Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 3 - Evidence - May 4, 2010
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 4, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 5:05 p.m. to examine issues relating to the federal government's current and evolving policy framework for managing Canada's fisheries and oceans (topic: Canadian lighthouses).
Senator Dennis Glen Patterson (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: I call this meeting to order. It is my pleasure to welcome you to the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. My name is Senator Dennis Patterson and I am from Nunavut. I am the deputy chair of this committee, serving as chair tonight. I welcome everyone here.
Our committee began its broad-based study on Canada's lighthouses a few weeks ago. To date, we have heard from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Canadian Coast Guard and other officials here in Ottawa. We have only just begun our deliberations. I want to make it clear that it is our intention to travel to various parts of the country, including British Columbia and the East Coast, as soon as our budgets are approved.
In the meantime, we are hearing testimony in Ottawa. In that capacity, I am pleased that we will be hearing from the Union of Canadian Transportation Employees and the BC Lightkeepers this evening. I would like to welcome Christine Collins, National President of the Union of Canadian Transportation Employees, and Steve Bergh, President of the BC Lightkeepers.
Ms. Collins and Mr. Bergh, I understand you both have presentations. I will invite you both to address the committee and then you can probably expect some questions from senators. With that, will you begin, Ms. Collins?
Christine Collins, National President, Union of Canadian Transportation Employees: I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today. The Union of Canadian Transportation Employees is the national union for most of the unionized Coast Guard workers. This includes the lightkeepers. We are a large transportation union with over 70 bargaining units, and because we are large, diversified and have experience with many modes and organizations, we tend to view the world from a broader perspective than even the government managers who are at the other side of the table from us. It is this perspective that we would like to bring to you today.
I sincerely hope you have had the chance to read my backgrounder that was sent over. I will be touching the high points of that paper. I am looking forward to the questions and discussions where the important details will be brought out.
I believe it is critical that you hear from more lightkeepers across Canada, as well other key stakeholders, including fishers, transportation companies and even non-Canadian Coast Guard government agencies that use and depend on the services provided by our lightkeepers. Government people who speak up should have no fears that their views will be used to hurt their career opportunities. The same needs to be true for our lightkeepers; they should not face repercussions for speaking up.
If we take a broader perspective than the one presented to you by the Canadian Coast Guard, we would like to consider the following: The public does not consider public services within the context of a particular department or agency mandate. Lightkeepers provide marine safety services for search and rescue, weather and storm monitoring, marine traffic communications, fishing fleet monitoring, law enforcement watch programs, pollution response, seismic activity monitoring, scientific data collection and monitoring, and recreational use monitoring. Services are provided to at least nine other agencies and departments of government.
The Coast Guard mandate is not just about lights, horns and navigational aids. The Coast Guard has cross- jurisdictional responsibilities for search and rescue, environmental response, marine communications, marine safety and security, et cetera. I encourage you to take a hard look at the Coast Guard mandate and its responsible statutes. A consideration of lightkeeper services should also be looked at from the risk management and risk mitigation perspective. What costs are avoided because of the early warning systems and the communications and weather information that is conveyed to marine transportation companies, fishing fleets and others? We should also look at all Coast Guard functions from a revenue generation perspective. What kind of fees are paid by other departments for Coast Guard services, such as those provided by lightkeepers? Should these fees be increased?
The Coast Guard talks about the cost of helicopters and vessels for standby use in support of the lightkeeper functions. However, what they do not say is that this equipment is essential for many multiple Coast Guard roles, and would continue to be used and resources deployed with or without lightkeepers. The point is that you cannot talk about costs without reviewing the alternatives. What would be the real costs of automation, in particular when combined with lighthouse divestiture? Do the Coast Guard and the government truly believe that they have no financial responsibility for divested lighthouses when Coast Guard equipment will still reside on those lighthouses?
We compare Canada to other developed countries so we have to put this comparison into context. We have the longest coastal responsibilities in the world. We also have the coldest water. We have little military presence or population centres compared to other jurisdictions. What is happening in Chile and Brazil where we have similar cold water exposure and large coastlines? What is the real situation in Alaska where the military presence is enormous? It is important to hear from the Transportation Safety Board on small vessel safety, and to look at fishing activities in the North and ask what key role our lightkeepers play now, and what role could they play in the future if they were supported and nurtured. What about Arctic sovereignty? Lightkeepers are the boots on the ground as a physical presence, which is essential for sovereignty.
Last but not least, why is it that head office always wants to cut back regional services when political masters ask for cost savings? At 2.4 per cent of the Coast Guard workforce, with projected savings of less than 1.4 per cent of the Coast Guard total annual operating budget, you have to ask the question: Could they not have found the $8 million or the $10 million or whatever from head office functions or consolidations? We certainly think so.
I sincerely hope that you have a long look at the issues from a broader perspective. I have given you some ideas on that but there may be others. I encourage you to stimulate debate on the big issues and when you do, you will support the conclusion that lightkeepers are important and should be supported, and their roles should be enhanced.
The Deputy Chair: I welcome Senator Dallaire, from the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and Senator Cochrane, from Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Bergh, please proceed.
Steve Bergh, President, BC Lightkeepers: Good evening, senators. I am the president of the BC Lightkeepers Local 20232 and have been a lightkeeper for 27 years. I am also a fisherman with 38 years' experience. As a result, I have a good working knowledge of both the capacity of lightkeepers' services to mariners and the fishermen's appreciation for the services provided by lightkeepers. I understand the navigational tools used by mariners and their benefits and limitations.
I would like to express to you that I feel a great sense of responsibility standing before you today. This is the first opportunity that anyone from the coast of B.C. has had to express to you their needs regarding light station services. Minister Shea and Coast Guard Commissioner DaPont have had a significant amount of time before you, and Director Steele has been seconded to advise this committee without rebuttal in equal time. With respect, and a sense of responsibility to the public, I would like to say that I am also concerned that Senator Raine, the only senator from B.C., stated less than two hours into this process that she is convinced of the perspective of Susan Steele, regional director of maritime services for the Canadian Coast Guard, before she has heard from her citizens regarding their needs. This is despite the fact that, in B.C., there is widespread opposition to de-staffing, which was reiterated last year after hearing of the commissioner's intent to de-staff light stations in September 2009. The union of B.C. municipalities voted unanimously to resolve:
. . . that UBCM and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities call on the Prime Minister to cease all efforts to de-staff light stations . . .
I submit to you this resolution along with copies of letters sent to Minister Shea and copied to me from 19 coastal districts, cities, towns and villages. May I state that there were likely more letters sent to the minister but these are just the ones of which I was sent copies.
I would also like to bring to your attention the statements of the federal and provincial representatives, including the Conservative Party policy declaration of 2008, which states:
Lightstations are an important contribution to Canadian sovereignty, provide for public safety especially for recreational boaters and kayakers, are an essential presence to monitoring sea-planes and marine traffic, and assist in the interdiction of smuggling.
The statement of the Green Party and the statement of the NDP Party also support staffed light stations. Note that there are no political boundaries to the support for staffed light stations.
With respect and a sense of responsibility for the safety of the public, I also feel a need to bring to this committee the fact that in 2007, Jim Abram, who is and was the elected regional district director for the Strathcona regional district board, and I made ourselves available for a meeting with Bill White, the West Coast representative from the Department of Public Safety so that we could assist the department in an understanding of the capabilities of light stations with regard to public safety and sovereignty. It seemed logical to me, as part of our job description, to cooperate with other government departments, including the RCMP Coast Watch Program. Bill White, in a polite gesture, requested permission from the Coast Guard to visit Chatham Point Light Station where I was stationed. He required no transportation; he was simply being polite. Please understand that light stations are not restricted sites. Normally, even members of the public are allowed access under escort by lightkeepers.
This representative from the Department of Public Safety was refused permission to visit Chatham Point Light station by Regional Director Susan Steele. When I asked Director Steele why she had refused Mr. White access, she indicated to me that the Department of Public Safety was looking for new acquisitions to sustain themselves and that the Coast Guard was in the business of staffed light stations.
I also have concerns that, on April 10, three days before the April 13 meeting of this committee initiating its review of light stations, lightkeepers received a reminder that they are bound by conditions of their employment not to speak out. We understand that other government employees who are familiar with light stations have also been warned recently as well.
All Coast Guard employees received a notice from Assistant Commissioner Vija Poruks on April 26, 2010, that Director Steele "is effectively to be the contact person for all matters pertaining to this work and to coordinate all information being produced for the benefit of the Senate SCOFO."
Without disrespect, I would like to point out that Director Steele, being a supervisor to all Western region employees and a proponent of de-staffing light stations, is not an appropriate intermediary. While the intention of the notice from Assistant Commissioner Poruks might not be to stifle communications, I can assure you that this will be the result.
Considering the real possibility that these senators may receive much useful information regarding the issue of staffed light stations from government employees of several departments, may we receive assurance that these employees will be welcome to contact you directly, and that they will be protected from reprisal so they may speak freely when speaking to this committee and to their government representatives. If such assurance is granted or denied, we request to have this in writing.
Since I have so little time before this committee, in the interest of public safety, I feel it necessary to address the talking points that Coast Guard hierarchy use at each de-staffing attempt and are using again at this time. We find that these same points raised continue to be inaccurate and misleading.
Regarding additional services, we submit to you a copy of our job description, attachment number 3, and "The Responsibilities for Light Station Services," attachment number 4.
According to the Coast Guard's own literature, stated as Coast Guard objectives are:
Maritime safety, preparation, prevention and response; protection of the marine and freshwater environment; facilitating maritime commerce and sustainable development; support of marine scientific excellence; and support of Canada's maritime priorities.
Stated as Coast Guard services are:
Maritime search and rescue; environmental response; ice breaking services; marine communication and traffic services; aids to navigation; waterways and management; maritime security; support of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans resource management mandates; support to other government objectives.
Lightkeepers are active participants in the successful provision of almost all of these stated services, and the resulting attainment of all of these stated objectives. Despite efforts to downplay the role and abilities of staffed light stations, lightkeepers continue to be effective in public service as mandated by the Coast Guard.
Regarding "just happened to be there", I believe this could be said of any safety service whose location is planned and strategic. Light stations were placed in strategic locations along the coast, major traffic corrections or landfalls, high traffic areas of specific danger, confluences of waterways and expanse of view. There are many instances where lightkeepers have played an integral role in the successful outcome of rescue operations. Please look at the record and the testimony of mariners.
Regarding "vessels of opportunity", the rescue coordination centre, RCC, leaves all assistance to mariners, if not in distress or urgent situations, to vessels of opportunity, i.e. fellow mariners. If none are present or willing, only then does the RCC task Coast Guard resources, including lightkeepers if needed. If a distress or urgency is noted, all Coast Guard resources are tasked according to their capacity and individual asset. Among other marine skills, lightkeepers are trained in boat handling, first aid and CPR, marine emergency duties and transportation of injured patients.
Regarding environmental response, lightkeepers played an instrumental role in the Nestucca spill of 1988. Lightkeepers were first to spot and report the spill and West Coast light stations provided platforms for the response. Light stations also have the capacity to store equipment needed for response. Weather information from light stations will be essential to successful efforts. If these public assets are not part of the spill response plan at this time, the question might be raised, "Why not?"
Regarding weather reports, although the Coast Guard is presently stating that the weather information services that lightkeepers provide is really a responsibility of Environment Canada, the provision of this accurate and dependable information is a key component of the Coast Guard objective of prevention of incidents. Environment Canada is also assisting the Coast Guard by providing forecasts, which are often directly informed by the observations of lightkeepers, to mariners and coastal aviators. This complete service is absolutely a service to the Coast Guard who would bear the responsibility of responding to incidents, which would likely be significant in quantity were the service not available. It is important for senators to understand that Environment Canada, through its weather services, likely saves much more money for the Coast Guard than they usurp.
Please see attachment number 5, testimony of mariners and aviators, including letters that we have been sent regarding Newfoundland's mariners' needs.
Regarding automated equipment, because lightkeepers change lights, also when in an array, trip mechanisms that have failed to do so automatically, clean snow, ice, condensation and algae off lenses, it would appear to the Coast Guard hierarchy that there is not much work that is essential to the success of a so-called "automated" aid to navigation. I would caution that the failure by the public to report an outage on other fixed aids is an indicator of their reliability and can also lead to erroneous conclusions. If the public is getting accustomed to the reduced wattages necessitated by automation, we caution that, on the major aids such as lighthouses, there may be a false assumption of no increased risk.
Remember as well that the Coast Guard here is only referring to the light. Automated weather equipment is notoriously unavailable or inaccurate, but the Coast Guard is denying any responsibility to provide weather and, therefore, does not refer to this. Please see attachment number 6.
Regarding advancements in technology, I have attached a letter from the skipper of the Alaska State Ferry Malaspina, which runs between Seattle and Alaska twice weekly — see attachment number 7 — and describes navigation in the real world and speaks to the importance of the brightness of the major aids, many of them light stations, which is decreasing now as the Canadian Coast Guard moves to "automated" mode. This letter speaks of Green Island, B.C. The date of this letter is 1995, from the last attempt at de-staffing. We have attached it as it describes the difficulties on the coasts, which continue no matter how sophisticated the equipment. Often, when vessels lose electronics, they lose them all. These mariners need all the verifiable information that they can get.
Regarding no increased risk to mariners in places where de-staffing has taken place, how would a person verify this? Since we have entered the age of "risk assessment" — and even governments weigh life against relatively small and imaginary monetary dividends — an understanding of risk becomes ever more elusive. When a lightkeeper spots persons clinging to the hull of an overturned vessel, as was the case on Cape Beale in 2004; or spots a mariner's last and only working flare on a stormy night, which occurred on Cape Scott in 1999; or searches for and finds a downed pilot at Dryad Point, which occurred in 2001; and no one else has seen these, one would have to presume that, if a person were not on duty at these sites, these situations could have been fatal. These are just a few instances for which lightkeepers have received commendations since the last attempted de-staffing. Remember that light stations are placed in geographic positions of increased risk. It is no coincidence that lightkeepers are able to make a difference by being stationed at these spots.
Next, regarding Alaska, when we inquired just how the fishermen felt in Alaska regarding de-staffing in that area, we received a letter from the Southeast Alaska Fishermen's Alliance, and from the executive director of that alliance, that speaks to their more personal experience in Alaska and their appreciation of the staffed light stations as they transit the B.C. coast. Please note that these fishermen stated to me that, with recreational fishing in Alaska on the rise, they were even more worried that the lack of reliable weather information would result in loss of life. Please see attachment number 8.
Most senators will only know light stations from the ones they have driven by on the Gaspé Peninsula or, perhaps, the coast of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island. The British Columbia stations and the remote stations in Newfoundland and Labrador are different in accessibility and guard a different coastline.
For you senators who live within the confines of the city and are accustomed to the safety and security that four walls and paved roads provide, I beg you to appreciate the needs of First Nations people, coastal peoples, mariners, coastal aviators, and other workers and travelers who find it necessary to move in less predictable environments. Please consider their requests for the retention of these light station services. Our marine highways are not like yours. They heave and pitch, dramatically changing with wind and tide, and they hide obstructions.
Since the federal government has jurisdiction and, therefore, responsibility for these waterways, I ask you, senators, what safety services you might want to spend your days and nights in such a place. I also ask you to remember the mariners of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have enclosed letters that speak to their needs in our attachments.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Ms. Collins and Mr. Bergh. I would like to acknowledge, Mr. Bergh, your comments about the importance of input from employees and your request to our committee for certain assurances. We will consider those recommendations and have noted them. I would like to thank you for the wealth of material you have assembled in the appendices that you have cited. We just got that material now, but it will be very useful in our work.
Mr. Bergh: You are very welcome, senator.
The Deputy Chair: Members of the committee can direct their questions to either witness, but I would like to ask Ms. Collins about consultation with the union. We heard from Minister Shea, who was before this committee on April 13, that there had been a lot of discussion with the union on the issue of removing remaining light station personnel. Furthermore, the union had been part of the discussion prior to starting the exercise. The plan for de-staffing was a plan of attrition so that no one would lose their jobs. The Coast Guard would ensure that people would have employment somewhere else within the Coast Guard. I am quoting more or less what the minister told us.
When did those above-mentioned discussions with the union take place, if you know?
Ms. Collins: I had meetings and discussions with the commissioner of the Coast Guard last fall, when the Coast Guard was announcing the de-staffing of the lights. We had the courtesy of a heads-up meeting prior to his announcement. At that time, the commissioner indicated that they would find jobs on vessels or shore jobs for the lightkeepers. That would have been sometime last September, I believe.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Ms. Collins: Do you want me to go on about further discussions?
The Deputy Chair: If you have anything further to add that would be helpful.
Ms. Collins: We did follow up and had the opportunity to meet with the minister at the time. She put a halt to the de-staffing of the lights at that time, and announced that she would have an independent study.
We had follow-up discussions with the Coast Guard to see if there was room to discuss the need for staffed lighthouses. Unfortunately, those talks went nowhere. We also met with the Coast Guard to discuss the format that the study was to take. Obviously, that was prior to us being aware of this approach; the decision to establish a Senate committee was very recent. Our position, when we believed it was going to be a departmental review, was that it would be important to have lightkeepers and stakeholders as part of the review. There were probably four different meetings.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
I want to assure you that it is no longer a departmental review. We have established a broad mandate, as you may know. We will take an independent look at this with an open mind.
I will invite questions from senators now
Senator Nancy Ruth: On the guaranteed jobs, why is that such an unhappy proposition for the lightkeepers of B.C, or Newfoundland, or wherever — that is, the 51 lightkeepers that exist?
Ms. Collins: This is not specifically an issue of jobs or any jobs. This is about a needed service to the public. This is about safety, search and rescue, and providing aid to mariners. It goes beyond a guarantee of jobs, which we understand is no longer the situation anyway. That was pre-budget.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Do you mean it was pre-budget?
Ms. Collins: The discussion prior to the announcements — where there would be jobs either on a Coast Guard base or on a vessel — were for positions from last fall. Those positions may or may not exist today, as we speak. That guarantee was made during the first discussion we had with the commissioner. That guarantee is most likely not on the table today.
There was a real pressure put on the union to accept this because no indeterminate employee would lose their job. That was last September. That is not necessarily true today and the commissioner was clear that, six months or a year down the road, he may not be able to make that same commitment. However, we did not make an agreement at that time to de-staff the lights for the reasons I have said.
Senator Nancy Ruth: When you were in those conversations, was there some guarantee that people who worked in B.C. would have jobs in B.C., or on either coast? One would not be transferred to the Coast Guard on Lake Ontario or something, would they?
Ms. Collins: The possibility would have existed, yes. It is one Coast Guard and one way of doing business. There was no guarantee as to specific geological location where anyone would have a job. There were jobs on various vessels and jobs at Coast Guard bases where they could accommodate lightkeepers for indeterminate employees.
The Deputy Chair: Without wanting to interrupt the flow here, I will note Minister Shea appeared before the committee on April 13. You will see in the transcripts there is a reference to a guarantee of jobs, so it may be helpful to everyone considering this issue to review exactly what was said.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Mr. Bergh, in your speech to us, you said "Remember that light stations are placed in geographical positions of increased risk."
Is there a difference between the "geographical positions of increased risk" of those stations which are staffed and those which are not? Coming from Ontario, I would presume that a light station is placed where there is a risk to mariners, so I am wondering whether there is a difference between those that are staffed and those that are not staffed.
Mr. Bergh: There were some very important and strategic light stations that were de-staffed, notably Cape St. James at the bottom end of the Queen Charlotte Islands. It was an important light station and weather station. In my mind, it was one of the most important stations on the West Coast.
It was demolished. I think there is an automatic light there and that is it. There was a very important landfall. Weather information was invaluable to the people crossing Queen Charlotte Sound, to the halibut, salmon and black cod fishermen who fished there. Lucy Island and Pointer Island are other ones. They were de-staffed, not this last round but the round before.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Do fishermen have a capacity through technology of picking up the weather information that they would have been given from lighthouse keepers; do they have any other way to do that?
Mr. Bergh: There are automatic buoys. They have a tendency to fail and, in the remote locations, it is very hard to get them repaired, especially during long periods of bad weather. Just recently, there was an automated weather observing system, AWOS, for airports in Bella Bella, on the central coast of B.C. At an airport where they could jump in an airplane with a tool box and be home the same day from Vancouver, it took four days to get that fixed. Therefore, you can imagine the problem if one fails on the spot of Sartine Island, off Cape Scott, which is a very important automatic weather site. It could take months to get it fixed.
Senator Cochrane: Can I ask a supplementary? As a result of de-staffing those lighthouses, do you have any record, now, of what has happened to them since they have been taken out of circulation? Have there been any disasters or accidents as a result of that? Who takes care of the fishermen's needs?
Mr. Bergh: They take care of their own needs and the Coast Guard takes care of them. There is a lifeboat in Port Hardy, and in Bella Bella, if we are talking Cape St. James. I do not have the records in front of me, but I am sure there have been significant incidents there due to bad weather information since the light station at Cape St. James was de- staffed and demolished. I do not have that information in front of me.
Ms. Collins: You will note in the backgrounder I provided; I attached some documentation from the Transportation Safety Board. In their report, they indicated there are increased accidents with small boaters and fishing vessels. I have attached that information but it might be worthwhile for this committee to hear about the increased accidents with the small vessels, particularly the fishing vessels. The fishing vessels are a huge community that depends on the lights quite a bit.
Senator Hubley: Thank you for your presentation this evening.
I will ask if you would comment on the following statements made by the Canadian Coast Guard commissioner, when he appeared before the committee on April 20 of this year: "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."
Could you comment on that, please?
Mr. Bergh: I know of a light that was reported by the lightkeeper at Lennard Island off Tofino. They reported it and it had been out for several days before it was relit.
Some technicians who do annual maintenance on lights have come across lights. There was a light in the Fraser River at the entrance to Fraser Port. The light has been out of commission for a long time and no one ever reported it. The boats go in and out of there on a continual basis. Ships go out of there. I do not think they are always reported if they go out.
Senator Hubley: What do recreational and pleasure crafts do if the light is out? They are probably not familiar there is a light there and therefore it would not be reported. Does that put them in any danger?
If there were pleasure craft, such as recreational travel or sailing, and if a lighthouse which gave them navigational aid was out, would that put them at risk?
Mr. Bergh: I would say so. First of all, I think they should have charts on their boat and they should know there should be a light there. Having said that, if they do not have charts and if a light is supposed to be there, marking an obstruction or a course change, and it is not there, then they could be put in harm's way.
Senator Hubley: I would like to ask you to comment on another quote, if I might: "When the light goes out in a staffed light station, it is most often looked after by other technical staff people from the Coast Guard, not by the lightkeeper."
In your experience, is it correct that you do not manage the light itself?
Mr. Bergh: I think that is totally false. If a light goes out in a light station and the lightkeeper is there, he will do absolutely everything in his power to repair that light. I have not heard of a situation where they have not been able to do that. They might have to jury-rig something to make the light work and inform the Coast Guard base that such repairs had been made and that they would need immediate action on it. They send a crew out to fix it and, if the lightkeeper was able to facilitate a more permanent repair, that would be conveyed to the shop's crews. There would be no panic to bring a work crew out to replace a light.
Senator Hubley: It is not part of your job description to call the Coast Guard if a light should go out. Ordinarily, you would try to repair your light.
Mr. Bergh: If a light goes out, the first thing you do is issue a notice to shipping that the light is out. The second thing you do is fix the light. If you cannot fix the light, then the notice to shipping would stand and if it was outside business hours, you would notify the duty officer from the Coast Guard and the duty officer would take the appropriate action.
Senator Dallaire: Does a manned lighthouse have a store of spare parts for the purpose of repair? Do you perform running maintenance on the light? Is that part of your job description? Did you have a course on all of the functions and operations of the light station?
Mr. Bergh: When I started, there was a fairly extensive lightkeepers' course that dealt with work specific to lightkeepers, such as tending the light, repairing diesel generators, et cetera. Now, most teaching falls on the shoulders of the principal keeper to teach his new lightkeeper these jobs. Yes, we are provided with light bulbs and, for lights where there are problems, we are supplied with spare parts to repair them. If there is other equipment on the station, we keep spare parts on hand for repairs that might be needed due to wear and tear. We keep equipment in top working condition so that we can assist the public when needed and keep the station up and running.
Senator Dallaire: Equipment gets older every year. If you had more spare parts and more training or qualifications, could you function quite autonomously and not have to call a technician from the Coast Guard? Could you run the place on your own for one or two years?
Mr. Bergh: The biggest problem would be the diesel generation. Most lightkeepers are fairly good mechanics but not all of them are full-on diesel mechanics. If an engine breaks down and needs to be rebuilt, the situation is out of the lightkeeper's hands. The normal operating procedure would be to deliver a new engine. The stations that run on diesel generation usually have two engines in good condition so that there is a backup. You run an engine until its hours are up. You have one for use and a new one in the wings ready to go.
Senator Dallaire: It could be used when the other one is down for maintenance. You could become more autonomous and not need the central people coming to help you.
Mr. Bergh: That is correct. At Chatham Point Light Station, we have back-up batteries and a converter system. You run your diesel generator at maximum load for one-third of the time that you used to run it, which dramatically decreases the amount of diesel fuel consumed. That would save the Coast Guard in fuel costs. The station I am at has a logging road access to bring diesel fuel in. To most light stations, diesel fuel comes by ship or helicopter. When bringing in diesel fuel by helicopter or boat, it is more expensive.
Senator Dallaire: If no one were at the light station, they would still have to bring in diesel fuel. Would they go to solar panels?
Mr. Bergh: If they are running a light on a stick, they can use a solar panel and storage batteries.
Senator Dallaire: The question that I asked to the minister was as follows: Do you see the requirement for a significant infrastructure investment in the years to come because of the state of the infrastructure, the houses and the light? The answer to my question was that yes, they see over the next 10 to 15 years that they would have to invest approximately $40 million for doing that.
If you were no longer at the light station, would they have to invest that much money in infrastructure to maintain the physical buildings they currently have?
Mr. Bergh: After the last attempt to de-staff, which was reversed in the Pacific region, there was the Light Station Rejuvenation Project. It came in at close to $20 million for major capital work on light stations for the next 25 years, excluding the three regional light stations referred to by Commissioner Da Pont. Those are now heritage light stations and possibly that is why they were left out of the rejuvenation project.
Senator Dallaire: Was the project approved?
Mr. Bergh: It was approved and the work was done for $27 million. I think that is accurate, except for the three light stations I mentioned, for all capital projects for 25 years that concluded in 2008, I believe.
Senator Dallaire: You will be good for another 10 to 20 years without major repairs. That cost would not be a consideration in deciding whether to keep you on those stations. Is that correct?
Mr. Bergh: I believe that to be correct.
Senator Dallaire: Coming back to the budget, the impression I have is that the 51 person years was reduced by attrition or by moving people around. But those 51 person years were already cut from the establishment of the Coast Guard. They have already been reduced by 51 positions and, if you are still there, you would be moved into a position that might be vacated by someone else. Is that correct?
The Deputy Chair: Excuse me, Senator Dallaire, I believe that there are 51 staffed light stations and the information we have is that there are about two persons to each station, which totals 114. Your question is still valid, of course.
Mr. Bergh: I am not sure how many indeterminate lightkeepers there are. Quite a few are relief and quite a few are term employees. I am not exactly sure of the numbers.
Senator Dallaire: You seem to know quite well what is going on in the ministry.
Ms. Collins: Over the last year, the Coast Guard hired term and casual employees. We talk about 114 positions but there are not 114 PYs, person years, because some are short term and some are casual.
I am unaware that there have been 114 positions cut from the Coast Guard already. We had been given to understand that the announcement was being made and they intended to cut. The minister's announcement stopped that process, so I would have expected it would also stop any cuts from the establishment as well. I cannot confirm that because sometimes we are unaware of what happens behind the scenes. I can say, at that time, there were enough positions that the commissioner could say that they would move and not all 114.
I am careful when I talk about indeterminate positions, and terms of two years that could then be made indeterminate. Beyond that, everyone else would be let go. Those acting assignments and everything would roll back. My understanding is that was not done.
Senator Dallaire: It is still in the establishment and, in this new fiscal year, those positions should still be there.
Ms. Collins: That is my understanding. Our members are still here so the positions should still be there.
The Deputy Chair: I think that is the information the minister gave us, that there had been no further cuts in the past two years.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Could I ask a supplementary question? Mr. Bergh, Senator Dallaire suggested that, for the next 20 years, infrastructure monies would not be needed to be spent and you said, yes, to that. Was that for both coasts or were you saying that about the B.C. coast?
Mr. Bergh: To the best of my knowledge, that is just for the B.C. coast.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: I call on Senator Manning and think I can take note that he is not a person who lives in a city.
Senator Manning: Just for the record, I live in a coastal community named St. Bride's in Newfoundland and Labrador, a population, when everybody is home, around 400. I live 18 kilometres from Cape St. Mary's light station, so I am quite familiar with rural Newfoundland and my home town is a fishing community. That is my background on that particular subject.
I am intrigued by some of your comments and I certainly have several questions. We have received testimony here, and I will refer to a statement shortly, in regard to what other jurisdictions are doing in the world for that matter, and not only in North America and Canada. One particular statement from the commissioner goes something like this: We are pretty well the last developed country that still maintains staffed lighthouses. We have many years of experience here in Canada and almost every developed country. That does not indicate that issues of reliability or risks to navigation exist.
When I read your comments, Mr. Bergh, in my view you certainly raise several issues in regard to the people who use the waters around the light stations, whether they are fishermen or recreational boaters. Right here in Canada, as an example, in Nova Scotia, we do not have any staffed lighthouses. In Newfoundland and Labrador we do, and in British Columbia we do.
I am trying to understand for my own purposes, and that of the committee, your feelings on that statement, because it seems we are being given the message that the automated lighthouse provides a service to mariners that is equal to, or certainly as good as, that of a staffed lighthouse.
That seems to be the bone of contention the committee is dealing with. I would like to hear your remarks on that, or either of you, but I want to throw that out as my first question.
Ms. Collins: I will start and then ask Mr. Bergh to pick it up.
The issue for us, yes, the commissioner has said to us we are the only country. That is not true. Chile and Brazil both have staffed lighthouses and are expanding. I think we have to look at the difference between our coasts and those of other countries. We have the longest coast, we also have the coldest water, and we do not have the population along the waters as do many other countries. We have many isolated areas.
If we are looking at Chile and Brazil, we have very similar waters. With the cold water exposure and having the very large coastline, we are most similar to those particular two countries, so we are not the same as, for example, the United States or some of the European countries that have a dense population along the coasts.
I will ask Mr. Bergh to add to that.
Mr. Bergh: Did you want to know about the reliability or the function of a light?
Senator Manning: It is the de-staffing versus having a staffed lighthouse. The concern for us all is the mariners who are out there. When we heard from the commissioner, we got the feeling that the same type of services that are provided by a staffed lighthouse would be provided by a de-staffed lighthouse.
Mr. Bergh: Absolutely not. It is almost like mixing apples and oranges. A de-staffed light station has a light and no human presence. A staffed light station has a light and normally two keepers and a first aid station, and it is an emergency response station. If it is possible, they have a boat and four sets of eyes or more watching the water.
Many of these places are outposts for the community that is very rural in B.C. There might be native villages or small communities here and there and they, quite often, are even at my station; I am the person to go to for a lot of stuff. If someone is in trouble or someone is missing in the neighbourhood, we get the call before they call the Coast Guard station or the RCMP. I guess people think that, because we fly the Canadian flag, therefore we know the right channels to go to, and I think we do. We can lead people in the right direction, which is a good plus. Flying the flag is a big thing, too. It shows that there are people there.
On the central coast, or even on the east and west coasts of Vancouver Island, you can go for days, depending on the boat you run, you can go for half a day in a boat and not see any humans, or on a fishing boat going eight knots, or villages or anything, so coming to a light station is almost like a Mecca. If you are in trouble and have something breaking down, quite often people come into light stations for that particular reason.
Senator Manning: To follow up on that, again, maybe it is just me but I got the impression from the witnesses we have heard that the extra services to which you alluded, such as assists with search and rescue, providing other services — I do not know if you used the word improperly — but I certainly got the impression that that is not necessarily the Coast Guard's mandate or responsibility. As I understood it, and maybe someone else can tell me, providing that light and the horn in some cases, navigational aids, to mariners seems to be their mandate or responsibility. Beyond that, they seem to be saying that that is someone else's responsibility so we should not be paying for that, which might be a good way of putting it.
Ms. Collins: In Mr. Bergh's documentation he included a copy of the job description. You might find that helpful in understanding exactly what the job is.
Mr. Bergh: As I said in my presentation, the Coast Guard's objectives are maritime safety; protecting the marine and fresh water environment, facilitating maritime commerce and sustainable development, supporting maritime scientific excellence, and supporting Canada's maritime priorities. Their services include maritime search and rescue, environmental response, marine communication and traffic services, aids to navigation, waterways and management, maritime security, support of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans management mandates, and support to other government objectives. We do almost all of that in one form or another.
More than once the last call from a boat that is in dire straits is a weak radio signal that has been picked up by a light station. It does not happen all the time, but it still happens. If you are in trouble and your boat is filling with water and things are not going too well, most likely your battery is not doing too well, either. You get a weak radio signal out and you are lucky if someone hears it. That happens.
Senator Manning: You told us in your introduction that you have been a lighthouse keeper for 27 years. Is that correct?
Mr. Bergh: Yes.
Senator Manning: Have you been trained in search and rescue in any of the training that you received?
Mr. Bergh: We have a tier 1 boat handling course which is pretty basic. It teaches you how to steer a boat, the basic rules of the road, how to navigate, how to make sailing plans, and that kind of thing. It is not like a RHIOT school course where you are actually trained in search and rescue, not that it could not happen. At certain sites, it would be a good idea to have individuals take RHIOT school for training.
Senator Manning: In your years of service, have you been encouraged by the Coast Guard to provide additional services over and above what you were hired to take care of, namely, to watch out for the light or to ensure that the light stays burning? Have you been encouraged to provide other services to mariners? I am trying to get to the points of these additional services that are provided.
Mr. Bergh: We have not been discouraged. My particular site was provided with a pretty good boat. We have been able to do some fairly significant things with that. They gave us some good materials for that boat. There is a gasoline pump that we have used on numerous occasions to pump boats out, and we have used first aid kits. We have had several incidents near Chatham Point where we had to deal with severely injured people. More training would be good, but we have been able to do what we can.
Senator Manning: Do you know if any record of additional services has been kept by lighthouse keepers or the Coast Guard? We hear a lot of discussion about these additional services. That is an argument we need to hear as a committee because I believe that is important. Again, I go back to the testimony of the officials from the Coast Guard. They did not seem to put a lot of emphasis on these additional services. We were left with the impression that they were provided by others and, in some cases, lighthouse keepers assist.
In your 27 years, I am sure you have done more than made sure the light was kept burning. Is there any record anywhere of these additional services that were provided by lighthouse keepers throughout the country?
Mr. Bergh: We have a lightkeepers' log that we fill out daily. It does not go into a lot of details but, if something significant happens, it goes into the log. If we are involved in an incident, there is an incident log. We fill that out and, on that same paper, if weather information is given to passing airplanes or helicopters via radio, it is marked down. You log all these things. The Coast Guard base in Victoria went through their incident logs for the past five years to try to make a spreadsheet from it. I have not seen it yet. I thought I would get it before this meeting today, but I have not seen the document yet. That would give you a rough idea of what it is. Everything is not documented, of course, but I do not think lightkeepers are the best people for keeping records. There definitely will be some documentation there.
Senator Manning: Is that documentation turned over to the Coast Guard? This is the first time I have been aware that there is that type of documentation. Where would we look for that?
Mr. Bergh: Our records are sent monthly to the Victoria Coast Guard base.
Ms. Collins: To add on the issue about the weather, I believe the Coast Guard did address that weather reporting is an Environment Canada responsibility, so it is sort of an add on. That is not the case at all. The weather information and the assistance that our lightkeepers provide to boaters, especially the small boaters who do not have sophisticated weather instruments, et cetera, is quite often vital. Mr. Bergh mentioned, and I think it is important to note, that they provide instant weather information to helicopter operators and to others. That kind of information is not readily available, especially in bad weather, when systems are down, et cetera. It is a phone call or it is a contact with the lightkeeper that gives them what the weather conditions are here, right now. It is a vital service that has been provided by the Coast Guard for many years. I find it interesting that it is at a time when they want to de-staff the lights that, suddenly, this is not a responsibility of the Coast Guard and, in particular, our lightkeepers. It is not just lightkeepers who provide weather information; Coast Guard vessels do as well.
Senator Manning: As I mentioned earlier, where I live I have been known to drive five kilometres outside my community and see sunshine after seeing six days of fog in my community. We are used to the weather patterns that change.
On the additional services again, because that seems to be raised time and again, do you know if any lighthouse keepers receive any remuneration for any extra services provided to assist mariners or anyone in particular?
Mr. Bergh: I think we get 50 cents for a weather observation twice a day as climate weathers — that is, for a report on rainfall and the temperature, but not on humidity. You get 50 cents for a report on the maximum and minimum temperature and rainfall. That is extra from our wage. Some places get a pittance for water samples. I think there are two stations that do full SA weathers. They fill out a big sheet of weather information daily. They get some money for that. It is not a large amount, but there is some extra money. As far as getting money for search and rescue or anything like that, no.
Senator Manning: Thank you very much.
Ms. Collins: This money is paid by the employer, not by the users. I want to be clear on that. The Coast Guard pays these monies.
The Deputy Chair: We have a lot of ground to cover, so I will ask senators to make their questions brief and the witnesses to keep their answers succinct, please.
Senator Cochrane: To the best of your knowledge, have the people received any funding for the help that they have received from private enterprise?
Ms. Collins: Absolutely not.
Senator Cochrane: The GPS is now out. Many cars have them and I am sure boats have them, too. Has that changed marine navigation at all?
Mr. Bergh: I have a 38-foot fishing vessel and I have had a GPS plotter in that boat for probably 15 years, if not more. It is a nice tool to have. They are fairly accurate, but it is just a tool. When you turn on the GPS plotter, you get a warning immediately that it is just an aid; it is not an end-all to navigation. It is a tool that you can use to roughly tell you where you are.
I also have radar on my boat. I can turn that on and I will trust it because it will tell me exactly where an object is away from me. However, even more recently, I still have the GPS plotter but I have a laptop computer. On that, I have an actual navigation chart that shows the little boat as a little green icon moving through the water. There is an icon on the side, a tool bar, that says GPS okay, and I have seen that GPS green light say "GPS okay" and that little green boat is not moving.
It is a computer; they freeze up. Probably almost everyone in this room knows about computers and how frustrating they can be at times. It is the same with using a GPS.
Senator Cochrane: Therefore, it is not a safety feature as such then?
Mr. Bergh: I would say anything that aids navigation is a safety feature. It is another tool in the tool box.
Senator Cochrane: However, you are not confident enough for it to be the be-all and end-all instrument?
Mr. Bergh: Absolutely not.
Senator Cochrane: Are there certain geographical locations in B.C. that require staffing more so than other stations?
Mr. Bergh: The whole system is a network of light stations. I think it has been stripped almost as far as it can be. You have a system of light stations that encircle the coast in British Columbia and, when you pull one of those out, it leaves another hole. If you pluck them here and there, pretty soon you do not have a network of light stations anymore; you just have a light here and a light there. It certainly would never provide the same service that is provided now.
Senator Cochrane: You just said there were three or four already taken out.
Ms. Collins: Nine.
Senator Cochrane: Nine already taken out. What happens there? You have nine lighthouses already gone, right?
Mr. Bergh: I think there are more than nine light stations already gone.
Senator Cochrane: How are the people on the sea making out now?
Mr. Bergh: They are coping with it. You just have to deal with what you have to deal with. The more the better. The weather information is vital, so the more good weather information you can get, especially in the winter months, the better it is for safety. Quite often, during the winter months, you will get storm warnings and gale warnings, one after the other.
There are people who have to provide commerce. They are working people; they do not have jobs. They have to go out and harvest a tree or a fish to make money to feed their families. Those who sit at a dock and, even with storm warning after storm warning, if they have accurate weather information, they can track weather down the coast. If there is a hole in the weather, bingo, everyone's boats are moving and airplanes are flying. Then, as a front comes in, it gets relayed down or up the coast, whichever way it is coming, and people start buttoning things up.
Senator Raine: Fourteen light stations are unstaffed. Nine are automated already.
The Deputy Chair: Fourteen have been de-staffed and automated in B.C., according to our information.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for the presentation. I have a couple of questions. Basically, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick currently do not have any manned lighthouses. B.C. and Newfoundland still have some. I am not sure which of you said this, but someone said that there was a difference between Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick compared to Newfoundland and B.C. Could you comment on that for me?
To clarify, in New Brunswick, P.E.I and Nova Scotia, there are no manned lighthouses now. B.C. and Newfoundland still have them. One of you said there was a difference between the two. Could you comment on that?
Mr. Bergh: Road access and communities are probably the two biggest points. There are three light stations in B.C. that you can drive to and the rest of them are accessible via boat or helicopter. They are in remote communities. Hopefully, when the committee comes to British Columbia, a few of you will get the opportunity to get a ride in a helicopter or float plane and see how vast that coast is.
I was talking to a pilot who flies out of Port Hardy and Coal Harbour. He flies in the wintertime to Bella Bella and beyond in a day and comes back. The only people he talks to are the people at Bella Bella Airport and lightkeepers. He does not even see anyone else. The vastness is unbelievable. You have to see it to believe it. In the wintertime, it is not really a nice place to be, unless the weather is good, and the weather is not usually very good.
Ms. Collins: For clarification, there is a staffed lighthouse in New Brunswick.
Senator Poirier: It will stay staffed, according to our information.
From my understanding, the only big difference now is on the land and not on the water. You are saying that B.C. is more remote, it is more difficult for people to get there, the roads are not there, and it is more rural.
I am trying to ask whether you think that the mariners in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick feel they have a lost service compared to what the people in B.C. and Newfoundland are getting. You highlighted all the services the lightkeepers are giving now: Weather information, search and rescue if needed and emergency services. Given they are de-staffed in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, and because you find that these are the points that are crucial to not de-staff them in Newfoundland and B.C., do you feel that other maritime provinces are at a loss of services now?
Mr. Bergh: They could be. I have not been there. I have not talked to the fishermen there. I think it is a lot more populated on those coasts. I have been down the St. Lawrence and Gaspé Peninsula. There are beautiful light stations there, one after another, but it is a pretty wide open coast and there is a highway that goes right beside it.
There certainly is not a highway going up Vancouver Island. Every now and again, a road pokes its nose out to the coast, but they are fairly rare. I think the Canadian public is at a loss, because I have been sent pictures of some of the light stations which are in total disrepair in the Province of Nova Scotia. It is sad to see "before and after" pictures of what was a beautiful light station, which is now a total wreck.
Senator Poirier: Do you feel that the fishermen, whether on big or small vessels, are not being kept up to date as quickly with weather warnings because the stations are automated?
Mr. Bergh: Are you asking about all of Canada?
Senator Poirier: Yes.
Mr. Bergh: I would have to guess, yes, but I do not know what they have for weather information. If I look at a map of Nova Scotia, I see many towns all the way around the island. Maybe there are other ways to get weather information, such as airports or community dock people. There are many possibilities.
Ms. Collins: In some instances, they get weather reports from Coast Guard vessels, as I had indicated. I have said before, and it is probably worth repeating: The Transportation Safety Board has a report out in which they raise concerns about the increased number of accidents over the last few years involving small vessels and fishing vessels. It would be worth finding out whether that might shed light on the questions that you are asking.
Senator Poirier: What would the different roles be of lightkeepers in an automated lighthouse and lightkeepers in one that is not automated?
Mr. Bergh: Virtually nothing. The job of taking care of a light is only a minimal part of the job that we do, especially today when there are no beautiful Fresnel lenses floating on a pool of mercury that have to be polished on a daily basis. These days, you ensure that the lens is clean and there are good electrical connections. That does not take much time. Believe me, a lightkeeper's day is busy with buildings to maintain, landscaping to maintain and docks to fix. With just a couple of people working and five buildings and a government industrial facility to take care of, it is a busy place to be. There is lots of work to do every day.
Senator Poirier: Basically, the issue is not whether the light is automated. Rather, the issue is whether we need to have a lighthouse with lightkeepers to continue the other services. You are telling me that there is no difference between the roles and responsibilities of a lightkeeper in an automated lighthouse and a lightkeeper in one that is not automated. It is not the light in the lighthouse that we are discussing, but the work of the lightkeeper in the lighthouse. Am I right?
Mr. Bergh: We are talking about the role of a lightkeeper. After this meeting is over, you can read our job description as provided by the Coast Guard. You will see the variety of jobs that we are tasked with. It is quite a long list. As well, we are ready at a moment's notice to drop what we are doing and assist people with whatever might come up. Sometimes people who are hurt will come to the lightkeeper. The Coast Guard helicopter might drop in on the station and have a job for the lightkeeper to do. You never know from one day to the next what will happen.
Senator Poirier: There is no difference to you whether the light is automated. The importance is to keep the lightkeepers in the lighthouses.
Mr. Bergh: Absolutely.
The Deputy Chair: We intend to look at some of the automated stations, for your information. We will have that opportunity. As well, we will have the opportunity to seek the log records from the Coast Guard that you mentioned. We have been assured of their cooperation. All of these comments are helpful to us in our work.
Senator MacDonald: I look forward to going through your submissions. We received them about the same time as we sat down. They might illuminate the subject further and I look forward to reading them.
Mr. Bergh, I have one question you might be able to answer because you have been around lighthouses for a long time. With regard to the functionality of the lighthouses, the power of the light and the ability of the lighthouse to do its job, do you see an appreciable difference in the functionality of an automated lighthouse as opposed to the old fashioned light?
Mr. Bergh: I could not have put it better than the letter from the skipper of the ferry that goes from Alaska to Seattle. On a dirty night of rain, sleet and snow, he was able to pick out Greene Island Light Station. Having a full load of passengers, he felt a great sense of security knowing where he was without having to put his trust entirely in a wheelhouse full of electronics. When you reduce the power of the light, you reduce the sense of security that skippers will feel.
Senator MacDonald: Of all the lights that have been automated, is there a substantial difference in the power of them compared to the previous ones?
Mr. Bergh: Yes. They reduce the wattage of the lamp, thus reducing the power of the light. Having said that, on a perfect night, they work reasonably well, but once the weather deteriorates, the lack of power in the light does not allow it the full range. Also, the light does not cut through the fog or mist like an old light could.
Senator MacDonald: Of course, that is a different subject as to whether the light needs to be manned in order to be powerful.
With regard to your 27 years as a lighthouse keeper, you said that light stations are an important contribution to Canadian sovereignty, public safety for recreational boaters, monitoring sea planes, marine traffic and assist in the interdiction of smuggling. Over your 27 years at lighthouse stations, how much of the above have you been involved with?
Mr. Bergh: Just before I moved into Cape Beale Light Station, there was a drug bust. The RCMP was using Cape Beale as the staging point. I do not know how instrumental the lightkeeper was in that but we monitor airplanes on a continual basis. When airplanes go by, you take a mental note of it. When you see a Cessna 172 with a yellow stripe on it fly by, you remember it. You do not always log it but you remember when it went by.
Senator MacDonald: How often have you felt compelled to call the authorities about information you heard or suspicious activity that you saw?
Mr. Bergh: Three times.
Senator MacDonald: Did they pan out?
Mr. Bergh: One summer at dawn, about 4:30 a.m., I saw smoke over an island where there should not be smoke. I investigated and found the burned hull of a boat. Before I left, I saw a small boat travelling close to the beach, which I reported to the RCMP. Another time, I pulled into a bay and after I left, some young lads trashed the place. I found out about it and reported it to the RCMP. Another time, someone spotted a flashlight flashing in the middle of Johnson's Straits at one or two o'clock in the morning. We went out to investigate. It was reported to us and we went out and had a look and found a couple of kids in a boat. It did look like they had more fishing gear than they should have had and we did not twig on it until the next morning, but the RCMP were waiting for them when they pulled into Campbell River.
Senator MacDonald: From my point of view, being a Nova Scotian and being from a small community that still has a light station, I do not know any active lightkeepers in my hometown any more. I know a few former lighthouse keepers.
The major complaint seems to be the one I raised, which is the relatively strength of the light in certain weather conditions. In regard to the effect of automation in Nova Scotia, and this may change, we want to spend time and speak to some people there as well. We may have a more informed opinion on this in a few months, but there does not seem to be a lot of empirical evidence to suggest that, in terms of its influence on navigation, there is any particular change, negative or positive, in regard to how light stations serve those who sail in and out of the ports along the coastline.
This is the thing we are trying to get at. The experience in Nova Scotia is that automation for the most part, broadly, generally has not had any real negative effect. I do not think the coastline of Nova Scotia is particularly different. I know there are more places that are isolated in British Columbia. There is no question about that. In regard to Newfoundland, I think all the light stations in Newfoundland are accessible by road, as they are in Nova Scotia, except for the ones that are offshore, of course.
I look forward to going through this material. I will keep an open mind. If you have some empirical evidence in terms of the other services that are applied, that you think apply and how they have been used to a positive effect, I would like to see something solid that I can assess.
Mr. Bergh: Absolutely. There is a bay in northern Nova Scotia; I guess it is on Cape Breton, and heads out to Cabot Strait. Is that Digby? I am trying to think of the name.
Senator MacDonald: That is the other end of the province.
Mr. Bergh: I am trying to remember the name.
Senator MacDonald: Would it be Bay St. Lawrence?
Mr. Bergh: No, it heads out into Cabot Strait. I could dig it up on the map. I cannot remember what it was. There is a little bay and a light on each side of the gut to go in there. I got an email from somebody there, and they put two little solar-powered lights on there that blink once every 20 seconds for half a second. He was complaining about the dimness of it. Then when the seas are up there — they fish for halibut and lobster around there — they have to run through this gut and they do not like it.
Senator MacDonald: I suppose that is the point I was making, too. The major complaint I hear at home is the strength of the lights in certain weather conditions — not particularly that they are automated. I do not hear that complaint much today.
Mr. Bergh: I will try to get you some more solid information.
Senator Raine: I am not from the coasts but I am aware of the lighthouse issue probably more than most people think.
I would like you to expand a little on the problems that have been experienced with the automated weather stations. Obviously, weather is very crucial, especially along the B.C. coast, and I know that the reliability of a human in one spot is completely different from what you get from an automated weather station.
Mr. Bergh: For the last few weeks, a couple of lightkeepers have been tracking that. I did not bring the spreadsheets with me, but there have been quite a few sites on there that are unavailable, missing and partial information. Some of them have wind speed, and some of them have wind speed and swell height and one of those would be missing.
I can gladly forward you those if you want and you can have a look at them. I did not bring the spreadsheet. I have been so busy in the last few days making this presentation that I did not go through those spreadsheets and make an analysis of them.
Senator Raine: Your presentation was excellent and raises questions, at least for me. It is not just the light. It is the fact that there is a person there who makes it very valuable. I would like to see that. It would be helpful.
I also wonder whether you can comment on the incident with the ferry that went aground a year-and-a-half-or-so ago. I do not believe it had anything to do with lights.
Mr. Bergh: I think it might have had something to do with lights in the wheelhouse. I fish on seine boats that are 70 feet long and when I take a wheel watch I cover all that stuff up. I turn the radar right down to nothing at night time, put a jacket or something over the GPS plotter, and then make sure all the lights are down so you can see something. I can imagine that they must have had a lot of bright lights in there or no one was watching the wheel to run a ferry into a rock bluff. I do not know what the Transportation Safety Board came up with there.
Senator Raine: Does that route have lighthouses on it?
Mr. Bergh: There are a few. There are none on Gill Island. I think they have fixed aids along the beach there.
Senator Raine: At night, would they be relying on radar and GPS?
Mr. Bergh: Radar, GPS and navigational charts are always a good thing to track where you are at all times.
Even if the lights are far away, if they are 10 or 15 miles from light to light that are fixed aids along the beach, you will be able to know exactly where you are because you will have your chart. Even if all these fancy electronics are not working, you will have your chart, your compass and you will have a clock. Most people are professional enough to be able to navigate in the old way. If something breaks down and the boat is still running, they should be able to make themselves home with no problem.
Senator Raine: My next question is for Ms. Collins.
I had a glance at your information on the job description and it is pretty amazing. This is not an easy job. If you have to find people to fill these jobs when they become vacant, how difficult is it?
Ms. Collins: I do not believe in the past it has been very difficult to staff these jobs. One of the problems, obviously, is these are the lowest-paid jobs, but certainly it takes a certain person to work on a light station. There is a dedication there and I believe there is a lot of interest among mariners to do this job. Many, like Mr. Bergh, are also fishers and have been around that lifestyle.
Until recently, when the Coast Guard started bringing in only people on short term or even casual workers, we have not had any great problem with staffing the lights.
Senator Dallaire: When I was in the army, one of the things we dreaded the most would be someone coming to our regiment and saying, "Hi, I am from Ottawa, and I am here to help you."
I am going to use the Ottawa civil servant perspective of this, which is often very cold and calculated because of how they perceive the responsibilities so they divide things into three. Something must be done that is essential, is necessary, or is nice to have.
You have a department that will be hitting budget reductions. It has 114 PYs that it could probably use somewhere else because it has other jobs that are not filled, or it can use that as the reduction that they have to do to meet the budget. I asked the commissioner of the Coast Guard, "If the lighthouse people do not do all these jobs, then to whom are you handing it off? If you are going to save a whack of money, or whatever amount of money, by taking the people away and yet these jobs are essential — that is, you feel it is essential; I am not sure they do — someone else has to do it." They had no answer to that. They did not tell us that they had negotiated with another department to take over the weather or anything like that.
Taking away the light aspect, do you believe that those jobs there are essential to the well-being of Canadians in those isolated areas where we anticipate more activity? Are they necessary or are they nice to have?
Mr. Bergh: They are essential.
Senator Dallaire: Without a doubt in your mind?
Mr. Bergh: Without a doubt in my mind. That is why I am here.
Senator Dallaire: If the department closes down the lighthouses that are manned, they will have to find someone else to pick up all those jobs.
Mr. Bergh: Absolutely.
Senator Dallaire: It is not unusual for a department to pass the buck to another one in the process. We talked about the infrastructure and PYs, but I wanted to make sure that the requirement would have to be done by someone else and simply cannot be dropped. Is that right?
Mr. Bergh: In my way of thinking, I think essential things are dropped. You have probably seen that, too. Things that you feel are absolutely essential for the safety of Canadians have been scrapped.
Senator Dallaire: You feel this is another one?
Mr. Bergh: Yes.
Ms. Collins: The Coast Guard has a $700-million operating budget and a $150-million annual capital budget. We are talking about 110 lightkeepers, 4,500 employees within the Coast Guard.
We do ask why they are putting these services on the chopping block and where they will really save money. It is such a minimal cost in the overall scheme of things.
Senator Dallaire: Their estimates are about $8 million saving, and $8 million out of $700 million is still significant for a small department like that because they do not have a cent to build any new ships. Their ships are rusting out and sinking. They need hundreds of millions to handle their problem.
Ms. Collins: That comes out of their capital budget for their new vessels, not out of their operating budget. The savings is a little over 1 per cent of their budget. They will save 1.4 per cent. We have heard different amounts from the Coast Guard. Whether it is $8 million or whether it is $5 million, it is still questionable. I do not know whether you have been provided with all the financial figures. We requested it, but we have not seen it yet.
Senator Dallaire: Thank you very much.
The Deputy Chair: We will be getting as much information as we can, you can be assured, including financial information.
I would like to wrap up with some questions that have come to mind.
A lot of attention has been given to the work description of the lighthouse keepers' attachment No. 3 furnished by Mr. Bergh. It is a draft job description dated June 2000. Is there not a more current job description?
Ms. Collins: That is the last job description. It was rewritten in the UCS format, universal classification system, when they were trying to come up with the new classification system. That never actually happened. The last classified job description was 10 to 15 years earlier than that one, but the job description that they follow is the one that has been provided to you.
The Deputy Chair: That is helpful.
The case has been made by the Coast Guard, and I think the minister — and you know we have heard from the minister — is that we have new superior technology now. The debates that occurred more than 10 years ago were based on a different time when there was not the sophisticated technology that is available today.
I did note that some of the input on automation, and so on, that you have given to us was from some time ago. The Coast Guard commissioner said that: "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."
Before we adjourn, I want to give you an opportunity once more to comment on that fairly clear statement from the Coast Guard perspective.
Ms. Collins: I have a couple of comments to make on that. First, we have not seen the statistics. We requested the information and we asked for copies of what was presented here. However, we do not have them so we do not know what statistics they are using.
The Transportation Safety Board raised serious concerns about the increased accidents among small vessels and fishing vessels over the last four or five years. It is important to note that the Coast Guard mandate is not just lights, horns and navigational aids. They have jurisdictional responsibilities, for example, search and rescue, environmental response, et cetera.
I would suggest you look at the Coast Guard mandate and the statutes associated with that. I think it is interesting that they continue to insist that it is about the lights and horns, but I think the mandate and the responsibility is the safety of the travelling public and the search and rescue component, the marine communications, responding to environmental issues, et cetera.
I would be happy to provide you with a response to the commissioner's comments about no statistical difference if they would provide me with a copy of the statistics to which they are referring. In the meantime, the only statistics I have is the information coming out of the Transportation Safety Board that is telling me there are increased accidents to boaters.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. We will be looking for that information and we appreciate the advice about the Transportation Safety Board perspective as well.
Mr. Bergh, a last word on that statement?
Mr. Bergh: There is so much more to it than a light. It is the services that are provided. In this day and age, if you cannot make a light burn without someone on it, there is something wrong. Although the technology is there and you get a solar panel and a reliable light, you still have problems with that light. Although it is burning, algae grow on it. In the winter, ice and snow get on it. Sometimes, the lights are mounted inside old lantern houses. There used to be a big light in them and there was never condensation on the window because the big light was burning. In the wintertime now, however, there is dew all over the windows. That has to be cleaned off or there will be no visibility. It does not happen every night, but at certain times, when the atmospheric conditions are right, dew forms on things. When heavy dew forms on the light, the visibility drops way down.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you both for an informative and thoughtful presentation. I thank members of the committee for their participation.
(The committee adjourned.)