Public Accounts Committee on March 13th, 2008

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Right, but it's not a stand-alone agency.

[Michelle d'Auray]

Not at this point, no, it is not.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

So you haven't been given instruction on that.

[Michelle d'Auray]

That is the position, that the agency is within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I apologize. I do have to interrupt you. Your time is up. I know it's difficult.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Could we complete that statement, Mr. Chairman? It seems to be a little bit political, so we could get a little political debate going on here. Stand-alone agencies and special operating agencies seem to be the same thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, seven minutes.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

When the men and women of the coast guard look at this report and read the transcripts of this committee meeting, I think they'll be quite disappointed. So I thought I'd just take a quick moment off the top and express what I think are the views of most committee members, who are all tremendously appreciative of those men and women on the front lines of the coast guard. They do very difficult work, and they try their best, at times in very hostile or difficult environments.

What we don't expect is that the internal structures would create a difficult, hostile environment in which they're expected to do their work.

The coast guard is facing three major challenges: rust-out of its ships; inability to provide timely and accurate information on fish stocks, and that has huge repercussions; and a new challenge, a very serious challenge. Our biggest coast is in the Arctic, and with the melting ice cap, there is going to be a huge coast and a large territory to patrol. From my reading of this report, it's difficult to envision how your agency will be able to meet those particular challenges.

Perhaps what was most interesting in your opening address was that you noted that a cultural change within the agency was necessary. That's perhaps getting at the real substance of things. And you anticipate that it will take you three to four years for this cultural change. Do you have an action plan on this particular aspect of the challenges you face? And if you do, could you please table it with this committee?

[Commr George Da Pont]

Mr. Chairman, everything we are planning to do is in the business plan we tabled. And for the very specific items of standardization and so forth, we have identified the specific commitments.

We will be tabling with this committee, I would expect by mid-May, our updated business plan for 2008-09. One of the initiatives you will see in that business plan, which is a new initiative, is to spend probably a year or two within the agency on revisiting our mission, our mandate, and our values. That exercise is intended to get at the issue you're raising, quite legitimately, of looking at beginning to get the cultural change within the coast guard, to have people look at the coast guard more as a national institution rather than one focused entirely on their region, or their vessel, or their part of the coast guard.

I think that's one of the most significant issues, because the coast guard does have a very strong can-do attitude. It needs—and it would be a mistake not to have—a lot of operational flexibility in the field, and it is balancing it with that national outlook and standardization.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I'd actually challenge you on one thing you've just stated. Perhaps on the front lines there's a can-do attitude, but what I think this report clearly demonstrates is the exact opposite. Perhaps there's an attitude to say the things that higher-ups expect to hear, but when it comes to actually getting things done, the report seems to indicate the exact opposite.

It sounds as if it's just going to be a warm and fuzzy approach in terms of addressing cultural change. Is there something a little more substantive that we're looking at there? It almost sounds as if the whole administrative structure needs a serious shaking up.

[Commr George Da Pont]

I guess what I would say is that I think there has been significant change. Becoming a special operating agency was very significant. Becoming a line operation as part of that was very significant. Having policy and regulatory responsibilities move to Transport Canada so that the coast guard could focus exclusively on service delivery was very significant.

We have seen, in the past three budgets, an investment of almost a billion and a half dollars in the coast guard. I think that's extremely significant. It begins to provide some improvements in terms of getting new vessels and so forth.

So I think it is more than just the cultural change. It's been accompanied by very significant organizational changes. It's been accompanied by very significant investment in the last few years.

The final thing I would say is that beginning next year, we're going to implement a standard organizational structure across the coast guard. That also is a very significant change.

So I do think there are a lot of concrete elements, not just the cultural change part.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

We look forward to seeing the updated business plan, especially the cultural change portion of it.

Mr. Hubbard.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

In terms of other coast guards and other countries providing similar services, have you attempted to analyze what other nations have done? You talked about, for example, your collective agreements. If you do a comparison with the navy, most people on the fleet certainly have a much better collective agreement than the people who are joining our navy. So have you looked at other countries?

Secondly, how did we get into this box about a month on and a month off in terms of the people who are on the fleet?

[D/Commr Charles Gadula, Deputy Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Chairman, we have looked at comparisons with other coast guards around the world, and we have regular meetings in both the north Atlantic and the north Pacific.

Going specifically to the crewing systems we have, they're all negotiated on our behalf by someone else, as you know. We ended up with the lay-day system, with a 2.1 clause in it. As a result, we now get 18 weeks' work out of an individual.

It's a problem for us, and it's an issue we're looking at now from a strategic point of view, trying to clarify, with those who bargain the collective agreements, the need to have a lay-day system that's comparable with other organizations but that, in the end, would result in a true day-on/day-off scenario. But we are burdened at the moment with the four different operational systems that we use.

In response to your question, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, for instance, when I first went on board our ships, we had only conventional manning. You got your annual leave of three weeks a year and you were away the rest of the time. Times are different now. We are trying to build collective agreements strategically, for both ships' officers and crews, that are fair, that allow us to recruit the professionals we need, but that at the same time don't tie our hands with respect to the availability of crew and the ability to operate 24/7 operations where required, and as well to have seasonal operations that make sense in the areas of Canada where we do have seasonal operations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Sweet, seven minutes.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think you certainly hear loud and clear, from the entire committee, that this kind of report is more than troublesome. This isn't a 6.9 or anything; absolutely no satisfactory performance has been made.

My real concern, as it goes back to 1983, is that the cultural change you mentioned is an endemic problem. I guess the overall question...and maybe I'll save that as the last question I have you answer.

We really need to know what is different today when this department has repeatedly come back, report after report, and said they were going to make it happen. The last year an action plan was actually submitted was 2002. What's going to be the difference today, over all the rest of those times, so that progress is really going to be made?

Before you answer that, as maybe a closing statement for my round, on pages 10 and 11 there's the sad tale of some seriously flawed maintenance. It not only cost millions and millions of dollars, but it also risked the lives of crew on these vessels. Is the maintenance scheduling--I'm hoping, actually, you're going to tell me that the manuals are in place—a key priority? Is making sure these vessels are kept up to date, not only mechanically but safety-wise out of concern for the crew, one of the key priorities in your plan going forward?

[Commr George Da Pont]

Let me start with the issue of the manuals. We do have manuals on all of our vessels.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Are they all up to date?

[Commr George Da Pont]

No. As the Auditor General has noted, some are not up to date. There are varying reasons for why that's the case, which I won't bother to go into. But we have made that a significant priority, and we are looking at that comprehensively.

Each of the incidents on page 10 and 11 were investigated. There were recommendations, and the recommendations were implemented. But I launched an internal maintenance review, because beyond these specific incidents there may be some structural, fundamental issues. I've been briefed on the progress of that.

One of the issues, in fairness to the people doing the work and with regard to some of the observations, is that in the last number of years, after program review, we cut significantly the number of people on the vessels, the number of people engaged in these activities. That was happening at the same time as the vessels were getting older and as the requirements for maintenance--the workload--were rising.

So beyond the very specific issue of manuals and so forth, I think there's probably a more fundamental issue we need to come to grips with. I'm beginning to wonder whether we may not have enough people on those activities, given the workload and the increased workload because of aging vessels.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Okay. Well, that's one of the places where you could actually persuade us that it's going to be different. Do you have the resources to get to a place where you have enough people who have the expertise to do it?

[Commr George Da Pont]

I don't have the resources in place at the moment. But this is one of the key things I will be discussing with Treasury Board if the final result of our maintenance review confirms, which I think it will, that this is a priority issue we have to address if we're going to make fundamental improvement.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

The other big one in this report--it's really big, and I think it's a very serious issue--is the fact that you have an organization you're trying to make a national institution. And I commend you for that. But you have these five regions that are acting as if they're autonomous. Are you making some headway on that so that the coast guard is the coast guard is the coast guard, no matter what base you're at or what region you're in?

[Commr George Da Pont]

I feel that we are making headway on that. I feel that the management team and the assistant commissioners of the coast guard are fully behind this. Becoming a national institution, though, will raise local issues as you move to standardize things, because it means that you have to change things. And changing things in some of our smaller centres is not always easy.

So I think it will take time, but I think the commitment is there and I think we're making progress.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

There is an old saying that the only one who likes change is a wet baby.

You mentioned something about lighthouses. Are you suggesting that you operate lighthouses not because they're actually technically necessary or necessary for navigation but because you're operating them as museums? Have you asked Canadian Heritage for some funds to maintain these?

[Commr George Da Pont]

I think there are a couple of issues. One is that we do maintain staffed lighthouses. We have about 52 or 53 staffed lighthouses. We're the only developed country in the world that maintains staffed lighthouses. But that was as a result of a clear decision that was taken and direction that was given.

Beyond that, we are looking at trying to dispose of the lighthouses we no longer need. But that is where significant heritage issues come in.