I obviously don't disagree with Madam Fraser's observations, but I would mention several points.
First of all, I would agree—and this is certainly my approach and the arguments I make—that if I do not have the resources within my existing budget, I cannot take on new responsibilities and an expanded mandate without the funding that would go with it, or without being given the ability to shed some of the shore infrastructure that the Auditor General has talked about, such as staffed lighthouses or some of the large number of shore facilities.
All of those are very contentious, not from the operational perspective of the coast guard, but for legitimate heritage considerations, for legitimate issues about the impact on local jobs in small communities. I understand that fully, but what I can't do is effectively be unable to realize some of those improvements and rationalizations and at the same time be expected to take on more without funding.
There is opportunity within our budget to use some of our budget much more effectively—and that's a good example—and certainly there are improvements in our management practices that we will try to make, but I think in essence that's the situation: in the absence of being able to readily deal with shore-based infrastructure, I don't see much opportunity to expand the mandate within the current envelope.