Public Accounts Committee on March 13th, 2008

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

No. Mr. Da Pont, the Auditor General has pointed out that it's a management problem. I'm certainly glad to hear that the men and women who are out at sea defending our coasts are doing a great job, but Mr. Chairman, they seem to be out at sea because management isn't following along in knowing what's going on.

I take a look at exhibit 4.1 of the Auditor General's report, where you don't get one single credit for a satisfactory performance, not one. On every one of these, in the Auditor General's report of 2000 and the Auditor General's report of 2002, on the progress in implementing the recommendations, which the government accepted, satisfactory progress has not been made--not on one of them.

So how can you pat yourself on the back and say you're doing a great job when this is in the report? It seems it takes the landlubbers from the Auditor General's office to go out there and kick your derrière to get some progress.

So what's the problem? Why is it taking so long, and how can we be assured that things are going to be better from here on in?

[Commr George Da Pont]

I can assure you that we've taken this extremely seriously. We have, for the first time, developed an integrated business plan that covers everything we do: we've identified clear accountabilities and timeframes for completion, we've allocated resources to ensure that it gets done, and we're tracking and monitoring on a regular basis. We are sharing all of this with the committee, central agencies, the users of our services, and the general public.

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

And you put this in your departmental performance report, right, Madam Deputy Minister?

[Michelle d'Auray]

That's correct. As we mentioned, the mid-year review we tabled has been made available to this committee. It clearly sets out where we are making progress and—we're transparent about this—where we are falling behind, where we are going to have to put extra effort. We've reviewed this on a regular basis. We are serious about it.

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

Mr. Wiersema, in your opening remarks, you say that when the coast guard made commitments to resolve management problems and complete initiatives, it lacked both the organizational and individual accountability needed to achieve them.

We're hearing wonderful words about how they're going to roll up their sleeves and the management is going to be absolutely top-notch from here on in. But you have said it lacks the organizational and individual accountability to achieve this wonderful progress. How do you feel about those statements?

[John Wiersema]

I think Mr. Williams raises a valid point. Many of the issues are long-standing; they go back many years. Previous administrations in the coast guard have agreed with our observations and voiced a willingness to act on them. I trust I'm not being naive or unduly optimistic here, but I am convinced, and I'm sure Mr. O'Brien is as well, that the coast guard is now approaching these long-standing issues in a sensible manner.

As we indicated in this report, we didn't spend much time on this report going over all the problems. What we tried to do in this audit was to get to the underlying causes.

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

Which were management problems.

[John Wiersema]

Yes, but why were they not successful in the past in dealing with some of these management problems? This is what we tried to focus on.

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

So you're saying there are some serious managerial accountability, organizational, and structural problems that caused them to be unable to run the department properly. Have you determined that these organizational or accountability structures are in place now, so that they are going to work from here on in?

[John Wiersema]

What we see now is a thorough, comprehensive business plan for dealing with these things over a three-year period. There is a great deal of reporting, accountability, monitoring, and transparency associated with this. The proof of the pudding is always in the eating, but I am optimistic and positive.

If the coast guard, as I'm sure they're committed to do, delivers on that business plan, with all the monitoring and transparency associated with it, it bodes well for the future. I think that the coast guard is now proceeding to address these long-standing issues in a sensible strategic manner.

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

I could keep on going, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I'm sure you could, Mr. Williams. You're just getting warmed up.

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Williams.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I'll be sharing my time with my colleague Mr. Stoffer.

Thank you all for your presentations today.

I have to tell you, it's been a long time since we've had one this bad. For a while they seemed to come in fast and furious, and then we went off on something else, and now we're back again with this kind of absolutely unacceptable...well, there are lots of words that could be used.

I want to revisit where we were on exhibit 4.1 again. I haven't heard satisfactory answers. I appreciate what's being said about going forward, and we're going to hold that to account. But in terms of accountability, I want some held right now. I want to know why these things were not done. It's not good enough just to say that what you did before wasn't acceptable and that it's going to be okay in the future. I want some accountability right now from the commissioner or the deputy. I want them to take responsibility for why 12 out 13 items in two previous audits have not been done. Why is this?

[Commr George Da Pont]

Maybe I could start, Mr. Chairman.

The first point I would like to make is that a lot of work was done on all of these things; none were completed. We tabled with this committee our business plan with a status report, as of February of last year, of what had been done on the items and what remained to be done. It was not a case of not moving on any of the items; a significant amount of work was done on all of them.

I think there are probably three things I would say. It risks sounding like an excuse, and I don't want it to, but I do think the Auditor General was right in observing that we made a fundamental mistake at the beginning in trying to work simultaneously on all the recommendations.

A number of those recommendations were very significant. They required a great deal of work, and they required a significant amount of cultural change within the organization. We tried to do everything at the same time. We did a lot of things; we didn't finish anything. I think that is one factor.

Second is that during that period the coast guard was also undergoing other significant changes, which took a significant amount of management time. The coast guard became a special operating agency within DFO; a portion of responsibilities for navigable waters and the Office of Boating Safety was transferred to Transport Canada.

As I think the committee appreciates, executing those sorts of issues does take a fair bit of time. We also were involved in significant internal review processes, particularly the expenditure review committee process.

I don't want to offer these as excuses, because they're not intended to be, but they are explanations for why management was not as focused on some of this as it should have been.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Who's at fault? Which one of you two is going to take responsibility today? Are you going to point to someone who is accountable? Who is responsible for managing all the processes that started and didn't get finished? That's really bad management, so who's taking responsibility for that?

[Michelle d'Auray]

As the accounting officer, I will take the responsibility for that.

As Mr. Da Pont said, it's not an excuse. There is work under way on every one of these. There is significant work under way. As we said at the outset, we have noted that the progress, as indicated by the Auditor General, is not satisfactory, but it's not that no work has taken place. There has been quite--

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

But work started and not finished on virtually everything is as bad as not doing anything, would you not agree? If you don't have the result, you don't have the result; both roads lead to no result.

[Michelle d'Auray]

I would agree, Mr. Chair, that is the case. However, I would also point out to the members of the committee that we have tabled a business plan. We have indicated our status report against that business plan, and we have been very clear about the areas we have met.

One of the comments the Auditor General made to us, very rightly--and as Mr. Da Pont has indicated--is that when we try to do everything at once, which we have been told is something the coast guard has as an attitude, we can do everything, but it means that we often do everything halfway.

We have now established some pretty clear benchmarks, some achievable elements, and we are working towards them. It's perhaps not as fast as everyone would like; that's correct as well. But changing the responsibility elements within an organization, for example, having everybody in the regions report to the commissioner, was a significant change. There is a line authority now that was not there before.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

Mr. Chairman, when I read a report like this, I always think of Fidel Castro's famous words, that if you can't shoot them, you have to educate them. Somebody in the coast guard has to be educated.

When I hear a report that says the Auditor General identified three examples of poor maintenance and lost or badly written manuals that resulted in over $8 million wasted..... If they can't handle this simple task, how can they handle complex tasks like guarding our coast? When the general public hears that, they get very, very nervous, and so does our largest trading ally, the United States. That's just a comment.

I have a copy of the Conservative platform of 2006. It says that they will establish the Canadian Coast Guard as a stand-alone agency. Madame d'Auray or Monsieur Da Pont, have you been given instruction by the government that you will now become a stand-alone agency? Since the 1995 merger with DFO, the people I speak to at the Dartmouth base and bases across the country have indicated that although it was different merging the two cultures together, in many cases it has been nothing but an unmitigated disaster. The Auditor General report has proven that.

So have you been given instruction to become a stand-alone agency?

[Michelle d'Auray]

The coast guard, Mr. Chair, is in fact a special operating agency.

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

Oh no, excuse me--

[Michelle d'Auray]

It is so within DFO.