Fisheries Committee on Feb. 20th, 2007

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Does your analysis include this factor in any way, or not at all?

[Sheila Fraser]

Not really, because we mainly audit management practices as well as existing systems and practices, but not the... Unless the audit revealed certain consequences, as we saw, for instance, with regard to research on fish, etc. But we did not detect any problem of this nature.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Regarding the audit, I think that we can logically conclude that if there are problems with the maintenance of vessels that are used for search and rescue, there must be some relation of cause and effect.

[Sheila Fraser]

Perhaps, but that depends on how the coast guard compensates for maintenance problems or the unavailability of certain ships, and if it will seek others elsewhere. There are mechanisms in place to compensate for and respond to that. We did not examine that.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

I would like to address another issue, if I have any time left.

Regarding the agreements with the marine industry—moreover, that is part of your presentation—we can only point out and express dismay that there is still no agreement with the marine industry relating to navigational aid services. I'm referring to ice-breaking services and the like.

As part of the work you have to do, do you consider the possibility of finally reaching this famous agreement with the marine industry? If it is not going well between the two parties, that not only distresses me, but at the same time, I feel somewhat concerned. I tell myself that ultimately, the coast guard should help the marine industry rather than hinder it. I would like to hear your opinion and comments on an agreement with the marine industry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Mr. Blais, you did well. You had 56 seconds to ask your final question and you took 78 seconds. That's not bad, but let's have a quick answer.

[Commr George Da Pont]

Frankly, I have met industry representatives at the national and regional levels several times since I became commissioner. Re-establishing relations was one of the priorities.

So we did two things. First of all, as the minister announced, for the first time in several years, we have launched a discussion with industry on the future of fees. That is their major issue. The discussions are underway. We have made progress, to some extent, and I hope we will reach an acceptable solution for both the government and industry.

Secondly, we specifically re-established the marine advisory councils with industry to have a place where we can truly discuss the key issues. Frankly, I have not received too many complaints about services. I have the impression that industry is satisfied with the quality of the services. I have received many requests to increase services. In some regions, I have also received comments about service shortfalls, depending on the industry.

I have already made a commitment to industry to launch a general, overall and comprehensive discussion of our services and service quality. That will take some time, but I hope that together, we will be able once again to come up with solutions that are acceptable to all.

Personally, I feel we have established a good relationship. I have not received many complaints about services and service quality.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Mr. Da Pont.

Mr. Lunney.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the Auditor General and the officials today.

We're having a challenging discussion today. I think everybody recognizes that the coast guard has been through a very difficult time that preceded Mr. Murray. I think he came on in 2003, and Mr. Da Pont came less than a year ago, and started to address concerns that go back quite a way.

I think the restructuring, when the coast guard was pulled out of Transport Canada, was back in 1995. From my involvement with the MCTS people on my coast, they went through a very challenging period of cross-training, amalgamation, reorganization, and downsizing. Everybody worked hard to try to make things work with fewer resources. Looking at the military, there was a period when they also had very severe budget restraints, and their top officer called it a decade of darkness.

In a sense, the report the Auditor General has brought here goes along with the concerns this committee has been trying to address for a number of years about the coast guard. We have the greatest respect for our hard-working officers who have been doing their best to make things work, with budget restraints and so on.

On what we want to see, I think all of us have a role in getting the coast guard on a new track. I hear some encouraging things like, “Let's look at the good things that come out of a reality check.” The Auditor General's report clearly delineates where some of the problems are, and I'm glad to hear that some improvements are being made.

My first question is to the Auditor General. Looking back over the challenges of the past many years with the reorganization of the coast guard, your reports of 2000 and 2002, and reports from this committee concerned about some of the issues related to the coast guard and MCTS, was the coast guard given a budget to accomplish the objectives that were laid out for it?

[Sheila Fraser]

I really can't respond to that. We always hesitate to comment on the level of funding that should have been given to any department or agency. Those choices were made at a given time, and we believe it's important for departments to manage appropriately with the funds given to them, or to bring forward issues...if they aren't able to accomplish it they should make that known. We haven't specifically looked at that, so I would be very hesitant to say anything.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

[Inaudible--Editor...Madam Fraser. I think the question was, was there a transfer of budget when the coast guard was transferred?

[Sheila Fraser]

I assume there was.

The question is, was it sufficient or not? I really can't answer that.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

To move on, we're managing an asset here in terms of the boats, the ships, that are out on the coast, with huge value attached to them, and obviously the replacement is a long-term plan.

So personally I'm glad to hear that there's an organization now looking at long-term planning for replacement of such valuable assets. It seems to me it's going to take us a while to get the finances in place to have that replacement move ahead. I'm glad to see that you're addressing it.

I'm concerned about officer training, because I notice the age of our officers, particularly with MCTS. They were under continual least-cost analysis pressures, and the replacement training of officers was way behind schedule. Many of them are on the edge of retirement.

Is there a plan in place to upgrade the training of officers?

[Commr George Da Pont]

That's a very good question and one that personally gives me a fair bit of concern, as I look at our demographics over the next four or five years. I've been very clear that if we don't begin with significant activities now, we may not have enough people with the right competencies down the road, given retirements.

We've taken a number of steps already. We've significantly increased the intake of new cadets at the Canadian Coast Guard College, from less than 20 a year to about 50 now for the next few years. We have done that over a 10-year planning horizon tied to the demographics.

We've also done analysis through the workforce development unit, which I mentioned, to identify our three or four other areas of significant risk, in terms of our key occupational groups.

Through our business planning process, I also hope that we will be able to resource some very specific activities for recruitment, enhanced training, and more career development to try to make sure we have the people we need down the road.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

To move on to another question, we've had a bit of talk about navigational aids--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

I'm sorry, Mr. Lunney, but you're out of time as well. Everyone seems to be going over time today.

We're going back to Mr. Simms.

There will be another opportunity, I'm sure.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

You're a great shepherd, sir, I must say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

It's quite a flock.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Thank you very much, sir.

I'll look at the transcript to figure out how to take that.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

I'll bring my border collie next week.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Excellent.

Mr. Da Pont, you mentioned earlier that in September you came to roughly the same conclusions as Ms. Fraser. What was done at that time to basically address them?

[Commr George Da Pont]

As I mentioned in my remarks, I was formally appointed to the position in September, but I had started the previous December on an acting basis. Having had some sense of some of the issues from my previous capacity, and also certainly from having carefully read this committee's 2004 report, for example, and others, I put in place what I called the A-base review to take a broad, comprehensive look at our funding, how we were utilizing it, our internal business practices, and our internal procedures and processes.

The report was finished in September. I didn't ask for a 100% report. I said give me an 80% report; I didn't want to take two years doing it. It was what we needed as an organization.

I also wanted it done internally by coast guard people for the coast guard, because one of the issues is always the perceived lack of credibility, when outsiders who don't understand your operation take a look at you.

I'm certainly not suggesting that's the case; I'm not suggesting that at all.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!