Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 4 - Evidence - June 8, 2010
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 8, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 6:11 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 Bill Rompkey (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: We want to welcome Mr. John Duncan, M.P.; rarely do we have a member of the other place before us. We appreciate you coming. We know your interest and passion for this, and we hope to learn from your experience.
We will be going to British Columbia in the fall. We have, of course, heard from British Columbia — not just from Senator Raine but from former Senator Carney — and we are looking forward to that visit.
I would ask you to make your presentation. However, before that, I will go around the table and have people introduce themselves. I am Bill Rompkey, and I am the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Senator MacDonald: I am Senator Michael MacDonald from Nova Scotia, and I am a member of the steering committee.
Senator Poy: Senator Vivienne Poy from Ontario.
Senator Patterson: Senator Dennis Patterson from Nunavut, and I am privileged to be the deputy chair of this committee.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I am Nancy Ruth from Toronto.
Senator Downe: I am Percy E. Downe from Charlottetown.
Senator Cochrane: I am Ethel Cochrane from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Poirier: I am Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick.
Senator Raine: I am Nancy Raine from British Columbia.
John Duncan, Member of Parliament for Vancouver Island North, as an individual: My presentation will probably take 13 for 14 minutes. Does that work? I wanted to thank some members of this committee for urging me to make an appearance here or to request an appearance. I think it is appropriate that today is World Oceans Day, and here I am before the Fisheries Committee.
In any case, my riding is Vancouver Island North. It is a very large riding with an extensive coastline, approximately half of the British Columbia coast — half of Vancouver Island and a big chunk of the B.C. mainland coast. It has more than 52,000 square kilometres, which is nearly as large as Nova Scotia.
It includes the northern half of Vancouver Island and a significant portion of B.C.'s central coast. The vast majority of this coastline is isolated and inaccessible except by air or sea, with only scattered permanent human settlements.
However, the area is not empty. Forestry, aquaculture, mining, power generation, commercial and recreational fishing and tourism activities all take place here, and they all rely on coastal waterways and airways to move people, equipment, supplies and products where they need to be. There is also a great deal of through traffic. Whether it is ferries and cruise ships moving people or ships and barges moving goods that connect us to the global economy, our coastal waters are the lifeblood of our local and national economies.
For the people living in the small First Nations settlements and other communities up and down the coast, travelling by boat or small plane is a necessity, not a luxury. As the recent tragedy in Ahousat shows, people living in these areas face risks in their everyday lives that those who live in cities simply cannot imagine.
Before entering politics, I worked in coastal B.C. logging operations for 20 years, and I have been in many uncomfortable situations. I have also had friends, colleagues and family killed in helicopters, float planes and boats. Here the costs of safety are measured in lives, not dollars.
My involvement with light stations goes back to the early 1990s. Light station de-staffing was being considered then, as it is now, and it quickly became apparent to me that this was a galvanizing issue for the people that I represent. Even groups that were normally at odds with one another were united in their opposition to light station de-staffing. It was clear that the people of B.C. cared about staffed light stations — a lot.
I collaborated with Senator Carney, Senator Forestall, John Cummins, M.P. and Bob Ringma, M.P. Years before the merger of the Progressive Conservative Party and the Canadian Alliance, one thing drew us together: light stations on the B.C. coast.
We formed an ad hoc committee as a means of giving voice to the many coastal residents who opposed de-staffing. The resulting report, which I am tabling before your committee today in both official languages, was instrumental in the decision to halt the de-staffing initiative of the government of the day.
I am also tabling a copy of the current Conservative Party policy on light stations, which I originally presented to the 2005 convention in Montreal, where it received overwhelming support.
Fifteen years have now passed since the ad hoc committee completed its report, and it is worth considering what exactly has changed.
In B.C., we still rely on our coastal waterways and airways. There are actually fewer permanent isolated settlements there than there once were, but at the same time, the forest industry is more mobile and therefore more reliant on coastal travel than ever. Independent power projects are also appearing on the coast in response to calls for low carbon energy sources. These will be a major source of activity for years to come, but they were not even part of the picture 15 years ago.
There have been many geopolitical changes and the importance of securing our borders is more important than ever. Keeping our borders secure has become essential to both public safety and our economic security. Having eyes and ears on all of our borders has become integral to this.
There have also been changes in technology, which, we are told, makes a difference. However, I would urge caution in this regard.
This committee has heard evidence that statistically there is no difference between staffed and automated light stations when it comes to reliability. I would like to point out to the committee that statistics can only tell you something about what is being measured. They cannot tell you anything about whether you are measuring the right thing.
For example, statistically speaking, you are just as likely to get into a car accident if you are wearing your seat belt as if you are not. Would you conclude from this there is no good reason to wear a seat belt? The statistic is not telling you what you need to know. Accident statistics tell you nothing about the real value of a seat belt. However, when you are driving and everything suddenly starts to go wrong, it is pretty clear what the measure of its value really is.
The Coast Guard may define the reliability of a light in terms of the time that the light is not functioning, but if we want to determine the impacts of automation, we must ask ourselves if we are measuring the right thing. If the light is on but it is not powerful enough to be seen in difficult conditions, how well is it actually functioning? If the light is on but covered in snow or obscured by condensation, how reliable is it?
What of the weather? Mariners rely on more than just navigational aids to ensure their safety. Knowing the weather conditions is critical to making smart decisions on the water. Because they are strategically located, lightkeepers are able to provide accurate, real-time weather reports — and weather fronts, I might add — to mariners and aviators at critical times in the decision-making process.
This is important. Knowing when it is safe to head out means that commercial traffic can operate more efficiently; and knowing when to shelter can mean the difference between life and death.
I had not planned on talking about this, but I know there was a question about the Queen Charlotte Islands. I spent five years living and working in the Charlottes, which is Haida Gwaii now. We made a long helicopter trip to Ninstints, which is Anthony Island. That is where the totems are — at the south end, close to Cape St. James.
I was enjoying the scenery; it is a remote, very special place. Then the pilot said, "We have to leave, and we have to leave right now because if we do not, we might be here until at least tomorrow." That is how quickly a front can move in. We basically outraced the weather in a helicopter. We still miss Cape St. James light station. That one was de-staffed quite some time ago.
For mariners and aviators, the weather is not just a data set. When you are in a remote and isolated coastal area and the weather moves in, small problems can become big problems in a hurry. Without good information, mariners who are trying to keep schedules or looking at their bottom line or just wanting to get home to their families are more likely to put themselves in harm's way.
How can you measure the number of lives saved by people making the difficult but smart decision to not fly or not go out on the water at a critical time?
Flying from Port Hardy to Bella Coola takes one past Cape Caution. The weather there is often totally different than at either end. This is just one example. The B.C. coast has been called the most challenging place in the world to fly.
Now we enter a gray area. The Coast Guard may rightly claim that collecting weather information is not within their core mandate, but making this information available is critical to mariner safety, and that is most definitely within their mandate.
It often happens in the real world that things do not easily fit into the exclusive mandate of one government department or another. In these cases, we can choose either to let them fall through the cracks, or we can choose to find some way to make them work.
I have long advocated a whole-of-government approach to the staffing of light stations. Instead of arguing about whose mandate they fall under, we should be focusing on the value that lightkeepers provide to our government as a whole and then finding a way to make it work.
I fear that as long as light stations continue to be eyed as targets for de-staffing, there will be pressure to narrow their mandate to justify this goal. Instead of looking for better reasons to get rid of lightkeepers, we should be looking for better ways to maximize their utility.
In B.C., light stations are flying the flag of Canada in areas with little human presence, let alone federal presence.
Lightkeepers not only fulfill a vital function in marine safety, but they also contribute or have the potential to contribute much to forwarding many goals of government. They are valuable eyes and ears. They provide support to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and National Defence. They are present to observe and report anything out of the ordinary, such as oil spills, suspicious activities or whether a plane or vessel had passed by. They have pre-empted or narrowed massive search and rescue missions by their observations. How do you account for that in terms of money that was never spent?
This standing committee will be well served by going to remote B.C. light stations, and most of them are very remote. Travelling to the affected regions will also give the committee the opportunity to hear from individuals whose lives and livelihoods are regularly affected by the services that lightkeepers provide.
I am tabling a further submission that went to NAV CANADA from me in early 2009, when they were conducting their airport traffic services review of the Port Hardy Airport. I include this submission as it describes that part of the coast from an aviation-focused perspective and tends to reinforce my discussion.
As was the case with NAV CANADA after their flight service station staffing review at Port Hardy, I hope that the committee similarly recommends retention of current staffing at the light stations.
That concludes my remarks.
The Chair: Thank you. You mentioned a point that I had not thought about before, or not thought about enough, and that is the multiple roles of lightkeepers. It brought to mind the study that we did in the Arctic and our encounter with the Canadian Rangers because they too have multiple roles. They have a role in search and rescue and in oil spill cleanup, and the Canadian Rangers in the northern communities are more or less the auxiliary Coast Guard. Not many people live in small Arctic communities, so people tend to move between those government entities fairly easily.
We are talking about lightkeepers that belong to the Canadian Coast Guard, but you make the point that they do not only do the work of the Coast Guard. I wanted to make that analogy. In Arctic communities, groups also do multiple tasks. One of the questions for us, therefore, is what category should lightkeepers be in in the future. That is just an interesting idea that I wanted to put on the table before we hear from Senator Watt.
Mr. Duncan: Could I make a comment on your comment, please? In other ways, the federal government recognizes the isolation of our coastline. For example, you talk about Canadian Rangers as if they are a northern phenomenon. We have Canadian Rangers on this part of the coast from small communities such as Tahsis and on the north end of the island. They go out on exercises, and they have provided important sovereignty information to authorities that often deals with illegal drug landings, et cetera. It is a sovereignty exercise. Having no presence other than a partial presence may be the difference here. There is a real sovereignty question, I believe.
Senator Watt: Welcome to this committee. I was not here during the early part of your presentation, so I might be moving in the direction of things that you have already covered, but nevertheless I will go through that exercise.
I have noticed that you have not changed your opinion from the last time that we met.
Mr. Duncan: No, and I should probably declare my bias here because 41 per cent of the staffed light stations on the B.C. coast are in my riding.
Senator Watt: Obviously you have had a very strong opinion in the past about de-staffing. You have been a proponent for keeping staff on the light, and you have been urging the expansion of the roles of the lightkeepers beyond their traditional duties. You illustrated that they could continue to do what they are doing, but their roles could be expanded. I would like to hear more details on that aspect of what else they can do other than what they are doing today. I do believe that those lighthouses are also not only lighthouses for the purpose of marine activities in the surrounding areas, but they are also very important to aviation, from what I understand. I wonder if you could expand more on that to let the committee know about those matters. Where do you see the expansion taking place?
Mr. Duncan: Thank you for that. A rapidly growing recreational community likes isolation and remoteness. We have many kayakers on the B.C. coast who are not used to the adversity that they often face. They are in for a big surprise when they get into storm events quickly. We have had many fatalities from that community. It is clear that they can count on the staffed light stations when they are in trouble. If they can at least get there, they have communication, food and warmth.
Aviation input to current weather reporting and visual reporting are crucial to the small aviator. Such information comes out of the flight services centre in Port Hardy, for example. There is no airport between Port Hardy and Prince Rupert on the coast, which is a huge distance.
I was flying in a twin engine Cessna 310 with no floats. It was clear in Bella Coola and in Port Hardy, but we got into a situation where we had to retreat at Cape Caution. We had already invested a great deal of time and fuel to get that far, but we had to come back. If you take a chance, you are doing all the wrong things. When we returned to Port Hardy, we gave flight services our information, and they talked to the lightkeepers to determine what was happening between the two places. Currently, there is no other place to acquire that information.
One of my colleagues talked to me today after he had read my submission. He said, "You are absolutely right on about the floatplanes." People do not appreciate how many coastal floatplanes coastal British Columbia has and how crucial they are because they are the only transportation route for many communities.
Senator Watt: Let us suppose that we go in the direction of de-staffing and there is no one in the light station to answer a call from a small plane that, for example, finds itself immersed in fog. What is the alternative for the pilot who is partially lost and needing information? What is the next recourse if that information is not available?
Mr. Duncan: The aviators talk to each other, but someone has to be first in the area.
Senator Watt: If it is not in the location, what can they do? Very little, I suppose.
Mr. Duncan: They have to operate with less information.
Senator Watt: Thank you.
Senator Poy: Do you think that de-staffed light stations should be re-staffed?
Mr. Duncan: No, because if any length of time has gone by since it was staffed, it is too late. When you de-staff, you lose the light, the structure and the house. You lose everything. I believe that there are five buildings to every staffed light station. In a short time, you are unable to reverse the de-staffing. The last round of de-staffing was quite some time ago, so I do not think it is realistic to try to re-staff.
Senator Poy: You talked about the multiple roles of the staff of light stations. Currently, they are under the Canadian Coast Guard. They put flags on the remote light stations to indicate Canadian sovereignty. Could they not fall under another umbrella such as the navy? If they are under different departments at the same time, then they share the cost.
Mr. Duncan: Yes, I think that is something this committee certainly should consider. The Coast Guard has always been the home of the light stations, but the Coast Guard has not always been a part of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Since I have been in Ottawa, it moved from Transport Canada to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO.
Senator Poy: Different departments could share the costs. Some of the very old lighthouses could be made into historic monuments that would fall under a different department. These costs could be shared.
Mr. Duncan: That has occurred. We have some designated heritage light stations and others that have been taken over by adjacent communities. Many are in that category. Of the 27 staffed light stations on the B.C. coast, not many would be candidates for adoption because they are so isolated and remote.
Senator Poy: Is that because people cannot get there?
Mr. Duncan: Yes. If they are on a remote stretch of coast and you cannot drive to them, the idea would not be practical.
Senator Poy: You mentioned floatplanes, which depend on the light stations when they come in. Is that correct?
Mr. Duncan: Yes. It goes beyond the built-in mechanism. From time to time, the regular users of our coast will phone directly. They have an informal communication with the lightkeepers. I do not know whether that is formally authorized, but it happens often.
Senator Poy: They use radios to make their calls. Do they ask for the weather reports in that area?
Mr. Duncan: Yes. Cell coverage on the water can be decent at times on some parts of the coast, but in many areas of the coast, you cannot find cellular service. You find a little more coverage when you are up in a floatplane, but other than that, you are relying on being somewhere with the facilities for communication.
I know that the pilots have an informal network.
Senator Poy: What are the hours of lightkeepers? Is it the case that after a certain hour, calls are not answered?
Mr. Duncan: I know that Steve Bergh, the president of BC Lightkeepers, appeared before the committee. His light station is in my area at Chatham Point. He responded well to all of these questions, much better than I would be able to in terms of hours and duties.
Senator Cochrane: Mr. Duncan, has there been any de-staffing of lighthouses on the B.C. coast already?
Mr. Duncan: Yes, there has. One of the last ones was Cape St. James, at the south end of the Haida Gwaii, which I referenced earlier. In 1994, there was an initiative to de-staff the rest, and that was put on hold. The government made a statement, probably in 1995, after much public debate and discussion, not to proceed.
Senator Cochrane: Is it only Cape St. James that was de-staffed?
Mr. Duncan: No, others were as well.
Senator Cochrane: Were there any consequences as a result of the de-staffing?
Mr. Duncan: That was before I paid much attention to the subject. However, I would say that the loss of Cape St. James has been significant for the fishing community and for the mariners and aviators.
Senator Cochrane: Have they filed any complaints?
Mr. Duncan: I do not know. Is there a process to do that other than political?
Senator Cochrane: Perhaps there is in the Coast Guard or DFO.
Mr. Duncan: I am not sure.
Senator Cochrane: Is it possible that some staffed lighthouses, because of their location, may be more necessary than others?
Mr. Duncan: Yes. I think the more remote and the more isolated the lighthouses are, the more necessary they are because often they are the only presence. Those are the lighthouses where having a human presence saves expensive servicing by helicopter or other methodology.
The argument the other way is that you have to take people in and out, which is an added cost as well. It is a difficult accounting exercise.
Senator Cochrane: How is the West Coast different from the East Coast, in your opinion?
Mr. Duncan: The B.C. coast is more isolated and more remote, generally speaking. I do not know that that is true in each and every case, but I believe that to be largely true.
I have seen comparisons to Washington State, where they have de-staffed lighthouses. You can basically drive the whole state around the coastline, which you cannot do in British Columbia. The three access points are Kitimat, Prince Rupert, Bella Coola — and then below that you are on the Sunshine Coast, just outside Vancouver. Those are the only road access points to our entire coast.
Senator Cochrane: How do you respond to the Coast Guard argument that lighthouses have been de-staffed around the world without incident?
Mr. Duncan: I do not pretend to be an expert there. I just talked about the comparison with Washington State. Any comparison with any part of the United States, including Alaska, has to take into account their huge military and Coast Guard presence that we do not have. You cannot go anywhere in Europe without having someone watching you. Those are dense populations.
I read the testimony from witnesses who spoke about Chile and Brazil, which indicated that they are not backing away from staffing their remote coastlines. Maybe that is a more apt comparison.
Senator Cochrane: You were on the ad hoc committee in 1994?
Mr. Duncan: Yes.
Senator Cochrane: Did you have any meetings in the Atlantic region?
Mr. Duncan: No. It was a B.C. exercise only. We were not authorized by the Senate or by the House of Commons to formulate that committee; it was simply an individual collaboration. We were able to use some of our parliamentary budget to accomplish the ad hoc hearings, which became quite newsworthy and well attended in multiple communities in the Lower Mainland, Victoria, and on Vancouver Island.
The Chair: I would like you to elaborate on the comparison between B.C. and Washington State. One of our interests is the international comparison. Could you tell us more about Washington State?
Mr. Duncan: There is a north-south road. On the west coast of Washington State there is a highway that starts from Oregon and cuts over to the north coast. Then there is another leg that goes out to Neah Bay, which is on the extreme northwest point of Washington State. Then a highway network takes you right back along the coast to Puget Sound; and once you are in Puget Sound, you are basically in Seattle. No great part of their coastline has no roads or is unpopulated other than the little piece in Olympic National Park.
The Chair: What about the lighthouses along there?
Mr. Duncan: They have been de-staffed.
Senator Patterson: I would like to thank Mr. Duncan for his appearance and for sharing his experience.
Could you tell us a little more about your working experience on the coast, what travel you did and how extensively you operated on that coast?
Mr. Duncan: I like to say that I probably know the B.C. coast more extensively and intimately than any other parliamentarian — in Ottawa, for sure.
I lived and worked in small communities on the B.C. coast in the forest sector, working in logging operations, for the better part of 20 years. I spent five years on the north coast, in Haida Gwaii. I spent seven years on the west coast of the island, in the Ucluelet area. I spent my years just prior to the political arena on the North Vancouver Island, but also in Campbell River and Kelsey Bay, not far from your home community of Woss Lake. I also worked in Port Alberni, Nanaimo, Chemainus and the Gulf Islands in that capacity.
I have seen it all, having lived and worked there. I did a great deal of travel by floatplane. I have used helicopters for transportation and for work. I do not know of anyone who has lit more fires from a helicopter than I.
It is not a practice that is currently carried out to the same extent, but I have done many hours — too many to count — in the air. I did a great deal of boat travel as well.
I have seen how quickly things can change on the coast. I have been in situations where it was either stay out overnight or try to get out. Despite the fact that we were near water, no floatplane could fly, but a helicopter could. Those rides were pretty rough, but they pre-empted a wet night.
Senator Patterson: Would you be willing to advise the committee on what would be some typical situations that we should look at on the West Coast? I am talking about situations where we can learn about these issues that you have been discussing today? I do not mean right now, but would you be available as a resource to us? We are planning travel, and we need to see typical situations.
Mr. Duncan: Yes, of course. I have not talked about the First Nations communities such as Klemtu, for example, where the light station, which is out a little way toward the open water, has been instrumental in pre-empting local tragedies and also in being an integral part of the community in that remote context. It is not the only one, but it is probably the clearest example. That would be an area, I think, that no one has really talked about much. We have remote First Nations communities that do not have access to the federal presence in a local context very much.
Senator Patterson: Finally, you referred to a policy that you would table with the committee. Could you elaborate further on what that is about?
Mr. Duncan: It has been tabled by others, I realize now. It is just the current Conservative Party policy under the transport section on light stations. I do not have one in front of me, but it is something that was passed at our 2005 convention and is still in effect.
The Chair: We have it.
Senator Cochrane: Could you give me the name of the Native community again that you just mentioned?
Mr. Duncan: It is Klemtu; if the committee were to travel to Klemtu, you would be a long way up the coast. You would have already realized what remote places the Central Coast and North Coast are.
The Chair: Before I go to Senator Raine, could I intervene to talk about the future? We will be going to British Columbia in the fall — hopefully, it will be in September — but we have to get a budget, and we have to plan. If we had four or five days, the question becomes how we use those four or five days in British Columbia.
I know that Senator Raine will have some suggestions, and others will too, but I wanted to put it on the table because we are in the process now of doing a budget. The budget will depend, to a degree anyway, on where we go and how we get there — especially to remote areas in which we may have to travel by helicopter.
If you could perhaps put your ideas on paper for us with respect to filling up those four or five days and submit it, we would be very grateful.
Mr. Duncan: I will do that.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much, Mr. Duncan, for being here. I know you were very active the last time de-staffing was on the table. In your opinion, do you know what has prompted the Canadian Coast Guard's latest initiative to remove these remaining lightkeepers?
Mr. Duncan: The simple answer is no.
Senator Raine: I liked when you said that you measure safety in terms of lives, not dollars. However, if we are talking about the costs, even if the light stations are de-staffed, there are still significant costs to maintain the lights; and of course, you are losing all the other services that those lightkeepers provide. To your knowledge, has anyone done any cost benefit analysis on this situation, or is it possible? Would it have to be done station by station?
Mr. Duncan: I do not know if it is possible. I do not know if it lends itself to an accounting exercise very well.
Light stations on the B.C. coast have icon status. Salmon have icon status and light stations have icon status.
Senator Raine: It is interesting because a retired Coast Guard officer said that retaining an outmoded service that has been eliminated in parts of Canada and other places in the world has no merit. The United States has successfully de-staffed 474 of their 475 light stations. He also talked about other countries.
What is so unique about the coast of British Columbia that this issue is still being debated?
Lightkeepers have told us that they are performing many tasks that are not recognized by the Coast Guard perhaps. We need a way to make the case.
Mr. Duncan: I do believe that Canada is a completely different circumstance, without even talking about the merits of light stations. The United States has a massive military and Coast Guard presence that we do not have. They have 340 million people, so they have a bigger population and many resources that we do not have.
Senator Raine: I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this — are all the light stations necessary that are there now? We have been told that we are at the limit of how the chain of security can be stretched. However, are some less needed than others? You mentioned that you thought there were, but there are not that many when you consider the length of the coast.
Mr. Duncan: Yes. It is not a question that I enjoy answering.
The Chair: You are still in active politics, and this is on TV.
Mr. Duncan: The more remote and the more isolated it is, the more valuable it is.
Senator Raine: We had a discussion about fishers, for instance, from the Vancouver area being able to phone a light station on the north end of Vancouver Island, which is not very remote. However, by phoning ahead, it saves them going up there in the boat and having to turn back. In terms of commerce up and down the coast, I imagine these light stations are more valuable than you can really put on paper — just having that type of information available.
Mr. Duncan: Some of our search and rescue missions on the B.C. coast, when they are looking for someone and they mobilize all of the aircraft and so on to find someone, that search can be narrowed because a lightkeeper observed that particular missing boat or missing plane going south or north in the time frame that they are in. That is huge. I understand that sometimes they have even said that they think they know where they are. How do you measure that? We do not take a sharp pencil to search and rescue missions that are deployed because they are considered essential. When you do not spend the money because you did not have to, how do you know how to account for that?
Senator Raine: I believe most of the light stations have fuel stored on them for helicopters and search and rescue refuelling, if necessary, so an emergency store of fuel is nearby. Could that fuel be stored there if no one was on the light station?
Mr. Duncan: It could be stored there, but if your question is whether it would be problematic, I would assume so.
Senator Raine: Would it last?
Mr. Duncan: Yes, would it last, and would it be possibly adulterated? Who knows?
The Chair: When the subject came up about other countries having done this and we have not, I was reminded of what my mother used to say to me when I wanted to do what the group was doing and she did not approve: "If everyone jumped over the wharf, would you jump over too?" Maybe we dared to be different.
Senator Nancy Ruth: You talked about the expanded role for lightkeepers. Can you tell us what that would entail?
Mr. Duncan: There has been previous testimony, and I can hearken back to some of the events of the mid-1990s. I was aware, for example, that where we have isolated staffed light stations, we usually have generators, and we have people. They have become research-oriented. They have also done such various things as being contracted by people doing seismic surveys who needed some power generation. I am sure many examples exist. It is not where I have focused my attention. My attention has been mainly concerned with the aviator and mariner safety.
I know the Langara Island light station on the north end of Haida Gwaii has, for many years, taken measurements related to earthquake activity, and that is a very active earthquake zone. It is all tied in with the tsunami warning system. I do not know how you measure the value of that, but if no one is there to do it, it does not happen. I am certain the universities and research people find them often very useful because someone is there; they are there every day, and they can do something on schedule.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I am sure that all these tasks are very useful. Is it the Coast Guard's responsibility to pay for these functions through the lightkeepers?
Mr. Duncan: Probably not, and this is an issue.
Senator Nancy Ruth: It is an issue.
Senator Downe: To follow up on Senator Nancy Ruth's question, the problem as she identified and you identified, Mr. Duncan, is that the Coast Guard thinks these additional responsibilities are outside the mandate of the Coast Guard. You mentioned earlier in your testimony as well that the Coast Guard was moved to Fisheries and Oceans in the time you have been in Ottawa. Should the Coast Guard be moved somewhere else, and if so, where?
Mr. Duncan: I do not know that I am qualified to answer that question, or that I even have a strong opinion. In the U.S., the Coast Guard is a paramilitary organization that is basically part of the military.
Senator Downe: That is where I am headed. It seems to me that one of the additional responsibilities, as we try to assure the Americans that our borders are secure, is the point you made earlier about the very isolation of those locations. We have a set of eyes and ears if we have them staffed. If they are automated, we do not have that. That is an additional security measure. We are spending millions of dollars securing our border, and perhaps this should be considered in addition to the mandate of assisting navigation. It would follow that these light stations take on a new importance. Do you have any comments on that?
Mr. Duncan: It is for the committee to ponder. This has been batted around in many circles, and I am not sure what the answer is.
Senator Downe: I did not attend the 2005 Conservative convention, and I have not had the report, but I assume that you presented the policy position. The position of the Conservative Party is to support the staffing of these lighthouses. Is that correct?
Mr. Duncan: That is the wording in the policy, yes.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I was curious if you know whether any of the lightkeepers in the area are First Nations people?
Mr. Duncan: That is a good question. I am not aware of any, but I do not know them all.
The Chair: Are any of them women?
Mr. Duncan: Yes.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Thank you, senator.
The Chair: What percentage are women?
Mr. Duncan: I do not know.
The Chair: Could it be 50 per cent? We do not know.
Mr. Duncan: I do not know.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for your presentation and for sharing your thoughts and ideas on this.
One of the aspects we are looking at or have been asked to look at is whether there is a safety issue if these lighthouses are de-staffed. Since the time you had the committee back in 1994, technology has advanced with the Global Positioning System, GPS, and probably stronger access to long distances with the radios. Do you feel that by de-staffing them, even with the advanced technology, that a safety issue still exists because of the remoteness of the B.C. coast? For example, you mentioned that when many of these people are in trouble, the lighthouse is a place for them to turn to for food, heat, shelter from weather conditions and a place to stay until help comes because it probably has a staffed presence. Even with the advanced technology, if they are de-staffed, do you feel that will create a definite safety issue there?
Mr. Duncan: I do for the smaller marine craft, everything from kayaks to recreational boats to slightly larger boats that may have malfunctions. In the aviation community, the smaller planes still follow visual flight rules, for the most part. It is a real issue for them because things happen in compressed time when they are in an aircraft. In a sense, it is a more significant issue for them than for others.
Senator Poirier: Do these floatplanes serve as people's means of transportation to pick up the basic needs of everyday life?
Mr. Duncan: They do not come out every day.
Senator Poirier: Do they use their planes to connect with the outside world?
Mr. Duncan: They use them to get to the next community, whether Port Hardy, Campbell River or a major centre.
Senator Poirier: Is that to get supplies?
Mr. Duncan: Yes, or to visit or to get to a hospital. You tend to combine many reasons into one trip when you live in a remote community.
Senator Manning: Mr. Duncan, what has happened to the remaining buildings of the de-staffed lighthouses in British Columbia? The Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act is trying to give a sense of reverence to the historic nature of lighthouses; they can be preserved if some community group or organization would like to preserve them. However, the government does not give money to do this. These buildings are left to the fresh air or to whomever or whatever to ensure they stay put.
With the ones that have been de-staffed on the West Coast, what has been your experience with the structures?
Mr. Duncan: There has not been any staffing since the early 1990s. I am not even sure which ones were de-staffed, but I know about Cape St. James, which was all taken away at the time of de-staffing. There are no buildings to be concerned with at Cape St. James. There was no local community or group to maintain it.
In the case of Saturna Island, where Senator Carney lives, the community took it over because it was an accessible light station. Beyond that, we have Fisguard, Race Rocks and some other lighthouses near Victoria. Race Rocks was taken over by Pearson College. Fisgard will be taken over by Parks Canada, I believe, and one in West Vancouver might be taken over by the community, but I am not sure. Is it a national park or a provincial park?
Senator Raine: It is a B.C. park.
Mr. Duncan: If they are near communities, they will be maintained. If they are not near a community, they will disappear, probably by design.
Senator Manning: Is communication to and from extremely remote lighthouses in British Columbia via satellite phone? How do they communicate when a tragedy occurs or they otherwise see or experience something that should be reported? I wonder about getting messages back to the mainland.
Mr. Duncan: They have radio phones and tend to all talk to each other. One probably cannot talk to the other end all the time.
Senator Manning: It is a relay system of some nature.
In the discussions you had during committee work, was safety the underlying issue in the feedback that you received from mariners, lightkeepers, et al?
Mr. Duncan: Yes, de-staffing is a safety concern and a very emotional issue as well. There is no denying the emotional attachment to the iconic status of the light stations. As per our earlier conversation, people make the connection that if an isolated light station has no staff, it will disappear. They do make that connection.
The Chair: Mr. Duncan, have you given the clerk of the committee a copy of your ad hoc committee report?
Mr. Duncan: You have it in both languages.
The Chair: What was the consequence of your report?
Mr. Duncan: Well, that is an interesting story. I was denied unanimous consent, which was required to table it in the House of Commons. I believe that Senator Carney was able to table it via committee in this place. We ended up with a by-election in 1995, I believe, in the Coquitlam area. There happened to be coinciding travelling meetings of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, which I sat on, in British Columbia. It became a media story that became linked to the by-election. The minister's rep came to me and said, "Will you please find someone to table that report so that we have something to run with to reverse our decision?" Of course, I promptly arranged to do so. That is the real story about what happened.
The Chair: That is good.
Senator MacDonald: Mr. Duncan, it is great to have you here this evening. I do not have a question for you, but I have a few observations that you might want to take with you when you go back to B.C. and speak to the lightkeepers in your area.
I can assure you that Nova Scotians are just as romantic about lighthouses as the people on the West Coast. The staffed lighthouse was something we let go of very grudgingly — there is no doubt about that. We just spent a week down East looking at sites and dealing with people who fish and interact with these facilities.
It is fair to say that a couple of things recurred in terms of problems with the de-staffed lighthouses: deterioration of the facilities once they were de-staffed, which we experienced on our trip; and complaints about the quality and strength of the lights, the fog horns and all the equipment that goes with the light station.
I have to admit that I heard nothing in Nova Scotia to convince me that de-staffing a lighthouse is necessarily something so negative that it cannot be overcome. I would like to be convinced, and I am open to being convinced. When we go to the West Coast and to the coast of Newfoundland, we will be dealing with people who live at these facilities. The point I want to make to you is that we are open to being convinced, but you could perhaps speak to the lightkeepers out West and urge them to get their arguments together and their details down. There is the argument that we can do without lightkeepers if the equipment is up to scratch, with today's technology.
I leave that to you to consider when you speak to the people out West. We will be travelling there. Right now, my opinion is up in the air as to what we should do. Our committee wants to do the right thing and recommend the right approach, but we must have the facts to back up what we are doing.
The Chair: In that connection, we should tell you that our committee is the first parliamentary committee to have a blog, so that people can contact us electronically. We encourage people to contact us. I wanted to mention that because it is apropos of the point you are making. Our website is www.canadianlighthouses.ca and it will be up in two weeks' time.
Mr. Duncan, thank you very much for appearing before us. You have been very helpful to us. I hope you can follow up on some of the issues that we have raised, such as travel and so on.
(The committee adjourned.)