Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 2 - Evidence - April 20, 2010
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 20, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 5:40 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: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I am Senator Bill Rompkey and this is the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, which hopefully you will be watching on CPAC at some future date, we hope not at two o'clock in the morning.
I would like to read into the record our terms of reference for our study on lighthouses:
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans will conduct an examination of Canada's lighthouses by engaging lightkeepers and stakeholders, including the recreational boating community, commercial shippers and fishers (and their associations), business and community interests, and Canadian citizens at large.
In particular, the proposed review will include, but will not necessarily be limited to, the following:
a) the role of Canadian lighthouses in the provision of safe and efficient marine transportation;
b) the Canadian Coast Guard's most recent plan to automate Canada's remaining staffed light stations in British Columbia and Newfoundland and Labrador;
c) the current role of Canada's lightkeepers, including the duties they have taken on, both formally or informally, in addition to their regular function;
d) the impact of electronic aids to navigation on the role of lightkeepers, including those persons stationed at fully automated sites;
e) the level of service and reliability of automated aids to navigation compared with traditional aids to navigation (e.g., staffed light stations);
f) the transfer of lighthouses that have local interest to community groups and non-profit organizations, pursuant to the Treasury Board Policy on the Disposal of Surplus Real Property;
g) the preservation of heritage lighthouses under the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, which comes into force on 29 May 2010; and
h) the role of lighthouses in tourism, other economic activities and community life in general.
When our study is completed, the committee will propose a course of action to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Last week, senators, we heard from the minister and her officials. We are pleased to have the officials back again today. I would like to welcome George Da Pont, Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard. I would ask him to introduce the people accompanying him, after which I understand he has a presentation.
George Da Pont, Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. On my right is Ray Browne, Regional Director of Maritime Services for Newfoundland and Labrador. Among his responsibilities are lighthouses. On my left is Susan Steele, Regional Director of Maritime Services for the Pacific region. We also have at the table Krishna Sahay, Director General for Real Property, Safety and Security.
[Translation]
We also have Mr. Daniel Breton — he is Director, Navigation Systems here in Ottawa — and Mr. André Châteauvert, Manager, Waterways Management in Ottawa.
[English]
We also have Andrew Anderson, Senior Divestiture Analyst. They are technical specialists whom we may call upon depending on what questions the committee may have.
Mr. Chair, in lieu of opening comments, I would like to go through a brief presentation that gives you a general overview of the Aids to Navigation system — or AtoN — how lighthouses fit into that system and then get into more specific information about staffed lighthouses.
The Chair: Please proceed.
Mr. Da Pont: Thank you very much. Before getting into the details of the presentation, I would like to inform the committee that Ms. Susan Steele has been assigned as the Canadian Coast Guard lead to support the work of the committee. She has in-depth knowledge of the file and will be your primary point of contact, as you have requested, to access whatever support you want from the Canadian Coast Guard for your work.
The Chair: Welcome to the committee.
Mr. Da Pont: Let me start then with the actual presentation. We have distributed copies of it. I will start with slide 2. I thought it would be appropriate to begin with a general overview of the mandate of the Canadian Coast Guard, CCG, for its Aids to Navigation system. Obviously, it is to ensure that Canada's waterways are safe and accessible and that we facilitate the provision of effective vessel traffic.
The Aids to Navigation system is composed of two broad elements. One is long-range aids. They are mostly electronic aids, such as the Differential Global Positioning System, DGPS; these electronic aids assist mariners to identify their location, course and speed. In many ways, it is similar to having a Global Positioning System, GPS, in your car, if I could make that analogy.
The second key aspect of the Aids to Navigation system is the short-range aids. They consist of fixed aids, for example, lighthouses, and they also consist of floating aids, primarily buoys. They provide mariners with visual, aural and radar identification of danger zones, locations and recommended routes.
The next slide shows you a big overview of the system. The red dots represent the positions of varying types of aids.
We have, for the long-range aids, the electronic ones, 19 DPGS stations. We also have five LORAN-C stations that are in the process of being phased out. That is an old technology that is part of a continental system. Both Canada and the U.S. are phasing it out; it should be out of commission by this fall.
For the short-range aids, we have over 11,200 floating aids of which about 600 are large buoys. We have about 6,100 fixed aids, and about 500 of them would be considered major lights. That would include the 264 formally staffed light stations. As we mentioned several times, of the lighthouses, 51 are staffed. We will have maps on their locations in a moment.
On slide 4, we thought we would give you a representation of the various types of fixed aids. I appreciate that the pictures are a bit small, but you can see a lighthouse on your left. That particular lighthouse is Belle Isle South End, in Newfoundland. It was established in 1858. It is a fully automated and unstaffed lighthouse.
A couple of key features might interest you about this lighthouse. It is one of the light stations that we must service by helicopter. On the far right of the picture, you can see the helicopter pad, which is small. The lighthouse also has solar panels. They are the things that you see on the ground, on the left of the picture. It is fairly representative of the major lighthouse structures. The tower in the next picture is a sector light. We have about 63 of them. Essentially, the lights provide directional information to help mariners stay on the centre of the channel and go through the right routes. The beam has three colours: If the colour you see is white, you know you are in the centre; if it is red, you know you are on the right; and if it is green, you know you are on the left. Your objective is to stay in the white light.
We have a great number of shore lights, which are shown in the next picture that you see. They are similar to lighthouses in many ways but generally have a smaller light, less distance and are often used to mark confined waterways, specific danger zones and approaches to ports.
On the upper right-hand corner of the slide, we have ranges. Generally, we have two of them. They work in tandem and are aligned. They help to provide a leading line for mariners, again, to assist them to navigate the centre of a channel. Finally, below that, we have a day beacon — and, again, we have many of these — which is a minor aid. It does not have lights and indicates the side of a channel.
My objective and the main message that I wanted to leave with the committee is that lighthouses, whether staffed or automated, are one part of a large system that has many components.
When we were here last week, we had a question or two about how we go about deciding what goes where and how strong the light is in any particular location. We tried to lay out some of the general criteria. We do have a specific design methodology that we follow. When we are setting up aids to navigation, we do it in consultation with the local mariners. We consider issues such as visibility, reliability, the actual location and audibility, if there is an aural aid, such as a fog horn. We base it on risk, and also on an economic assessment to try to ensure we are putting in the most cost-effective aid for that particular location or situation. We review them periodically with the users.
The last key point that I want to emphasize is that the Aids to Navigation system is there to assist navigation. It is not intended to replace prudent navigation practices or on-board navigation equipment. I think that is an important component.
In terms of the selection of the light — and, if the committee is interested, we can get into more detail — how we decide on the specific light and how strong it is, it is dependent upon the distance required from the perspective of the users; the atmospheric conditions, namely, how often it is foggy, snowy, rainy, and so on; and, if relevant, whether any background conditions must be taken into consideration, for example, other lights nearby that could cause confusion; and how easily it can be recognized by the human eye, whether it is coloured versus white or so forth.
As you probably would expect, we have a wide range of mariners who use the aid system that have different capacities. I will not get into much detail on this slide; we can come back to it if you are interested. Essentially, we provide services to certified commercial vessels that have precise requirements under the Canada Shipping Act on what type of navigation equipment they must have on board. Usually they have fairly sophisticated equipment. We also have uncertified commercial vessels. Good examples of that would be fishing vessels or tugs that also have certain requirements under the Canada Shipping Act but somewhat less strenuous than commercial vessels.
Finally, we have pleasure craft that have modest requirements but a broader range of recommended safety practices. Depending on the individual owner, there is a fair bit of range in how recreational boaters equip themselves.
One of our key considerations in looking at placing aids to navigation is the requirements. We look at them from the perspective of the lowest common denominator or the least-equipped user. We must take that into consideration as we determine what goes where, and so on.
Slide 7 begins to get more precisely into lighthouses. I tried to situate where they fit into the broader system. As we mentioned last week, from our perspective concerning the lighthouses that we have, we draw a distinction between the navigational light, the structure that supports that light and whether or not there is a lightkeeper.
In almost all cases, unless there is no longer a need by users, we want to maintain the navigation light. Doing so does not mean that we always have to keep the supporting structure — that is, the tower and any other buildings that may be around it. We have a number of cases where we have transferred the structure to another entity, usually a community group that wants to use it for other purposes. However, as part of that arrangement, we maintain the light and continue to be responsible for the light. We have worked out particular arrangements.
As the minister emphasized last week, in our history, in our culture, for centuries the lightkeeper played a critical role in the whole process. With today's technology and the way the Aids to Navigation system has changed, particularly with many of the electronic aids that are available, that role is no longer required and no longer required for maintaining the lights.
The rest of the information on the slide we already provided verbally, but I thought it would be helpful to give you a record that we did have 264 staffed lighthouses; we now have 51 that are staffed. Light stations may or may not have other equipment in addition to the light. A number of them have fog horns and some have other types of aids to navigation equipment.
Of the remaining lighthouses, all but 18 are automated, and, of the staffed ones, 29 are in remote locations, which means that we cannot service them because they have no road access. To provide services and maintenance to these lighthouses and lights, it must be done by helicopter or vessel, which is a more expensive proposition. The site that I showed earlier in the presentation is one example where there is a helicopter pad to land the technicians as required.
Slide 8 refers to the automated lighthouses. I believe the question arose last week on this. Where we are able to connect them to the power grid, we do so so that the light operates on an electrical system. We have many instances where we provide solar panels as the main power source. Where we think there is a need and any risk of need, we have diesel generators in place as backup power. Automated lighthouses still require some periodic human intervention.
If a light goes out, we are notified almost immediately by the mariners. We have not had to create any other system that would be any faster. We immediately send technicians to work on the light to get it operating again. We also do regular general maintenance and servicing as a matter of course. That is the case for staffed light stations as well. When the light goes out in a staffed light station, it is most often looked after by other technical staff people from CCG, not by the lightkeeper.
Slide 9 and slide 10 provide the committee with a visual view of the lighthouses on the West Coast and in Newfoundland and Labrador. Beginning with slide 9 on British Columbia, the green indicates 14 automated light stations that are not staffed. The blue indicates nine automated light stations that are staffed. The white indicates 18 non- automated light stations that clearly have to be staffed. That gives the committee the general mix and the precise location and name of those light stations. We have the same representation on slide 10 for Newfoundland and Labrador. The only difference is that all of the light stations in Newfoundland and Labrador are automated.
Slide 11 speaks to the issue of the reliability of the lights. Reliability is measured in terms of the time that the light is not functioning. Our target is that the light should be reliable 99 per cent of the time. In practice, this means that the light should operate 362 days per year or more. As you can see, there is very little margin where we would find it acceptable for a light not to operate. The standard of 99 per cent is international. We have been keeping records on the reliability of the lights, and they meet or surpass the 99-per-cent reliability target. We see no difference in meeting that target between staffed light stations and unstaffed light stations. We will provide detailed statistics to the committee for information purposes.
Slide 12 tries to provide a little more information on the cost of staffed lighthouses. Essentially, we have done some fairly detailed work. We believe that we spend about $11.5 million annually to maintain staffed light stations. We would not spend this money if those light stations were not staffed and were all automated.
In terms of the breakdown of expenditures, we have direct costs such as salaries of lightkeepers. The committee asked how many people in Ottawa work full time on lighthouses. I have verified that we have no one working full time on lighthouses. However, we have five people in regional offices, three of whom are in British Columbia and two in Newfoundland and Labrador, who work full time on lighthouses. The rest of the salaries, about 114, are for the lightkeepers. Operations and maintenance costs are not for the lights but for the staff of the lighthouses and include power and training supplies for the lightkeepers. Those are direct costs.
The other figure is what we have assessed as our indirect costs. I mentioned earlier that we have to provide maintenance and support for remote lighthouses that require a helicopter or vessel for access. Because the lighthouses are staffed, some provisions in the Canada Labour Code apply, so we have to maintain them to a higher level than would otherwise be the case if they were not staffed. The yellow figure shows the attributed costs of these other expenses that flow from the fact that the lighthouse is staffed and occupied. Again, we will share with the committee all of the detailed study to facilitate its review.
Last week, the question was also asked about these figures not including major capital costs. I mentioned that one reason is that in the past 10 years, we have not spent much money on major capital expenditures to maintain these lighthouses. When we were asked to keep them staffed about 12 years ago or so, we were given a one-time fund of $20 million that was spent at the time to improve their condition and bring them to a suitable standard. That has meant very little major capital expenditures in the last 10 or 12 years. However, as we look forward over the next 10 years, we anticipate having to make significant expenditures and do a precise study of each of the 51 light stations to know for sure how much each one will cost. We have not done that yet, so I cannot give the committee a ballpark figure. However, I can give examples of where the issue has come up and a study has been done so that we have a good handle on the cost.
The work that we would have to do out of major capital expenditures for Triple Island lighthouse in British Columbia would cost $4 million. We have also looked at three other examples in British Columbia, and in each case, we estimate the cost would be somewhere between $1.3 million and $2 million. For those four alone, we would anticipate in the next few years, if they remain staffed, that we would have to find and spend approximately $10 million in major capital. Those are the only ones that we have any precise figures on at the moment; the others I think we would look at as circumstances warrant.
The final points I would like to make begin on slide 13, and I think this again itemizes some of the information provided by the minister. We gave you a breakdown of the number of lightkeepers in both Newfoundland and British Columbia. We have included four for New Brunswick. We do have a staffed lighthouse on Machias Seal Island, New Brunswick, and we would keep that lighthouse staffed not for navigation reasons but for sovereignty reasons. That would be the one exception to any previous de-staffing proposal.
The current duties of staff at both non-automated and automated light stations involve minor maintenance to the light, general site maintenance such as painting, grounds upkeep and so forth. Whether the lighthouse is automated or not, CCG technical staff do significant maintenance to ensure the light continues to operate.
We have itemized the additional duties that the lightkeepers do. The minister explained them in some detail last week, so I will not repeat them, except to note that those additional duties do vary from site to site. Additionally, most of them are not really in the mandate of the Canadian Coast Guard. I would like to leave those are two key points with the committee.
The final slide basically summarizes some of the key points, and I do not think I have to cover them since I just ran through the presentation.
To end, we do have a fair package of information that we will provide this committee to facilitate your work. I mentioned a couple of pieces in the course of the presentation. That package is now in translation, and we expect it will be available for you either at the end of this week or early next week.
That concludes the presentation. I would be happy to try to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Poirier: Just one question for clarification. On slide 9 and 10, the green is the automated non-staffed light stations, and the blue is the automated staffed light stations. Are the ones in blue still staffed because of the agreement that no one would lose positions until they are phased out, or is there a need for these to be staffed and you plan to continue keeping them staffed?
Mr. Da Pont: In the 1990s, the Coast Guard had as its objective to de-staff all of the lighthouses, and that process was underway. It was completed in many parts of the country. The process had started 20 years before, and the intent in the 1990s was to phase out all of the staffed lighthouses. Two different issues emerged on the East Coast and the West Coast that led to concerns, so the government of the day stopped the de-staffing process.
On the West Coast, concerns emerged in relation to, first, the additional duties that lightkeepers were doing; and second, whether automated light stations were really reliable and whether something unique in the geography of B.C., the rough conditions, warranted keeping some of them staffed. Those were some of the public issues that arose that caused the government of the day to put a pause on it.
Some of the same issues existed in Newfoundland, but quite frankly, our impression was that, in Newfoundland, the loss of jobs was also a significant issue. At that time, the process was halted. The Coast Guard at the time received, as I mentioned, some funding to keep these light stations staffed. Several review processes came out of it, one of which I believe came from this particular committee, if I recall, to look at the situation.
That is somewhat the history. There were different reasons why it was halted, and the idea at the time it was halted was to ensure that the lights were indeed reliable and to give time to look at how to deal with some of the other additional duties that lightkeepers were providing.
Senator Poirier: Have those concerns been allayed; have you been assured the lights are functioning; and is the need still there to have these staffed?
Mr. Da Pont: From my perspective, we have now had a further 10 years of experience where we have tracked reliability, and we see no statistical difference in reliability whether the light is automated or staffed.
On the issues of remoteness and special geographic considerations, the coast of Alaska is not all that different from the coast of British Columbia, and the light stations in Alaska have been de-staffed for well over 20 years. We are not aware of any evidence that having an automated station as opposed to a staffed light station creates more risks for mariners.
From the perspective of the areas that fall under the mandate of the Coast Guard, which is navigation services, I can quite confidently say that we have overwhelming evidence. I go back to a point that the minister made on a number of occasions. We are pretty well the last developed country that still maintains staffed lighthouses. We have many years of experience here in Canada and in almost every developed country that does not indicate that issues of reliability or risks to navigation exist.
The issues of the additional services are not unimportant. These issues came up in other parts of the country as we did the de-staffing, and the approach was to sit down on a case-by-case basis and assess whether those services were still needed, and, if so, were there alternate ways to provide those services. In other parts of the country, we were able to find those solutions. I believe that is one of the areas on which the minister would like the advice of this committee, as well as, as she mentioned, assessing the ongoing need for those services today and whether staffed lightkeepers remain an appropriate delivery mechanism for those services.
Senator Poirier: From my understanding, you feel assured 10 years later that some of these lighthouses or light stations would probably not need to be staffed as they were, and that is one of the reasons you want to move ahead. I know you also mentioned the one in New Brunswick that you felt needed to stay staffed. Are there any others that are listed in B.C. or Newfoundland that you feel should stay staffed for the same reason that Machias Seal Island should?
Mr. Da Pont: No, the New Brunswick light station is the only one I am aware of with sovereignty issues, and having people on the island is of benefit.
The Chair: Could you just elaborate on that? Why is that so?
Mr. Da Pont: Machias Seal Island is a small island with some significant fishing grounds around it. Canada and the United States have some minor unresolved border disputes about who actually owns the island. For Canada to keep lightkeepers on the island is a way to assert our sovereignty.
The Chair: Should we put a lighthouse on Hans Island, too, for example?
Mr. Da Pont: I would leave that for the committee to assess. We might have difficulty attracting lightkeepers.
The Chair: Canada has other places where there are sovereignty issues, and we do not have lighthouses or anything else.
Mr. Da Pont: Yes, although, in fairness, that lighthouse had been long-standing; we have had the lighthouse for many years. It is not something we put in place because of sovereignty. It was a symbol of our long-standing presence on the island.
Senator Poirier: I am from New Brunswick, but I am not familiar with this island. Can you tell me where this island is in New Brunswick?
Mr. Da Pont: It is in Southern New Brunswick. I would have to check, but I believe it is not too far from Grand Manan Island.
Senator Poirier: Is it in the Bay of Fundy area?
Mr. Da Pont: Yes.
Senator Cochrane: I am not aware of the name of the island, but I know that Senator Carney, when she was here, was really concerned that this lighthouse was to be closed down. She is not here to speak for herself today. However, are you aware of that? I am sure you are aware of Senator Carney's concern. Has it been addressed?
Mr. Da Pont: Senator Carney's concern was for the Machias Seal Island, which we agree should remain staffed. With respect to the other lighthouses, we feel that the past 10 years have provided ample demonstration that no real evidence exists for some of those concerns.
Senator Cochrane: However, you still have the lighthouse there.
Mr. Da Pont: Yes.
Senator Cochrane: Is the lighthouse on Machias Seal Island automated?
Mr. Da Pont: No, it is staffed. I believe it is automated, but we are maintaining staff there. We intend to continue that physical presence, but not for reasons in relation to navigation, rather for sovereignty reasons.
Senator Cochrane: Is it the same sovereignty?
Mr. Da Pont: Yes.
The Chair: We will be calling Senator Carney as a witness.
Senator Poy: A few of my questions have already been answered but can you repeat the name of the island in New Brunswick?
Mr. Da Pont: It is Machias Seal Island.
Senator Poy: Can you spell it?
The Chair: It is in the presentation.
Mr. Da Pont: I did well in school in everything, except spelling.
Senator Poy: I know the annual cost would be staffing. That is part of the reason we are doing this study. I do not understand why you already have some that are automated and staffed and some that are just staffed. Why would you need staffing if they are already automated?
Mr. Da Pont: We do not feel we do. However, that was the instruction that was given by the government of the day when they stopped the de-staffing process. In our view, if the light is automated, it is not necessary to have lightkeepers. It was at that point that we also stopped the automation process, which is why 18 are still not automated.
Senator Poy: When you have staff, you stop the automation.
Mr. Da Pont: No. It was done at the time. Since we had to maintain the staff in the 18 light stations that are not automated, we saw no reason to bother to make the investment for automation.
Senator Poy: Are the more remote lighthouses staffed?
Mr. Da Pont: Some are, and some are not.
Senator Poy: How frequently would the service be done, since they are so remote and need to be staffed by helicopters? Is there a certain timetable for those to be serviced?
Mr. Da Pont: Yes. For the remote sites, we would rotate the lightkeepers on a regular basis, which is every 28 days. We would have a regular rotation, and we would have to provide supplies for people. It would happen once a month, essentially.
Senator Poy: You said that there are long-range and short-range lighthouses. How long is "long range"?
Mr. Da Pont: The strongest lights reach about 10 nautical miles, which I think is about 18 or 19 kilometres. If the need is only for more localized waterways, the light would be weaker. However, that is part of what we determine when we assess what type of aid is needed. One of the considerations is how strong the light has to be to do whatever the job requires.
Senator Poy: All the lighthouses have been there for a long time. Have any new ones been added in recent years because of navigation?
Mr. Da Pont: I am not aware that we have built any new lighthouse structures. I would turn to my colleagues to answer that. If we were to do that now, we would put it on a tower instead of a lighthouse.
Ray Browne, Regional Director, Maritime Services — East, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: We have not established a light station in a number of years. The 264 are historical. We have not added any. Having said that, we have added a number of smaller fixed aids, which Mr. Da Pont was talking about, based on the needs of present fisheries and pleasure-craft operators.
Senator Poy: These would be historic monuments to Canada, and they should be preserved, am I correct?
Mr. Da Pont: As a Canadian, I would say, yes. As Commissioner of the Coast Guard, I would say that it should not be CCG that does it because my mandate is to invest in navigation to provide safety and security.
I am happy to say that we now have a Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act that provides a mechanism where those lighthouses that have important historical and heritage considerations can be preserved. That is one of the other secondary reasons why we think de-staffing can and should proceed. I know some people have a concern, in addition to others, that if we de-staff the light stations, we will not put as much maintenance into them, which has longer-term heritage implications.
A vehicle is now in place to deal with that issue if local community groups are interested in taking on and preserving the heritage characteristics. That is a good idea. However, in terms of the Coast Guard's mandate, if I have to spend money on maintaining staffed lighthouses or on heritage considerations, it comes at the cost of the core services that the Coast Guard provides, such as search and rescue, navigation, ice breaking, et cetera.
I think our core funding should be on our mandate.
Senator Poy: Would the ones determined to be heritage lighthouses be under a different department?
Mr. Da Pont: I think so.
Senator Poy: The maintenance, I mean.
Mr. Da Pont: We are at the beginning of the process. Funding for those issues could go a number of ways. The question is whether they stay within the federal government. There are a variety of options. I am not an expert on the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act. I have only passing knowledge of it.
The committee would be well served to call Parks Canada, which has the overall lead. They will be able to explain, with much more precision and confidence, how the system will work.
Senator Nancy Ruth: What is your total budget that you are trying to save $10 million a year for and $10 million to do the upkeep?
Mr. Da Pont: The total budget of the CCG is a little over $700 million annually. Of that, about $150 million is major capital.
Senator Nancy Ruth: We have 51 staffed lighthouses and 114 lightkeepers, which is a little more than 2 to 1. Besides this rotation you just mentioned, what else are those other people used for? There is a policy of two people for one site. Is that for a monthly rotation or something else?
Susan Steele, Regional Director, Maritime Services — West, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: We have two staffing processes for light stations in Canada. The first is the rotational one, which the commissioner described, where we have two individuals on for 28 days, and they are replaced with another two for 28 days. It is 28 days on and 28 off.
The second approach is probably the more traditional lighthouse staffing that you might think of, where individuals will live on the sites all year long. They are released from the site for vacation, medical issues and so forth, but, in essence, they are there for the duration. That is where their employment is.
The issue with the labour code that the commissioner was speaking to requires us to ensure that two people are on site at all times. It is a safety issue, so that if an individual got into trouble — particularly on sites with no road access — they would need assistance or someone to be able to call for assistance. The labour code requires that we do not have individuals working alone at the sites. As a result of that, we have two lightkeepers per site. You are correct in saying that it is a two people for one site. We always have two individuals for every site that we have.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Do they both have to be qualified lightkeepers?
Ms. Steele: That is correct.
Senator Nancy Ruth: It cannot be a spouse, is that correct?
Ms. Steele: Not necessarily. A spouse can be a qualified lightkeeper. We have work descriptions and training requirements for each of the individuals out on a light station.
In some cases in British Columbia, we have spouses, a husband and wife, that would be out on a station, and each of them have qualified separately to be able to do those jobs.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Let me understand the numbers. You have two people on each of those 51 stations except where someone is there year round, or does that include those?
Ms. Steele: We have two positions for every light station and two staffing modes. One of the staffing modes is the 28 days on and 28 days off; the other is the year-round staffing mode.
Senator Nancy Ruth: If you take two lightkeepers off every 28 days, who is coming on? That is four people for one lighthouse.
Ms. Steele: I understand what you are saying. We are talking about positions, not people.
Senator Nancy Ruth: How does it work?
Mr. Da Pont: Perhaps I could add a point that may not clarify but may explain. We do have different staffing postures at different places, which I think Ms. Steele has tried to explain. For example, in Newfoundland, we have eight sites where there is only one lightkeeper. They have road access, and the lightkeeper is not there 24 hours a day.
We have a variety of different arrangements, depending on whether the site has road access or not and whether or not we have an individual there 24 hours a day or only part of the day.
No one common staffing applies to all 51 light stations.
Senator Nancy Ruth: What is the average age of the lightkeepers?
Mr. Da Pont: I do not have that information.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I am asking because if they are de-staffed, and the Coast Guard has an obligation to absorb them through attrition of jobs in your place, what kind of long years are we looking at for expanding Coast Guard employment?
Mr. Da Pont: We have studied that, senator, and we had identified those sites where people were close to retirement. If I recall correctly, there were about eight of them. Those were the ones we would have started with had we followed through on the plan that we had envisioned doing last year.
As part of that process, I made a commitment to find any lightkeeper another job in the Coast Guard. I felt comfortable doing that because, as I mentioned last week, when I look at our demographics over the next five to seven years, we will be replacing 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the people currently working in the Coast Guard. I felt we would have ample opportunity to find alternate employment for people, but obviously not at their current site, which is, for some, an issue.
We felt the demographics, for the lightkeepers, provided some immediate opportunities; but, more importantly, it provided an opportunity for us to assure them that they would have an alternate job with the Coast Guard.
Senator Nancy Ruth: On slide 14, you say that alternate approaches will be necessary to address the additional services that do not fall within the mandate of the Canadian Coast Guard.
What types of discussions have been occurring with the weather people for all the other functions that lightkeepers are now doing? How are you negotiating this? Whose responsibility is it to negotiate those functions?
Mr. Da Pont: This would be something that we are prepared to do, as part of proceeding with de-staffing. Again, it was one of the items that we had put into our plan, that, on a case-by-case basis, we would sit down, look at the additional services and assess what options there might be in discussion with those organizations that had the mandate for that.
Most of these support services were taken on over time by individuals. They were not necessarily services that the Coast Guard encouraged people to do. They came to providing these additional services in a variety of ways. Some were legacies from the past; some were services that people took on because they had the time and were in the area.
Again, there is no consistency. Different lightkeepers provide different services. Some do not provide any. One of the documents that we will provide to the committee is our list of where we are aware of what services lightkeepers are providing in addition to their normal duties.
There is no consistency in it. It varies from site to site.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Does the lightkeeper or the Coast Guard earn money from providing these services?
Mr. Da Pont: I will have my colleagues correct me if I'm wrong, but in a few cases, I believe they receive a small amount of money. I think primarily from Environment Canada, if I am correct.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Is "they" the individual, not the Coast Guard?
Mr. Da Pont: Yes. However, in most cases, we are not aware that they received remuneration for the services.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Are you not interested in selling services to other departments to help float the costs?
Mr. Da Pont: We would encourage the committee to call those departments that have the lead for some of these because, obviously, many of these services are being provided right across the country in areas where there are no staffed lightkeepers. They rely, in those other parts of the country, on different delivery mechanisms to acquire the same information.
They would be best equipped to explain how valuable the service is and what the alternatives might be.
Senator Hubley: Thank you for your presentation, and welcome back. When we were in the North, we found that some of the communities actually maintained equipment for the Coast Guard emergency response, and particularly pertaining to oil spills and such.
During your review of related activities of the lighthouses, did you see any role for those lighthouses in that capacity?
Mr. Da Pont: No, in both regions and across the country, we have environmental response groups. We have pre- positioned equipment and people in the areas where the risk is the greatest.
In the North, we have done that with quite a number of communities; and, in fact, we have expanded that number in the course of this year, primarily because of the remoteness and the length of time it would take us to get to any of those sites. The risk is very much reduced by having equipment pre-positioned and having some people trained to at least deal with some of the more minor problems that may occur around the community, when, for example, people are unloading fuel, et cetera. We have not seen a potential role for lightkeepers in that activity.
Senator Hubley: In a marine disaster in the Maritimes, for example, because that is where I am most familiar, what would be the response time? Do you have information on exactly how long it takes the Coast Guard to respond, and what is the chain of connections that has to be made to do that?
Mr. Da Pont: It is a very good question and, again, not an easy one to give a very precise answer to.
We have pre-positioned equipment and people, but how long it would take us to get to where the incident took place would depend on exactly where the incident was, and it would vary somewhat, obviously, from that.
The Coast Guard's main role in this environmental response is very much a monitoring role to ensure the incident is dealt with. Under Canadian law, the polluter has the responsibility to pay, and, for maritime oil spills, a number of response organizations in various parts of the country would be the first respondents.
The CCG would be there to ensure that the work was done properly and to satisfaction.
We also have a response capacity, but it supplements the larger system. I realize that is not a precise answer to your question.
Senator Hubley: Thank you; I just wanted an idea.
Senator Patterson: I understand that the process of automating light stations and removing some lightkeepers started in 1970 and was stopped in 1998 in face of public concern, particularly in British Columbia — and Senator Carney might have had a little to do with that.
In the more recent years, our researchers noted that Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Gail Shea indicated in September 2009 that CCG had been asked to undertake a further review of additional services that lighthouse staff provided in the two provinces. Then in March of this year, about six months later, she asked our committee to resume work on the lighthouse file by undertaking the review we have now started.
Did CCG do any review-related activities from the fall of 2009 to date from which we can benefit?
Mr. Da Pont: No, senator, we did not. I think the issue in the interim was the minister was deciding whether it would be better to do an internal Coast Guard review or look at asking some other body, such as this committee, to do it. As she explained last week when she was here, she felt that by asking this committee to do it, it would be perceived as more credible and impartial. I think that is why she asked the committee to do it, and obviously, she values the recommendations.
We had done much of the preparatory work prior to that, and that is part of the package of materials that we will give to the committee. We had tried to relaunch a de-staffing process prior to her decision to do a further review. As part of that, we had assessed what additional duties lightkeepers were providing; that will be part of the information we will give you. We had set up the process so we would be able to engage in face-to-face discussions with the lightkeepers. We had made a commitment, as I mentioned earlier, to look at this on a site-by-site basis and assess what the alternatives were.
Also, we deliberately did not set a precise time frame on how long it would take to de-staff. We did not lock ourselves in by saying that we had to do it in a year or two or three. For the process we wanted to run, we left open a fair amount of room to engage the lightkeepers, our colleagues, other government departments and, if needed, local users of these services to find alternatives.
We will share the preparatory work we did with the committee.
Senator Patterson: Very good; it will be helpful to the committee.
We are considering a renewed plan to automate some or all of the remaining staffed light stations on the East Coast and West Coast. Can you describe what the process of automation entails?
Mr. Browne: In Newfoundland and Labrador, we have 56 sites, and all of those, as you may have noted on the charts, are already automated.
When it comes to automation, there are two navigational items on the site. One is a light and the other may or may not be a horn. In our region and in most areas where it will be automated, we have provided power for those lights and horns separately from what is being provided to lightkeepers for the light-station upkeep, which is usually prime diesel power. We put those on the normal electrical grid. In remote areas, we would have those lights and horns solarized, so they can operate on their own without intervention from another power source or by a lightkeeper on site. They operate independently of the lightkeeper's activities on site.
Senator Patterson: Can you give us an idea of the proportions of situations with the automated stations? Where you have converted to solar power, are there any powered by diesel generators? I believe that also would entail how many of the stations do not have access to the electrical grid.
Mr. Browne: In Newfoundland and Labrador, we have 23 staffed sites. Eighteen of those are at the end of a road, so they are road accessible, and they are all on hydro power.
There are five sites that we consider remote sites, and three of those have some backup diesel power for the lightkeepers, not for the aids to navigation. They have a combination on most of those sites.
On Green Island, Fortune Bay and Puffin Island, they have a hybrid system with a diesel backup, and, in addition to that, because we are trying to make the sites as green as possible, we have wind generation. For the most part, the power generation for the light station itself is provided by wind generation and then supplemented when necessary with diesel.
Mr. Da Pont: I believe Ms. Steele has similar statistics for the Pacific.
Ms. Steele: That is correct. We have 18 sites that are not automated in British Columbia. Of the 41 sites that we do have, 8 are on the hydro grid and 16 have been transferred to solar. We have one experiment right now with wind, and 17 of the sites are still powered by diesel.
Senator Manning: Ms. Steele raised a question for me. Over the past number of years, a fair amount of automation has occurred, as Mr. Da Pont touched on. Why have 18 sites in British Columbia still not been automated?
Mr. Da Pont: We have not made the investment in automation because we have staffed people at those sites.
Senator Manning: I know each site is different and has different expenses, but does the department have an average annual operating cost per staffed lighthouse versus de-staffed lighthouse?
Mr. Da Pont: I do not have the average annual cost of the two readily available. It varies considerably on whether it is remote or not remote and a variety of other considerations. I am not sure how much an average would really be helpful.
We have documented that every year we spend $11.5 million more than we would otherwise spend if we did not have staffed light stations. We approached the study from the perspective of identifying what we have to spend that we would not spend if these stations were automated.
Senator Manning: In 2009-10, you spent $93.7 million on the provision of aids to navigation, the buoys, the range lights and lighthouses. What breakdown of the $93.7 million would be lighthouses?
Mr. Da Pont: I do not have that figure handy.
Senator Manning: Can you get that for us?
Mr. Da Pont: I would have to check if we keep it split up by types of fixed aids. I would guess we would capture those costs with fixed aids, and we do not keep them by type.
Senator Manning: You look at the savings that you will put forward from staffed to de-staffed. That is the total of all the expenses related to the operation of these, which includes everything.
Mr. Da Pont: We will check to see if we can provide you with a lighthouse budget.
The Chair: That will be important.
Mr. Da Pont: The complication for us is that a number of it is direct cost, which we can easily tally. What is harder for us to tally is ship time and helicopter costs because when we send a vessel up the coast it does a variety of jobs, including servicing the lighthouse. Therefore, it is not an easy task to figure out what portion of the cost we should attribute to the light and what portion to the other activity the vessel is doing.
That is the only complication that we will have to look into to see if we can give you a precise figure on the lighthouses.
Senator Manning: When the process of de-staffing was started again several years ago, many issues were raised, as I know in my province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are clear about the other services that were provided. You touched on those, and we will bring in the other departments to get a clearer picture.
From your perspective as Commissioner of Coast Guard, do you see any compromising of the related activities by the staff at those lighthouses? Several MPs raised issues about assisting vessels. I will question each department when they come in. However, from your perspective, does de-staffing lighthouses compromise any activity by the Coast Guard as provided to those sites?
Mr. Da Pont: That is a good question. No, we do not feel it compromises any of the navigation services or safety because the light station is de-staffed.
I know the committee will hear, and we certainly listened and looked into it — and, again, that will be included as some of the materials we are providing to the committee — that lightkeepers are an essential part of the Canadian Coast Guard Search and Rescue system, SAR. While I value the work they do greatly, they are not part of the SAR system. They are not trained for it.
In some cases, lightkeepers have been tasked to respond to a SAR. As the minister indicated, those cases are when something has happened literally at their doorstep. Their tasking in those cases was not because they were lightkeepers. It would be the same as if a vessel of opportunity was tasked, which can happen out on the water. The nearest vessel will be tasked to go and help.
The lightkeepers have occasionally been tasked in that context, but they are not a part of the SAR system, just as a fisher out on the water who gets tasked to help someone in trouble is necessarily part of the system.
Therefore, in a few instances where over the years, that type of service has been provided. That is the only caveat. I would say that that was simply because they happened to be right where the accident took place, not because they are part of the SAR system.
Senator Manning: Most of the de-staffing will happen in two provinces, British Columbia, and Newfoundland and Labrador, the bookends of the country. From your perspective, do you see any unique challenges in Newfoundland and Labrador that would not be present in British Columbia or vice versa? Is there anything that we should look at as a committee from your perspective?
Mr. Da Pont: I am not aware of any essential differences. The public reaction was different in both provinces at the time, and they put emphasis on different things. From the perspective of the Coast Guard, I do not see any difference between the two.
The issues that we did look at, that came up in both provinces, were issues of the geography being so unique and so different. The argument would be that it is not the same as Nova Scotia or Central Canada. That, at the time, was presented as an argument on why it might be important because of the geographic considerations to maintain staffed lighthouses.
We have looked at that. We have examples in Alaska, in Scandinavia and in many parts of the world where the geography is just as challenging, where the lights are automated and are de-staffed. No evidence of any increased risk exists.
Senator Manning: Did you state or did the minister state last week that we are the only jurisdiction that has staffed lighthouses in the world?
Mr. Da Pont: Yes, we are among the last developed countries in the world that has staffed lighthouses. We have done a bit of work on this. The U.S. has one. They have kept the first lighthouse that was ever built in the United States and that is the only one that is staffed.
Senator Nancy Ruth: It is not Seal Island?
Mr. Da Pont: It is not Machias Seal Island.
France has five lighthouses that they are in the process of de-staffing. We are aware of a handful here and there, but the vast majority of lighthouses in developed countries have been automated for 20 or 30 years.
The Chair: I will remind you that we are also the only country whose monarch lives in a different country.
Senator Manning: That is a debate for another day.
The Chair: It may be a Canadian thing.
Senator Manning: I have one last question for clarification because it may help us in our study.
According to the Canadian Coast Guard Business Plan 2009-2012, in 2008-09 the Coast Guard "initiated work in response to increased demands for e-Navigation services."
Can you explain what "e-Navigation" is?
Mr. Da Pont: Electronic navigation is an international concept that the various countries in the world are working on collectively through the International Maritime Organization to basically take advantage of emerging technology to improve various types of navigation information.
Canada has actually done some interesting pilots. I can give you a couple of examples: In Newfoundland, on Placentia Bay, they have the SmartBay project. One feature of that is having buoys that actually transmit information directly to the vessel. It is not just a visual aid; it is actually transmitting various types of information, such as weather, wind and sea state. That is one example of an emerging technology that would change very much how we do business.
Along the St. Lawrence, the Coast Guard has worked with Transport Canada and the pilots to develop an electronic system where the pilots of commercial vessels receive essential information in an electronic format and in more real time.
This is all part of the trend that we have seen where 70, 80 years ago lighthouses were at the centre of the navigation system. Now with the changes in technology, with things such as GPS and electronic charts, the function has changed considerably.
Most recreational boaters and fishers now have cellphones and have a range of instant communication that was not there decades ago. Electronic navigation is essentially moving most of the information that now comes either in paper form, such as charts, or through other types of communication and providing it in a consolidated real time way to the navigator.
Senator Raine: I have been very interested in following the differences between the light stations in Newfoundland and British Columbia, where many of ours are very remote. I am also somewhat aware of the campaign that was fought some years ago to save the lighthouses.
Do you think that with the last years of experience since the previous de-staffing that people who were very much against de-staffing 10 years ago, 15 years ago or longer, would be in favour of it now?
My second observation is that having travelled in the Arctic last year, everywhere we went where we came up against the Canadian Coast Guard, whether it was a ship or whether it was the people looking after the navigational aids, it seemed as though everyone was really stretched for resources.
My first feeling would be that if we do not really need it, and if it is not serving a really valuable purpose, then the resources probably should be reallocated.
Could you tell me why people became so protective of the lighthouses 20 years ago?
Mr. Da Pont: Well, again, that is a very good question and one not that easy to respond to.
That is one of the things we would actually like this committee to assess, whether those public attitudes have changed. One of my observations would be that 10 or 15 years ago we were not able to get out effectively into the public domain some of the information on reliability or on the fact that we saw no risks to the navigation system, and some of the issues that we did not think safety was compromised. We either had difficulty getting that out into the debate, or people just did not believe us.
Now, with our experience in the last 10 years in other parts of the country, and in other parts of the world, I would hope that will help when these issues are raised. I am just not aware of anyone who has evidence that would really indicate that risks exist. There are stories, there are views, but I am not sure there is hard evidence. This committee can assess whether people have changed their views when you meet with people.
There were legitimate concerns about heritage considerations. I believe now a vehicle exists to deal with those heritage considerations that did not exist at the time, and I would hope that that helps the situation.
I would hope that people would have more confidence now in some of the technology and the reliability of that technology. However, beyond that it is hard for me to assess. I feel, as I look back at it — and I was not with the Coast Guard at that time, so I have not lived it personally — that we were not able to convince people of what the evidence indicates both in Canada and in other countries.
In terms of the use of the resources, that was one of my main considerations on wanting to restart the de-staffing process last year. I knew it would probably remain controversial, but I thought it was important because we have representations from parts of British Columbia, for example, to improve the navigation aids around Prince Rupert and Kitimat.
We have some of the challenges in the Arctic that you have mentioned, and I hoped to proceed with the de-staffing and reallocate some of the resources to some of those priorities.
Senator Raine: I noticed that in the whole of the Queen Charlotte Islands only one lighthouse exists. I was surprised. That is a big area. I would have thought there would be something down on the southern tip.
Ms. Steele: As we talked about earlier, the Aids to Navigation system is designed deal with where traffic is and where risk is; and there are other types of aids to navigation around the Queen Charlotte Islands. However, as far as are concerned lighthouses, we have the single one on Langara Island.
Mr. Da Pont: If you look at the second slide of my presentation, that Canada map with all the red dots, you can see we have many more aids than just lighthouses. Also you can see quite a few aids around the Queen Charlotte Islands, but they just do not happen to be lighthouses.
Senator Raine: The Strait of Juan de Fuca is obviously one of the busiest shipping lanes in the country, and all except one of those lighthouses are unmanned, so that is an indication that it is working.
Are there lighthouses on the Washington coast of the Strait of Juan de Fuca as well?
Ms. Steele: Yes, but Washington State has no staffed lighthouses. If I recollect correctly, approximately three years ago, they de-staffed the last lighthouse in Washington State.
Senator Raine: Ms. Steele, will you be available to give us information as we go into B.C. so that we are well prepared and that we do not walk into a hornet's nest? I have this feeling that we have a battle to go into on this. I am convinced that we should be moving in this direction. It does not make sense to spend money if it is not necessary, but, not being familiar with the issue, I am a bit nervous about it.
Ms. Steele: I am available to provide you with all the information that I can get for B.C., and I will be working with my counterpart to provide the information for Newfoundland also.
The Chair: I want to remind senators that we need to go over our budget tonight after we are through here. I do not want to restrict anyone, but if we can make our questions and answers succinct, perhaps we can accomplish our business.
Senator Watt: Thank you for your presentation. I will try to keep my questions to the point.
In answer to a question by my colleague, I believe you said that the lightkeepers are not integrated into SAR issues. However, they must participate in some form if they discover a vessel that might be in trouble in the ocean. Can you elaborate?
You said that you do not need the workforce at the site to be able to do the actual physical work. You also mentioned that from time to time lightkeepers do help; that is, depending on whether or not recreational activities are taking place within the surrounding areas and someone is in trouble. That is one area that will be missing if that workforce is removed.
The minister has also said that the East Coast and West Coast provinces are uniquely situated and facing exceptional challenges. What are those exceptional challenges?
Mr. Da Pont: Thank you for those questions. Again, I will try to be brief.
On the role of lightkeepers in search and rescue, as I indicated, they certainly have been involved from time to time. They have been involved in the same way as a vessel of opportunity would be involved. The tasking for SAR is done by the Joint Rescue Coordination Centre, JRCC. There is one on the West Coast, one on the East Coast, and one in Central Canada. They are run jointly by the Canadian Coast Guard and National Defence, DND; they task who responds to those emergencies.
We have gone through the lightkeepers' logbooks and tried to document their involvement in SAR over the years, where they have been tasked to do anything, and what involvement they have had. We will provide the committee with that information because there certainly are some cases. We have difficulty assessing from the logbooks how serious the incidents were because in a search and rescue, you would be tasked whether a life was in danger or someone had run out of gas. There is a real variation of what the response can be. Often, the logbooks do not show the precise nature of the incident. However, we can give you a pretty clear idea of the overall number of times lightkeepers have been involved and tasked, and we will provide that.
With respect to exceptional challenges, the minister was referring to what I was referring to a few minutes ago in response to another question, namely, some of the unique geography in British Columbia and Newfoundland and Labrador, which can be a little more challenging than many other parts of the country.
Senator Watt: You also mentioned the reallocation. I believe you mentioned the North at some point and that you will have to start focusing on identifying their needs. Has your department, both the Coast Guard and you as the commissioner, undertaken a study to get the general information about a potential site in the North, taking into account not only the Northwest Passage that we must be concerned with but also the whole Arctic? Has your department begun to identify areas where the facilities need to be put in place?
Mr. Da Pont: We have begun some work with our colleagues in National Defence to do more analysis and thinking on the delivery of search and rescue in the North, which is obviously quite challenging given the geography, the spaces and the fact that many significant aspects have to be supported from south of 60. We have a strong presence there, as one of the senators mentioned. Most seasons, we have at least seven Coast Guard vessels scattered throughout the Arctic. The reality is that the geography is so large that much of the response must be by air. Unless we were close with one of our vessels to where an accident took place, it would take us potentially days to reach a site given the size of the North and the area to be covered.
We have started some work with DND to assess that and to see how we can improve services against the demonstrated needs. Our expectation is that over time, as vessel traffic increases in the Arctic — and we are seeing increases already — we likely will have more incidents where we have to respond. The recent case, a week or so ago, of the individual who was on his way to the North Pole and got into difficulty is a good example of where we may have more of these types of cases.
Senator MacDonald: When Minister Shea was speaking to us last week, she mentioned additional services taken on by lightkeepers, both formal and informal. She said that that was the only outstanding issue left in de-staffing lighthouses.
What are the formal and informal issues? Are any considered essential services by CCG?
Mr. Da Pont: None is considered an essential service by CCG for our mandate. The formal ones would be, as mentioned earlier, instances where the lightkeepers may receive some remuneration from another government department for providing that particular service. To the best of our knowledge, a few of those are in relation to Environment Canada.
We think the informal ones are the bulk of the activity.
Senator MacDonald: What would they include?
Mr. Da Pont: They would include provision of various types of weather and wind and other information. In some cases, some of the lightkeepers receive some remuneration for that; in others, they do not.
On slide 13, we have listed some of the other services that we are aware of that some lightkeepers do, such as water sampling, gauge monitoring and marine mammal observations.
To the best of our knowledge, it is varied.
Senator MacDonald: It sounds subjective.
Mr. Da Pont: They provide assistance to hikers from time to time. They do a wide range of additional activities.
Senator MacDonald: To go in a different direction here, CCG was under Transport Canada, I believe, until 1994-95. Then it went to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO. Now it is to be returned to Transport Canada
Mr. Da Pont: Not that I am aware.
Senator MacDonald: Does Transport Canada have any mandate with respect to lighthouses and the lightkeepers?
Mr. Da Pont: Only in the sense that it is the regulator and has broad responsibilities for regulations around navigation systems.
Senator MacDonald: Would they take any position about the de-staffing of lighthouses?
Mr. Da Pont: I would not think so, but that is something they would have to speak on for themselves. However, Transport Canada would be the entity that regulates what type of navigation equipment vessels need to have on board. They have an important regulatory role in the navigation system, but we are the primary delivery.
Senator MacDonald: For those lighthouses that are still staffed, who pays all the upkeep for the lightkeeper's home, the utilities, power, rent and so on?
Mr. Browne: In my case, it is easy because we do not have any family sites. Our last one was decommissioned about four or five years. It was Powles Head, and Senator Manning may know its location. We do not have any families other than at the remote sites. All the utilities are provided there. It is diesel power.
The Chair: What is the average annual salary of lightkeepers?
Mr. Browne: It is around $45,000, I think, give or take.
Ms. Steele: It depends on the classification.
The Chair: What is the average?
Ms. Steele: In the range of $40,000 to $45,000.
Senator Poirier: Do you have any family sites on the B.C. coast? If it is their home, are the lightkeepers there paid the same as other lightkeepers? If so, does that mean they do not have to pay rent or utilities?
Most Canadians are either paying rent or a mortgage, or have already paid it off. If this is their home, what cost is that to them, and are their salaries equivalent to anyone else, or do they live there free?
Ms. Steele: On the Pacific coast, three of the 27 light stations have families, with children.
The houses are maintained by CCG or DFO — by our colleagues in real property — and heat and light is paid for by CCG. They are required to provide their own food and supplies.
Senator Poirier: Are they paid the same salary?
Ms. Steele: The lightkeepers are paid against the classification, and that is what sets the salary.
Senator Poirier: They get room and board, then.
Ms. Steele: They do not get board.
Senator Poirier: This concerns another branch of government, so maybe you cannot answer my next question. National parks in certain communities own a certain number of homes for employees who are living there. If the home is owned by the national parks or by the Government of Canada, would the park employees pay rent in these homes?
Mr. Da Pont: We could not say with confidence exactly what policies Parks Canada has. Many of these considerations are worked out as part of collective agreements, contracts and the union management agreements that are negotiated from time to time. How we deal with the lightkeepers on these issues is part of their collective bargaining agreement. I would assume that whatever provisions are in similar agreements, such as for Parks Canada staff, would determine that. I do not know if they are comparable.
The Chair: That brings us to the end of our questioning.
Senators, we will continue with our study of the Canadian Coast Guard next week, although at some point, we will have to deal with our fisheries report. As agreed, those people who went to the Arctic will meet this week and go over the fisheries report and present it to you. We will be doing that next week.
In the meantime, I want to thank all of you for being here and for being full and frank in your answers.
We welcome Susan Steele to the committee. You have to let us know whether you like coffee, tea or orange juice so that we can provide the goodies. Thank you very much for being here.
Honourable senators, we will go in camera and deal with our budget. It will not take too long, I hope.
(The committee continued in camera.)