Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 7 - Evidence - November 30, 2010
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 30, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 18:22 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: Good evening ladies and gentlemen.
We are a little late getting started today due to Senate business and I thank the witnesses for waiting for us.
Members of the committee, it has been requested, in light of the late start today, that we hear from the two witnesses consecutively and save our questions for after their presentations. Is that agreeable to members of the committee?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: First is Mr. Jim Abram, Director, Discovery Islands-Mainland Inlets of the Strathcona Regional District; followed by Ms. Kaity Arsoniadis-Stein, President and Secretary-General of International Ship-Owners Alliance of Canada Inc.
I would like to welcome Mr. Jim Abram. He is also a former president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, founder and former president of the B.C. Lightkeepers and a local retired lightkeeper of 25 years, and he is based on Quadra Island.
Senators, you have received a copy of Mr. Abram's presentation in both official languages, and the committee clerk has also received some supporting documents that form part of Mr. Abram's presentation that include newspaper articles, a report published by Transport Canada in 1988, a report published by the Coastal Communities Network in 1997 and three letters. These are available in English. The committee clerk has brought copies of these documents and they are placed on the table at the front of the room for those who wish to have copies.
Mr. Abram, the floor is yours.
Jim Abram, Director, Discovery Islands-Mainland Inlets, Strathcona Regional District: Mr. Chair, honourable members and all staff present, as has been said, I am the member from the Strathcona Regional District, which is the local government for the area. I represent a very long and challenging stretch of the B.C. coastline, and it is over 1 million square kilometres of land and water connecting countless islands and inlets.
I am the former president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities and was on their executive for 10 years. The UBCM represents all 190 local governments in the province of B.C. That is full membership; everyone is a member of UBCM.
I was also a lightkeeper from 1978 until I retired in 2003. During that time, I founded the B.C. lightkeepers local of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. I was the president from its inception until I retired.
Strictly due to the loss of essential safety services on this coast, I have led every campaign since 1985 to stop the Canadian Coast Guard's programs to de-staff light stations. The Coast Guard plan was short-sighted. The public, then and now, demands and expects staffed light station services.
I have been so proud to have served my country as a lightkeeper and have always felt that the Coast Guard motto, as in my title, "Safety First, Service Always" was such an appropriate banner to work under.
I was first elected to local government in 1988, after a successful defeat of the first Canadian Coast Guard plan to eliminate staff on light stations on the B.C. coast. The community where I live came to me because they believed in me and felt that I could deal with the major issues that they were facing at that time in their own community.
I have served 22 continuous years in that elected local government position. The people whom I represent work, play and live on or near the water. It is part of their being. We have approximately 30,000 kilometres of coastline in B.C. Much of that coastline is uninhabited or sparsely so, but all of it is traversed by the marine and aviation communities, including First Nations, who need to get from one place to another. The waterways are our highways.
There are 27 staffed light stations strategically located along that coastline for good reason. Unfortunately, we have lost a number of stations over the years due to the ill-conceived plans of the Coast Guard. These remaining stations are so important to our marine and aviation safety, and the sovereignty of this great nation, that we cannot afford as a nation to lose one more station.
The safety network provided by the staffed stations will be compromised if there are any further reductions. That network is a system. It is continuous from Alaska to Washington and no more gaps can be created by this attempt by Coast Guard senior management to convince you otherwise. They are misleading in their attempts and their characterization of the lack of consequences. There will be consequences.
I would like to quote from the one group of public servants that knows lightkeepers best. I included this letter in your package. The Marine Communications and Traffic Services workers are the Canadian Coast Guard radio operators. They are on duty 24 hours, 7 days a week. They deal with lightkeepers continuously 24/7 and, as I said, I have included their November 12 submission in your package and I would like to quote one statement from that package.
The services that lightkeepers provide to the marine and aviation community, outside of keeping the light, are invaluable. Any move towards reducing these valuable services will result in loss of property, vessels and lives.
These people are in the best position on our coast to note the importance because they deal with all of it.
This sentiment was expressed continuously to the Senate committee on their fact-finding tour. It is in all the letters that you received and the new letters that I am presenting today. You will hear it over and over. This is what the users of the services are telling you.
The other comment that was made so often to the committee is why is the government pursuing this initiative when there is Conservative government policy in place today to support the retention of light stations, their personnel and their aids to navigation? The people who ask this do not understand that it is the Coast Guard bureaucracy that is bringing this initiative forward time and again; it is not the government.
I would like to present to you today the 1987 report on the Future Role of Light Stations in British Columbia or FURL report. It was commissioned 23 years ago after a failed attempt at de-staffing by the Coast Guard senior management from 1985 to 1987. The intent of the report was, if we are going to keep staff on light stations, how do we make best use of them and how do we share the funding of their services amongst departments?
I have seen in the transcripts of other witnesses who have appeared before you that this issue is one thing they want to talk about. It was talked about and recommendations were made 23 years ago. Out of this report came recommendations that were followed up by direction from the minister to implement them. Yet, 23 years later, the Coast Guard is still trying to de-staff light stations without ever having implemented the recommendations.
People ask how this can be allowed to happen. How many more attempts will bureaucracy make at de-staffing light stations against government policy and public demand for services of staffed light stations? The public is asking the question of the senators who I do not feel can answer the question because the actions of the Coast Guard defy logic.
The future role of light stations report is clear: enhance the services. This report was done by members of every agency that dealt with light stations. Every federal and non-federal agency that had something to do with a light station participated in this regard and gave recommendations. Here we have the FURL report telling you 23 years ago to enhance the services.
The presentations to the Senate committee were clear: retain and enhance the services of lightkeepers. The services of lightkeepers should be expanded to include more protection and monitoring of our coastal environment and to assist other agencies in delivering their programs. It may not be a well-known fact, but programs such as seawater sampling for temperature and salinity, seismographic data collection and tsunami warning systems are part of a lightkeeper's day.
They could do so much more, and this has already been studied and agreed upon but never acted upon. If you look at this report, it will tell you again and again the things that lightkeepers should be able to do, and there should be memorandums of understanding between departments to help pay for it so we do not have this "situation which evolved into the current crisis (i.e. one department finding that the costs of manned lights is not justified, while others insist that the services provided are important)." If it is not to happen again, you have to do that. You have to have that agreement.
I also need to mention the security to our environment provided by staffed light stations and the security to our coast as coast watchers contributing to our national sovereignty. If the Coast Guard is successful in their program of de-staffing light stations, how will you replace the eyes that were the first to spot the Nestucca oil spill disaster averting greater damage to our environment than what took place? How will you replace the eyes that noted suspicious activity by boat resulting in the largest successful drug bust in Canada? How will you replace the eyes that spotted the first freighters smuggling human cargo into Canada?
These lights are in strategic locations. They are entry points to this country. They all have the ability to watch and know the vessels that come into their areas, and anything suspicious gets reported to the Coast Guard radio, the RCMP and the Department of National Defence. All of those agencies work with the lightkeepers.
I am also presenting to you the report entitled Our Lives Our Lightkeepers which was a special report done by the Coastal Community Network, which Pat Carney helped found, published in September of 1997. I have included the executive summary and the conclusions and recommendations in your packages. I would like to quote one comment from their preface, which reads:
No other federal government policy has received such widespread and vociferous opposition as the policy to de-staff B.C.'s light stations. There is consensus in coastal communities that this policy is misguided and that the miniscule financial savings will cost lives in the long term.
In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention some letters that have been submitted by the users of the services provided by lightkeepers. From the largest tug and barge company from Mexico to Alaska, Seaspan Corporation, to the scientists at the DFO biological station who collect the data from light stations regarding the seawater temperature and salinity that I mentioned, and to the municipal governments representing the entire port area of Vancouver, the entire Lower Mainland of B.C., an area of over 2.2 million people, all are unanimously in support, in writing, of keeping staff on light stations.
I am sure that you will be impressed by the diversity of the groups that have responded to this opportunity to give input to the Senate to allow you to make an informed decision regarding the staffing of light stations. I am also confident that your decision will be one that reflects the needs of the people of Canada.
I sincerely hope that you will put this issue to rest once and for all. The services of lightkeepers cannot be replaced by any other means. This is the most cost-effective, efficient, reliable method to deliver these services and more, and we do not need to review it again. This is the fourth time it has been reviewed, and it is always with the same reaction from the public and always with some erosion of the service. We cannot afford that.
The title of my presentation "Safety First, Service Always" reflects my pride in having served my country as a Coast Guard lightkeeper for 25 years. In spite of all the challenges that we have faced over the years and that you as senators now face regarding the de-staffing of light stations, I think we all have the same objective: to serve our country. By retaining staff on our light stations, we can fulfil our commitment to public safety and to the public that we serve.
I would like to thank you for your time and efforts regarding this issue. I know it has been very difficult for you. You have done a lot of travel, spent a lot of time and taken a lot of flack, but you have done a great job. I appreciate it. I also welcome any questions that you may have of me, and I sincerely hope that somewhere in your questions we will touch upon the presentations that have already been made to you by other government departments and NAV CANADA because you have been left with some very misleading information that needs correction. I have to say that. I am sorry.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Abram. I am sure there are questions, but as we have agreed, we will now call on Ms. Kaity Arsoniadis-Stein, President and Secretary-General of the International Ship-Owners Alliance of Canada Inc.
[Translation]
Kaity Arsoniadis-Stein, President and Secretary-General of the International Ship-Owners Alliance of Canada Inc. (ISAC): Mr. Chair, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to this initiative. I also wish to thank Ms. Labonté who organized this meeting. My presentation should take about 15 minutes.
[English]
I am the President and Secretary-General of the International Ship-Owners Alliance of Canada. I am also Director of the International Maritime Centre, Vice-President and Director of the Vancouver Maritime Arbitrators Association, and Trustee of the Insurance Dispute Resolution Services of B.C.
I appear before you today on behalf of the International Ship-Owners Alliance of Canada. This group represents local and international merchant ship owners, managers, operators of ships who collectively control a fleet of over 500 ocean-going vessels and employ over 10,000 sea-going and shore-based employees.
When this issue came before us, I embarked on a full consultation process with my membership. The ISAC group agreed to fully support the continued staffing of light stations. Not a single member opposed the continued staffing of light stations. One of our tug and barge members that regularly transits through B.C.'s communities from Washington to Alaska, stated the following, which neatly sums up the collective sentiment for the ISAC group:
The issue of lighthouse staffing is a very important subject . . . with the light stations, they need to get past the issue of the light itself. Of course, lights can be automated, but that isn't the point. With our vast and unpopulated coast, there are so many other features of having sites staffed. Everything from security through weather services makes the staffing worthwhile. We are a coastal nation. We need a human presence "on" our coast.
We formally submitted our letter on August 3, 2010, which I will not read but will provide a brief synopsis. ISAC supports the Conservative government's policy of 2008, "which upholds the retention of light stations, their personnel and their aids to navigation," and supports the resolutions passed unanimously by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Union of B.C. Municipalities, which calls upon:
The Prime Minister to cease all efforts to de-staff light stations and instead commit to maintaining light station staffing levels. . .to ensure the safety of the working and traveling public and the vibrancy of our growing coastal economy.
As you know, there are 27 light stations on the West Coast, some of which are in isolated areas, inaccessible except by air or sea and, although remote, contain vibrant industries such as forestry, mining, power generation, fishing, aquaculture, tourism and ecotourism, which alone is a $1.5-billion industry in B.C.
Not only are lightkeepers essential in remote and isolated areas, they are equally as important in larger centres with higher traffic volumes, where safe movement of people and goods is a priority.
I believe we can all agree that automated equipment cannot provide the level of certainty that staff can offer. Mechanical failure can and does occur. Lighthouse keepers provide a number of vital marine safety services to mariners that cannot be duplicated by automated devices. The role of lightkeepers includes providing accurate real-time weather reports, including weather and storm monitoring, marine traffic communications, fishing fleet monitoring, recreational use monitoring, helping mariners with mechanical problems, and search and rescue. Their strategic locations allow for monitoring of drug smuggling, human trafficking and other criminal activities. Also I wish to note the importance of heritage values and the collection of scientific information. I understand that the services are provided to at least nine other agencies and departments of government.
You have also received a letter from Seaspan Corporation, Canada's largest marine transportation company, which also supports the staffing of light stations. Their chairman, Mr. Washington, states as follows:
. . . during a time where our nation is building on Gateways and growing a marine industry for Canada, this is not the time to be dismantling or de-staffing light stations, but rather providing improved infrastructure to benefit our nation's prosperity.
In discussions with the labour unions that supply services to our sector, their message has been clear, that they strongly support the staffing of light stations. I reference letters that were submitted to this committee by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 400, which represents the majority of unlicensed seafarers in B.C. working in companies from Vancouver to Prince Rupert.
Terry Engler, President of the ILWU, states that they are totally opposed to the de-staffing of the remaining light stations. He states:
. . . the economic growth of Canada and specifically B.C. are directly tied to the growth of the petroleum industry and the public must be assured that this industry is safe and can be done in a way that our environment will be protected. We should be re-staffing light stations and expanding their services to include the housing of marine response clean-up equipment and coordination. Lighthouse keepers would be perfect liaisons between the industry and coastal communities.
Mr. Engler concludes by saying:
. . . this industry is too important to our country and to my members and we need to build public support for increasing safety and environmental protection and de-staffing of light stations will only harm this industry.
I wish to quote from Richard Goode, Provincial President of the B.C. Ferry and Marine Workers' Union, representing over 4,000 members and one of Canada's largest marine unions. These workers are the people who staff B.C.'s coastal ferry system. Mr. Goode references that the marine trade activity out of B.C. amounts to 70 cents of every dollar generated from Canada's national marine industry. Mr. Goode states:
. . . for the safety and security of vessels traveling through remote areas or urban areas, staffed light stations are imperative. Not only do our members help to service the transport needs of coastal communities, they live in these areas. A seasoned mariner is well aware of the dramatic and unexpected changes in weather that can affect sailings. If something were to go wrong with the equipment in a non-staffed lighthouse, the conditions would not permit sending someone to fix the problem.
He points out that many countries with large coastlines that have moved away from staffed light stations have had to replace the human presence by adding a strong military component.
In my discussions with various members of the BC Ferry and Marine Workers' Union, I was told that they regularly use weather reports from the staffed stations and they connect our coastal communities on our marine highways. The ferry service is the lifeline of coastal communities and commerce that is largely connected by waterways rather than by roads. It is common practice for them to establish a human observer on the bow of a vessel when crossing in conditions of limited visibility; at the same time they are sounding their foghorn at regular intervals. These vessels are equipped with state-of-the-art technology, but this "backup" practice nevertheless continues according to maritime regulation.
I wish to focus on the importance of the environment and Canada's environmental legislation. In 2005, criminal strict liability was introduced into our legislation for ship source pollution. In 2009, the Environmental Enforcement Act provided for a robust enforcement regime, including fines on a strict liability basis of up to $12 million a day. While our industry supports robust environmental legislation, it is absolutely essential that spill response occurs rapidly to ensure, first and foremost, protection of the environment, as well as to attempt to avoid criminalization and astronomical fines. Therefore, expediency is of critical importance, given that each day the pollution remains in the water it is classed as a new offence, a new penalty, and a new fine.
In 1989, Carmanah lighthouse was the first reporting station of oil from the Nestucca spill. This early warning gave agencies at least a three-day start on the clean-up process. Rapid response cannot be underestimated. With a continual increase in marine traffic, marine environmental monitoring is more important than ever.
Furthermore, it would be a welcome initiative to house oil spill response equipment with light stations that are strategically located along our extensive coastline. The Vancouver Sun article of November 27, 2010, which I have attached, is extremely disturbing. It states:
. . . the Coast Guard lacks the training, equipment and management systems to fulfill its duties to respond to offshore pollution incidents such as oil spills, an internal audit reveals.
While Transport Canada is the lead federal agency responsible for Canada's Marine Oil Spill Preparedness and Response regime, DFO, namely the Canadian Coast Guard, is responsible for managing responses to ship-source oil spills and for ensuring that the response is appropriate. The Canadian regime is built on the principle of cascading resources: response organizations, Coast Guard and international aid.
With these current results of this audit, it would seem sensible to enhance the current regime of lightkeepers to build on a gross weakness within the Coast Guard, a weakness which, given our robust enforcement regime, is absolutely unacceptable.
With government investments of over $2.5 billion for the Pacific Gateway and further investments for Atlantic corridors to facilitate trade through our ports, it is important that measures are taken to strengthen the infrastructure, recognizing the need to be environmentally responsible while remaining competitive in the global marketplace. In 2009 in Port Metro Vancouver alone, $75.2 billion worth of cargo was handled; $10.5 billion contributed directly into Canada's GDP, along with $22 billion in economic output. Also of note was the $1.2 billion that was paid in tax revenues to the three levels of government.
Briefly, I would like to mention that, as you probably already know, on the West Coast there is an aggressive environmental movement to ban tanker traffic. In fact, today a delegation called on the federal government to ban oil tankers and called on government to legislate a ban. I am not sure if you saw it, but I have the news clipping as well. This is of great concern as there are numerous measures we could instigate to bring comfort to communities before we get to the discussion of banning; for example, additional escort tugs, increased pilots, specified sea lanes, and retention of coastal watch by staffed light stations.
In addition to this movement, DFO has embarked on a DFO marine spatial planning of 88,000 square kilometres of coastline from Campbell River to Prince Rupert where most light stations are located. This initiative, the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area, PNCIMA — and I sit on the advisory committee — will undoubtedly result in the marking of sea lanes for vessel traffic. Lightkeepers could assist in the monitoring of traffic given the strategic placement of these lighthouses. Given that these structures already exist, given that the lightkeepers have extensive experience in coastal watch, enhancing their service to bring comfort to communities that are opposed to tankers in their waters would seem very logical and cost-effective.
An interesting point is the mandatory requirement for all air traffic to report their positions to a control centre while marine vessel traffic reporting is only voluntary. Lightkeepers' duties could be amended and enhanced to monitor traffic as it transits and report to Vessel Traffic Centre.
Again, electronic equipment can and does fail, and therefore retention of staff on light stations adds a valuable resource. Every effort is made by our industry to ensure the building in of redundancy measures in case of failure, and there is a continual effort to ensure backup systems are in place for any anticipated incident.
I want to reference INTERTANKO. INTERTANKO is the International Association of Independent Tanker Owners, is not for profit, was established in 1970, and they are the voice of independent tanker owners. They represent more than 75 per cent of the global independent tanker fleet. Their primary goal at this global level is to lead the continuous improvement of the tanker industry's performance, striving to achieve goals of zero fatalities, zero pollution. We can assure you that safe transit without incident is a top priority for our industry. Therefore, we strongly support the retention of staff on light stations.
Another important note is that lightkeepers play a vital role in search and rescue with numerous reports of having saved recreational boaters and commercial and recreational fishermen. When such vessels are adrift, they are normally in commercial shipping lanes, and large vessels require large distances to alter course in order to avoid collision. Therefore, the safe passage of commercial traffic cannot be underestimated. As mentioned above, we need to get past the issue of the light itself. A light alone does not a light station make.
If I can leave you with one request, it would be to bring this long-standing issue that has spanned decades to a close and simply retain staffing on light stations as per our Conservative government's policy. I am sure you can appreciate that this issue has cost our industry significant amounts with respect to consultation. I can only imagine the cost generated through governments for this process. I also understand that Coast Guard officials have been designated over the years solely for the purpose of carrying out the task of de-staffing. The cost to our industry and the taxpayer has been enormous and every effort should be made to bring this issue to a close.
Lightkeepers' job descriptions should be expanded in order to officially recognize and support the important role they play in marine safety, environmental monitoring, communications and search and rescue, and they should be equipped and trained to carry out these essential duties.
[Translation]
Rather than looking for better reasons to get rid of lighthouse keepers, we should endeavour to find ways of maximizing their role.
[English]
In closing I want to thank this committee for conducting this sophisticated review which took this committee to both coasts of Canada in order to ensure consideration of the views of the coastal communities, which have made it clear that they want staff retained on light stations to provide safety services. This committee also took time to consider the diverse activities in the area, as well as the commerce that significantly contributes to Canada's wealth. We must ensure that the full scope of the issue is understood, particularly during this era of heightened environmental awareness and interest in ecological stewardship.
It is not just about the light.
Senator Poy: Thank you both for your presentations.
At the moment, where the light stations have been replaced by a light on a stick, who is responsible for reporting oil spills?
Mr. Abram: Right now, the fact that a number of light stations have been de-staffed is, in my opinion, very unfortunate. Those stations did contribute to all of these other services that we have talked about. There really is no monitoring at those sites at this particular time.
With regard to the Lower Mainland of B.C., the Vancouver area, in the last round of de-staffing which ended in 1998, a number of the stations that are right around Vancouver Harbour and on the opposite side of the Georgia Strait, around the bottom of Vancouver Island, were de-staffed. It is unfortunate because that is one of the areas with the majority of traffic. Any reduction in reporting time will be considered catastrophic with the tidal action, the wind action and the storm action that happens in those areas. I just received a message from home last night. They have had winds up to 60 knots, which are more than 60 miles per hour in the area for the last two days, with big tides. The tides have been over 16 feet with the tide change. That oil can go phenomenal distances in a short time.
Without quick response, I think we will see some possible disasters if anything happens.
Senator Poy: Are you saying that right now no one is responsible in areas where the lightkeepers have been replaced?
Mr. Abram: It would basically be up to the traveling public, the commercial traffic, possibly vessels that are tasked like DFO or Coast Guard vessels that might be out there. It would also be up to the actual tanker, the vessel itself, to report immediately. However, in some cases accidents happen and people try to deal with the situation immediately and lightkeepers have done that.
Ms. Arsoniadis-Stein: To supplement what Mr. Abram said, in such a case we are dealing with a distress situation, so it has been evident there has been an accident, a collision, possibly the electronics on the vessel have failed, so it could be that the vessel cannot actually call in to report. It would be in this type of situation.
Senator Poy: Both of you have, in your presentations, mentioned all the other responsibilities of the lightkeepers aside from just providing light. What kind of training do the existing lightkeepers have? Mr. Abram, I believe you have been one. Did you have special training to do search and rescue, and reporting weather and salinity of water?
Mr. Abram: Yes, that is correct, we did. The Coast Guard used to have a very vigorous training program for each of the different responsibilities. As far as weather reporting, the transcript from the Atmospheric Environment Service talks about how the light keepers are not trained. NAV CANADA talks about how they are not trained. However, they all received training in aviation weather reporting under World Meteorological Organization rules and they had trainers come out to the stations and live with us for around 10 days; live 24 hours a day, in and out of the house, no matter what was going on, to see a different type of cloud, or to see a different type of weather situation. These were all skilled people who taught us how to do weather reports.
We are all trained in first aid, boating safety and the use of a station boat for assistance to search and rescue. All of those training programs used to take place. They have been gradually eliminated by the Coast Guard since 1998 because the Coast Guard did not want to see any more positive activity happen at a light station because it gave justification for that station to stay staffed. That is very sad to say, but that is the way it has been.
Senator Poy: When you first became a lightkeeper, was there a requirement for a certain level of education?
Mr. Abram: I am not sure about the actual education level.
Senator Poy: How were people chosen to be lightkeepers?
Mr. Abram: There are ads put out that they were accepting applications at the Canadian Coast Guard office in Victoria, and they would do interviews and compile a list of 20 people they felt were suitable candidates. This was after a rigorous interview process, where you went through a whole hiring committee type situation and you were interviewed by different people. You had to be sort of a Jack or Gill of all trades. You had to be able to deal with diesel mechanics, regular gas mechanics, carpentry; all of those types of things in order to be able to even be considered. You also had to pass what the Coast Guard called psychological testing to see if you would be suitable for living in isolation, which is very difficult sometimes, when two families are plunked down in the middle of nowhere and expected to live together in peace and harmony. That sometimes works and sometimes it does not.
That list of 20 people was developed and then throughout the year, as positions became available, the top person on the list would be offered the position and if they wanted that particular station they would take it. If they did not they would stay on the list and they would go to the next person.
The hiring was also done internally between the lightkeepers. If one lightkeeper wanted to move from station X to station Y, then they would put in their application also. It was a regular federal government competition process.
Senator Poy: Would they hire single people or would they want to hire people who are married and have a family? It is kind of lonely to be on your own.
Mr. Abram: When I started it was always families, and it was not until later, when they started getting to the point where they were having fewer and fewer people apply because of the pall of possible de-staffing, they started accepting application from single people and they have a number of people working now who are single who move around to different stations. It seems to work okay, but the thing that people do not seem to realize is that on a two-person station, if there are two families, two people are being paid, but there are at least four people who are actually doing the job and then there are kids. The kids, believe me, my daughter alone has saved a number of people by seeing them fall in the water and reporting them immediately to me or my wife. This is a situation where many people are employed for very little money and they do a 24/7 job, 365 days a year.
Senator Runciman: Were you a lightkeeper when you ran for municipal office?
Mr. Abram: I was a lightkeeper in 1978. I ran for municipal office in 1988, so yes, I was.
Senator Runciman: Were you posted in one of the more remote locations?
Mr. Abram: No, it was not until I moved to Cape Mudge light station on Quadra Island that I was able to do that. I moved to Cape Mudge in 1985, which was when the Coast Guard came up with its first program to de-staff. We fought that for two years successfully; however, we did lose a few stations. That is when I was approached by the community to run for office, which I did.
Senator Runciman: You said you lost a few stations and there were 27 currently operating. How many were automated?
Mr. Abram: When I started in 1978, there were 43 stations. At the time I was hired, I believe there were eight that were already under way to be de-staffed and decommissioned. That was already a done deal when I first started working for Coast Guard.
Then, in 1985 and 1987, there were 35, so it would have been eight stations. None of them were de-staffed at that time. In 1990-91 they tried to de-staff again and none were lost, and then in 1994 to 1998 they embarked on all 35 of them and they took 8 immediately, just gone, so now we are done to 27 stations.
Senator Runciman: What was the rationale for dealing with them piecemeal rather than all as one package?
Mr. Abram: Each time, the Coast Guard bureaucrats would go to the minister with the proposal to do all of them, on both coasts. Each time the user public would come back and say, "I am sorry; we cannot do without them." In the few cases where they did lose stations, they were lost for different reasons.
Senator Runciman: You referenced the Coast Guard bureaucracy driving this over the decades, but then you also said that having manned stations is the most cost-effective method. Why is the Coast Guard driving this if what you are suggesting is the most cost-effective method?
Mr. Abram: Would you like an honest answer?
Senator Runciman: Sure. That is the only one I would want.
Mr. Abram: They have been driving this program forever because it is the easiest for them to try to pick off because of what has happened in other countries, because of what has happened in the Atlantic provinces. It is, according to them, kind of an easy target, and they would like to use that money elsewhere in their budget. Each time they have de-staffed, they have not saved any money, first, but every time they de-staffed, there has been more administrative staff and less operational staff afterwards.
I would have to assume that this was sort of a shuffling of dollars received by the Coast Guard for their budget and it was now going more to the administration than to the operations. We see that with the radio stations and the Coast Guard rescue stations. It is the same situation.
Senator Runciman: I will not be on this committee when it makes its final recommendations, but I think what you should perhaps propose as an addition to your recommendation to retain these currently manned sites the suggestion that the committee consider re-manning some of these vulnerable sites that you consider pose a real hazard to shipping traffic and safety.
Mr. Abram: We would love to see that happen. We have mentioned it a number of times. I think the committee heard on their fact-finding mission from a number of users that they would like to see the same thing. They named a few specific stations. Right now, I think the public and the local governments like myself feel that we are basically under siege and it is kind of a difficult position to come back and say we not only want to keep but increase. I totally agree with you. There are a few that should absolutely be re-staffed.
Senator Watt: When you mention that 27 lighthouses are still very much in operation, I would imagine you have people there earning wages.
Mr. Abram: Absolutely. The lightkeepers are the lowest paid public servants in Canada. I know the minister and others have said that this would be done by attrition and that lightkeepers would be found jobs elsewhere. There are no other jobs that you can slide a lightkeeper into. I know this for a fact because when they got rid of me 23 days before my actual twenty-fifth year of retirement, my choice was to slide into some other job, a lateral transfer, and there was no other job in Canada that was of my pay scale and you cannot go up in pay scale in a lateral transfer. It is very disheartening for lightkeepers when they are being paid an average of $35,000 to $40,000 a year.
Senator Watt: In addition to not knowing what will happen to them.
Mr. Abram: Yes. They never know what their future will be, and they are continually enhancing their services voluntarily and continually being told by their employer that they are worthless. This is just not the way you treat people.
Senator Watt: Of those 27 remaining lighthouse, are they mainly in British Columbia?
Mr. Abram: There are 27 in British Columbia and 23 in Newfoundland.
Senator Watt: Is the situation pretty well the same in Newfoundland?
Mr. Abram: There are certainly regional differences; there always have been.
Senator Watt: However, staff are there earning wages the same as in British Columbia?
Mr. Abram: Yes, they are being paid. Like I said, there are regional differences in what services are delivered, the type of traffic. In Newfoundland there is less air traffic, aviation in the way of float plane and helicopter, but more tanker traffic. There are over 20,000 tanker transits in Canada — 17,000 of them are in Newfoundland, 3,000 are in B.C. There is a shift there. B.C. is loaded with float plane and helicopter traffic but has fewer tankers.
The important point to note here is that the Conservative policy to keep staff on light stations is a national policy. It is not regional. It is a national policy and all of the light stations are treated identically. Hopefully this process will bring that out and the Conservative government will agree to reaffirm its policy and keep all staff on all light stations on both coasts.
The Deputy Chair: I have one point I will interject here. I believe that what you and Ms. Arsoniadis-Stein were referring to is the Conservative Party stated policy, not the Conservative government's policy. I am not questioning you on that, but I think it should be called the platform or the party policy rather than the government policy.
Mr. Abram: If I could have clarification on that, I have a letter here from Stephen Harper from 2003 to a lightkeeper absolutely supporting staffed light stations. He was Leader of the Opposition then, and then the platforms that you talk about of 2005 and 2008, one was in opposition and one was in government.
If a party is in government and they come up with a policy, is it party policy or is it government policy? I do not know. I am asking.
The Deputy Chair: There is a big difference between party policy and government policy. Party policy is not always government policy, but to my knowledge, and I am a Conservative senator, there is party policy on this subject, as you described, but I do not believe that there is government policy. If there was government policy, maybe we would not need to be here. Our committee is being asked by the minister to advise the government. It is just a fine point I wanted to put on the record to clarify.
Mr. Abram: I appreciate your doing that Senator Patterson. I hope that this process turns party policy into government policy.
Senator Hubley: I was fortunate to have visited both coasts, first to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and then to British Columbia. I would like to speak about the visit to British Columbia because it was the first time that we had a consistent opportunity to speak to lightkeepers.
One could only be impressed with the amount of work that they do on behalf of the traveling public in remote areas and not so remote areas, work that I felt was completely overlooked and not recognized by the Coast Guard. I think the mariners know the stories, but I do not think the Canadian public does. The emphasis was very much on the importance of keeping eyes on the skies and eyes on the sea. As someone said, our aircraft are equipped with what is the most sophisticated navigational equipment known to man, and yet we would not fly them without a pilot.
Because of the skills required to man a station, we thought perhaps a course on it could be offered in a community college or other such setting.
We saw all the same needs for manned light stations on the East Coast as we saw on the West Coast, but they were not there. I do not know whether we moved too quickly to let go of that part of our support system. When we have increased travel through the Northwest Passage and we are trying to open up the Atlantic Gateway to bring more ships in through the Maritimes, it seems to me that light stations have to be part of the navigational system.
We have, of course, heard from the Coast Guard. We are getting two different stories. It is difficult for us to pull them together, and we have to make recommendations fairly quickly. You look at the manned stations from a different side.
Is there anything else you would like to share with us this evening?
Mr. Abram: I have a lot to share with you this evening. Are you referring to the misleading aspect that I mentioned?
Senator Hubley: We have learned that equipment that lightkeepers were used to having in their stations that allowed them to carry out certain functions, such as a boat, has been taken away. That makes no sense to me at all.
Lightkeepers have told us that when they saw weather that could be dangerous to mariners, they reported that weather immediately; they did not have to wait. I believe that the number of weather reports they are giving has changed from one every hour to one every three hours. That is an erosion of their responsibilities, and that erosion is taking away from the importance their job of keeping the public safe had in the past. I would speak to the quality of the lights on the poles and to the fact that foghorns are disappearing as well.
We have to decide how we can integrate what we have heard into a report. You did suggest that we may have received information that is not as accurate as you would like it to be, from a lightkeeper's perspective.
Would you like to share that with us?
Mr. Abram: I would love to share it with you, and it is not only from a lightkeeper's perspective but from the perspective of a citizen of Canada and the perspective of a local government representative.
I would love to sit in this room with all of you and all of the people who have presented to you and have a discussion about what was said, in order to bring out the facts, not the fiction. That is the only way you will get to the truth.
The fact is that the Coast Guard figured out, after 1998, that if they were to get rid of keepers on stations, the keepers had to be considered useless. They had to be someone who was there to do nothing but mow the lawn.
Things were eroded, as you said. Reporting requirements were lowered. Aviation weather reports were stopped. We were all trained by meteorological experts to do aviation weather reports. Our aviation reports went into the world system and were used everywhere. However, suddenly the contract for light stations dwindled to what it is now. Next they took away the aviation report entirely and lightkeepers had to fight to get back a supplemental weather report, which added a few of the aviation criteria to a marine weather report. It helped the aviators, but it was nowhere near what they had before.
Previously, we reported on all the different layers of cloud and which type of cloud each layer was. Every cloud has different properties; some are dangerous and some are not. They knew all about the visibility and what was causing it to be reduced. They knew the dew point, the temperature, and the wind speed and direction. We made remarks so that a float plane would know if there was a bad tide rip in front of a light station. That is crucial for them, because they cannot land in it.
Those things were taken away; the system was eroded. When NAV CANADA tells you that they can only get weather reports from lightkeepers every three hours, that is absolute bunk. They get scheduled weather reports every three hours from lightkeepers, and they can get a report from a lightkeeper minute by minute if they want it. All they have to do is call. Every aviator and mariner can do the same thing.
Lightkeepers are required and morally obliged to tell mariners and aviators when the weather changes. The Coast Guard has put in criteria that has made is almost impossible for a lightkeeper to report a significant change in the weather. They refused to allow radio operators, who are also Coast Guard employees, to accept the weather reports unless they meet certain criteria, and their criteria are ridiculous. They wanted to see a 25-knot change in wind before a lightkeeper would be allowed to present a report. As an official weather observer, I can tell you that a 10-knot change in wind speed with a change in the direction of a tide can mean completely different conditions, and if a mariner does not know about the changes from the previous three-hour report, they could die. It is as simple as that.
The same is true for aviators. If they do not know that a fog bank has just moved in to the south of the station while everything else is completely clear and that they will not be able to get through, they are out of luck. This could cause injury, death and loss of property, and it definitely hurts commerce.
That is very important in our area where there is a large sea plane contingent. Many times they can fly with a light station weather report when they cannot fly with an airport report, because the airport is at 346 feet above sea level and the light station is at sea level. You can have a 200-foot ceiling, but planes can fly back and forth under it all day long as long as they have good visibility, and commerce continues. People travel to work and people go recreational or commercial fishing. If they called the airport or used the automatic weather station, they would be told that there was zero visibility and zero ceiling. It is inaccurate.
You mentioned the station boat. My station boat was taken away after I fought for five years to keep it. Every time, I had to go out and get the public support to keep the station boat, because they knew all the times we went out. Whether it was broken-down boats caught in the tide rip or whatever we did, we pulled people out the water; but no, that cannot happen any longer. We cannot have that boat on the station because you are chalking up incidents that are reported to the Coast Guard. There are duplicate forms. You can get them yourself from the Coast Guard. The light stations have them on file, and they show each time they did any kind of a rescue incident. If you take away the tools, people cannot perform those functions.
It is a sad situation when someone instigates a program that could get in the way of public safety and the service to the public that the lightkeepers offer. It is beyond comprehension for me.
If this process says there will be no further de-staffing of light stations, I would almost guarantee you that within a couple of years, the Coast Guard will be back with fewer services at the light stations, so that the next time they try it, it will be a little easier.
Senator Hubley: With regard to the promotion of ecotourism on both coasts, that includes a lot of boating and boaters, and they are not always as qualified as you might like to think they are. We heard stories of kayakers, groups of people, friends, coming out to British Columbia and wanting to have an adventure on the water. The kayaks are there. They can rent them and away they go, with little thought that they might be in a desperate situation where they could lose their lives. These were some of the stories that the lightkeepers shared with us. It is the same on the East Coast. We put a great deal of money into tourism, and ecotourism is part of that. If you are going to have people on the water, it is incumbent on us to keep them safe, if we can, and that is a role that the light stations can certainly play. This is something that is perhaps overlooked from time to time.
Senator Watt: The issue that I am about to raise is probably more related to the committee as a whole. I think DFO owes us an explanation. I have been listening to people make the case that it is time for change. At the same time, I am also hearing how important it is to ensure that what exists today should not only continue but improve.
I am from the Arctic. I know what you are talking about. I know what it is like not having any lighthouses. It is scary at times. You put your life on the line. British Columbia's coast is beautiful, but it is rugged country, from what I have seen. The activities on the eastern side are not any better either, because at times unprotected prevailing winds come up, with no warning. I share your concerns.
Perhaps this committee needs not only clarification but also an explanation from DFO. If they have already made up their minds, they are being simplistic. What is this committee doing? We are wasting time and good money. We need to scrutinize and question the DFO, and probably the minister will also have to be brought before the committee to set the record straight. You mentioned that you have a copy of a letter that you received from the Prime Minister. I guess that was before he was Prime Minister.
Mr. Abram: That is correct.
Senator Watt: At times we hear that the functionaries make decisions for the politicians, and this is one area where perhaps that has been happening. Do you have any comment on what we should do and how we should play our game?
Mr. Abram: I certainly do. As a local government representative, I feel it is unfortunate for the politicians involved in these processes, and it has been the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. I empathize with you, as another politician, that "staff" — I will use that simplistic term, meaning senior management-type people — have actually embarked upon a process that somehow has gotten past the gate, and then it becomes the public saying that it is your fault as politicians.
As I said in my statement, it is not the government's fault that these things have happened. Somehow, the senior management have convinced people that they can save some money. I have to ask the committee: How many different figures have you heard about what it costs to run light stations and how much will be saved? I have heard three, and these were media reports from, supposedly, the minister or the commissioner or whomever. They are all different. How can the figures change from day to day? There has been no cost-benefit analysis done of this program, ever. Without that, how can you possibly say you will save money? If it costs $4 million to run light stations, and you say it costs $8 million and you are going to save this money, what is not being talked about is the amount of money that needs to be put into the station, first, to make it "de-staffable;" and second, how the station will be maintained.
I brought some photos. I am not sure if they were passed around. I would like you to see the photos of a station that is ten minutes, in flight time, from the Coast Guard base in Victoria. The Coast Guard base is in Victoria, British Columbia. Ten minutes away is this light station called Discovery Island. It was de-staffed in 1998. I would like you to see what has happened to that station in those few short years. If they cannot maintain a station ten minutes away, what will they do to the ones that are elsewhere?
In the middle of Georgia Strait, there was one station that was done at the same time, in 1998. It is called Sister Island. The station was completely vandalized. All of the solar equipment, generators and backup batteries were stolen. Then the place was totally vandalized. Windows were broken in the lighthouse and the light was broken. It cost them over a million dollars to put it back just to a workable state. Had the lightkeeper been there, none of that would have happened. They never had any vandalism, ever.
A whole range of cost issues are not being mentioned, such as when you have to send a helicopter, like the one senators flew in, the Bell 212 helicopter, at a cost of over $3,000 an hour, with four to six technicians who are being paid $60 or $70 an hour to go to a light station to change a light bulb. They have to take three or four extra people because they all have to be within their trade. They do not know what is wrong at the station; they just know something is wrong.
A lightkeeper, if there is something the lightkeeper cannot fix, can call the base and tell them what the problem is. Who do you have to send? It might only be one person. It might be delivered by truck the next day, to a station that you can drive to.
The lightkeepers on staffed stations keep the stations running no matter what. Of the three stations that I was at over 25 years, I never had a light that was down for more than half an hour. Some of the de-staffed lights have been out for more than a month before Coast Guard has been able to get out there to fix them.
That notice to shipping goes out. People hear about it, but they still do not see the light. The Coast Guard has also reduced the intensity of the lights. You used to see every light for at least 15 miles. Now they have decided that some lights can be five miles, some can be two miles.
The first time they reduced the light at Cape Mudge, where I live, which was a 15-mile light, they reduced it to a 5-mile light. Three miles away is the Quadra Island ferry crossing. The first day, I received a call from the skipper of the ferry telling me that our light was out. I said, "No, I am looking right at it and it is on." He argued with me and I said, "No, they have reduced the intensity of the light." He said, "I am 3 miles away and I cannot see your 5-mile light."
I gave him the number to call and they reported it, but so far we have these new LED lights that are being forced upon the user public because they are easier to solarize. They use less power. The solar units cost at least $250,000 per unit. At Cape Mudge, the station I was at, they have been solarized since 1998 using the solar bulb and they are on hydro power on the island. They have hydro power there. They never needed to spend the money ever. For 12 years, they have been running that on a solar system with a lightkeeper there, with hydro power, and the cost of running it on hydro is dollars per year, not hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The Deputy Chair: Perhaps it would be helpful if I quickly mentioned that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans did ask us to study this issue. I think we can assume that the minister is awaiting our advice.
I noted your comment, Senator Watt. The committee could consider requesting a government response to the report once it is published. As Senator Hubley said it is a challenge, but we are aiming to complete our report before the end of this calendar year.
I would like to ask Ms. Arsoniadis-Stein a question. I was not on the West Coast visit, but it was notable that one presentation to the committee from the shipping industry suggested savings from de-staffing could help the Coast Guard to finance high-tech improvements that would benefit navigation for larger vessels. That presentation came from the head of the Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia, Mr. Steven Brown.
It is a different perspective than you presented today on behalf of the International Ship-Owners Alliance of Canada. Could you perhaps assist the committee to understand what segment of the industry might be represented by whom, and perhaps account for what seems to be a different viewpoint from what we have heard so far?
Ms. Arsoniadis-Stein: The B.C. Chamber of Shipping does represent a variety of interests. For example, you will see that the pilots are members, the Port of Vancouver is on the board, you have brokers, agents, and ship-owners. It covers a broad sector.
The International Ship-Owners Alliance of Canada is strictly ship-owners. All the members of the International Ship-Owners Alliance of Canada are members of the chamber because we are part of a greater community. In fact, I attend all the owners' committee meetings of the owners' committee at the chamber of shipping.
This issue did not reach our membership for consultation from the B.C. Chamber of Shipping. The ship-owners, to my knowledge, were not consulted. I consulted with all of the International Ship-Owners Alliance of Canada members on this point, and I even asked, later on, if they had any other news from the B.C. Chamber of Shipping. You will note that our letter was written, I believe, August 3.
The Deputy Chair: Correct; August 3, 2010.
Ms. Arsoniadis-Stein: Twenty days later the chamber of shipping registered their position. Our group was not aware of this position by the chamber of shipping.
I will read from their letter.
At the end of the day, government has a responsibility to the population at large to ensure financial resources are allocated effectively, in this case towards the numerous high priority projects that are now under way.
My understanding is that the B.C. coast pilots have been asking government for additional funding for their navigational aids, which I think should be granted. If there is a need, this is not somewhere we want to be cutting costs. That should not be linked to the budget of the light stations and the lightkeepers. The pilots are members of the chamber.
I can only assume — and I do not wish to speak for them — that the pilots' position was taken into consideration, and hence the letter that we see. I can assure you that our membership was not consulted.
Maybe I can pass it on to Mr. Abram with respect to further elaboration.
Mr. Abram: This was purely, in my mind, a political letter. This had nothing to do with the reality of whether or not staff was needed on light stations or whether or not the maritime community needed staff on light stations.
I went to the B.C. coastal pilots — and this is where we will get into some of the information you were asking about. In 1995, the British Columbia coastal pilots wrote a letter, signed by a director, Captain Peter Vivian, which completely supported light stations. It not only completely supported light stations; it went through the entire coast. This letter, I believe, has been presented to you. If not, I will leave a copy with you. It went through the entire coast and it told exactly how each light station is used by the coast pilots and how important they were and to not de-staff any of them.
They appeared at the public hearings that Coast Guard held, of which I was a part. I was on the committee, along with four managers and four lightkeepers. They appeared in Vancouver and Victoria and gave testimony. They absolutely use those stations, because some of the electronics on some of the ships that came into the areas were either non-functioning or non-existent. That is where the light station, foghorn, light, et cetera, come in.
The situation came up where I went to Vancouver to ask the B.C. coast pilots to please reaffirm their 1995 letter for this process of de-staffing. I talked to someone — I am unsure of the title, the executive director, the head staff person; he is not on a board. I was told point-blank, quite clearly, no hiding it or anything, that their people in Ottawa had met with the commissioner's office, and they were told clearly that if they wanted their new navigational aids in a couple of areas in the B.C. coast — I believe it was Kitimat and Vancouver, mainly because of tanker traffic, I believe — they would need to support the de-staffing of light stations, otherwise the money would not be made available to them for those particular aids to navigation. That was conveyed to their board and, I think rightfully so, their board reacted out of I would say fear. If they cannot get the aids they need in those particular areas for their specific purposes, then they probably would support the de-staffing of light stations. This is speculation, but they went to the Chamber of Shipping and spoke with them, and the chamber did not support the staffing of light stations.
I found that to be very distasteful, that the commissioner of the day — not the commissioner who is there now — would even suggest such a thing. It is one thing to ask for support on a program but is another to suggest that another program will not be supported if you do not support the first one. That is not right.
You wanted me to be honest and I have been. I am probably going to get killed when I get home.
The Deputy Chair: I think your remarks before this committee are protected by parliamentary privilege.
Mr. Abram: I hope so.
The Deputy Chair: We thank you for your candour. I did not expect anything less, knowing Mr. Abram.
Hearing no further questions, I would like to very much thank the two witnesses. Since we are bringing our work on the staffing issue to a close this fall, at the request of the minister, I think you will be the last witnesses we will hear formally.
It may be useful to remind members of the public who may be observing these proceedings that we will still examine the heritage lighthouse aspect of our work in the new year, but have agreed to do an interim report on the staffing issue before the end of this current year.
There will be no committee meeting next week, as I understand it, and we are expecting to review our draft report the week of December 14.
Mr. Abram: Before you adjourn, I have a number of documents here that I do not believe have been received by the committee. I have brought copies of them and would like to table them at this point, if that is a possibility. They can be distributed to you by your clerk.
The Deputy Chair: That would be very much appreciated, including the 1995 letter that you just mentioned, which I am not sure we have received. The clerk will be glad to receive those.
Mr. Abram: I thank you and all of the senators and staff who have dealt with this issue. It has been of course very near and dear to my heart, but it is very near and dear to the Canadian public's heart. I look forward to the outcome of your deliberations to see what happens and where we go from there.
The Deputy Chair: The meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)