men and women.
Senator Patterson: Maybe I can turn to the other coast, the longest coast. I will ask a question to which I know the answer. Are there light stations in Canada's North? I am including Ungava and Nunavik. If not, what navigation aids are there for the northern coast?
Mr. Da Pont: If you know for sure whether we have any light stations or not in the northern coast, you are a little ahead of me. I know we have one in Labrador, but beyond that I am not 100 per cent sure.
The main aids to navigation that we do there is seasonal. Every year, we have at least seven Coast Guard vessels that go to the Arctic. Part of their Arctic program is to lay down buoys and navigation aids. We also have marine communications and traffic control centres in Iqaluit and Inuvik. That is the essential core of our navigation support.
Senator Patterson: I understand that the department believes that automated light stations are reliable in terms of providing weather information. Would you be able to give us some information, as we undertake this study, on that issue of reliability? For example, how often are the services are out in the de-staffed light stations? Would we get all that data?
Mr. Da Pont: We have tracked that closely with one little difference for clarification to the point that you have made. Between automated stations and staffed stations, we have tracked the reliability of the lights and the foghorns — that is, the essential aspects for marine navigation. We have tracked those carefully and we will provide the committee with the statistical data around that.
However, we have not tracked the other services, and I think part of your comment referred to other services. That we have not tracked.
The Chair: Minister, could you stay on for a little while longer? We have just a couple more questions.
Ms. Shea: Sure.
Senator Dallaire: The committee, if it visits some of these places, could meet some angry people who do not necessarily have the same philosophy with regard to technology replacing them as individuals, including all the other things they do, which we will discover. We need to arm ourselves a bit on that.
Is de-staffing the remaining lighthouses now part of the periodic review that identifies the bottom 5 per cent that is not absolutely essential, and that you can actually hive off or replace? With that, you have given us the O & M savings. You have given us the one-time technology acquisition requirement. However, if you kept operating as you do, would you not be in a situation where you would have to invest a significant amount of money in capital construction, houses for lightkeepers, probably re-cementing the lighthouses and so on? Have you got a figure? Is it $40 million that you would have to do in rebuilding them all to keep them the way they are going now or is that too high a figure?
Mr. Da Pont: Thank you for the question. You are absolutely right that if we continue with staffed lighthouses, we will have to make a major capital investment over time.
We have tracked the major capital investment in the last 10 years, and that will be part of the information we give to the committee. That major capital investment has not been high because when the decision was made to keep these 51 light stations staffed, 10 or so years ago, the Coast Guard received one-time funding, if I recall, of around $20 million or $21 million to invest in those stations to bring them up to a better standard. That has helped us very much, obviously, in the past 10 years, so our major capital costs have been relatively low. However, if we do keep them, you are absolutely right; over time, we will have to begin investing much more significantly in major capital.
I do not think we have what I would term a reliable estimate that I could give you, because to do so would require actually visiting each of the sites and making an assessment of the condition and trying to project when the investment might be required in the future. I am not aware of a reliable ballpark that I could give you, but I could say that it will be significant over time.
Senator Dallaire: Doing it now is because of the periodic review or the budget realignment. Does it make sense to do it now rather than delay it a couple of years?
Ms. Shea: In the last 10 years there has been an advance in technology.
Senator Dallaire: That is taken for granted.
Ms. Shea: The responsible thing for governments to do is to ensure that the taxpayers get the maximum value for their tax dollar. The department feels that this is a service where tax dollars could be better spent. That is what we are trying to determine.
Senator Dallaire: Those are our marching orders, then, to do that.
If a light goes down, do you have a central system that automatically tells you that a light has gone down, even with the redundancy capabilities that you have?
Mr. Da Pont: The mariners alert us very quickly when the light goes out. That is, I think, the most effective system. We service the lights, both the staffed and the automated, so when they go out, we are set up to get people out there as quickly as possible to get it fixed.
Senator Dallaire: However, locals will tell you; you do not have a central system?
Mr. Da Pont: We find that it works very effectively relying on the local people.
The Chair: I have a supplementary question. Is there any contribution to the Coast Guard budget from the Department of Transport? You, in effect, are a separate operating agency under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and therefore you go through the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for your budget and so on, but you do work for the Department of Transport. Your work in the Arctic that Senator Patterson asked about is on behalf of the Department of Transport. Do they contribute to you at all?
Mr. Da Pont: Not that I am aware of, senator.
The Chair: Should they?
Mr. Da Pont: I think that is a different question.
The Chair: Yes, I know.
Mr. Da Pont: We provide services to a number of other government departments.
The Chair: I am just trying to help out the minister; that is all.
Ms. Shea: If you guys want to tackle that question, that is fine.
Mr. Da Pont: We provide services to other government departments, but we also receive some service.
The Chair: That is something for us to keep in mind as we go through the study, that Coast Guard, although it is under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, does work for other departments. For example, the CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent, which is doing work with the USCGC Healy off the West Coast, is funded from a completely different arm of government. The ships of the Coast Guard and the Coast Guard itself are receiving funding from a number of different federal sources. One of the interesting things that we will encounter as we go through is how the budget is looked after, because you will probably get a hit one way or the other.
Senator Dallaire: We will have to be clear on who will pick up the costs and how that will be negotiated on projects that they are interesting in divesting.
Senator Watt: I will be shifting away from this and dealing more with the North than I have in the past, particularly with respect to the activities that are taking place in the Arctic with regard to the Coast Guard and the rescue services. You are probably aware that those do not really exist in the North, in Nunavut, other than what I believe your colleague has indicated. There are two: one on the Western Arctic side and the one on the Baffin side.
As you know, the risks taken by the people who live in the North are taking place practically every day when it comes to hunting and fishing activities. We do not have access to a lighthouse that we know of, as they do down south. Neither do we have any type of infrastructure in place that could answer our needs. The types of boats that are used by the various fishermen and hunters do not have the equipment needed in order to do proper navigation.
For the Inuit, whether on the Labrador side or the Nunavut side, they are all in the same predicament. You have heard the stories of how people have been caught several times this year. This is only the beginning, and there will be more to come. People will be losing their lives. They have already begun to lose their equipment because that they cannot travel on safe ice anymore, the way they used to.
You probably have heard that not too long ago there was a story about a 17-year-old boy separated from his father while he was out hunting. It took three days for National Defence to get there to rescue that person. Where did they get the equipment to find that youngster? Quite a long distance away, I believe from the south, and then they had to go north. There is a huge amount of capitalization required in the North in terms of infrastructure needed.
Minister, while you are still the minister, will you give us some kind of marching orders to undertake to expedite that aspect of it, which is heavily needed today? Let me just start off with that to get your reaction on that.
Ms. Shea: Are you talking about the need to increase search and rescue capabilities in the North?
Senator Watt: Exactly, and also to be stationed not in Winnipeg, not in the South, but to be there. You have to realize also there is a physical side to it. You cannot operate everything under the premises of the Crown station connected to satellite. There must be some physical aspects of it that have to be taken into consideration. I believe this is what you will lack if you remove those lighthouses that have manpower attached to them. If you remove the manpower and replace it with modern technology, you can only go so far. There is a physical side that has to be well thought of to ensure that we are not taking away something that people have already been enjoying over the years.
Ms. Shea: I will agree with you that as more activity takes place in the North, as there are emerging fisheries, there will probably be more need for search and rescue capability. When our new icebreaker is delivered in 2017, we will have the capability to stay in the North for nine months as opposed to the six months now, so that will add to increased capability. The North is changing, I agree with you.
Senator Watt: On top of that, we will have to find some sort of navigational equipment and the infrastructure that does not exist up there today.
Let me just give you my personal experience in terms of travelling at night on the sea by boat, and the boat might not have the necessary type of navigational equipment to take you from A to B. It is not that easy to try and figure out in the dark how far away you are from the shore when you are traveling at night. That is a pretty hard thing to do. If there are certain light spots that you could see along the coast, for example, that could be very helpful for the people that do not have the necessary equipment, the technology like GPS, for example. They do not have that. Many of them, even if they do have it, do not know how to operate it. So there is a safety concern that we must put some thought into, especially when we begin to start looking at the long term rather than just the short term.
I see what you are doing here is probably restructuring it differently from what it was before, and hopefully that will cost less, but it might not work out that way. I guess the committee is prepared to undertake to examine that to see if it is possible. I guess that is what you want us to do.
Ms. Shea: That is correct, to ensure that we are getting the best bang for the taxpayers' buck in providing safety to mariners. That is our main concern.
Senator Watt: When we talk about the Arctic, I always assume that everyone understands that it includes northern Labrador and Nunavik. Those two sometimes have a tendency to be forgotten or left out. They are a part of the Arctic: they may not be called part of the full fledged Arctic, but they are subarctic.
Senator MacDonald: I am going through appendix 5 here, Aids to Navigation Resource Profile to 2009-10, and a couple of questions spring to mind when I read this.
For the Maritimes, Quebec, and the central and Arctic region, they show about $2.5 million in salaries. If they are unstaffed, what are the salaries for?
Mr. Da Pont: Sorry, I am not sure, senator, what document you are looking at.
We would still, even in automated lighthouses, incur some costs because we still have to do regular inspection and maintenance.
Senator MacDonald: Is that not operation and maintenance?
Mr. Da Pont: That could come out of O & M, but that involves people. Most of our technical people are Coast Guard employees, so we have technical people whose jobs it is to go to all lightstations on a regular basis, the ones that are automated, to ensure things are functioning properly. There are periodic checks and, obviously, maintenance.
Senator MacDonald: There is obviously maintenance. So the salaries that are outlined there or tallied there, are those people who are already under a contract?
Mr. Da Pont: Yes, but this is for the entire aids-to-navigation system. It is not just the lighthouses, so it covers the whole range of navigation services, not just the lighthouses.
Senator MacDonald: Do you mean like replacing buoys?
Mr. Da Pont: That is right. It includes the cost of buoys. It includes the costs of equipment replacement and maintenance. That table flags that in a couple of regions the costs are much higher because of the staffed lighthouses.
Senator MacDonald: I could not help but notice that the costs in operation and maintenance seem to be a lot larger on the West Coast than the East Coast. What is the reason for that?
Ms. Shea: There are more lighthouses on the West Coast.
Senator MacDonald: There are only four more lighthouses.
Mr. Da Pont: The reason is because on the East Coast, to use the staffed ones as an example, in Newfoundland all of the staffed lighthouses are accessible by road. So, when we do provisioning, when lightkeepers change and so forth, you can drive in and out.
On the West Coast, almost all the staffed lighthouses are in remote areas, so all of the supplying, changing the lightkeepers after their stint and so forth, is done by helicopter or by ship, which is much more expensive.
Senator MacDonald: I also could not help but notice, looking at this data, that the combined totals for the Maritimes and Quebec are about $3.5 million for salaries, operation and maintenance. It is about $3.6 million for the National Capital Region, $2.4 million in salaries and $1.1 million in operational maintenance for the National Capital Region. What is that for?
Mr. Da Pont: In a number of areas, we have set funds that are held in the National Capital Region and are distributed in the course of the year to the various regions to deal with unanticipated situations.
Senator MacDonald: Is it a little residual fund to use?
Mr. Da Pont: I recognize the table now. It is drawn, I think, from our Coast Guard business plan. In the business plan we also included a table that identified all of the centrally held funds and explained what exactly they were used for.
Senator MacDonald: Is that further broken down?
Mr. Da Pont: Yes, that information is in the Coast Guard business plan.
Senator MacDonald: Is that on an as-needed basis?
Mr. Da Pont: It varies, depending on the actual things we are funding.
Senator MacDonald: Is there a set fund put aside for that every year, or is it as-needed?
Mr. Da Pont: We have a number of them, and some are set funds and some do vary, depending on funding availability.
The Chair: Senators, the minister has stayed past her time, and we appreciate that. We will have another session on this, and Mr. Da Pont will be back again next week.
I have two others on the list of questions, but we do have a little other business to conduct after the minister goes. I would ask if you could keep your questions brief and we will get into more detail.
Senator Manning: There is a question with respect to the lighthouses that are still in place, like Cape St. Mary's lighthouse in Newfoundland, that is very close to my home. For many years there were families there. Over the past decade or so that has not been the case. Are there lighthouses in Canada where a family unit is at the lighthouse now, so it would not just be de-staffing an individual, you would have to move a family to some other site?
Second, could you tell us how many people are in Ottawa today who are responsible for lighthouses in Canada? How many people are employed in Ottawa who would have lighthouses as their sole work?
Ms. Shea: I am not sure if families actually stay there, but some of them have living quarters. You fly people in and they stay. The lighthouses are staffed 24/7.
Senator Manning: I am talking about the permanent residents, not the ones that could change over.
Ms. Shea: I think there may be one family in British Columbia, if I recall correctly, which actually lived there.
Mr. Da Pont: I believe there are two or three of those that I am aware of. There are very few.
As to people in Ottawa whose sole job is to work on the lighthouses in the Coast Guard, I am not aware if there is anyone in Ottawa whose sole job is to do that, but I will verify that for next week.
Senator Manning: Thank you.
Senator Raine: I am not familiar yet with the heritage lighthouse act, but you did say that there would be non-profit societies that would be able to come forward. Would consideration be given to a for-profit if there were no non-profits?
Ms. Shea: Yes. I was just responding to the question about any sources of funding to assist with this, but generally governments deal with non-profits. Certainly a for-profit would be considered. They are considered according to their business plan and on a case-by-case basis.
The Chair: Thank you, minister, and to your officials for being with us. I am sure we will talk again. We look forward to working with your department and hopefully we can shed some light on what is, for all of us, an important issue. Thank you very much for coming.
Ms. Shea: Thank you very much to all of you. The Coast Guard does some very important work across the country. I know that you all support that. One interesting statistic is that on any given day the Coast Guard saves eight lives in Canada. I feel it is very important that we get the resources to where the priorities are in the department and, if this is one of the priorities, I thank you very much ahead of time for helping us to determine that.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senators, we have a quick item of business before we adjourn. At our last meeting it was proposed that the report we did on the Western Arctic be tabled in the Senate in this current session to request a government response. You have had copies of the report distributed. As we discussed earlier, changes have been made, particularly to the membership list, because not all the new members were on the previous study.
I need a motion to table the report in the Senate and to request a government response. Moved by Senator Hubley, seconded by Senator Patterson. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. This meeting is now adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)