Fisheries Committee on May 8th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Blais.

Mr. Kamp.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, again, for coming.

Let me begin with a fairly broad question. I think the popular perception, at least, is that any bureaucracy will continue to expand and become less efficient over time. What processes does the department have to make sure you're as efficient as you should be, that you meet your operational goals in the most effective and cost-effective way? Are there things you do in the department—regular reviews, and so on—that help in that regard?

[Claire Dansereau]

Thank you for the question.

You're right. Bureaucracies could keep growing to just satisfy themselves if they were not held in check. It's always a matter of checks and balances.

As you may know, in the public service there's a very rigorous performance management assessment of what we call the EX cadre that goes on every year, meaning all the people in the management side, versus the union side. The managers are held to a very rigorous performance management assessment, and within that, of course, their own human resource management practices are analyzed and measured to determine whether they're adequate.

The systems within the public service are in fact very rigorous, making it very difficult to actually hire people, as you know. It's one of the complaints that Canadians have about the public service, that it's very difficult to get in. One of the reasons it's very difficult to get in is that we're very careful about bringing on any new employees if we're not fairly confident that the money for the programming is there to actually support those employees.

So there are checks and balances at all levels of what we do, and great care is paid to that very question.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

So that review takes place once a year, and it's conducted by a superior to determine how the managers score.

[Claire Dansereau]

It's conducted at all levels within the EX system and at the final stage. So it starts with the supervisor, to the next in line, and then the whole of the EX cadre is reviewed by the whole of the management team. So the ADMs and the deputies sit together once a year and review the performance of every one of the managers in the department.

That means that in order for the ADM to be able to bring the information to the table, they will have had to work closely and do performance management analysis throughout the course of the year. So it's something that culminates in a once-a-year meeting around the performance, but it's managed on an ongoing basis.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

On a totally different topic, I understand that for a number of years our ports were closed to Greenlandic and Faroese ships. I understand they're now open. I wonder if you could just explain why they are, and that whole 3L shrimp issue there.

[David Bevan]

It involves 3L shrimp and an objection by Denmark with respect to the Faroe Islands and Greenland. They set a unilateral quota, and that would therefore result in a catch that was higher than the agreed upon TAC. Because of that, we closed the port some years ago.

We've been having discussions to try to resolve outstanding objections at NAFO. There are two left: one related to 3M shrimp, where Iceland has objected to the effort day scheme that exists there, where you don't have a TAC and quota but rather an effort day; and the other was the unilateral quota by Greenland.

In order to hold discussions in good faith, the ports were opened to allow discussions to take place. We had those discussions last week. We were unable to close the gap between Faroe Islands and the rest of the organization. That doesn't mean those discussions are over. There's an opportunity to revisit them in a couple of weeks when ministers from the North Atlantic will be meeting, and that provides an opportunity for a side discussion on that whole shrimp issue. I guess it was a situation last week where the mandates of the various negotiators didn't allow enough movement, but ministers may be able to overcome that and find a way to solve it.

The Scientific Council made it clear that the status of the stocks in question...they're in fairly good shape. In 3L the stock is expanding, and while prudence is being recommended, the levels of catch right now are not impacting the health of the stock.

In 3M there are some concerns, but the level of catch there is very low, relevant to the scientific advice. And that's just economics: the cost of fishing is very high and the value of the fish is not adequate in some cases to cover off those costs, so effort has been down. But as I said, the ports were open to facilitate discussions, and those discussions took place last week, and there may be further discussions before the end of the month. So it's a matter of then seeing where all that takes us before any other decisions are made.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Kamp.

We're going to another round of five minutes. Mr. Byrne, you're on.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

I'll just follow up on my previous point.

Claire, you mentioned that basically the discussions related to the small craft harbours budget now are based on information that the minister's office would have that was not available to the department. Every piece of correspondence that comes in to the minister's office would be logged in the correspondence unit, put in a file folder, and sent down to the branch of the department responsible, and the department itself would be generating a response.

The only information the minister's office would have available to it, but that the department would not already have had, would be that of a political nature. Private discussions, all related correspondence from any harbour authority that was sent to 200 Kent Street, 15th floor, addressed to the minister or the minister's office, is flagged.

Is that agreed? The only input the minister's office would have, but that you don't have, would be of a political nature.

[Claire Dansereau]

No, it's not so much that.... Ministers' offices would receive the same information, obviously, because it goes to the minister, but they would interpret it possibly in a different way, and there needs to be room in the process for the discussion to happen. As you know, people in ministers' offices have a lot of local knowledge as well and may interpret information that comes in, in a way that might be different from the way the department might interpret it. It requires that the two sides talk to make sure we can get to the bottom of the questions.

Ministers' offices have the absolute right to ask a lot of questions, as they should, because that's the system we work in. There's a kind of analysis that goes on in the department that can be and should be questioned by people in the minister's office. So that's the kind of back and forth that goes on. It's the political nature of things that has nothing to do with us. We don't engage in those discussions, nor should we.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

So if a fire destroys a particular harbour, there's not much interpretation about that particular aspect. It pretty well stands on its own merits.

[Claire Dansereau]

It depends on whether there's an investigation or not.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

The Auditor General had a very serious report about the state of affairs in the Canadian Coast Guard and fleet renewal. We really haven't seen a lot of money put into the Canadian Coast Guard relative to the Auditor General's expectations. The minister was very clear, George, that he will repair all of this before he's gone.

Facing his comments very specifically and directly, what's going on about fleet renewal within the coast guard?

[George Da Pont]

Thank you for the question. I'm extremely encouraged by the investment in the coast guard in the last few years.

In the last few federal budgets we received funding of almost $1.4 billion, and the vast majority of that is for fleet renewal. We now have the authority to replace 17 of 40 large vessels. That is the first significant investment of that nature in the coast guard since the 1980s, so I'm very encouraged by that.

Working one's way through the procurement process takes more time than I would like. We're obviously at that stage, but I hope that in the next few months we'll enter into a contract to build the first 12 of those vessels, and the others will be in contracting within another year.

In addition to that, we have received a permanent addition to our funding of about $33 million or $34 million for operations. So there have been very significant investments that have helped the coast guard significantly, although until we get the new vessels, the full benefit of them won't be apparent in many of the areas.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Do I have more time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

You have 23 seconds, but just for the record, I'll say goodbye.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Mr. Lévesque.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

I have not been on this committee, learning about the department's activities, for very long. I have realized that, despite increases in assistance year after year, the department has not been able to stop the wharves deteriorating nor to meet related needs. But you are hoping for more volunteers.

Do you have the feeling that the increases in your budget do not even meet increases in operating costs, indexed salaries and expenses that the department has to meet? Would it not be appropriate to look beyond indexing and to ask for a budget that would put an end to the deterioration of the wharves?

[Claire Dansereau]

That is a question for the government as a whole. The government has to deal with a number of priorities. There are gaps everywhere. We will always have discussions like this. What is a priority for someone today is not a priority for someone else. Health and safety are priorities, and we are dealing with them. We keep doing our jobs and we will keep on doing them. You will keep doing yours, and together, we will keep making progress.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Do you agree that your budget increases scarcely cover rising operating costs?

[Claire Dansereau]

That is difficult to say on a yearly basis because we still manage to get a lot done with the funding at our disposal. We think that we do quite a good job. It will never be perfect. Like you, I have not been in office very long, so I really do not know.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Mr. Keddy.