FOPO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 18, 2001

• 0910

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): We'll now call the meeting to order. We welcome this morning witnesses from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and from Local 2182—CAW, Coast Guard Marine Communications and Traffic Services Officers.

This morning's hearing relates to the situation with the marine communications and traffic services on the west coast. It was drawn to our attention by Mr. Lunney.

First we will hear from the union, and then from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Mr. Arnott, go ahead, and welcome.

Mr. Russ Arnott (Regional Director, Coast Guard Marine Communications and Traffic Services Officers (Local 2182—CAW)): Mr. Chair, thank you very much for allowing us this opportunity to speak in front of you all. There are a few issues that we'd like to bring up.

The Canadian Coast Guard is a longstanding tradition, and its employees are proud to be part of it. We see the turbulence in the world and find ourselves limited in providing the services needed. Basic services such as radio communications in Prince Rupert, an MCTS area of operation, are constantly in need of repair and only receive patchwork when required. This causes extra workload to the already busy adjacent centres.

The September 11 activities in the United States should be a wake-up call to Ottawa to start reinvesting into its own departments.

The Chair: Russ, I'll just interrupt you for a second. Do you have a paper? I suppose you have one that's not translated.

Mr. Russ Arnott: No, these are just things that I want to present to bring—

The Chair: Okay, and the information we have before us is from—

A voice: It's from Mr. Dwyer.

The Chair: Okay, that's not a problem. I just want to make sure everybody has the information they're supposed to have.

Go ahead. Thanks.

Mr. Russ Arnott: Again, the recent September 11 activities should be a wake-up call to Ottawa to start reinvesting into its own departments. Air Canada has received approximately $160 million. Airport and airline security has received another $90 million, while the Coast Guard continues to struggle with the inadequate funding it receives. Recent funds from Ottawa are minimal and do nothing to support the Coast Guard in the long term.

With the ever-increasing threat of terrorism, we guard a coast that, because of cutbacks, is vulnerable. The use of, for example, surveillance radar would greatly reduce unauthorized access, as well as help to provide the level of service that the working mariner requires. We have already seen the B.C. coast as a target of illegal immigrants. We don't want to provide access to those who will do harm to us or to our neighbours to the south.

That's just basically to bring the problem into context. Frank will now go into some specifics and talk about the problems facing MCTS. Thank you.

Mr. Frank Dwyer (Acting Regional Director, Coast Guard Marine Communications and Traffic Services Officers (Local 2182—CAW)): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There are serious problems with domestic security on our coast, but there have always been some serious problems with the marine safety system on our coast. Lives are put at risk, and there are threats to the environment.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): The mike the interpreters are using doesn't work. There is a really awful background noise.

• 0915

[English]

The Chair: Technology isn't always great in Ottawa either.

Okay, go ahead.

Mr. Frank Dwyer: Thank you.

I'm sure some of you are aware of what Marine Communications and Traffic Services does. For those who aren't quite aware, I would like to go into a brief summary of exactly what we do.

First, I'll speak about where our organization has come from. We weren't always in DFO. This happened about six years ago. Prior to 1995 we were with Transport Canada.

Between 1995 and 2000 we integrated two units: Coast Guard Radio and Vessel Traffic Services combined to become Marine Communications and Traffic Services. Through integration, we learned each other's trade. We closed 22 centres, from 44 down to 22, and eliminated 250 employees. It made for a better organization.

MCTS has responsibility for safety of life at sea. This is an international responsibility under the SOLAS Convention. This means maintaining a coast watch, a distress monitoring system.

We protect the environment. MCTS officers are designated the power of a pollution prevention officer. They have the power to instruct ships or direct ships if they feel that the environment or marine mammals are threatened. They have a number of powers.

We do a lot of vessel screening. We screen by requiring vessels to submit advance reports. We screen for defects and deficiencies in vessels, dangerous cargo, and that sort of thing.

Once vessels approach our coast, we have radar facilities, in some cases, and we would also screen at that point. If a vessel shows up that hasn't sent a report, we would screen to make sure that if it is over 20 meters and required to send a report, it is challenged on that. So we do a lot of screening on our coasts.

To ensure the safe and efficient movement of traffic, we provide a marine traffic control system comparable to the air traffic control system. We broadcast vital information such as notice to shipping and weather warnings.

We support many other government agencies. Because of time restrictions, I won't go into too much detail, but to name a few, we support the Canadian Department of National Defence, the U.S. Department of Defense, the Marine Safety Office in the U.S. and Canada, pilotage authorities in Canada and the U.S., customs, Parks Canada, the agriculture department, and provincial and local governments, such as police, fire department, ambulance, and medical. We support other MCTS centres and our counterparts, which are the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Vessel Traffic Service system, and the U.S. Coast Guard radio system, which are still two separate entities.

We interact with commercial fishing vessels, with foreign and domestic trade vessels, including tankers carrying crude, refined products, and chemicals, with cargo vessels, with towing vessels, and with cruise liners. Some of these cruise liners have up to 5,000 passengers on board. We work with warships, pleasure craft, the public, and as I said before, other government departments.

We do our job with a number of tools. We have radar; various radio communications facilities; digital selective calling, which is an advance distress signalling system, under a new global marine distress and safety system; automated identification systems; direction-finding equipment; satellite communications; and cryptic communications, computers and databases.

This is what it looks like. This is the Coast Guard radio position. This man is monitoring many distress and traffic frequencies or channels, including star 16 services. He's collecting and disseminating weather, and broadcasting notices to shipping. There are many duties and not enough time.

This the vessel traffic position. It is very comparable to an air traffic controller, but on the water.

I'd like to touch briefly on our international obligations. I mentioned the Safety of Life at Sea Convention, which is an International Maritime Organization convention. We're obligated to provide the services. We are signatories to this agreement. In some areas Canada is barely meeting our commitments, if at all.

• 0920

The global marine distress and safety system is a new system that replaced older technology, such as Morse code. This is the new communications standard on the waters. It was implemented in 1999. Canada does not anticipate being in compliance with it until at least 2003. We're going to be a minimum of four years late. The vessels on the water all have this equipment on board, but our coast stations don't necessarily have the training or the equipment to support the system.

We also have some regional international commitments or obligations. I'll briefly touch on eastern Canada VTS regulations, or ECAREG, and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The eastern Canada VTS regulations screen all vessels inbound for Canada and the U.S. via the Strait of Belle Isle and Cabot Strait. Inside the Great Lakes, MCTS has an agreement with the U.S. to regulate each other's waters: the U.S. and Canada oversee each other's rules.

On the west coast, we have what we call the Cooperative Vessel Traffic Services Agreement. This is a combination of both. Not only do we screen all vessels, we're the gateway to all vessels bound to the U.S. and Canada via the Strait of Juan de Fuca, through advanced reports and being the first point of contact, with our radar facilities and communications facilities. The U.S. and Canada also regulate traffic and oversee each other's rules and regulations in substantial adjacent waters on the west coast.

The real reason we're here is financial problems. They're the root of all of our problems. They're causing the short-staffing of MCTS centres, the overworking of MCTS officers, training restrictions, and deficiencies. For example, at my station, Tofino MCTS, only 10 out of 18 individuals have global marine distress and safety system training. This is the new standard for marine communications that was set in 1999, yet only a little over half of us have been trained in it. Mr. Russ Arnott had to fight with Pacific region to gain us a little GMDSS training, so we would be able to deal with that.

I have to say that our members are very proud of our jobs. We take them very seriously. Lives are at risk and the environment is at risk. We have to be a weird organization to go out and fight to improve the quality of the organization. It's got to be a unique standard.

The Chair: Could you give me those numbers again, Frank—ten out of how many?

Mr. Frank Dwyer: Those numbers are 10 out of 18 at Tofino, and I might add 11 out of 18, I believe, at Comox MCTS. There are other centres that have a higher standard. They have newer staff who got some of the training, but we're very slow to do this training. I'll also say there are some members from Tofino who are about to go on courses, but we've had to fight for these courses.

We have old and unreliable equipment. Russ mentioned that in Prince Rupert they frequently have problems. The only thing worse, in a distress and safety system, than not having equipment is having equipment that is not reliable 100% of the time. That is the case in Prince Rupert. The equipment there is so unreliable that people's lives are put at risk.

Other equipment is very reliable but a little bit old. The equipment we have at Tofino, for example, is very high-quality radar. I'll show you a slide of that a little later, if I get a chance, but it does an excellent job. We don't have enough of it.

Our international commitments are being neglected, and that includes SOLAS and the Cooperative Vessel Traffic Service Agreement. There is a lot of uncertainty, apprehension, and frustration among the front-line workers. There are, without question, reduced levels of service.

These are excerpts from an e-mail sent by Superintendent MCTS Pacific. I'd like you to note this was sent September 27, a number of days after the September 11 tragedy. “This fiscal year, CCG (Pacific) is looking at an $8 million shortfall”. I have to point out that the MCTS portion of that shortfall in Pacific region is approximately $1 million, from all accounts I have been given. “Ottawa has no money,” is the answer, “the region must solve the problem.”

After cutting 22 centres nationally and eliminating 250 jobs, there's not enough money to properly fund our program. “Drastic measures will have to be implemented to meet whatever final figure we are given in our budgets”.

• 0925

That sums it up. This isn't a one-year scenario; this is an ongoing problem. It continues:

After almost five years of this same scenario, it's getting worse, not better and therefore it follows that the only way to regain firm financial footing is to look seriously at permanent cutbacks in our infrastructure and/or level of service.

I'm not sure which level of service will be affected. Will it be the safety of our mariners; will it be the environment; will it be our international obligations; or will it be the support we could supply to other government departments?

From the office of the regional director Canadian Coast Guard Pacific comes the following:

We have no assurance that these terrorist activities are being confined to the United States or that they may end soon.

After September 11, it was four weeks before we had any reaction out of MCTS Pacific. We heard nothing from any federal government department, nothing from the Department of National Defence.

When I first wrote this, I thought maybe it was a stretch—chemical, biological, nuclear. Could someone bring something like that through a Tofino MCTS or other MCTS area of responsibility? Since then, biological has already been checked off the list.

On crude carriers, I'd like to bring to everybody's attention that the Exxon Valdez did $2.1 billion of damage in Prince William Sound. We have its sister ships transiting Juan de Fuca Strait through the Tofino traffic zone on a regular basis, and passenger ships, with up to 5,000 people on board. These are prime targets.

We have security concerns. We routinely witness the ability of unidentified vessels to routinely penetrate North American security, especially Canadian security. It's practically non-existent. There is the potential for an attack from a vessel that has passed through an MCTS area of responsibility.

We are concerned about our ability to support domestic security. As I said, we have heard nothing from Canada, unfortunately, but we had significant support from the U.S. Under the CVTS agreement we work extremely closely with the U.S. Coast Guard, and therefore the Department of Defence in the United States.

For the United States, and at the United States request, we've implemented many security procedures, most of which I'm not at liberty to discuss. Some of the public things are heightened security procedures, deployment of Coast Guard reservists, increased boarding for routine vessel inspections, detaining of vessels—obviously, we're not detaining vessels, they are—increased reporting requirements, and regular updates to coastal authorities, including MCTS. Canada's marine reaction appears to be much slower and much less significant.

If I'm running out of time—

The Chair: Go ahead, Frank.

Mr. Frank Dwyer: A month after the attacks we're just now starting to see a very small reaction. The only reaction we've seen from the Canadian government and MCTS since September is that they've copied the requirement to send a 96-hour advance report—very minimal reaction.

What's even more significant is that during these times when we should be increasing our support, doing more, the Canadian government's actually doing less.

I want to reference another e-mail of September 19, 2001 from MCTS Pacific:

MCTS must come up with a method or methods of cutting costs. We are thinking of reducing staffing levels from the current three-person watch down to a two-person watch.

When we should be doing more, MCTS has decided we're going to do less. What can MCTS do? We can do what we've always done, but we can do more of it; we can do it better. We do vessel screening, vessel surveillance, identification of vessels of concern, and information dissemination.

If you were to solicit ideas from MCTS, you'd get a lot of them. These are a few I've come up with, and I don't know if I'm going to have time to expand on each of them individually.

There should be stronger ties between MCTS, the Department of National Defence in Canada, and the Department of Defense in the United States. There should be common encrypted radio frequencies for coastal security vessels. By the nature of our jobs in vessel traffic services, we have to identify any target of substantial size when we don't know who it is. That means from time to time we uncover covert operations on our coasts with the U.S. military. We should have a way of speaking to these people, including our own military when they're there, without compromising security.

• 0930

AIS transponder is an advanced technology. It is going to be onboard ships. If we had ship-based and shore-based systems, it would allow us to identify numerous vessels beyond those on radar or out of areas of radar coverage.

It's very important to extend or expand areas of radar coverage. Much of the east coast has no radar coverage. Approximately 25% to 50% of the west coast has radar coverage.

Why do we need radar coverage? I'm going to skip ahead a bit. I don't want to take up too much of your time.

This is an example. An extremely large vessel pulled right into Nootka Sound, unnoticed until the wee hours in the morning. I happened to have been the MCTS officer on shift. It was just beyond our area of radar coverage. I can't remember the exact number of Chinese immigrants who were on this ship. If this ship can get to the coast, I can assure you we witness numerous vessels, even on radar, that we just don't have the time or manpower to look into, question, and identify. It's a serious concern of ours.

What do we need? First of all, we have to fulfil our commitments to safety of life at sea and providing a quality service. They are most important and are key. It is our job. We can support other agencies. In order to do any of this, we need adequate funding for the MCTS program. We need reasonable staffing levels at our MCTS centres. We need proper training for our MCTS officers. We also need reliable and technically current equipment.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Frank.

Is there anyone else? Go ahead, Mr. Grégoire.

[Translation]

Mr. Martin Grégoire (President, Coast Guard Marine Communications and Traffic Services Officers (CAW Local 2182)): My name is Martin Grégoire, and I am President of Local 2182, representing the Officers of the Canadian Coast Guard Marine Communications and Traffic Services.

Frank gave a very good account of the problem we have in the Pacific Region due to a lack of funds. I'll just add that it's a problem the Coast Guard and the Communications Services are facing across Canada.

For many years now, budgets have been cut repeatedly, and our members find themselves in a situation where it's sometimes difficult for them to provide communications and traffic services.

I'll be brief and I'll just say that's it's now becoming urgent to fund the Canadian Coast Guard properly, so that the Marine Communications and Traffic Services can fulfill their mandate, that is ensure the safety of life at sea, protect the environment, ensure the efficient and safe movement of shipping and protect our coasts and Canadians against any danger which might be looming. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Grégoire.

Who's up? Is it Jon Churchill? Who's leading off? Mr. Desparois?

Mr. Michel Desparois (Manager, Marine Communications and Traffic Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My game plan was to provide you with an overview of the MCTS services. I wonder right now if it would be of any benefit to the committee, because it really is what the Canadian Auto Workers did.

However, I would like to stress the point that the Canadian Coast Guard has changed and will continue to change to meet the needs of the environment in which it operates. The Coast Guard vision has not changed and will not change. Marine safety and the protection of the environment remain its top priorities.

The Coast Guard is, however, moving toward the management of service deliveries and away from the role of service providers. In line with this approach, the Coast Guard in the coming years will seek ways to deliver services in the most cost-effective way, using the latest technology available, and developing a real partnership with risk-management principles.

The advance of technology-based solutions for program delivery is leading to the reassessment of overall operations. Navigation technologies have been evolving repeatedly, and the pace of change shows no sign of slowing. Clients are adopting these technologies. The Coast Guard is using technology to effectively deliver services.

• 0935

The Chair: It was short and to the point.

Thank you, both groups.

I regularly meet with the Canadian Coast Guard in Charlottetown. There are anywhere from 20 to 45 people, depending on the day. I also talk to them in Saint John and Halifax from time to time. I've never seen a more dedicated labour force that takes so much pride in the Canadian Coast Guard. I don't think I've seen morale as bad as it is right now either.

As a committee, we've talked about possibly holding extensive hearings on the Canadian Coast Guard. The problem is in finding the time to do it. I put it on the record that we realize there are problems on both coasts.

We will go through a round of questions. Our intent is that if there's something here we should be addressing, as a committee, we'll put together a letter and make some recommendations to the minister.

Mr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to thank all of the witnesses for their presentations.

You remarked on the changes that took place, beginning with amalgamation in 1995, when the Coast Guard was taken out of the Department of Transport and brought into DFO. It resulted in significant downsizing. To repeat the figures, I think you had about 650 personnel down to 450 personnel?

Mr. Frank Dwyer: That's right.

Mr. James Lunney: Is it just the Pacific region?

Mr. Frank Dwyer: It's nationwide.

Mr. James Lunney: It's nationwide.

Mr. Frank Dwyer: The 450 personnel includes management. There are actually 300 operational personnel and 50 working in management positions within our group.

Mr. James Lunney: We're in favour of efficiency. There was some reorganization, downsizing, and amalgamation. You've already been through extensive changes of that nature.

In terms of training restrictions, with advances in communications and so on, you mentioned there were training programs in place to bring people up. Can you comment on training restrictions where programs that were in place were cut back in the past year?

Mr. Frank Dwyer: I'd ask Mr. Arnott to take the question, please.

Mr. Russ Arnott: This time last year, we had some distress procedure courses slated for the members on the west coast. We have coined a phrase called “the fall wall”. Summer is our busiest time. We can't do any training during the summer. When summer finishes, we like to get the training done in the fall, but by that time there seems to be no money in the budgets. Last year, we were supposed to have employees on the distress procedure courses. We couldn't get any.

Currently, I'm a temporary instructor at the Canadian Coast Guard College. I saw the figures just the other day. All of the other regions had employees on the courses, but the Pacific region wasn't able to get anyone on the courses.

Recently, I was at a meeting. I was told there would be no developmental training for employees. They would try to get some kind of procedural courses going on. When they do, it's very minimal.

On the west coast, we have one-third of the membership of the MCTSOs. Yet we always have the smallest amount of people on these courses. It because we're habitually understaffed. It's a problem that continues to grow.

Mr. James Lunney: Thank you, Mr. Arnott.

Have there been blackouts of service normally provided because of shortages of staff and personnel?

Mr. Russ Arnott: Yes, there have been. Approximately three years ago, there was a funding shortage. It resulted in vessel traffic services being suspended. We then have to rely on what we call a priority of duties, distress, urgency, and safety communications. Vessel traffic regulation is approximately number five on a list of about ten. So that position goes unmanned. As you can imagine, there was quite an outcry on this, and once the media got hold of it, some funding came from Ottawa.

• 0940

This is the problem we have: the funding only comes when we make some noise about things. Right now, I imagine there have been rumours that we were coming out here, so I heard numbers being thrown around of what has been given out to our region, but these funds are only patches to keep us going. We need to have stable funding for the Coast Guard and MCTS. If we're going to provide a service to the mariner, we have to provide it 100%, not 50%, and that's what we're doing right now.

And, yes, we are a proud group, and it saddens us to see the Coast Guard going this way.

Mr. James Lunney: Yes. Thank you.

There was a comment earlier about the Pacific region. I know that you're stationed there and I visited the station. You monitor everything going into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. I believe you're the first point of contact for all vessels going through the strait, even those destined for the United States. Is that correct?

Mr. Frank Dwyer: Yes, that is correct. Actually, a large portion of our traffic is bound for major ports in Seattle and Tacoma. There's also a large submarine base and military presence in the sound. So a large amount of our traffic does go to the States, and we regulate it.

Mr. James Lunney: Okay. Are you in contact with the Puget Sound station that monitors vessels from the U.S. side once they leave your area of responsibility?

Mr. Frank Dwyer: That's correct. We work very closely with the U.S. Coast Guard, and because it is a part of it, we work very closely with the Department of Defense as well.

Mr. James Lunney: Have you been asked to take on additional responsibilities in connection with this relationship?

Mr. Frank Dwyer: We have been asked by them to take on many additional responsibilities. Some are fairly strict. They've taken some definite positive and significant action. For security reasons, I should not be discussing the details.

Mr. James Lunney: Now, given that vessels going into the Strait of Juan de Fuca are bound for both Canadian and American ports, the sensitivity of this area to our population centres, the fishing fleets and fishing-vessel-sized vehicles out there, and supertankers and container ships going through, could there be a security risk in this area, if vessels were used for the wrong intent?

Mr. Frank Dwyer: If I could bring up a slide here, I could demonstrate something that would make this point.

I took this picture earlier this month. Normally for every vessel we're speaking to—these are the ones with the alpha-numeric tags, you'll see a large fuzzy thing of a contact.... These are large vessels of 20 metres or more, generally 100, 200, or 300 metres, but there are always numerous smaller vessels—though in this case there aren't a lot because the weather was so poor. By their contact size on radar, these vessels could be up to 100 feet in length.

These vessels really do concern us, because they could be another of those immigrant ships or who knows what. They go into the Strait of Juan de Fuca all of the time, and we don't challenge them only because we don't have the manpower. You can see quite a few more of them down here. This one's only 12 miles within U.S. territorial waters. This one's just on the edge of Canadian territorial waters. In six hours they'd be well inside. They'd be at Port Angeles by about that time; and if they were there by morning, they'd be in Seattle by dusk.

Mr. Russ Arnott: It should be noted also that this radar covers only the west side of Vancouver Island. The whole central coast and north coast is not covered by any radar system whatsoever.

The Chair: I will not take from your time, James, but I have a question for the witnesses.

If we were looking at a map of the west coast, what's your coverage area? How much of it is covered by this type of radar system?

Mr. Frank Dwyer: In the Tofino MCTS zone, 50% is covered—the bottom half of Vancouver Island and a portion of the Washington coast. This is the Juan de Fuca Strait. This line is the Washington coast. It goes up Vancouver Island past Ucluelet, Tofino, about halfway. The immigrant vessel I showed to you earlier would be about right here, if we had radar coverage to there.

• 0945

We have coverage of about 50% of the Tofino zone, 0% of the Prince Rupert traffic zone. Prince Rupert is the largest zone in the Pacific region, as far as an area of responsibility, and one of the largest in Canada. It has absolutely no radar coverage. Comox MCTS has one radar site, with about a 12- to 16-mile range—

Mr. Russ Arnott: No. What we have in Comox is a drop-off of the Victoria Coast Guard's radio radar. Victoria's area of responsibility is covered 100%, but it deals with vessels already in Canadian waters. They can easily slip by Tofino's area.

Prince Rupert has no radar. I was posted up in Prince Rupert for eight years. We have no radar. It's easy for ships coming over from the Orient to take what's called the rumline. This is basically an arc across the Pacific Ocean. They usually wind up in Prince Rupert's area first before they make their way down. It's just a faster way to go.

We simply have no way to keep track of these vessels, and on September 10 it probably wasn't that big of a deal. It was something we have always been after, to have radar. September 11 has changed things drastically. The airline industry has already been compromised; we can well expect that the marine industry can perhaps be compromised too.

The Chair: I'm sorry, James. Go ahead.

Mr. James Lunney: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It was mentioned that as recently as September 19 there were notices that cutting your three-person watches back to two-person watches was being contemplated. Can you comment on the effect this might have on your ability to perform this service, and on how the staff feel about this under these circumstances?

Mr. Frank Dwyer: When services are reduced we're required to put out a notice to shipping.

We shouldn't really be putting out notices to shipping about MCTS problems, but quite often this is the case. Our equipment faults; we are short of staff; we end up becoming the hazards. We have to announce it when this becomes the case.

Let me read some brief segments from some notices to shipping: “Safety notice to shipping, P1521: Comox MCTS will suspend vessel traffic services. Safety notice to shipping, P1518: Prince Rupert MCTS will suspend the following service: traffic regulating for service sector 1. Safety notice to shipping, P1514: The Canadian Coast Guard marine communications and traffic service provided by the Tofino MCTS centre will be subject to a substantial reduction in the delivery of services; safety and traffic services will be available on a limited priority basis.”

The Chair: Can you leave copies of that with us?

James.

Mr. James Lunney: You mentioned you sometimes pick up vessels that are perhaps suspicious and so on. Are you in contact with customs officials and/or DND Canada or the U.S. Department of Defense with regard to these matters? If so, what kind of response do you typically get?

Mr. Russ Arnott: If we find out about it.... We can't observe these vessels ourselves, but the coastal watch program can bring a suspicious vessel to our attention and then we will pass it on to the appropriate authorities.

We've had the RCMP come into our office to ask if we can help them identify vessels of special interest, and in a radio communications mode we can, but we can't actually observe the vessel through any kind of radar. That's the whole problem.

When we find out about vessels of special interest, we will pass on the information. Often the vessel may not know it is a vessel of special interest and will call on the radio. When we hear that vessel on the radio we will pass on the information about its particular location.

The Chair: It is time for your last question, James, for this round.

Mr. James Lunney: Regarding the areas of operation not covered, the whole coast of north Vancouver Island is not covered, and between the Charlottes, and going in to the—

Mr. Russ Arnott: Not covered by radar, yes. North Vancouver Island is not covered by radar. The inside of North Vancouver Island to the mainland—the area of Port Hardy, for example—has no radar. There is no coverage all the way up to the 54° 40' line, the international boundary, nor is there coverage out past the Queen Charlotte Islands.

• 0950

Mr. James Lunney: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: If there's no radar coverage, how is it covered?

Mr. Russ Arnott: It's covered by vessels. In the Prince Rupert vessel traffic system, we have a call-in for vessels when they reach a point 50 miles west of Langara. They tell us where they're bound. They have a 24-hour call-in prior to this call when they actually reach that point 50 nautical miles west of Langara, so we know that vessel is coming; we're expecting it.

The Chair: But that call-in is done by the captain or the communications person on the vessel, so it's their obligation to call.

Mr. Russ Arnott: Yes, that's correct. A vessel could come in and we wouldn't know about it, and it could be one we don't want in Canadian waters. Vessels can just slide in.

The Chair: Mr. Dwyer.

Mr. Frank Dwyer: To expand on what Russ has said, I have some firmer figures.

Pacific region radar coverage is actually at 20%. On the inside passage it ends at about Campbell River. Getting away from the domestic security issue and back to our core duties, these are some of the most dangerous waters on our coast—very narrow, very quick tides—and this is the route our passenger vessels, the cruise liners, take and there's no radar coverage for them.

The Chair: How many go through Campbell River a day—roughly seven cruise ships?

Mr. Russ Arnott: Seymour Narrows is a very tight body of water. In the summer the cruise ships usually go through that area at night, because they have to leave Vancouver at 1700 hours to get through slack water—water that is not moving in any real direction. At any given time—from about 1900 hours to about 0400 hours—there are about five vessels. A lot of them go through at night there.

The Chair: Thank you.

Do Mr. Churchill or Mr. Desparois have anything they want to add? If you do, raise your hands.

Go ahead, Mr. Churchill, before we go to Mr. Grégoire.

Mr. Jon Churchill (Superintendent, Office of Boating Safety, Pacific Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): My name is Jon Churchill and I've just recently been transferred here to Ottawa as manager of the office of boating safety. For the last year I have been director of marine programs in the Pacific region.

To expand on what the members of the Canadian Auto Workers Union have said, the Pacific region has had a chronic financial deficit since 1995. It's not just the marine communication and traffic services program that's been affected; all the marine programs have been affected.

Until the start of the fiscal year last year, April 1, Ottawa generally came through with funding to assist the Pacific region with all its programs, not just the marine programs—we have the fleet and technical services too. This funding didn't come last April 1, a year and a half ago, and that's when we really got into some serious problems. But it has been a chronic issue for years, and marine communication and traffic officers in the region have done a very good job; they're very dedicated to what they do, as are all the Coast Guard people there.

We're all trying to resolve this issue. The region right now is looking at every program and service it delivers, trying to see if it can achieve some savings. In fact, right now there is a program out there to look at a reorganization of the Coast Guard. I don't know what it's going to net. I can't tell you that. I don't know if the people who are doing the reorganizing know either, but there is a chronic shortfall.

The Chair: Thanks. It's good to hear some honest facts coming forward from DFO, I'll admit that.

Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I found your presentation pretty clear, and the Chairman asked a few questions. I'd also like to thank you for being here because I think the problem is not limited to the west coast. It's the same thing on the east coast, as Mr. Grégoire mentioned.

You provided us with a map in one of your documents. If I heard you correctly, you said that only 20% of the west coast is covered by the radar system you operate right now.

• 0955

Here, we have the United States and Alaska, which is part of the United States. Is radar coverage better on the American side, for instance, here, in Alaska, and to the south, around Seattle? Do you cooperate with some American States such as Alaska and the northern States? Can you cooperate with those people to cover the entire territory?

I have another question. What's the range of your coverage in nautical miles? It was mentioned, but I might not have heard correctly. I thought it was 50 nautical miles. Is that it?

Does what we see on the map represent the coverage of the entire territory? Why did you draw this here? This is what I want to know. Does this actually represent the coverage you provide?

[English]

A voice: I'm stunned.

The Chair: Mr. Dwyer or Mr. Desparois.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Desparois: Good morning, Mr. Roy. My name is Michel Desparois, and I am Manager, Marine Communications and Traffic Services. We provided you with this map; it's not to scale. The dotted line represents the limit of Canadian waters, which end at 12 nautical miles.

Our radio sites cover about 95% of the territory, which is equivalent to the service offered by the Americans.

As for radar service, it's a selective service, established in response to very specific conditions, such as traffic volume, traffic density, risks and so on. So we have radar service in some strategic sites on the west coast, in the Great Lakes region and on the east coast.

The Americans don't have radar coverage throughout their territory. It's a costly service and there are alternatives, for example, the transponder identification systems, with their little electronic black boxes. Most communications are by radio.

I'd also like to make another comment. The Marine Communications and Traffic Services offer an aid to navigation. The ship's master is responsible for navigating his vessel. Our role is to help prevent incidents at sea and environmental disasters. It's in this context that we offer these services.

I'd also like to make a few comments about security. The Department of Transport, under the direction of the Minister, Mr. David Collenette, is responsible for reviewing security measures at sea, in the air and on land. Right now, a few security measures have been taken in the marine sector. The advance reporting period has gone from 24 to 96 hours, which is similar to the approach taken by the Americans.

In the meantime, a number of alternatives are being considered. We are having preliminary contacts with all government agencies, such as National Defence, the RCMP, the CSIS, Agriculture Canada and Customs. A number of measures are being considered and a plan is being developed.

I hope to have clarified a few things.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Yes, you did, but in this case, why do we hear that the Coast Guard... [Editor's Note: Inaudible]? The Coast Guard is facing a shortfall of about 8 million dollars in the west. What is it in the east? Do you have any idea? No, you don't? I take it that the situation there must be just as tragic.

Mr. Martin Grégoire: The money is short in every region. Unfortunately, I don't have the exact figures.

A voice: Do you want me to clarify?

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Yes, but I'd like to complete my question. In your short opening statement, you said that you were thinking about new partnerships to offer your services. With whom? That's what I wanted to get at.

• 1000

Mr. Michel Desparois: We actually discussed new partnerships at the Coast Guard level, not only the marine shipping services. For example, we have partnerships with the Americans on the west coast and in the Great Lakes region, where we share the waters coverage, we share the responsibility. We also have arrangements with the Americans for radio coverage of the St. Clair river, and other arrangements as well, as Mr. Dwyer mentioned. So we want to strengthen those partnerships ans see if we can optimize resources that way.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: What about the clarifications you wanted to give me regarding the east coast?

Mr. Michel Desparois: When you look at the total Coast Guard budget, there are financial problems because requirements do exceed resources. However, most regions, Newfoundland, for example, or the Maritimes, the Laurentian region, are reviewing their commitments to see where efficiencies can be made and how they can better serve the Canadian public.

As I understand, the Central region, the Arctic, and the Laurentian region, mostly Quebec, work within their budget. Of course, they have other requirements and, with these new technologies and with our partners' help, we'll be able to offer a cost-effective service.

[English]

The Chair: Tom, you're next.

But first, Mr. Desparois, I've been around here since 1993, and I find we're always in a constant state of review. We never get established from the last review before we're doing another one. Is there never a bottom line?

If it's a political problem on our end, then we need to know it. There was the combining of the Coast Guard and the fisheries, which had a fairly traumatic effect on many people. There's no question of that and no denying it. That was supposed to solve all the problems, yet we just seem to be in a constant state of review ever since, and we never get the bottom line established. Do you have any response to that?

Mr. Jon Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I have to agree with what you're saying. We have been in a constant state of review and flux since 1995. I think it was mentioned by either Russ Arnott or Frank Dwyer that it has been hard on employees, and it's also affected the delivery of our services. There's no question about it.

The Chair: I guess the question I'm grappling with is how do we come to a bottom line? As I said earlier, I go into the Coast Guard in Charlottetown.... In fact, there was a fellow—I was at his retirement in May or June—who retired early. I would say he was one of the most dedicated employees, one who worked overtime without being paid extra. His job with the Coast Guard was his life, and the Coast Guard lost a damned good employee because he was just absolutely frustrated and pissed off, to be honest, and said, to hell with it; I ain't going to do this any more. That kind of dedication you don't get in many businesses, and we're losing good people because we can't establish a bottom line here. How are we going to grapple with it and get that bottom line?

We'll have Mr. Arnott, then I'll come back to fisheries, and then we'll go to Tom.

Mr. Russ Arnott: I'd just like to reiterate what we said earlier about the integration of Vessel Traffic Service and Coast Guard Radio. This was an initiative that was started by the employees. We spent some of our own money to do this. We had studies done. There was $100,000 of membership money spent on this to provide a new future because we saw the changes coming and we figured we'd better be part of it instead of standing on the side. With that in mind, two departments...each of them had their own hierarchy of management; they had their own officers in charge, we had our own managers, they had superintendents, and we had superintendents, all the way up the line. So we went this way.

• 1005

The employees, some of them reluctantly, embraced this, and we started the integration. The result was that we went from 44 centres across Canada to 22. We went from 650 employees down to 350. We got rid of about 250 through attrition, through early retirement packages, and so on. No one was laid off.

We placed this new department, which was called Marine Communications and Traffic Services, in the hands of the government. We said, here, this is now a small group of 350 employees; look what we've done for you. We felt that if we could do that, then what the heck can some other groups that have 50,000 members do?

But there was no period of stability that was given to us. We didn't even finish the cross-training program, where a radio operator had to cross-train to become a vessel-traffic regulator and vice versa. We hadn't even finished that yet when Ottawa was after us, saying that this was costing too much money. They didn't let the period of stability come into effect. The commissioner has said at times that the projected savings of this would be $13 million a year. That's pretty damned good for a small group like us, yet year after year after year we're being told that they can't provide us with training because they don't have the money. They can't allow us to do this because they don't have the personnel. It happens every year.

I agree with you when you ask, when will this period come where we say that we've had enough studies and that we've done this and done that, so let's give the money to the Coast Guard? That's not just MCTS, that's the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard is there to look after the coast, and how can we do that when we don't have the funds?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Arnott.

Mr. Desparois.

Mr. Michel Desparois: Mr. Chair, financial stability remains the Coast Guard's main challenge. Program demand continues to outpace our resource allocations. However, we have a strategic plan with four planks to bring financial stability. We are reviewing fleet management. The Coast Guard has a very large fleet and is proud of its fleet and its good seamen. However, we're looking at more efficient ways to provide the service. On the other hand, there might be more demands to provide more patrols in order to address these heightened security issues.

We recently received money for search and rescue from an integrated funding program. A lot of 43-footers are being built or are in the process of being built to be deployed on the coast and on the lakes in order to meet our service standards for rescuing people. We also have an extremely big infrastructure: a lot of ships—one hundred and some ships—and a lot of radio sites and antennae. Basically, we're reviewing our technical...a life cycles management strategy in order to address our rust-out problems.

However, having said that, I would like to take the opportunity to describe what has been done since 1995 with regard to the MCTS infrastructure. Since 1995 we have introduced in Canada the VHF DSC, which is part of a new alerting system to detect distress incidents. Both coasts and the St. Lawrence River roughly up to Sept-Iles are in the process of being fitted with this new technology. We're not behind the eight ball with this technology. There are new regulations with carriage requirements for big ships and smaller ships coming into effect, and the next area to be covered by VHF DSC will be the Great Lakes and the river up to let's say around Quebec City.

We are in the process of looking at strategies in line with those of our American partners. The Americans have not yet implemented this in the Great Lakes. We were awaiting their game plan in order to take advantage of partnership agreements so as to maximize services for the least cost, because there's a lot of overlap in the Great Lakes in some strategic areas.

• 1010

Also, we have a new aid modernization program. The Coast Guard is a large infrastructure of marine aids—buoys, lighthouses, and things like that. This is being reviewed. It's starting to take advantage of the newest development technology—plastic buoys and new radar reflectors.

Lastly, the technology is changing out there. Ships want real-time information faster, they want to have the Internet on board, they want to have access to all the information they require in order to ply their vessels safely and cost effectively. As part of the government online services, the Coast Guard is also looking to upgrade its telecommunications network in order to respond to the fleet demand.

Also, very shortly we'll introduce a new computer system called INNAV, with has a similar cousin on the west coast called VITOS, which is the new technology for our information management. MCTS provides information to a lot of government and shipping agencies.

Also, we have a lot of capital projects in the plans right now. One is to replace all the new communication control systems that are required in order to control radios from our 172 radio sites. The project should begin next April and we're planning to refurbish all MCTS centres within the next three years.

Also, we have another capital project to refurbish the microwave system on the west coast in order to achieve our level of service. Right now we have some very old equipment on the west coast for microwave transmissions. Because of the high mountain sites on the west coast, there are no land lines readily accessible in the transmissions with microwave systems. We took some temporary measures and we are right now fixing the old equipment. There's a capital project that should be in place by next April in order to refurbish all the microwave infrastructure on the northwest coast of Vancouver.

The Chair: Thank you.

Do you have that down? I guess the plans for the future that you outlined will be on the record.

Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't even know where to begin. I'm concerned because the service is called the “Coast Guard”. I want to thank Mr. Lunney for bringing this to our attention, because I'm afraid, and I don't want to be melodramatic about this, that it's almost becoming an oxymoron.

Is the Coast Guard being allocated any money from the moneys that are being given to security post-September 11?

Mr. Michel Desparois: At this time, no.

Mr. Tom Wappel: All right, thank you.

The reason I mention this, Mr. Chairman, is because MPs of all parties wanted to do something to protect our country post-September 11. Various committees wanted to work on various things. I couldn't figure out how the fisheries committee could do this, but here's a perfect example of how the fisheries committee can commence a very important investigation about the security of our borders. We're surrounded by three oceans and the Coast Guard apparently doesn't have the money to guard it.

I want to get to why that is. I want to ask our bureaucrats here. As I understand it, you've identified chronic funding problems. That means to me it's an ongoing problem.

As I understand bureaucracy, Mr. Churchill, you would report to whomever you report to that you don't have enough money, you need more money. That goes up the chain. Eventually it goes up to the minister. Eventually the minister takes that to cabinet and he either gets or doesn't get money. In this case he clearly didn't get it, because you have chronic funding problems.

As bureaucrats, it's not within your code of conduct to ask for a meeting with the fisheries committee to complain that your complaints haven't been heard up high. That answers your gentlemen as to why it's always you that has to bring these issues forward, because it's not within their job description, as it currently exists, for them to complain outside, in public, about their bosses. So I encourage you to continue to do it. They can't even say whether they agree with you or not, under their bureaucratic code of conduct. But to identify a chronic problem, you have to bring it up to us. They bring it up to minister, not to this committee.

• 1015

I draw your attention to the map you provided, Monsieur Desparois. It says “22 MCTS Centres with 22 radar installations”. That title implies to me that each of the 22 MCTS centres has a radar installation. That is inaccurate, isn't it?

Mr. Michel Desparois: That is correct. We had a debate on how we should have worded this.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Well, I'll tell you. There should be different signs for different things. You have 22 MCTS centres. I presume they're the triangles.

Mr. Michel Desparois: That is correct.

Mr. Tom Wappel: If you have 22 radar installations, they should be shown on this map by other symbols, so we don't assume, for example, there's a radar installation in Prince Rupert when there is no radar installation there. At least that's what we're hearing.

Mr. Michel Desparois: That is correct.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Is there a radar installation in Inuvik?

Mr. Michel Desparois: No.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Well, how do we protect the Northwest Passage? How do we protect the environment in the most sensitive area of the world—the north—if we don't even know what's coming through there?

Mr. Michel Desparois: Basically, we're divided into three coasts: the Arctic, the west coast, and the east coast. On the east coast we have a system named ECAREG—

Mr. Tom Wappel: Let's talk about Inuvik. Let's say some terrorist wants to come in and dump—and I'm no fisherman and I'm no seaman—a tanker full of oil, just to cause us a problem. There's no radar installation there. Yes, they have to get past Alaska, but we can't be parasites on the U.S. all the time.

Mr. Michel Desparois: I think the coast surveillance is a mandate not only of DFO or the Coast Guard, it's also a DND and RCMP mandate. I don't have the information to let you know if we have DND coverage up north right now. The primary goal of the Coast Guard is to protect safety, to aid navigation, to protect the environment, to prevent ship grounding or collisions between ships, and to provide advisory information.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Yes, but the world has changed since September 11, because the environment is at risk for terrorism, which will then affect other things.

Let me quickly go to something else. Mr. Dwyer, you said in some areas Canada's barely meeting our commitments under the IMO. Could you give an example, please?

Mr. Frank Dwyer: As an example, could I read an e-mail into the record?

A voice: Sure.

Mr. Frank Dwyer: I'm going to move away from radar. This is an e-mail addressed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Herb Dhaliwal. It was written September 5. It's also addressed to Wayne Fullerton, superintendent of MCTS at the time. I'm just going to read the excerpts:

Tonight we experienced another in a continuous string of equipment outages. Our mountain-top sites on Calvert Island, Klemtu and Mount Gill became unserviceable again. ... The last band-aid solution lasted perhaps six hours. That band-aid solution ended an outage that lasted in some form or another since May.

We're talking about something written in September.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Is this an example of failing to meet international obligations?

Mr. Frank Dwyer: Yes. I'll just finish this off, and explain how that is:

The added stress of knowing that the safety net we're supposed to provide to mariners is in critical condition is eating away at each of us. What is it going to take to finally get either new equipment or the present equipment fixed properly? I fear a major loss of life.

People, put yourself in our position. Surely you cannot accept risking people's lives continually like this.

The obligation that's not being met there is the Safety of Life at Sea Convention. We are required to provide a distress safety system, a coast watch system. When you knowingly for a period ignore a problem like that—we're talking five years that these outages have been in this thing—the legal term would be gross negligence. If people die there, and you're not fulfilling a commitment you're obligated to fulfil, would that not be gross negligence?

Mr. Tom Wappel: Mr. Desparois, is it true when Mr. Dwyer tells us the system for the IMO was supposed to be in place in February 1999, but it's going to be four years late?

Mr. Michel Desparois: No, it's not an exact statement.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Could you give us an exact statement then?

• 1020

Mr. Michel Desparois: Yes. What Mr. Dwyer is referring to is the implementation of the global maritime distress and safety system, which is under the leadership of the International Maritime Organization. All signatories to the IMO have provided a plan of implementation of this new technology. We're sharing this, and basically Canada is meeting its plan. We will be—

Mr. Tom Wappel: Is it on target, or is it late?

Mr. Michel Desparois: It's not late. It is on target.

We have established a GMDSS zone in Canada—A1 area. We are on target. Equipment is working well. Training is proceeding, and we're planning a commissioning in 2003, as per our plan. We're meeting the national commitment.

Mr. Tom Wappel: This is my final one, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to hog the time here.

Mr. Desparois, I can understand there may be overlaps in what the RCMP, the Coast Guard, and DND do. What I can't understand is why you—and I don't pick on you specifically—as a manager don't know what those overlaps are, so that you as a manager can manage the Coast Guard in such a way that it doesn't create extra work. It seems to me as a manager you should know precisely where the overlaps are, so you can allocate your resources appropriately. Do you disagree with that?

Mr. Michel Desparois: I don't disagree with you. The reference I made to the overlaps on the Great Lakes, I guess you—

Mr. Tom Wappel: Anywhere.

Mr. Michel Desparois: Basically, we have regular meetings with our U.S. counterparts, and—

Mr. Tom Wappel: But what about the RCMP and DND? Never mind the U.S.

Mr. Michel Desparois: With the RCMP and DND, as I indicated before, Transport Canada leads on maritime safety. We have, from the search and rescue point of view, constant communications with DND; however, we have a mandate to protect safety and protect the maritime environment based on the Canada Shipping Act, and we have the tools required in order to do that.

Mr. Tom Wappel: But you don't know what the other areas are doing. This is my problem.

Mr. Michel Desparois: You're correct. I don't know what the others are doing within their mandate—intelligence, surveillance, terrorist countermeasures. You're correct. I don't know that.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wappel, Mr. Desparois.

Mr. Burton, Mr. Hearn, and then Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My riding is Skeena, which is northwestern B.C., and obviously Prince Rupert is in there. Frankly, I haven't heard a lot about the radar issue, but I guess that's because there's no radar service there. I'm very interested and very intrigued. I'd like to know how necessary radar would be on the north coast, in Mr. Dwyer's opinion, and if it is, what would be the logical location for it—somewhere in the Queen Charlotte Islands?

The Chair: Mr. Arnott.

Mr. Andy Burton: Mr. Arnott, sure.

Mr. Russ Arnott: I was up in Prince Rupert for eight years and I performed both the Coast Guard radio function and the vessel traffic function before the integration. As we know, on the north coast the moratorium on oil exploration is something that keeps coming up recently. Economically, B.C. needs some infusion of cash. This is a way to do it. We are definitely going to need a radar system in that area if that is to become viable. That's a no-brainer.

Right now, if we were to put radar up in the Prince Rupert area, we would go onto an island called Stevens Island, which is near Porcher Island. We had testing radar there approximately 11 years ago, when there was talk about putting some radar there. They put a tower up, like a shipboard's radar, and it seemed to be on the way to maybe getting some radar. But budget cuts and so on didn't allow that to happen.

We have many vessels going up into Kitimat, to the Alcan plant up there. You could have radar at the junction of Grenville and Douglas channels, where they merge.

These are pristine waters, and we're going on the honesty of these people. The information they give us is the information we relay to the next mariner. If they're incorrect in giving us that information, then we're incorrectly giving it to other mariners.

• 1025

Again, we have to relate vessel traffic services to air traffic control for the waterways. That's what we're doing.

Mr. Andy Burton: Thank you. I'm definitely going to pursue this. It's something I was not aware of, and I intend to find out a lot more about it.

Something I do hear a lot about is actual safety on the water and rescue capabilities. I'm not really clear in my own mind as to what the Coast Guard's role is. In a mayday or emergency call, do you have the capability to actually do rescue? How limited is your capability?

Just as an example, there are can buoys located in various safe-mooring sites. There's one off the Charlottes. Less than a month ago, I think, on the west coast of the Charlottes, the tied-up vessel Northern Dawn broke loose in the middle of the night. The vessel ended up on the rocks and they were actually rescued by the U.S. Coast Guard out at Ketchikan.

What's your role there? Are you limited in your rescue capabilities, or do you no longer have them?

Mr. Russ Arnott: On the north coast we have had to rely many, many times on the U.S. Coast Guard in terms of handling incidents there. The primary function of our Coast Guard helicopters is lighthouse resupply and sending technicians to mountaintop sites.

After much fighting, the senior helicopter pilot up there, Mike Clark, was able to get a winch put onto the Sikorsky helicopter, which is the largest helicopter up there in the Canadian Coast Guard fleet, or in Transport Canada's air fleet. They use that very rarely, because that's not their mandate.

In the north we have to rely on vessels of opportunity—for example, other vessels out in the waterways. We don't have the resources up there at this time to help.

Mr. Andy Burton: Mr. Churchill, you have something?

Mr. Jon Churchill: I was just going to say that we do have a dedicated search and rescue vessel stationed in Prince Rupert. It's a 70-footer that's on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

As well, we are about to put a new lifeboat station in the Queen Charlottes, in either Sandspit or Queen Charlotte City. A final decision hasn't been made yet. That lifeboat will probably be established in the next two years.

Mr. Andy Burton: Just quickly, I know very little about it, but I understand a contract has been let to build some new vessels. Could you just elaborate on that a bit? I understand they're being built in either Victoria or Nanaimo. What will be the disposition of those vessels in terms of east and west and so on?

Mr. Jon Churchill: The Minister of the Environment, who is the member of Parliament for Victoria, made the announcement last week that 25 new lifeboats will be built. They're being built by the shipyard in Victoria. Those vessels will be distributed across the country—east coast, Great Lakes, and west coast.

The west coast currently has three new lifeboats that have just gone into service, replacing the old Bamfield, the old Tofino lifeboats, and the lifeboat at Port Hardy. Eventually all of our lifeboats will be of the same class, either 43-footers or 47-footers. The contract that the Victoria shipyard received is for 47-foot lifeboats. These are built to U.S. Coast Guard design and specifications. The U.S. Coast Guard is now replacing every one of its 300 lifeboats with these craft.

The Chair: Mr. Burton, go ahead.

Mr. Andy Burton: I have just one more, I guess.

I'm pretty familiar with the 54-40. I lived in Stewart for a lot of years, and that area is pretty familiar to me. I know the question was asked, but maybe you could clarify it a bit more, with regard to the U.S. coverage of that area and what they actually do that perhaps we should or could be doing to cover the area better and provide the safety aspects required.

Mr. Jon Churchill: Until recently the U.S. Coast Guard did have a small vessel stationed at Ketchikan, but that vessel—

Mr. Andy Burton: Not just in terms of safety but also radar, radio, or whatever—just safety coverage.

Mr. Jon Churchill: I don't believe they have radar coverage in that area. The U.S. Coast Guard doesn't, and we don't. As I say, the only safety net they did have was a 41-foot utility boat based at Ketchikan that is now being removed. So all the servicing of that area is done from the Coast Guard station in Juneau, Alaska. They have helicopters in Juneau and they have larger vessels and smaller vessels. They also have one at Wrangell, which is halfway between Juneau and Ketchikan.

Mr. Andy Burton: Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Churchill and Mr. Burton.

Mr. Hearn.

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly want to thank the witnesses for coming in. This is certainly an eye-opener for a lot of people.

• 1030

I'm also very impressed with the frankness of the witnesses from DFO, Messrs. Churchill and Desparois. We don't always see that. I think today we're getting some verification of a lot of the facts that have been put on the table.

I have a couple of concerns. The motto, I guess, of the Coast Guard is marine safety and protection of the environment. A while ago I had an issue with the minister in the House, as some of you remember, on cutbacks in the Newfoundland region. The cutbacks that are happening certainly are not going to help fulfil in any way that motto, or that mandate, because you cannot protect the environment or shore and marine safety if you're constantly cutting back.

The other operative phrase today that's been used quite often is “We're reviewing our responsibilities to become more efficient”. I would suggest that different divisions of the country have been asked to review their responsibilities to see where they can save money. I don't think it has anything to do with becoming more efficient, because if you cut and cut, how can you become efficient?

My main concern, of course, would be the east coast that comes around the Newfoundland region. My district is the fishing district, which relies heavily on Coast Guard and marine aids, lighthouses in particular. Just recently in that one region we had half the helicopter fleet taken out of service. We had four, one crashed, and they took another one out, leaving us with two. One of the boats is being decommissioned.

As well, we had 11 lighthouses, which up until then were manned lighthouses, automated. In many parts of Newfoundland over the years the lighthouse has played a major role in terms of marine safety and the protection of the environment. The people who operated them were the ones who the fishermen in particular in the surrounding areas depended on. Whether it be ice conditions, whether it be icebergs, or whether it be fog or other weather conditions, they've been the ones who've spotted potential disasters. They've been the ones who've seen boats in trouble when radios didn't work. For instance, Cape Race, the only place that had contact with the Titanic, has now been threatened with cutbacks.

These things do not help in either protecting the environment or helping with marine safety.

I just wonder if your union, CAW, works closely with your counterparts on the east coast. Are you familiar with what is happening in Newfoundland, in the Atlantic region? Are they experiencing the same problems you are?

I know the answer, but I'd like to get it on the record.

Mr. Russ Arnott: I know the previous director of our local, Dwayne Cull, was very much in touch with, I believe, the united fishermen commercial workers—

Mr. Loyola Hearn: The FFAW.

Mr. Russ Arnott: Yes. They were in close contact a lot. They do support each other's needs.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Undoubtedly they have the same concerns you have.

Mr. Russ Arnott: Yes.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: It might be different types of concern, because it's a different environment, but....

Mr. Russ Arnott: The thing is, if we can't provide a service, then that's one less service that they're going to get. Fishermen have a difficult job, and they need the weather updated properly. They need to know what's out there. It's bad enough to be out on those seas. If you don't have the information to help you out, then you're in even more trouble.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Absolutely.

Mr. Chairman, I think other members of the committee mentioned, as you yourself probably did, the fact that people on the front line realize what the problems are. They're here today to tell us about some of them. People are caught in the middle, trying to do the best they can with what they have, and seeing their share of the pie become less and less.

Just the other day, somebody asked me how important fisheries, including the Coast Guard, was in relation to what goes on in Parliament. When you really look at it, if you did a poll across the country, it hardly registers any more. If you look at the number of questions asked in the House, it hardly registers.

• 1035

If you talk about safety—and we're talking about the protection of our country—we talk about the airports, the airlines, as you mentioned, we talk about the borders. And yet here we have right around this a notion where people can come from anywhere, at any time, through my area of Newfoundland or through the west coast and we're not paying any attention to it.

Mr. Chairman, in light of what we've heard today from both sides of the table here, it's about time that our committee did our part to create an awareness and to do something about a department that affects so many people in this country. That certainly has been downgraded, unless you have an opinion or a comment on that.

Mr. Russ Arnott: We're not here to say “these guys are out to get us”, because these guys aren't. They're, as you said, caught in the middle. This is one of the times where the union and management have to work together to get this service provided.

When I'm not instructing at the college I'm back in Comox and I'm an MCTSO. And I know what the feeling is at the grassroots, at the lower level, and I'll be very blunt: DFO is screwing us. That's what we hear every single time. There's money for fish, there's money for new vehicles, for lots of DFO departments.

And I don't have anything to back that up, because these are things we hear, whether it's true or not. And yet we see a safety service that we provide being cut back constantly. We need to sustain the fishery, but we need to sustain the lives of the those who are doing the fishery too, and both of them have to work together. And one has a more powerful voice than the other, and that's DFO. The Coast Guard feels like the poor cousin on the other side of the tracks. We're getting a little bit of a pittance here and there.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: If you talk to the people involved on the fishing side, they would perhaps have the same argument, because they are seeing cutbacks in scientific research. It's practically non-existent and stocks have been diminished...poor rules and regulations, high fees being charged. They're paying for a lot of services that are being cut back. There is absolutely nothing going into the maintenance of infrastructure, so I don't think it's an either/or in the department. It's a general department problem and a lack of funding overall.

The Chair: I think it's a matter of priorities and getting money into the centre in some cases for getting the job done.

I'll turn to Mr. Steckle, and then I want to come back to something both Tom and Mr. Hearn said.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to commend both our presenters this morning, both from the union and from the department. I think you've been very forthright. From the discussion and the questioning this morning, there is an obvious need for a better communication of some of these concerns expressed to those people who can respond to those needs. And that goes for the department. If it's not coming through the minister, then we have to find another vehicle of bringing that to our attention.

There is one question I don't think we've asked. What is the jurisdictional responsibility in terms of distance? Is it 200 miles?

Mr. Frank Dwyer: There are actually two jurisdictional differences. Territorial sea ends at 12 nautical miles, which is where most Canadian laws stop applying. However, the Canadian economic zone extends to 200 nautical miles, and we have limited powers out there to protect the environment. MCTS officers are some of the few people in the country who have the authority to issue PPO instructions to vessels in those waters.

Mr. Paul Steckle: We talked about securities and the avoidance of disasters, and the Exxon Valdez, of course, comes to mind. Not getting into the issue, particularly, of who was responsible for that, can we avoid those kinds of things happening in the future? With the type and level of service that we provide right now, because the Exxon Valdez incident happened prior to the cutbacks, what are the chances of this happening again? Are they greater now or not as great as they were?

• 1040

Mr. Frank Dwyer: First of all, I'd like to commend the quality of the mariner on board our tanker vessels. We have vessels comparable to that in our system regularly.

If you look at the considerations being made in our region, taking our station from a three stand station down to a two stand station, distress communications always take priority. So any time there's any kind of a distress or an urgent matter the vessel traffic service portion of the service would have to be dropped. This would leave a very competent mariner in a tanker to have to try to negotiate his passing arrangements with, perhaps, a Filipino captain, a Chinese captain who doesn't speak English.

We have a way and an experience dealing with these people. Because we have so much contact with all of them, we can get arrangements made that probably couldn't be made from one mariner to another in a lot of cases. There's a lot of traffic that's converted. There's a high risk.

Mr. Paul Steckle: So can we respond as equivalently now as we could prior to the Exxon Valdez, even with our cutbacks?

Mr. Frank Dwyer: Now? No.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Okay. So we are less likely to be able to respond now?

Mr. Frank Dwyer: That's right.

Those notices to shipping that I read to you said vessel traffic services were being cut out. When that goes you're increasing the risk substantially.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Because we have equivalency agreements with the Americans under the IJC and a number of other agreements with the Americans, are we currently meeting our portion of the agreements or are we falling short of doing so? And where are we falling short if we are?

Mr. Frank Dwyer: Yes, definitely, in many ways we're falling short. Because we're short-staffed and we run short-staffed centres, we're not able to do the screening up to the quality that we should be doing. In a centre like Tofino MCTS it takes three stands to do that...one man to do the paperwork, to process the reports, to anticipate where the deep-sea vessels are going to enter our area of radar coverage, so we know who it is right away, as soon as they enter our zone. When that person falls away you're not keeping up your obligation, you're not screening these vessels, you're not filing contravention reports because you have to spend 12 hours in the operational position.

You recall this is not flipping hamburgers. Being 12 hours in a position like this, it's a lot of stress. You have a lot of responsibility. You're responsible for 20, 40 vessels in bad weather. And as Monsieur Desparois said, it's the master that's ultimately responsible, but of course we share a degree of responsibility and we have to watch that continuously.

It's unthinkable to put somebody in a position like that for 12 hours. I can't believe it happens, but it does. And we can't keep our international commitments up by doing that.

Also, the Americans in the American vessel traffic service system will send their employees, their vessel traffic regulators, to sit beside us and see how the Canadians do it, because there are two different sets of rules and regulations. They want to understand because they're doing it in our waters. We don't have the money to send our people down to do it in their waters to get that equal comprehension.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Since September 11, of course, things have changed. Mr. Wappel asked the question about whether your department has received any money from that apportionment given towards securities. The question has come up from time to time within the House in the last month and half since this incident about North American perimeters. If we were to even think about engagement in such an effort, it would come to my mind that we wouldn't even be able to meet our commitments if we were to do that. Thereby, would we not be giving up sovereignty if we weren't able to meet our commitments, if other people, for instance, the Americans, were to be the guardians of our perimeter borders?

Something is just not quite right about this picture. My friend Mr. Hearn a moment ago talked about efficiency. Coming from a farming community and of course coming from central Ontario, where the Great Lakes of Sarnia is my Coast Guard effort, I have to think that this reminds me a whole lot of farmers. They've been told for years and years to become more efficient and there comes a time when you've worn the word out. You can't become more efficient and still produce the work.

And we have a great deal of concerns here that need to be addressed. I'm just wondering what your comment would be about the issue of a North American perimeter.

Mr. Frank Dwyer: I won't debate the idea of a common North American perimeter—

Mr. Paul Steckle: I'm not suggesting there should be one.

Mr. Frank Dwyer: —but I will say that we do cooperate with the United States right now.

I'd like to distribute these. There are three papers in here, unfortunately two of them are in English only. They come from Pacific region, so I have to apologize for that.

The Chair: We'll have them translated. It's not a problem.

Mr. Frank Dwyer: The Cooperative Vessel Traffic Service Agreement that I spoke about is a common perimeter, but we're overseeing each others rules and regulations. We have American participation requirements. That's not to say these participation requirements could be the same.

• 1045

What do we lose by having a common participation requirement? That's not the case now. But what this does do is it allows one report for vessels entering our waters. It meets the Canadian requirements, it meets the American requirements, and it meets the Washington State requirements. They would have to send three different reports in some cases otherwise. Those are the kinds of efficiencies we can gain, and can also gain by expanding it into other areas. Canada could learn from this. It's an excellent example of how we can cooperate with our American neighbour.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Churchill, did you have a point? I thought I saw your hand up.

Mr. Jon Churchill: I was just going to advise the committee that on two occasions this year the MCTS station in Victoria had to come to the aid of their counterparts in Seattle, and Seattle covers the Washington coast and Oregon. Because of the earthquake in Seattle in April, the U.S. Coast Guard had to abandon its headquarters building, and the Victoria and Tofino sites took over the entire traffic control.

Also, on September 11 the same thing happened. They had a bomb threat after the disasters on that date, and they had to evacuate the Seattle centre, and again the Victoria Coast Guard MCTS site was able to take over. Fortunately, on both occasions we had fully staffed stations.

The Chair: Before I go to James, here is something for DFO and CAW people to think about, as well as our own members. I'm trying to figure out what our responsibilities are versus those of the Department of Transport and DND in terms of security at our borders on the coast. I wonder whether the fisheries committee should go to the west coast—maybe the east coast too, I don't know—and spend a day holding a hearing and visiting with you, and perhaps go to look at Seattle's situation as well. I'm just thinking out loud. I know the other day at the budget liaison committee a number of committees, due to the urgent and pressing matter of terrorism, are doing a number of things. Whether it's the defence or immigration committee, they're either going to Washington or some place. I said that we would forego the money we had set aside for international travel so that they could do that work. But there is another meeting next week, and if we think that it's useful for us to do it, then we need to consider it, put together a plan, and put it before the budget liaison committee.

I'm thinking out loud. I'm wondering if that's useful. What is the Coast Guard's responsibility as directly related to the security of the coastline issue? If there is a responsibility there we're not looking after, and it's useful for us to do that, then we should do it and put it in the system. Think about that for a moment. We'll come back to it.

Mr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly appreciate your comments. I would suggest that it would be useful for committee to take a look at what's going on with Tofino—to visit the station where these men work so efficiently—perhaps also Comox, Victoria, and Seattle, to consider the effect there.

I also appreciate Mr. Churchill bringing up that during the earthquake—it was about a year or so ago—with Seattle being shut down, our eyes and ears were monitoring the whole of vessel traffic. For that period the U.S. was in fact dependant on us as well as on September 11. I appreciate your bringing that up. It's something I forgot to bring up.

I would just like to go back to a comment Mr. Churchill mentioned. Mr. Hearn has already referred to this, but I want to reiterate. Mr. Churchill commented on the problem of chronic underfunding over the last number of years and that the department was once again, at the current time, looking at economies—how else to save money. Mr. Hearn has already driven that point, but I want to reiterate it.

• 1050

Given the importance of the tasking and the regular duties that our men and women working at MCTS centres have in monitoring the supertankers, container ships, warships—all of this passing through—plus a tangle of pleasure vessels and the fishing fleet that's on and off out there—a whole tangle of smaller vessels—it's clearly not a time to be scaling back our surveillance and observation in these areas. It's a time for increased vigilance. We're certainly going to have to look at how that can be accomplished.

Secondly, I'd like to commend the employees. I've heard this mentioned before. During the downsizing when the amalgamation process took place between the the radio communications and the traffic services, the VTS, the cooperation of the employees in helping to facilitate that process and their professionalism in achieving efficiencies and helping the department is certainly not a behaviour that deserves to be ignored. It should be rewarded.

Finally, going back to recommendations coming out of some of what Mr. Dwyer briefly alluded to, there are things MCTS could be doing, such as making stronger ties with the DND in terms of communication links. Because MCTS is aware of the traffic patterns, they are able to identify deviations from those patterns that would be lost on a novice. Screening, surveillance, identifying those vessels of concern, information dissemination, relations with Canada Customs, relations with immigrant ships, and so on are some clear examples of things that could be tightened up and done more effectively.

Is there anything further any of you would like to add about those issues?

Mr. Russ Arnott: Just very briefly I would like to mention something as simple as encrypted communications. We are the communications officers, yet we don't have encrypted communications. In Comox, we don't. In Prince Rupert, we don't. I don't think any of the stations—

Mr. Frank Dwyer: We have an encrypted telephone system.

Mr. Russ Arnott: Okay. But we can't go on the radio and talk to someone without anybody there in the waters having a VHF and listening to us. We can't do any kind of encrypted communications.

I don't know the costs of these things, but surely it can't be a whole lot. Yet in this day and age.... If anything comes out of this it should be that—we should have some encrypted kind of communications. That we need to build on.

The Chair: Mr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney: I'll just satisfy the response then I'll turn it over to Andy for a last comment.

The Chair: Sorry, Mr. Desparois.

Mr. Michel Desparois: Excuse me. I just want to give some information.

At this time, Coast Guard MCTS is in contact with DND for information. Every four hours, out of Halifax, we are dumping our aggregate files to DND in Markham in order that they can have some intelligence or data. The same thing is being done on the west coast with their CVTS system. There's a direct link to DND. We have a daily report out of Halifax to Agriculture Canada and Customs Canada.

Right now there is an interdepartmental committee with all these government agencies reviewing their requirements to see what additional measures can be taken in order to get advance intelligence.

The first action taken, which mimics to some extent the Americans, in having the same principles—relying on the boats to report to the States or to Canada 96 hours in advance—has been implemented. With our partners in other government agencies, we're looking to see whether ahead of ships entering Canadian waters—the 12-nautical-mile zone—more information is required. This is being considered at this time.

To answer the questions from Mr. Steckle and Mr. Wappel about this North American-type zone, to some extent it's already in place. We have measures on the east coast, in the Arctic, and on the west coast that require ships now to report 96 hours in advance. We have this daily drop to DND on both coasts.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Burton.

Mr. Andy Burton: I have a quick question, Mr. Chairman.

• 1055

It seems the crux of this whole discussion really revolves around funding and operational moneys. Just to get back quickly to the new vessels that are being built or have been ordered, there will obviously be some major costs there, and then there will be funding requirements to operate those vessels. Is that going to adversely impact the ability of the Coast Guard to provide their MCTS service? If not, obviously there will be more money forthcoming. Is that a yes or a no?

Mr. Jon Churchill: The specific money for the new life boats and life boat stations was included in a Treasury Board submission of 1993. So the funding envelope does fund those resources when they come on line.

On your question of whether that will affect the funding to MCTS in the long term, it's hard to say because the dollar figure asked for in 1993 may not be adequate in 2001 and beyond.

Mr. Andy Burton: I think this is something we need to be very aware of. Even though it's a plus service, in terms of requirements, it could adversely affect an even more necessary service.

Mr. Jon Churchill: Yes, we're keenly aware of that. It may be a problem.

Mr. Andy Burton: Okay, thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Roy.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Desparois talked earlier about complementary links with the Canadian army. Is this correct? My question is going to be quite simple. Do you also have links with Transport Canada, and with the RCMP? Do you, in practice, have connections with these agencies? If something happens, are you able to call on Transport Canada, for example, or on the RCMP, or on the Armed Forces?

Mr. Michel Desparois: The answer to your question, Mr. Roy, is yes, definitely, our EGAREG system, for example, on the east coast, and our NORDREG system, in the Arctic, are based on the premise that we collect the information a ship gives us and if it doesn't meet certain criteria, we contact Transport Canada, Ship Safety, and they are the ones who ask the ship, through us, to make the necessary adjustments.

So we have daily contacts Transport Canada and with the RCMP, for example, regarding drug trafficking in the Maritimes and in other regions as well. So, yes, we do have daily contacts with our partners, because we are the marine information centre par excellence.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, all.

Just on my question earlier, what are our Coast Guard's responsibilities—I'm looking at areas this committee is supposed to partly look after—relative to the security of the coastline? Can anybody tell me that?

Mr. Russ Arnott: We need to have the coast covered, to provide the security. We're not an enforcement agency, but we can provide some security measures to the Canadian coasts. On the east and west coasts of Canada, we don't have the radar to do that. We're relying on the goodwill of the mariner coming in. Whether he's a terrorist who sounds like a really nice guy, or some fisherman, we're relying on the information he's giving us to be correct, and providing him with the information he needs, like any other mariner.

As Mr. Lunney mentioned, I believe if we had the radar, we would be able to see erratic deviations in course, as the air traffic controllers did with the September 11 incidents. They were able to see some erratic movement. We can't do that. We can't provide any kind of early warning of stuff like that.

The Chair: Mr. Desparois or Mr. Churchill, do you have anything to add to that? Is that your view as well? I'll get to Frank in a second.

Mr. Jon Churchill: Yes, it is.

The Chair: If we really think we should do this on an urgent basis, we'll need to be able to argue this at the budget liaison committee. There's a problem in dealing with this urgent issue because so many committees are travelling. So we need to have our arguments in place—

Mr. Michel Desparois: I think the security of Canadian territory is a shared responsibility. I don't think DFO is the lead department for that responsibility. The Coast Guard mandate is the safety and protection of the environment. Security is different from safety, according to my own interpretation. Our position is that it should be a joint effort, but DFO is at this time not the lead agency for security.

• 1100

The Chair: I understand that, but an integral part of monitoring the coastline is to ensure that nobody is slipping under the web.

Mr. Michel Desparois: There are different ways to monitor the coastline. There could be aircraft surveillance. There could be more time spent on monitoring by Coast Guard ships. The Coast Guard does aerial surveillance for ship-sourced pollution. That is also part of surveillance. DND on both coasts are plying the waters. It's a joint effort.

Radar is definitely an option. What about the technical implementation of radar, as Canada has one of the longest coasts? We need to look at the benefits and the risk assessments. I don't think that's the only answer. The U.S. Coast Guard doesn't have radar coverage of all their coasts.

The Chair: We need to make sure our responsibilities are looked after.

Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Tom Wappel: This is not a question. Just to follow up on what you were saying, if you notice the last bullet point of the mission statement, it provides information for business and the national interest. I can't think of anything that would be more important to the national interest than the security of our country.

I think Mr. Desparois is exactly correct. DFO is not the lead agency, but this is a team effort. We can't rely only on DND, we can't rely only on the RCMP, and we certainly can't rely only on DFO. Hopefully, we can rely on all of them if they have enough money, if we can identify a need for money. Clearly we know there's a chronic problem on the west coast. We really didn't get a chance to talk too much about the east coast.

I think there are three circles. As I would describe it, each of these departments is a circle, but at some point the three circles intersect, and that shaded area where all three circles intersect is where they all work together to provide for the national interest.

It seems to me we should be investigating that. The Coast Guard is getting no money when they should be getting some money, because these people are monitoring all the shipping all the time.

The Chair: Mr. Churchill, then Mr. Dwyer, and then Mr. Grégoire.

Mr. Jon Churchill: Just to give you an example, when we're talking about security, the Port of Vancouver on September 11—I was the regional director of the Coast Guard at the time in the Pacific region—immediately called my office and asked us to secure the port, which we did in cooperation with the Port of Vancouver.

We had to scramble for resources, but we maintained a security net in the harbour for three days. Part of the reason was we had five cruise ships coming into the port from Alaska. They'd closed Alaskan waters down, so these cruise ships couldn't return. Also, passengers that were going onto the cruise ships couldn't land because they weren't coming in from the States.

So we had a situation where, on the last day of the crisis, the third day of that week, we had 10,000 cruise ship passengers in the port of Vancouver. So we had to scramble. We had rubber boats. We had a 41-footer working 24 hours a day just to serve as a picket in the port.

The Chair: Mr. Dwyer.

Mr. Frank Dwyer: I was basically going to say what Mr. Wappel said. Defence is not our mandate and domestic security is not our mandate. But our mandate is to support other government agencies; it's what we do.

We're not medical personnel, but we help arrange the ambulances. We're not Agriculture and Agrifood Canada, but we watch for gypsy moths on the ships. We're not Parks Canada, but we go looking for hikers on land because we're the only people there. We're not customs, but if somebody comes in and needs to find out how to report to customs, we dial a number for them and put them on a radio patch.

The same applies to the Department of National Defence. We can support them. We are the best people to support them. We're not only there 24-7; for 60 seconds out of every minute there's a man in front of that radar screen.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Grégoire.

• 1105

Mr. Martin Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, my comments have to do with the radar coverage. I do agree with Mr. Desparois that there is no need for full radar coverage along our coast. However, we do have some strategic points that need to be covered that are not covered right now, and those are the Tofino area of responsibility and the Prince Rupert area as well.

On the east coast, we have two huge gaps that need to be covered, and those are the Belle Isle and the Cabot Strait. Right now, ships can come in and go out of there without any radar surveillance except for some surveillance that is being provided from the Port-aux-Basques centre, but it's only very limited. Those are our two major entrances that need to be covered by radar on the east coast.

The Chair: Thank you.

Last comment, Mr. Hearn, because we are already over time. And I'm already late for a meeting.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Mr. Chairman, certainly we're talking about security, which is the main concern these days. If you look at what happened on September 11 and everything that's happened since, it's all happened within our country. We have not been attacked, within United States or within Canada, by somebody coming from outside at that time. It all happened by people who were there.

How do you get in here? It's very difficult to get in through airports any more because of the tight screening. It's very difficult to get across our borders because of the screening. But it's pretty easy to get in by ocean, if there isn't the proper screening. I think it just shows how important a role the.... And despite who's responsible, the people keeping an eye on who's coming and going are yourselves.

Mr. Russ Arnott: We're a station with three positions, and just because of budgetary restraints we can't say tonight John booked off so we're just going to have two people on. For the sake saving a couple of hundred dollars, we're having this big gap in the communications because the money is not there. And this happens commonly.

The Chair: Thanks, gentlemen.

How much time do you people need if the fisheries committee were to go out in order for us to do a very good hearing? I think seeing is believing. Maybe it's my farm background: I'd like to be able to see something to understand it better. But we would need to look at least at a couple of sites. I don't know whether we'd need a meeting with the Americans or not, but it would be best to have one. Then we could come back and make recommendations.

If we were to do it, I do know that the budget liaison committee meeting is on Tuesday, or when I left the other day they suggested Tuesday, so we would have to be prepared with a plan in place before that meeting on Tuesday, which would mean we would either have to—and you're not here next Tuesday—put a motion.... We could get it to them if we put a motion Tuesday morning, or we could—

Mr. James Lunney: Could I put a motion forward at this time?

The Chair: We can forgo notice of motion if everybody agrees.

Loyola.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Yes, provided we also go the east coast, because I think, in light of what you mentioned with the Belle Isle area, that area is probably worse off in relation to the supervisory area and they have many problems.

The Chair: Could we put a motion for us to come forward with a plan to do further study on this on both coasts, and then we at least have a motion on the record and then I can talk to people by phone if we had to?

Mr. James Lunney: I'm going to make that motion, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Moved by James, seconded by Loyola.

Any discussion?

Mr. Russ Arnott: I'd like to add something to that. If you were to go out there, I would highly recommend that you do go to the Prince Rupert centre as well. Go up there and take a look.

Again, I can't speak on behalf of the Coast Guard in terms of what they can offer you, but we do have the largest helicopter up there, the Sikorsky, which can take many people in it. If you talk to whoever, I'm sure that helicopter can take you out and show you some of the areas so that you can get a real eye-opener of how vast that ocean is and how those illegal immigrants can easily penetrate with the way things are right now.

• 1110

The Chair: The key points to look at would be which ones?

Mr. Russ Arnott: I would say on the west coast you have two centres that are prone to these problems, and that would be Prince Rupert and Tofino, Ucluelet, because they have to come through those areas to get into the rest. In Comox we are just a VHF, a local radio type of centre, and we deal with the vessels that come in through Prince Rupert or Tofino. We deal a lot with cruise ships and that. But if you were to look at this in the whole, I think Prince Rupert and Ucluelet are important. And since you're in Ucluelet you could see what Victoria has, because Victoria is a top-notch station with the best equipment out there, and you can see what the potential for other stations could be by looking at Victoria. It's very impressive. It just needs some money to get things going.

The Chair: Does DFO have anything they want to add?

Mr. Tom Wappel: What about the east coast?

The Chair: The east coast we can—

Mr. Tom Wappel: The Cabot Strait and what was the other one?

A voice: Belle Isle.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Belle Isle.

The Chair: All right, the motion is on the floor.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: We will have to work on that.

Thank you, everyone, for your presentations.

The meeting is adjourned.