FOPO Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, June 12, 2003

1535

The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.))

Mr. Larry Murray (Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

1540

The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.))

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Larry Murray

Commr John Adams (Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

1545

Mr. John Cummins

Commr John Adams

Mr. John Cummins

Commr John Adams

Mr. Larry Murray

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Commr John Adams

1550

Mr. John Cummins

Commr John Adams

Mr. John Cummins

Commr John Adams

Mr. John Cummins

Commr John Adams

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Larry Murray

Mr. John Cummins

Commr John Adams

The Chair

1555

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ)

Mr. Larry Murray

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Larry Murray

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP)

The Chair

1600

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

The Chair

Mr. Larry Murray

The Chair

Mr. Larry Murray

The Chair

1605

Commr John Adams

The Chair

Commr John Adams

The Chair

Commr John Adams

The Chair

Commr John Adams

The Chair

Commr John Adams

1610

The Chair

Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Commr John Adams

Mr. John Cummins

1615

Commr John Adams

Mr. John Cummins

Commr John Adams

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC)

1620

Mr. Larry Murray

The Chair

Mr. R. John Efford (Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, Lib.)

1625

The Chair

Mr. R. John Efford

The Chair

Mr. Larry Murray

1630

The Chair

Commr John Adams

Mr. Larry Murray

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Larry Murray

The Chair

1635

Commr John Adams

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Larry Murray

1640

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Andy Burton

Mr. Larry Murray

Commr John Adams

1645

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Commr John Adams

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Larry Murray

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Larry Murray

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Larry Murray

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

1650

Mr. Larry Murray

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Larry Murray

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Larry Murray

The Chair

Mr. R. John Efford

Mr. Larry Murray

The Chair

Mr. Larry Murray

1655

Mr. R. John Efford

Mr. Larry Murray

The Chair

Commr John Adams

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Commr John Adams

1700

Mr. John Cummins

Commr John Adams

Mr. John Cummins

Commr John Adams

Mr. John Cummins

Commr John Adams

Mr. John Cummins

Commr John Adams

Mr. John Cummins

Commr John Adams

Mr. John Cummins

Commr John Adams

Mr. John Cummins

Commr John Adams

Mr. John Cummins

Commr John Adams

Mr. John Cummins

Commr John Adams

Mr. John Cummins

1705

Commr John Adams

Mr. John Cummins

Commr John Adams

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

1710

Mr. Larry Murray

The Chair

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.)

1715

Mr. Larry Murray

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

1720

Mr. Larry Murray

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

The Chair

Mr. Larry Murray

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

1725

Mr. Larry Murray

The Chair

Mr. Larry Murray

Commr John Adams

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Larry Murray

The Chair

1730

Mr. Larry Murray

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

NUMBER 048

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, June 12, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1535)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.)): I see a quorum for the purposes of hearing witnesses. I'm calling the meeting to order.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), this is our first day of hearings on our comprehensive study of the Canadian Coast Guard. Today we're delighted to have as our witnesses, Larry Murray, Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and John Adams, the commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard.

I understand Mr. Murray has a written presentation that he'll deliver. Then we'll have the usual questions and comments.

I just wanted to let our witnesses know that I'm looking for the possibility of a quorum for the purposes of votes, which is nine members. If I see it, I'm going to interrupt the proceedings for a second or two to put a question to the committee, which they should be able to answer in a yes or no format in about 30 seconds. We would then get right back into the evidence. If I don't see nine members at any particular time, then that's too bad for what I wanted to bring up.

Without further ado, Mr. Murray, in particular, welcome, and welcome to your new position. The minister told us that on the very day he was here for the estimates you were moving. I hope it went well.

We look forward to hearing from you today. I guess you'll lead off.

Mr. Larry Murray (Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Indeed, the move did go well. It's a great pleasure to be here with John Adams, the commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard, today.

I would have to admit that I have not been bored since I returned to Fisheries and Oceans Canada in late April. As you well know, we are facing a number of challenges, but challenges included, it's a real privilege and a great pleasure to be back at DFO.

As you may know, I was associate deputy minister from 1997 to 1999. I care deeply about the department, our employees, and the work we do on behalf of Canada and Canadians. I am confident that with hard work and a commitment to ask and to answer the tough questions about our program and services, we can, over time, effectively address a number of the challenges I mentioned at the outset.

I know this session is primarily dedicated to coast guard issues, but if I may, I'd like to begin by talking about the department more broadly. I want to do this because Minister Thibault and I and the rest of the management leadership team are committed to trying to address our challenges from a whole DFO perspective and to trying to make DFO a model public service organization for the 21st century.

[Translation]

In other words, we think that change is necessary in order that we may have a clear vision of policies and programs and to implement as efficaciously as possible those modern and effective management practices that will provide tangible results for all Canadians.

[English]

Over the past several months Fisheries and Oceans has been undertaking a comprehensive process to review all of our policy and program activities. We've called this the departmental assessment and alignment project, or the DAAP. I believe Minister Thibault made reference to the DAAP in his last appearance before this committee. Today I would like to provide you with some detail on the process and on some of the early results.

Through the DAAP, we are pursuing two related objectives. First, we're looking for any and all means to address the short-term financial pressures that are becoming increasingly difficult for the department to manage. Second, we're undertaking a broader and more extensive review of all our policy and program activities to ensure that financial resources are allocated to the department's and indeed to Canadians' highest priorities in our areas of responsibility.

Over the past number of weeks we have made considerable progress on the first objective. During this period I asked our senior management team to identify all short-term savings opportunities that would enable us to live within our budget while this broader review is completed. I asked them to do this in a way that attacked overhead and not the services we provide to Canadians.

The longer-term review is also well underway with all DFO sectors and regional offices deeply involved in the process. More recently the department has become involved in a broader government-wide policy and program review exercise that will complement our internal work. In the last federal budget, as you know, the government announced a Treasury Board of Canada initiative called the expenditure management review process, or EMR.

Broadly speaking, the purpose of this process is to ensure that all federal department policies and programs are reviewed on a five-year rolling basis to ensure that, first, they continue to advance the mandate of the department; second, they are relevant to Canadians; and third, our management practices support our mission to deliver results to Canadians. In April DFO was selected as one of the first four federal departments in year one of this five-year EMR cycle, along with Justice, Public Works, and StatsCan.

In part, selecting DFO as a first-wave department made sense, given the work the department has already done on the DAAP and given the complementary objectives of these two review processes. Since that time we've worked closely with the board and the EMR is well underway. In this sense the DAAP and the Treasury Board EMR are tightly intertwined and the two processes are being run concurrently. It's our intention to ensure through these processes that the department's services reflect the priorities of Canadians and are more results oriented and performance based.

The Treasury Board EMR and our DAAP process will be completed by the end of the year. Having said that, early discussions with the minister and the departmental management team have led us to take advance action in a number of management areas. Two of the more significant include addressing the size of the Fisheries and Oceans senior management team and the reporting relationship with the Canadian Coast Guard.

With respect to the size of the DFO senior management team, we have reduced the number of assistant deputy ministers by 25%, from eight to six, effective earlier this week. More important than the obvious savings that a reduction of this type brings, we believe that this change will lead to greater policy and program coherence. Obviously tight alignment between our policies and programs is critical and will help to enhance our services to Canadians.

The second organizational change is perhaps more significant to this committee in that it touches directly on the activities of the Canadian Coast Guard.

[Translation]

As of the end of June, the regional directors of the Canadian Coast Guard will be directly accountable to the Commissioner, John Adams. This very direct hierarchy was recommended in two of the Auditor General's reports. We believe this important national institution must be provided with the rational and effective hierarchical structure it needs in order to move ahead in a coordinated way.

¹ (1540)

[English]

The vision for the Canadian Coast Guard of being an operationally ready national institution providing marine safety service, support, and protection of the marine environment is valid, supported by Canadians and, we believe, will stand the test of time.

At the same time, the coast guard is a critical part of the department, and it is imperative that this vision be situated in the context of a broader vision for the future of DFO. As the department moves forward with such initiatives as Canada's ocean strategy, which will involve a more integrated approach to managing oceans and aquatic resources, we need to ensure that coast guard responsibilities, such as safe navigation and emergency response, are aligned with broader oceans management and ecosystem objectives.

As well, the coast guard plays a critical role in providing vessel support not only for maritime safety, but also for other Fisheries and Oceans functions such as science and fisheries enforcement.

Ensuring that the coast guard remains a strong and viable national institution is our goal. To achieve it we must respond to issues such as an aging fleet and shore infrastructure in a very challenging operational context and in a tight fiscal environment. These challenges led the coast guard, even before the DAAP and EMR processes were initiated, to begin an in-depth examination of their programs and activities.

The initial results of this work were recognized in the February 2003 budget. The budget provided an annual additional investment of $47.3 million in the coast guard's fleet- and shore-based infrastructure, which is extremely helpful. However, more needs to be done. That's where the DAAP and EMR come in. The coast guard's previous work and analysis means it is well placed to use these two processes to move forward.

A few minutes ago I said that we are committed to facing up to our challenges and to trying to make DFO a model public service organization. I believe we can make this commitment with confidence, in large part due to the high degree of commitment and professionalism of the Fisheries and Oceans workforce.

There's no doubt that the DAAP and EMR will challenge us to find better ways to serve Canadians and that difficult decisions will need to be made. Our goal is to preserve what is best within the department, the dedication and professionalism of our employees, the contribution of our mission to the well-being of Canadians, and the pride we take in our achievements. I know we can rely on Fisheries and Oceans staff to pull together to enable us to meet this goal.

[Translation]

I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It will be a pleasure for Commissioner Adams and me to answer your questions.

The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.)): Thank you very much, Mr. Murray.

[English]

Commissioner Adams, do you have any comments you'd like to make? No? Thank you very much.

The usual format is that we begin our questioning. Right now I have Mr. Cummins. I have all of the opposition parties. Mr. Wood, would you like to be slotted in first, or will you give me that opportunity?

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): No, I'll give you that opportunity.

The Chair: We'll start with Mr. Cummins, for 10 minutes.

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): I'd like to clear the air on an issue that has been of considerable concern over the last few days in the Vancouver area. It has to do with the Siyay hovercraft. The initial report we received suggested--and I'll read directly from it:

Corrosion in the engine compartments is at an unacceptable limit and controlling the corrosion due to the design is almost impossible. The nature and broad scope of corrosion will have a definitive negative effect on expected craft life and engine components.

That's out there. There's concern in the public. I wonder if one of you would be able to clear the air on that matter.

Mr. Larry Murray: I'll give an initial response and then I'll ask Mr. Adams to provide more detail.

My understanding is that the information is dated. I believe it's based on engineering reports more than two years old. As the minister said in the House yesterday, this vessel is performing very well. It's a reliable craft. We believe that it is, and that it will serve the people in the area very well for a long time. As you are aware, the minister is moving very quickly to have a second craft there as quickly as we can to augment that.

I'll ask John if he would like to say a few more words about the technical state of the Siyay.

Commr John Adams (Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): That report was an early report, about year 2000. There were some initial early challenges with respect to that craft. While it was a production model with a fair amount of experience, it was the first time it had been built and adapted for search and rescue missions. What we had to do over the first two years of its life was to ensure that we completed the design modifications, adjustments if you will. That has been done and that vessel now is very satisfactory to our needs and is meeting our needs.

¹ (1545)

Mr. John Cummins: Well, the information I have is that on a recent trip, which would have been within the last couple of weeks, when the Siyay returned to base there was considerable water aboard in places where it should not have been. Two and a half tonnes of water apparently were pumped out of it. The information I have received is that two and a half tonnes of water placed in an inappropriate position in that vessel would limit its use as a search and rescue craft.

You may suggest that some changes have been made to address this engineering report, but it would seem from the information I have that those changes have not been successful.

Commr John Adams: Mr. Cummins, we've checked on that, and frankly, where that information came from is a bewilderment to us. We have had no reports of any problems with the Siyay. As you know, we have been limiting its use to search and rescue initiatives.

The last it was used was frankly in a firefighting role. It went off to tend to a shore fire. It was available, so we sent it off because that was a real emergency on the shore. It might have had something to do with that. If water came from that, it could have been because it was pumping and it was an extraordinarily different task for the vessel. But there are no concerns with the capacity of that vessel to meet its search and rescue responsibilities.

Mr. John Cummins: The documents suggest that controlling the corrosion due to the design is almost impossible. The document goes on to say that significant changes in the design must be considered. This problem was identified by the Canadian Coast Guard hovercraft unit, engineering department. If you were to correct those shortcomings, it would require a significant effort. Can you narrow down for us the time and the cost of effecting these significant changes on the Siyay?

Commr John Adams: Mr. Cummins, if you look at the back pages of that report, there is quite a list of modifications that, as I say, are minor adjustments that had to be made. They are complete. They are done, finished. The reason they have been put in that form is so we can share them with other hovercraft manufacturers to ensure that they recognize that these kinds of adjustments are essential in order to meet the unique and demanding needs of the Canadian Coast Guard.

I can tell all members of this committee that work has been done and the Siyay is now operationally fit and has been for the last two years.

Mr. Larry Murray: In terms of the specific issue of two and a half weeks ago, Mr. Chairman, I have no difficulty with looking into that. Our information is obviously different from Mr. Cummins' information, but I have no difficulty with our coming back to the committee with a precise answer to that question by letter.

As I say, our information is quite different from Mr. Cummins' information. The issue of something happening two and a half weeks ago doesn't relate to an engineering report of two years ago, so I would be very happy to come back with a letter of response on that specific issue.

The Chair: Very good. Thank you very much.

Mr. John Cummins: The information we agree on is the information that I have and that you have, and that's the engineering report. The engineering report states quite clearly that controlling the corrosion due to the design is almost impossible.

I know something about boats. I've built two aluminum boats in my time. I have been a vessel owner for years. I know that if you have a corrosion problem, if you've got a rot problem, it's a major effort to change it. I'm asking when was the major effort made to correct the problem identified in this report? This is not a small problem; this is a major problem. I'd like to know when the corrective measures were taken to address the problem.

Commr John Adams: I can only repeat what I've said, Mr. Chair. The major problem was a series of small problems. In the early days--

¹ (1550)

Mr. John Cummins: A major problem was identified. I'm not interested in the others; I'm interested in the corrosion problem.

Commr John Adams: A number of those smaller items that were there made up the major corrosion problem. That is no longer a problem. There is corrosion in salt water with any metal, whether it's aluminum or steel. There will be corrosion. It is a challenge, but it's not a challenge that can't be met, and we've done that.

We've responded by addressing all of those numerous small items that are listed in that report, which together prompted a major concern, but by attacking them one at a time over the first two years of the life of that vessel, we are satisfied that the so-called major corrosion problem has been addressed and the Siyay will in fact serve throughout its anticipated life in salt water.

Mr. John Cummins: Corrosion is not a problem in a metal vessel that is properly protected. I assume that the coast guard engineers understand fully how to protect a vessel from corrosion. Is there or was there an inappropriate grade of aluminum used in the manufacture of that vessel? Is that what led to the corrosion problem?

Commr John Adams: Categorically, no. The aluminum was good, solid aluminum. That was not the problem.

Mr. John Cummins: A good, solid aluminum. Was it an appropriate marine grade aluminum consistent with the grade of aluminum used by vessel manufacturers on the west coast? If it was, how then can you explain corrosion problems? I've owned aluminum vessels for over a dozen years and I've never had a corrosion problem. I know people who have owned them much longer than I have. Properly protected vessels do not corrode.

I can't understand the reference to corrosion in here. If there wasn't inappropriate aluminum, then something was wrong. To fix it, judging from this report, would have been a major undertaking. When did the major undertaking occur if it wasn't in the aluminum grade? When did it occur?

Commr John Adams: As I said, Mr. Chair, there were a whole series of smaller initiatives, which are tabulated in that report, that were done. They were done over a period of two years, and there is no longer a corrosion problem with the Siyay.

Mr. John Cummins: Have you purchased a replacement for the CG-045?

Mr. Larry Murray: There is a process underway, Mr. Chair, to acquire a second hovercraft as a temporary replacement while long-term procurement of a permanent replacement is underway. That procurement has yet to be totally finalized; however, it is in train, and will happen.

Mr. John Cummins: In talking about the Freedom 90, this is not the vessel under consideration now, is it? It's not the Freedom 90? We're talking about the Liv Viking, here, are we not?

Last September, in talking about the Freedom 90, which the commissioner suggested was in the coast guard's sight for purchase, he suggested that it would take two years to complete the purchase, to refit the vessel, and to have it delivered to Vancouver. Are we looking at the same time lag for this vessel?

Commr John Adams: With all due respect, what I highlighted was if we were to go completely new and not buy a used vessel. The Freedom 90 and the Liv Viking, the sister craft, are both existing frames and will be refurbished in order to meet our operational specifications. That takes a shorter period of time.

The Chair: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Cummins.

Not in any way to prejudge any questions that may be coming or to indicate any bias one way or another, I want to remind committee members that this is our first meeting on the coast guard, and an overview of the operation of the coast guard might be nice. I don't mind if we get into very specific questions, but it does eat into time that could otherwise be used. However, members are of course free to ask questions the way they wish.

We do have Mr. Murray here as well. Notwithstanding that this is the coast guard, I would allow some latitude if anybody wants to ask some non-coast-guard questions of the deputy minister, recognizing of course that he does not have an army of helpers here to help him answer, if he needs any help--just so we understand where we are.

I offer those comments gratuitously and call on Monsieur Roy, pour cinq minutes.

¹ (1555)

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Deputy Minister, in your presentation you said :

First, we are looking for any and all means to address the short-term financial pressures that are becoming increasingly difficult for the department to manage.

What do you meant by “short-term financial pressures”? Do you mean the infrastructure that doesn't get repaired on time? Do you mean the fleet that has not been renewed or should be renewed or replaced?

Mr. Larry Murray: I'm sorry, I didn't hear your question. Could you repeat it?

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: In your presentation, you say :

First, we are looking for any and all means to address the short-term financial pressures that are becoming increasingly difficult for the department to manage.

Here's how I understand that. Because we've delayed repairing the wharves and infrastructure, amongst other things, and because of a matter of renewing the Coast Guard's equipment, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is now in a difficult position. It must invest considerable monies in order to update things properly.

Mr. Larry Murray: In my opinion, the pressure we'll be faced with in the short term is due to all kinds of factors, whether it's the operational situation or requirements having to do with our scientific program or our fisheries program. There are pressures that have to do with activities and there are others having to do with staff. There are also some stemming from the fact that many of our programs are...[Editor's Note : Inaudible]. For example, sometimes you start a project and the program winds down but you still have to continue doing some work.

In most cases, it's more of an operational matter than a long-term problem. The fact remains that if we don't see to the repairs and maintenance you cause, as we say in English,

[English]

and O and M, operations and maintenance, “bow wave”.

[Translation]

I don't know if that was the sense of your question, but I will say that the age of the ships and the fact that proper repairs are necessary are major factors. At the present time, our priority is to decrease our expenditures in the areas of management and informatics so as to put our resources into the real services we offer to Canadians in the operational area.

The Chair: Mr. Roy, if you don't mind, now that we have a quorum, we have to settle a little question.

[English]

This may be our last meeting-- it is really unknown--until the fall. If we have one next week, I apologize for bringing it up now.

As your chair, I had an idea that we could issue a press release in which we could state, for public consumption, what our committee has done or has accomplished in this session of Parliament, including the various reports that we've undertaken, the number of witnesses we heard, the places we've gone, etc. In order for me to be able to put that on the letterhead, if I could put it that way, of the committee, I would need the consent of the committee to do that.

So I am asking if it would be acceptable to committee members, if I could issue a press release expanding on what we did in this session on the letterhead of the committee. Is there any objection to that?

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): As long as you mention Alan and our other buddy's name there, it would be great, yes. They did great work.

The Chair: All right, is that acceptable, then? Seeing no opposition, that's what I'll do.

º (1600)

[Translation]

Mr. Roy, you have a minute and a half.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: You took a minute and a half away from me? I hope that's not the case!

My question had more to do with infrastructure. I'm conscious of the fact that this does not particularly concern Mr. Adams but it does risk becoming a concern for the Coast Guard because there's the question of replacing ships; we actually know that the fleet is aging. Among others, I was mentioning the small boat harbours.

Without looking into any specific case, I would still like to give a specific example. In the Gaspé, there is an infrastructure being used by the crab fishers and a processing plant. At the present time, the plant might close down because Fisheries and Oceans is not maintaining the port infrastructure properly. We're talking about 60 jobs being threatened because of Fisheries and Oceans' negligence. That's what I wanted to tell you.

I understand that the department has been under short-term financial pressures : they've been neglecting the infrastructure and the Coast Guard for years. That was not by way of a question, it was a comment. I only had a minute and a half.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. It's my turn. Ten minutes, please.

Having said that this is about the coast guard, Mr. Murray, you made a number of interesting comments in your opening remarks, and I just have a couple of by-the-way questions--one, really.

You reduced the assistant deputy ministers from eight to six. What happened to those assistant deputy ministers who were reduced?

Mr. Larry Murray: The specifics, Mr. Chair, are that we had an ADM for human resources and an ADM for corporate services. In most departments of government there is one ADM doing those two jobs, so we have combined the two positions, and the person who was the ADM corporate services on an interim basis is filling an interim position as the associate regional director general in the maritime region and will ultimately reposition to Ottawa. His family is still in Sydney, Nova Scotia, actually, and so he will move there.

In the case of the second ADM position, the ADM of policy left just as I was arriving. We have an ADM dedicated to the review project that I mentioned, which has a very significant policy component of where we're going strategically, and there is also a need in the department, in my view, to continue that process after the review in terms of a cultural reallocation and that sort of thing. So we have combined those two tasks, and one ADM is doing those two roles. That's what unfolded, obviously with the minister's concurrence.

The Chair: Thank you.

You also said that at the end of June, the Canadian Coast Guard's regional directors would begin reporting directly to Commissioner John Adams. Who are they reporting to directly now?

Mr. Larry Murray: In the current management structure of the department, there are regional directors general across the country in six regions. I'll use an example of Newfoundland. In the Newfoundland region, the regional director general is Wayne Follett. At the moment, John Butler is the regional director general of coast guard reports in a line manner directly to Wayne, and in a functional manner to John Adams. That does have some advantages, and certainly it maximizes horizontal coordination and those sorts of things.

However, what it does make difficult for the regional directors general across the country is this. The coast guard is a national institution. It operates a very large fleet of large ships and small ships right across the country. And the ability to come at it in a holistic manner with the regional directors reporting directly to the RDGs, I think, is much more difficult. The navy is not organized that way. The armed forces aren't organized that way.

That's not to say there doesn't have to be... This change will provide the commissioner with the ability to provide a national focus to things like marine traffic control systems, to where are we going in terms of the long-term capital plan for the fleet. At the same time, we have to make sure we don't lose the benefits we've gained. I'm confident that the teamwork will continue at the regional level.

In fact, we've had a number of discussions with the involved players and the challenges to maximize that teamwork, whilst at the same time ensuring that how we run the national institutions and the decisions that are made are holistic decisions, looking at a large fleet right across the country.

The Chair: Thank you.

You were talking about your challenge with respect to management, and good luck on that. I know you couldn't possibly have had an opportunity yet to review our report that was released this morning regarding the 2001 Fraser River salmon fishery, so I'm not going to ask you anything about it. But in the context of management, I just wanted to read you one sentence so that you are at least aware of it, as the new deputy minister. I quote from page 30: “Witnesses also identified a lack of knowledge and experience amongst senior DFO managers, most of whom had not come up through the ranks of the Department and had limited experience with the Department, as an issue”.

I just bring that to your attention because we found as a fact that out on the west coast there was a significant lack of DFO experience at senior management levels. Since you were talking about management in your remarks, I just alert you to that as we're going to be following up on this report later on.

Commissioner Adams, just to get to an overview, when did the coast guard come over to DFO?

º (1605)

Commr John Adams: In 1995.

The Chair: They were with the transport department before that, right?

Commr John Adams: Yes, they were.

The Chair: Okay. I know you can't answer this question off the top of your head, but I would appreciate it if, over the course of the summer, you could provide a breakdown of the number of vessels currently in the coast guard, by type of vessel. What I mean by that is how many icebreakers you have and how many 60-footers or whatever. I guess they go by the number of feet. I'm not really a nautical person.

Also, if there is such a thing, I'd like to know the usable life of those vessels. I recently received briefings on aircraft. Each aircraft has a usable life of a number of hours. I don't know how you would measure usable life in vessels, but if you could give us that, I'd appreciate it.

I'd like to know how many employees the coast guard had in 1995, immediately prior to its transfer to DFO, and how many employees it has today.

I'd like to ask you when you became commissioner.

Commr John Adams: In 1998.

The Chair: In 1998.

Okay, let's start with the transition from the transport department to the fisheries department. Have you, in your experience as commissioner, heard any grumblings about that transition? If so, what did you hear and what are your comments on it?

Commr John Adams: I heard a lot of grumblings, in fact fairly consistently with respect to this, that this wasn't the right thing to do in the eyes of the coast guarders. Now, I think in the last--

The Chair: Excuse me for interrupting, but does that mean they were happy at the Department of Transport? Or did they feel they should be somewhere else entirely?

Commr John Adams: No, they were happy at the transport department.

My comment and my discussion with them revolve around the timing of that merger into the fisheries and oceans department. It was very difficult for all parts of the public service at that particular time, and in all departments, because those were the program review years.

Actually, there were three dramatic events, I think, that occurred at about the same time for the coast guard. There was program review, which in fact in round figures reduced their numbers for both financial and human resources by about 30%. I think that's probably pretty average for most of the institutions in government at that particular time. Combined with that was the merger, which in itself was traumatic, so there were two dramatic changes one on top of the other. Finally, there was the introduction of user fees, which tried to somehow...and was misinterpreted as an attempt to put a price, a cost, on the things that coast guard did.

Those three rather dramatic changes, I think, in combination, had a fairly traumatic impact on the coast guard. They would roll them all up and say it's all as a result of the merger, but what I've been trying to do is say to them, sorry, two of them would have happened merger or otherwise, because the government was going to user fees. If there was private gain, the user, the private gainee, paid, and in fact the program review was going to happen regardless of where you were. So what I would say is to discount it by at least two-thirds.

Mergers are always difficult, particularly a merger of this type where they're leaving the institution of which they were a part for quite some time. It was also a merger that changed the management model they were used to working with before. As the deputy minister has pointed out, we've now gone back to the line reporting relationship between the regional directors of coast guard and the commissioner. That is what they had in the transport department. So there were a number of changes that were less than satisfactory from their point of view, but I think over time we've managed to mitigate the downside of those changes. We've managed to convince them that in fact there were some advantages to being with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Finally, the Oceans Act, for which the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible, in fact did legitimize legislatively the work of the coast guard. Laid out in part III of that act was just what it was that coast guard did. There were a number of advantages to rolling or, if you will, combining the three fleets into one. We used to have a fisheries management fleet, a science fleet, and a coast guard fleet. What we now have is one government civilian fleet. Obviously there were economies of scale to be gained by that and it obviously varied the life and the challenge for the coast guard.

So there were advantages, and I think over time those advantages have started to mitigate a negativity that was there after the transfer, after the merger.

º (1610)

The Chair: My time is up. Thank you for the frankness of the answer.

Mr. Burton.

Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): I'll let Mr. Cummins go ahead.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You mentioned, Commissioner Adams, that the timeline to construct was two years, I believe. My recollection of the quote that it would take two years to purchase, refit, and deliver a used vessel to Vancouver is that's incorrect. In fact, a recommendation was made to the minister on September 3, 2002, when you were looking at purchasing the hovercraft Freedom 90. The claim was made in that document that a new hovercraft would take nearly four years to deliver. So how do you get two out of four, when you advised the minister last September that it would take four years to build a new one?

Commr John Adams: Mr. Chair, the front-end work to define with infinite specificity exactly what it is you want, the approval processes one has to go through in order to make absolutely certain you're doing the right thing by taxpayers' dollars, and the challenge of obviously identifying the moneys for that sort of procurement to make absolutely certain the priorities are right do take time. Clearly we must have a procurement strategy that is consistent with the government's intent vis-à-vis Canadian content, etc.

When you add up all of that, our experience, and in fact as recently as the delivery of the Siyayand its sister hovercraft in the Quebec region, is that in fact it takes three to five years to go through that process and ensure that you get out the other end of it a vessel that will meet your operational requirements. In fact, our experience with the Siyay and its sister hovercraft was that it was twelve to eighteen months just to construct those vessels. That's how you get to four to five years. It does take that long with major procurements to work them through the system and to make absolutely certain that you've been as open, forthright, fair, and equitable as the system would want you to be.

Mr. John Cummins: Well, Commissioner, the builder in Windsor tells us they could build a hovercraft in twelve to fourteen months. The firm in Richmond claims it could have one in under a year. Apparently there's an outfit in the States that claims it could build a hovercraft in less than a year. So how, then, can the planning take two and a half or three years? Why would the planning take two and a half or three years and the construction of the vessel take twelve to fourteen months, according to a builder, at maximum?

º (1615)

Commr John Adams: There's more to it than planning, Mr. Chair. The planning is part of it. The specifications are very time-consuming. There is a hovercraft, but then there's a hovercraft that has to do what we want it to do. It's like all of our vessels: we take vessels where vessels aren't supposed to go. They must have capability and capacity that a normal vessel would not need to have, because we have to rescue people, unfortunately, who take vessels where they shouldn't. For our vessels, the performance specifications are just a little bit higher than the norm, so you have to be very careful about those specifications. That takes time, because you either take the time at the front end or you pay big money at the back end.

Mr. John Cummins: Commissioner, on the specifications for the vessels you're talking about and the fact that, yes, they do go where nobody else would go or is supposed to go, the fact of the matter is that if a hovercraft is designed for maximum 40-knot winds you can't take it out any faster, because it simply doesn't have the pushing power to steer it beyond that.

Specifications are important, and I think we all understand what the specifications are, and we also understand that you've been dropping them in the purchase of a used one, but here's what I'm concerned about as well. In your discussion a few minutes ago, you mentioned a concern about taxpayers' dollars. The procurement process for the Liv Vikingwas restricted. It was a sole-source procurement. Why did you go sole-source procurement on the Liv Viking?

Commr John Adams: We did a survey, literally a worldwide survey, to determine what hovercraft out there could meet our very high and demanding performance characteristics. There were no other hovercraft out there, so we said we wanted to sole-source to that particular company.

Now, with the sole-sourcing procedure, you must advertise literally to the world that you are going to do just that. You go out with an ACAN, an advance notice of contract intent vis-à-vis sole-sourcing. We went out with that notification literally worldwide. When I say “we”, I'm talking about the royal “we”, because this is Public Works and Government Services Canada, the procurement agent for the Government of Canada. They went out with the so-called ACAN to canvass the world to see if anybody had an objection to us sole-sourcing to, in this case, Hoverwork. There were objections, three of them, but none of them were judged to be substantiated sufficiently that we would not go with the sole source. That's why we went where we went with the Liv Viking.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cummins. That's it.

Mr. Hearn.

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and let me thank the two gentlemen for coming, Mr. Murray and Mr. Adams.

During the past couple of years, we in the committee, with very few changes, have been addressing some of the major problems, undoubtedly giving a lot of you in management some extra headaches and work, but what we've been trying to do is improve the system, hopefully, not only for us but for everybody. Some of the remarks we've made about the coast guard and whatever were out of concern and in the hope of enhancing and improving rather than destroying or degrading what we have.

I'd just like to mention this in case I don't get a chance at the end. You mentioned the commitment and professionalism of your employees. From a personal perspective, I can say I certainly agree with that. We've had very good cooperation from people on both sides, people directly involved with DFO and with the coast guard.

In your comments, Mr. Murray, you talked about the fact that you also provide vessel support for fisheries science and management. In this respect, we have heard a tremendous amount, this last year in particular, about the lack of science. I'd like your comments on that.

On the enforcement, today I was given an answer to a question I had put on the Order Paper about a vessel that was arrested with a 10% cod bycatch outside the 200-mile limit, given a citation, and sent back home, undoubtedly. I guess your enforcement ends there. You can't do much about it. I'd like to know how you feel about that.

But there's the other story I was given just a short while ago by a person directly involved, a crew member on one of the coast guard boats. A vessel was boarded, found to have product aboard that shouldn't have been there, and the crew contacted the hierarchy--and I leave it up to you to determine who the hierarchy is because I don't know anymore than that--only to be told, look, forget about it, let them go; it's just too much, too complicated to handle.

Do we have the number of boats and the personnel involved to do the job that has to be done? I know that in a case like that you're only backup, but we're fighting a major battle with overfishing and we can't fight it if we don't have proper maintenance and surveillance. We've asked that Canada take over jurisdiction, that jurisdiction of custodial management of the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, and if we can't enforce what we're asking for, it certainly weakens our argument.

I'll just leave those comments with you for your response.

º (1620)

Mr. Larry Murray: Mr. Chairman, the issue of science and enforcement and how much is at the heart of what we're trying to do; it's at the heart of the review. We must have a good look at where we're at in all of those areas. We must try to ensure that we do reallocate resources to the highest priorities in those areas and ensure that as many tax dollars as possible actually go into delivering those services to Canadians.

Having only been in the department for six weeks, I wouldn't want to make a judgment on whether we have enough science or whether we don't have enough science. I would say that we don't have enough funding for scientists to do what they would wish to do in terms of an adequate operation and maintenance budget. It also seems to me that focusing on keeping ships at sea, whether for science or fisheries enforcement, is what we should be trying to do. That's what these review processes are actually all about.

In relation to your reports, we do appreciate your reports. They're very useful in all of this, in helping us also to figure out, and to help the minister to determine where we go in this area.

In terms of the specific incident relative to the boarding that you mentioned, I'm not in a position to respond in detail. If you could give me more details, I'd be happy to get back to you in detail on that specific incident.

In terms of the adequacy or not of the mechanisms in place in the offshore, that is an issue of great concern to this committee. It's of great concern to the minister. It's of great concern to Canadians who are working very hard within the existing international structure. We're waiting. Ireland, hopefully, will be approving the treaty and will be the last EU nation to approve the UN treaty on straddling stocks. We believe that once the EU moves forward with that, it will put us in a better position to move forward.

Certainly from a Canadian context, I think we are doing everything possible to try to maximize the impact we can have in that area. In terms of resources out there, air surveillance, sea surveillance, or whatever, it is an area of high priority. It is an area in which we need to ensure that we're doing an adequate job.

The Chair: Thank you. I sense this is a perfect segue into Mr. Efford's question.

Mr. R. John Efford (Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, Lib.): I wish you hadn't asked that question, because I was pretty calm beforehand.

Seriously, Mr. Murray, I have a couple of questions with reference to the coast guard, but there are three or four questions on fisheries issues in Newfoundland and Labrador on which I need some clarification. I'm going to run through them quickly because I only have so much time and probably you should be taking notes.

On river guardians, reports are going to river guardians in Newfoundland. I'll give you an example. There are salmon nets at the mouths of rivers in Newfoundland. I can name the area, name the river and the place. River guardians, we are being told--and there's a guy who reported them--have said that they don't have the manpower, so they're going to ignore it.

Question one, are you aware of that and why would that be happening?

Question number two, at the most recent NAFO meetings, when the officials from DFO Canada went over there, they reported they had camera shots from the surveillance planes. The fish were sticking out of the nets. They focused in on the nets and they have the small mesh. That was reported at NAFO. You tell us how good NAFO is working. Are you aware that the surveillance teams have reported that the European countries, the boats that are doing this with the small mesh, now have tarps made exactly the same shape as the nets and as soon as the nets are hauled in, they put the tarps over them and there's no way to get a surveillance picture. Now all they can get is like a blanket over the net. Are you aware of that? If that's the case, then the observers are not working. I know this; people have told me all about it.

Are you aware that the colour of the surveillance planes is causing some difficulty? They used to be green. In fact, one of them is still green. The coast guard colour naturally is red. The surveillance plane is red and they can see the plane coming a long distance because of the colour. Are you aware that that is a problem? Maybe Mr. Adams should answer that question.

The next question is on the vessel replacement program. This is an issue for the coast guard. I talked to a coast guard official a couple of years ago. They refer to the Newfoundland fishermen as fishermen of steel. They are tossed out on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland in a 45- or 55-foot boat, 200 to 250 miles offshore. The coast guard has a great deal of respect for these people. They can't imagine how they get the nerve to go out there.

There was a vessel replacement program announced by your minister last year. To date, the fishermen don't know what's happening there. I'll give you an example to tell you how foolish it is.

I know a fisherman who, four years ago, built a 45-foot vessel under the proper engineering standards, fibreglass and everything, in Triton, Newfoundland. He fished with it for three years. This is the fourth year. He was told this year that he won't be allowed to fish with it next year because the depth of the hole and the width of the hole, the cubic measurement, is too much.

They're all on IQs. They can only catch what their IQ is. Next year they're not allowed to fish their boat. If they had a sale and they wanted to sell it, they couldn't sell it or transfer it unless they cut the decks down and shortened the decks and the hole. That is the problem that's happening in the vessel replacement programs. Apart from the size, there is the actual cubic measurement.

These things are really happening. And your minister announced a complete review last year. I thought the review was done. I thought some change would be made to alleviate these problems for the fishermen.

The other question--

º (1625)

The Chair: Last one.

Mr. R. John Efford: One of the main problems that we're finding in Newfoundland and Labrador--and I'm talking to people in western Canada, everywhere where there are fisheries--is there's not enough authority given to the very competent DFO officials in the regions, like in St. John's. I am talking about the decision-making power. Those people living closest to the problems, living closest to the working relationship and resource, should have more authority in making decisions. Are there any considerations being given to changing the focus of DFO, the authority of making decisions, from right here on Kent Street, where it is too far removed, to the regions across Canada?

I've rushed, but I think I got most of them in.

The Chair: That's good. It took four and a half minutes, so we'll have to give the witnesses at least that amount of time.

I have six questions down. I think he started with river guardians. Could we have your comments on river guardians?

Mr. Larry Murray: I think I've got them, Mr. Chairman, but I'll try to work my way through them.

In terms of river guardians, we do put a fair emphasis on that program. We're continuing to fund it. In terms of the specific issue that the honourable member raised, I will have to take that question as I can't give an answer to the specific issue. I will reply to that in a letter.

In terms of NAFO violations, I am aware of NAFO violations. I am also aware that we follow up on them as vigorously as is possible within the law. Certainly in the case of some of the violations, there has been good progress made in relation to some nations. There was a tremendous effort put on following up on the Spanish front. We are comfortable that in relation to Spain we have made significant progress. The Spanish government is working closely with us. In relation to a few other nations, we are not necessarily sure that is the case, which is why we do follow up on the violations, some of the examples of which the honourable member has raised.

The minister is meeting with NAFO ministers next week in Halifax. Certainly he will raise a number of these issues with his colleague ministers from other countries. As I indicated in response to an earlier question, we do have to ensure that we have an adequate presence and that we work within international law. That is what we are doing now.

In relation to the third question, the colour of the aircraft, I would have to check on that. When I left the department, the aircraft were either blue or green. I know there is a coast guard aircraft that does environmental surveillance and it is red. I don't know actually what the colour of the King Airs are.

º (1630)

The Chair: Commissioner Adams, do you have a comment on that?

Commr John Adams: No, other than to say that the surveillance aircraft for oil is red.

Mr. Larry Murray: I will follow up on that for Mr. Efford.

On the size of the vessels, that policy is still under review. If I am correct in terms of my interpretation of the area that the honourable member is talking about, it is a part of the Atlantic fish policy review. Certainly the minister is actively engaged on that file. Indeed, I've sat in on, in six weeks, two or three meetings in which there have been very detailed discussions around questions of that type. It is under active discussion, but it is not yet finalized.

In relation to the question of authority, I am one who would agree we need to ensure that we do maximize the authority as close to where we're delivering the services as possible. Indeed, we put in place a number of initiatives, an area model when I was here previously. Part of this management review will be to ensure that we do have that balance as correctly as we can. I agree with the honourable member's comments on the competence and the professionalism of Wayne Follett and the team in Newfoundland. That is certainly something we will be trying to do to the maximum extent possible, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Murray, welcome back to Fisheries and Oceans. I just wanted to say, sir, that if you are able to achieve what you did for the Buchenwald veterans, I think you will have a great success in your re-entry to DFO.

My first question is for Mr. Adams. Not to get too specific, but there is a lack of coordination in terms of information, action, and direction within the coast guard. I will repeat this again, and I have repeated it on several occasions. When we were last in Vancouver, Mr. Henderson was asked a very simple question by me: do you have the resources to do your job? His response to the committee was that money was not a problem.

We then went to Victoria, Ucluelet, Tofino, and everywhere else. When I told the people about that response, they were very angry. They could not believe that their superior would say something of that nature when they themselves had been screaming for resources and personnel to do the job when we did the report on the MCTS.

I would like your assurance, sir. In this new era of cooperation, that type of information given to a committee was so different. How someone in Vancouver could not understand or grasp the feelings of their own people in a region just a few miles away I could not quite figure out. I would like you to respond to that, if possible.

Mr. Larry Murray: I wonder, Mr. Chair, if I could respond initially and then hand it off to Mr. Adams. I can't speak to the timeframe that the honourable member is referring to.

In the context of some of the insight I've given the committee today on the processes underway, I spent two hours with the union leadership last Friday morning. I've sent a three-page message to all employees in the department, which includes information on where we're at in the budgetary scenario, where we're going in the near term, the changes in the management structure, and my personal accountability accord as well as a breakdown of all the short-term budgetary measures that are being put into effect.

Yesterday afternoon, I spent two hours on a video with every EX in the department from coast to coast. The feedback is quite positive. I believe that employees in the department have some understanding of where we're at and where we're trying to go.

The Chair: Thank you.

Commissioner.

º (1635)

Commr John Adams: I would simply say that I would never use that term of phrase, that money is not a problem. As the deputy minister has pointed out, in fact, we do have some fiscal challenges and he's taken some of the steps to move us along the path to rectifying those challenges. I would tend to agree that it was an unfortunate turn of phrase.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Well, sir, I greatly appreciate that, and I'm sure people who work with the DFO would appreciate that as well.

Mr. Murray, in your summation you had indicated on page four that “Protection of the marine environment is valid and supported by Canadians and will stand the test of time”. I agree with that, but one thing we've been waiting for is protection. I've mentioned this to the minister and I don't necessarily need a specific response, but would you take it back to him?

We've been waiting for five years for the Sable Island Gully to have protected status. We're waiting and waiting, and pretty soon, if it's not already happening, the oil and gas industry is going to start exploring very close to that area. The bottlenose whale and many other species of coral and fish, for example, are at risk. We've asked for and there's absolutely no reason why this area cannot have designated protective status now.

Five years to get something of that nature done is simply unacceptable, and many people have been asking for this area to be designated as a marine protected area. Is it possible to give Canadians an indication of what day or what week or month that official designated status for protection of this area will come into effect?

I have one last statement. We were in Newfoundland at a hearing and we heard from people who have been arguing with the department for quite some time. One of them, who represents over 200 fishermen regarding their core status, stated--and it says here in a letter written on April 22--that he has called a woman named Heather Fitzgerald 20 times, with no response. That's what he's written here, and I'll give it to you. If indeed these allegations are correct, then surely someone who's been fighting the department on behalf of over 200 people would be able to get a response a little more quickly than that.

How are communications between the department and various fishing groups on the east or west coast or, for that matter, across the country? Are they improving, and is there a communications plan to get the message out--not just to your employees but to people who actually access the resources that you manage?

Mr. Larry Murray: Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I guess I would underline that the minister views the marine protected area status for the gully as a very high priority. It's something that I have been briefed on. It's my understanding that the oil and gas interface doesn't actually impact in the gully area and there's work underway now to bring this thing to a conclusion as quickly as possible. I can't give a specific time, but certainly I would reassure the committee and the honourable member that the minister is seized of moving this file forward as quickly as possible. We believe the complications are on the road to being resolved, hopefully relatively quickly.

In terms of communications with various industry...aboriginals, and others, one reason that I enjoy my time in this department so much is that we do interact with Canadians, notwithstanding the criticism, which in some cases is valid and in other cases is not. I think the department works extremely hard to maintain an ongoing dialogue to consult with, on an ongoing basis, the fishing industry, first nations, the provinces, and others. Whether or not that is viewed as adequate, I think others would have to consider.

But certainly the relationships between our people on the ground and many fishermen I interact with is quite positive. That doesn't mean we manage to do it 100% all the time, obviously.

In relation to the specific issue you raised, I'll look into it. I would like to indicate that the particular employee named, who's on the minister's staff, is an extremely dedicated, hardworking young woman who works hard on behalf of the minister and on behalf of fishermen.

º (1640)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Murray.

Mr. Stoffer, the core fishermen you were referring to in your question, are those the core fishermen who gave evidence to us in Newfoundland and St. John's? Are those the ones you're referring to?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, but they're not core fishermen. That's what they're fighting for--

The Chair: They want to be core fishermen--

Mr. Peter Stoffer: They want to be.

The Chair: The reason I ask, Mr. Murray, is that I've been authorized by the committee on that very issue to write on behalf of the committee to the minister to ask that the minister investigate this problem. I'll be doing that probably within the next few weeks.

We would greatly appreciate it if you would keep an eye on that and do what you can to ensure that we can be fair to these people. Of course there are people who aren't legitimate--if I could put it that way--but there are many others who are. The question is how to separate the wheat from the chaff in a fair manner to ensure there's no improper denial of core fishermen's status.

I don't need any further comment. I just wanted to alert you that something's coming from us on that very specific issue that we heard about in Newfoundland.

Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Next we go to Mr. Burton.

Mr. Andy Burton: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just for the witnesses' information, I'm a west coast MP from the riding of Skeena, which is, of course, Prince Rupert, Queen Charlotte Islands, and that area. So I'm fairly familiar with the coast and issues that arise there.

When we did the MCTS study--and I thank my colleague for bringing that up--it was brought up that funding for that whole general area of the north coast was somewhat inadequate. When we looked at the east coast, most of the equipment at MCTS stations was twinned, so if a piece of equipment went down, there was a standby. We don't have that on the west coast. There are a lot of issues with bad weather, not being able to service a piece of equipment when it went down, that sort of thing.

To take it a step further, there's basically no radar north of central Vancouver Island on the west coast of Canada, and again I suggest it's probably a funding issue. My question is, is there going to be adequate funding in the near future to not only address the current shortfalls in equipment on the west coast, especially the north coast, but also to deal with the lack of radar? Our coast is very vulnerable.

As you know, there have been ghost ships, or whatever you'd like to call them, there in the past. In fact, there were a couple of instances in December where some ships appeared and disappeared, and nobody really knew what went on. This is a big concern. Are there plans in the future to provide more funding to update equipment and also to look at radar for the north coast?

Mr. Larry Murray: Mr. Chair, if I may, I'll provide a ministerial response and then I'll ask Mr. Adams to perhaps provide more detail.

Certainly, the minister and the department very much appreciated this committee's work in that area. It is an area of very high priority. Indeed, it is one of the reasons for the change in the reporting relationship to ensure that we can look at that very important system in a holistic, national manner.

The reviews I mentioned at the outset would certainly be, among other things, looking at the marine traffic control system and what is the best way to optimize it, modernize it, and ensure that in fact it provides the best service possible to Canadians. There's certainly effort underway. It's a very high priority, and as I say, part of the review process that I mentioned, which will come together later this year, would be focused on that system.

In terms of specific efforts underway, maybe I'll ask John to follow up with more details.

Commr John Adams: , We were very much seized by your report and some of your observations. As the deputy minister has said, we've taken some steps to ensure a more national approach to that particular service. Apart from the overall commitment to establish priorities and fund those priorities in the proper way, I don't think I want to go any further than that at this particular time except to say that the question of radar coverage has come up in a different forum--in fact, it was related to the security issue vis-à-vis our coasts.

National Defence, as part of the funding package that was announced I think in January in Halifax by the ministers, led by Minister Collenette, received a slice of funds in order to pursue its over-the-horizon radar coverage for both coasts. We hope, depending upon how that work evolves, to close those radar gaps that exist not only obviously on the northwest coast but on the east coast as well. That is in hand for other reasons, but it certainly will benefit the business that we're in, which is safety by giving us a much better picture of what is out there.

I would add--the deputy minister hasn't mentioned it, but I think it is worth mentioning--that one of the areas he has decreed will not be touched this year, no matter how tough the going gets, is training. You will recall that it was one of the issues highlighted in your visit regarding MCTS.

You will probably also be pleased to know that over half of the initial training vacancies for the MCTSOs have gone to the west coast this year to make up for the disadvantage they were in vis-à-vis the results of past decisions. I think that's good news. I think it will address some of the concerns you highlighted in your report, which certainly caught our attention.

º (1645)

The Chair: Thank you.

Maybe we're getting a little peek at the response of the department to our MCTS report. Let's hope so, anyway.

We now go to Monsieur Roy and then Mr. Efford.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a very specific question for Messrs Murray and Adams.

Mr. Murray, you are deputy minister at Fisheries and Oceans. So we could say that you are responsible for protecting the resource, do you not think? As for you, Mr. Adams, you are in charge of navigation. Do you think it would be wise to give up piloting on the St. Lawrence as is proposed by a lot of people who are lobbying for that? Do you think it would be a safe decision for the resource, that it would make navigation on the St. Lawrence easier and that the Coast Guard would have less work?

Commr John Adams: That question does not really fall under my purview; it is the more direct responsibility of another department.

In my case, it is simple. Security is one of the most important things in the world. If the pilots make the system safer, I am favourable to having them. On the other hand, it is true that the costs are a major factor. In my opinion, we should try to reduce pilotage costs.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: That is a good answer.

Let us go to Mr. Murray. A ship sinking off Montreal or Quebec City would lead to a major ecological catastrophe. Do you seriously think that the government should envisage abandoning the protection we presently enjoy through pilotage on the St. Lawrence?

Mr. Larry Murray: I do not get the impression the government intends to give up the pilotage system on the St. Lawrence River. That is not our responsibility...

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: I am sorry, but you do have that responsibility.

Mr. Larry Murray: When I was a commander, pilotage was mandatory on the St. Lawrence River and I believe the government intends to maintain that regulation.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: I hope so.

Mr. Larry Murray: In fact, Mr. Chairman, that is not part of our mandate, but it is also a very important question. I would be very happy to speak to my colleagues in the Department of Transport to gain further knowledge but, in my opinion, it is essential to have mandatory pilotage on certain rivers and in certain ports of our country.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Yes, I understand very well that this is not Fisheries and Oceans' mandate, but it still has the mandate to protect the resource and the Department of the Environment indeed has the mandate to protect the environment. Thus, I think that before making a decision like that one, the Department of Transport should at the very least consult the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as well as the Department of the Environment.

That was just a comment so I am not expecting any answer. However, I do have another question for you. I put it to your predecessors, but they were never able to answer me. It concerns infrastructure and the small craft harbours. I would like to know how much, at the present time, it is estimated it would cost to refit the small craft harbours that DFO intends keeping.

º (1650)

Mr. Larry Murray: I do not understand your question.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: I will put it to you again. Does your planning allow you to know today how much it would cost your department to repair the small craft harbours that you wish to keep?

Mr. Larry Murray: It is a matter of the investment plan as I said at the beginning. We need a complete plan. We do not have any at this point, but we do have a plan that does allow us, for example, to spend the $47.3 million provided for in the last budget to improve the fleet's situation, the land infrastructure and so on. We must determine what our exact vision of the Coast Guard fleet is. Finally, we must re-evaluate our scientific needs in the area of fisheries management in order to be able to determine exactly what we must do. We also need a plan such as the one you have suggested. There is no such plan at this time.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Thank you. Fine.

Mr. Larry Murray: But we are in the process of defining it.

[English]

The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Roy.

Mr. Efford.

Mr. R. John Efford: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Murray, I have a couple of questions. A number of questions I've asked you are very important. I wouldn't expect you, as the deputy minister, to be able to give the answers today. I would appreciate it if, at some point in time, when you get the opportunity to check out the questions, you sent the answers to me in writing, because they're very important questions to the fisheries in Newfoundland.

I'm going to go back again to the one on the tarp covering the nets. It was reported to DFO. My understanding is that DFO has not followed up on it. I guess, to use the words that we'd use in Newfoundland, it has turned a blind eye. That's a very serious issue. The overfishing on the Grand Banks is definitely taking place. If it was reported to DFO and they haven't acted on it, I'd like to know the reason.

I go back to a question that I've asked a number of deputy ministers and a number of ministers over the years. In 1992 we had the closure of the groundfish industry in Newfoundland, the worst psychological disaster that, I guess, ever happened in the fisheries in the world. We learned just recently that the biomass of these stocks are worse today than they were at the closure in 1992. That's science information; that's not mine. DFO could have put a policy in place, put a group in place, or whatever, to rebuild the fish stocks and not just react to crisis situations.

Mr. Larry Murray: In terms of the first question, Mr. Chair, I would be grateful if the honourable member could provide a few more details around nationality of the vessel and the date, that sort of thing, and then certainly I would get back to him. I am aware of one situation involving a vessel of a certain nationality, but in terms of the first question, if we could have more details I'd be happy to try to respond to your first question.

In relation to your second question--

The Chair: Mr. Murray, excuse me. We have two incidents now that we've talked about, so I would ask both members, if they have specifics, to give the specifics directly to you, and perhaps you would be so kind as to report directly to the committee if you have any information on them.

Mr. Larry Murray: I'd be grateful for that, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.

In terms of the second question, my view would be, in the context of a variety of efforts, that Fisheries and Oceans Canada, working with provinces, working with the industry, has been trying to work toward a healthy fishery.

In relation to the cod, that has not unfolded. As the honourable member is aware, the only area where the cod does appear to be coming back to some extent is south of Newfoundland. I don't think science fully understands what happened and what is necessary in order to have these stocks rebuilt, and I'm not sure that anybody does, quite frankly.

Certainly in the context of the recent closure, there is an intention to spend $6 million for further study of seals to determine the interaction there. But in terms of a plan to rebuild the cod stock, I think scientists, not just within DFO, are struggling with that one.

º (1655)

Mr. R. John Efford: Mr. Murray, with all due respect to the people advising you, I'll do it for nothing, for free, and put a policy in place to rebuild the fish stocks. I will work with my colleagues--and I say that seriously.

Please don't take that $6 million and spend it on seeing the interaction between seals and fish. Take the $6 million, give it to Mr. Adams, and let him do up some boats and put some fuel in them. I say that with respect to you, because you're not out in the field to understand and see what's going on.

That $6 million could be better spent in the department, because we can tell you what the interaction is between seals and fish. Seals do eat cod. Seals do eat caplin. Seals do eat turbot. Seals do eat herring. We just stopped a Newfoundland fisherman for catching a mere 3,500 or 4,000 tonnes of cod. It's going to cost the taxpayers in income support and early retirement probably $50 million or $60 million. It should never have happened, because that little bit of cod is only more food for the seals. You've got to have an overall plan outside the 200 mile limit and inside the 200 mile limit. Please don't spend that $6 million doing that.

My next question is simply this. I have been told--and over the years when I was the Minister of Fisheries in Newfoundland--one of the concerns that DFO has generally in Newfoundland is the age of the people working in the departments. It's so now that DFO needs to be bringing in younger people to train them for a number of years so that, when the older people get up to retirement, we'll have a good, competent staff in place to be able to take over DFO as attrition moves over the years. Is that being considered in the department?

Mr. Larry Murray: Mr. Chair, I think that's an excellent question. It's certainly an excellent area of concern. The department average age, I think--and I might have this slightly wrong--is 45 to 47, so it is an aging work force, and we do need to do what the honourable member is suggesting. In fact, that is part of our effort in moving forward. I think it's true of the public service as a whole, which is why there's significant attention being paid to the human resource modernization aspect.

I think the honourable member has raised something that does have to be a very high priority for us, and we're trying to move in that direction. Certainly we will be focusing on trying to recruit the right people, because it is an area of need for considerable technical skill, experience, and knowledge in most of the areas where DFO employees work in the field.

The Chair: Thank you.

Members, I have Mr. Cummins and then no one else. Now I have Mr. Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Adams, go ahead.

Commr John Adams: Could I simply highlight the fact--because we're very proud of this--that we just graduated 28 new coast guard officers from the Canadian Coast Guard College last weekend. That was good news.

The Chair: I'm sure there are lots of questions.

That's fine, Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: Thank you, Chairman.

What are you paying for the Liv Viking?

Commr John Adams: That would be very sensitive information because we have not completed the negotiations with the seller, so I would be rather reluctant to give you specific numbers. What I can tell you is that we booked $6 million for the purchase of the Liv Viking. That is not the total, all-up cost for the project. That is what we booked for the purchase of the Liv Viking. That is public knowledge.

» (1700)

Mr. John Cummins: That's correct. We're advised that $6 million had been set aside, but that's for the purchase. Does that include the refit and delivery to Vancouver?

Commr John Adams: You're taking me out on a bit of a limb because, again, I don't want to go too far until we've concluded the negotiations. But, yes, that's our intent.

Mr. John Cummins: On that better than $10 million figure, is there any truth to that--the one that's been floating around?

Commr John Adams: I wonder who's floating it.

Mr. John Cummins: I can't tell you my sources, obviously, but let me assure you that they are knowledgeable.

Commr John Adams: I really would prefer not to get into total, all-up costs. I will have to stick with the planned figure, the book figure, the public figure, which is $6 million for the hovercraft, refurbished and renovated.

Mr. John Cummins: Let's suppose your $6 million is in order. This is for a temporary fix, isn't it? This is not regarded as permanent.

Commr John Adams: As the minister has said, it would be his intent to replace that with a new hovercraft in succeeding years, yes.

Mr. John Cummins: Why would you spend $6 million for a temporary fit when you could buy a new one for $10 million to $12 million?

Commr John Adams: Because we assessed that proposal with a technical evaluation team consisting of members of a couple of departments and we judged that the risk associated with that offer was simply too high.

Mr. John Cummins: Risk in what manner?

Commr John Adams: That is technical-management experience, and the fact that there was no evidence presented to us that it was a production model, and the last thing we would want to get involved in would be prototype research and development, etc.

Mr. John Cummins: We are talking about different things. I'm talking about Hike Metal here. That's their figure. They've already built two hovercraft for the coast guard.

Commr John Adams: That's true. It's wonderful that they have managed to give you that figure, because that is certainly not what it cost them to build the other two that they built only in 1998.

Mr. John Cummins: I understand that was because the coast guard came in with more changes than Carter has little liver pills. It was a change here and a change there, and every change costs money. But certainly the $10 million to $12 million is a fairly consistent figure across the industry, not only with Hike Metals, but as I said, the firm in British Columbia and the firm in the States have advised me that they're able to come in the neighbourhood of $10 million, give a little, take a little.

Why are you going to spend $6 million on a temporary fix?

Commr John Adams: We wanted to bring, as quickly as possible, into the system a hovercraft that would meet our performance characteristics in the most cost-effective way possible, always minimizing risk. That is the reason.

Mr. John Cummins: You have known for six or seven years that the CG-045 was going out of service on October 4 of the past year, so there were plenty of opportunities to use a normal procurement procedures, one that would allow everyone to bid in a proper, open evaluation of the bids, and you chose not to do that. You chose to use an ACAN, which is an emergency procedure for the purchase. Why? Why did you not go out and use a proper procurement procedure to make this very large purchase?

Commr John Adams: We spent probably more time than we should have spent confirming the requirement for the backup hovercraft, because we had no other backups for our other search and rescue vessels and we wanted to be absolutely certain that we couldn't meet that requirement using a combination of conventional craft and helicopters. It took us a fair amount of time to do that. Once we did it, we said, all right, now we have to move quickly, and that's what we've done.

Mr. John Cummins: It can't take that long. You know what the procurement requirements were. In fact, in a briefing note for senior management written in 2000, the requirement was for a hovercraft that would operate in wind conditions of up to 50 knots and in sea states of up to four metres, yet you've dropped that dramatically in this purchase. You're talking about a vessel that would operate in three-metre waves. Excuse me, the revised operational requirements of August 14, 2002, called for a vessel that would operate in 2.4-metre waves as opposed to four-metre waves and in wind conditions, again considerably less, in the neighbourhood of a mean wind speed of 30 knots with gusts to 40 knots. That's a long way from 50 knots.

Those conditions, if you look at the weather charts and the average weather that's experienced in the area of the Strait of Georgia off Vancouver airport in the wintertime, almost 30% of the time this vessel is not going to be able to operate.

You're talking specs here. You had some specs in 2000 and you dropped them. This is very confusing to me. I don't understand. Could you enlighten me on these concerns, please.

» (1705)

Commr John Adams: I'll certainly try, Mr. Chair.

The specs you were referring to are the performance characteristics of the Waban-Aki.

Mr. John Cummins: Of what?

Commr John Adams: The Waban-Aki. That was the vessel, the hovercraft that we were considering as a backup to the Siyay. Its performance characteristics weren't as high, but we were looking at the possibility because it was a backup and would only come in in the event of the Siyay being down. There was a possibility of compromising on some of the performance characteristics because it was a backup hovercraft.

In discussions with the region, they in fact concluded and convinced us that was not the right way to go. What we've done is we've moved the performance characteristics back to where they were, and in fact, to coincide precisely with the performance characteristics of the primary hovercraft, the Siyay. They in fact are the performance characteristics that the Liv Viking will meet.

The Chair: That's it. Thank you.

Mr. Hearn.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: In relation to a question Mr. Efford asked earlier about river guardians, over the years we've seen a reduction in the number and in the timeframe. We've also seen less and less attention being paid to salmon enhancement in our rivers. Time, effort, and money have maybe been spent on aquaculture, yet the pure, alive, wild, breathing stock and so on has been neglected.

The salmon that do come back are heavily exposed to poaching because of the cutbacks of the river guardians. This year I understand they've been cut again by a week. At least that's the report we have from several of the people directly affected. I'd like to know if that's true. What's the result going to be if we keep reducing their time and effort?

I'll throw out three questions, Mr. Chair, and they can answer them in whatever time we have.

The second one is in relation to the meeting with the NAFO ministers next week. We have challenged our minister, if that be the word, to take some leadership here. In our discussions with a number of the NAFO countries, the ministers and other officials, we haven't found anyone who doesn't have concerns about what's going on in the ocean, about the lack of scientific knowledge, about the depletion of resources, both on our continental shelf and on and off the shores of their own countries, on their own fishing grounds.

I personally think the time is right to try to get collective support to address abuses in the fishing of various stocks and to add to the quotas given by NAFO. We've been asking for custodial management; however, if in the interim it's a management regime within NAFO with some teeth or whatever, as long as the stocks are protected, it's a step in the right direction. Then somebody will have to manage it. We have to show some leadership. Everyone is complaining. Nobody is taking the leadership. I think we have the opportunity.

My final question is this. This fall, because of the fishery closure in Newfoundland and Labrador in particular, and the instability it's caused within the industry, our plant workers in particular are going to be in the position where few, if any, even qualify for employment insurance for a number of reasons, not all to do with the resource or the management of it. It is in a terrible state right now. Is the department aware of this? Has it taken any steps in light of the controlling resources and the effect and the instability caused? Has it made any provisions to address the fallout that we're going to see, particularly as we get into the fall?

» (1710)

Mr. Larry Murray: In relation to the first question, there will be a one-week reduction this year, from 16 weeks to 15 weeks, for each of the river guardians. However, the primary coverage will continue to be maximized over the period of concern, which I think is a 21-week period. I can confirm there will be a one-week reduction, but we're comfortable that with proper scheduling we can still provide the necessary coverage in the timeframe of concern. Having said that, I appreciate the honourable member's concern. We also highly value the work of the guardians.

In terms of NAFO, I would like to underline that the minister would agree 100% with the honourable member's concern. That's exactly why he has travelled to NAFO separately. He certainly will be talking to the other ministers of NAFO in Halifax next week. He will be doing everything possible to move the yardstick in the manner that the honourable member has indicated.

I have personally met with our heads of mission from across Europe. We have discussed this issue. We are working with all the involved departments, certainly DFAIT, to try to determine strategies to maximize the Canadian influence relative to our concerns, which a number of honourable members have raised here today.

In terms of the issue involving the plant workers, we're following that with great interest and some concern. Obviously we're working closely with the provincial authorities, and our people in the region on the ground are following the situation. But at the moment we are not in a position to respond to particular concerns, other than to do anything we can to try to help solve the problem.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Provenzano.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Welcome, and congratulations, Mr. Murray, on your appointment. It's very nice to see you back with Fisheries and Oceans.

On the statement you made, unfortunately I wasn't here when it was delivered, but I was reading through the handout. There is a statement that you have a challenge to ensure the functional viability of the coast guard into the foreseeable future, and that there are financial constraints and operational challenges. I don't know how heavy this statement might be, because you say to achieve it, you want to respond to issues such as an aging fleet and shore infrastructure in a very challenging operational and tight fiscal environment.

Dealing with those two things, aging fleet and shore infrastructure, how heavy is the statement you are making here? To what extent do we have a handle on the costs of the capital replacement that we're going to be facing in the short term, in the not-too-distant future, with respect to the fleet? With respect to the supporting shore infrastructure, what are we looking at in terms of capital replacement costs? Is this something that these two processes are going to address, or is it something that the department is aware of now and has a handle on? How can we get some information on that? If it's not, after these processes are completed, is the committee going to get some information that allows the committee to get its head around that particular problem? It seems to me that there's a warning here, and there is a serious problem on the horizon.

» (1715)

Mr. Larry Murray: It's clearly an issue.

The coast guard is a proud institution. It's a very professional institution. It's doing its job very well. As Commissioner Adams said, we just graduated 28 new officers.

However, on the ships, when we provide the chairman with the information requested in his first question relative to the fleet and the overview of the fleet, you will see that in a number of areas, lifeboats and all that, the department has made progress in terms of modernizing that fleet. Big chunks of the fleet are getting on and do need attention. We need to come to grips with that.

These review processes, in my view, will position us to have a comprehensive look at what we do across the board in DFO, and in relation to other departmental support we provide, and to come up with an appropriate capital plan to move forward in a comprehensive way. That's not to say that action hasn't been taken. Certainly the $47.3 million augmentation of our existing budget is being expended to address some of these issues as well.

Fundamentally, at the heart of these reviews are the statements that the government has made, that the Minister of Finance has made, about reviewing what we do and how we do it to maximize the reallocation to highest priorities. To an extent it would be my view that is what we have to do. We have to ensure that the resources we do get go to serving Canadians where they expect us to spend the money. In the case of the coast guard, most Canadians would think that would be on things such as the fleet and the marine traffic control systems, and in the case of the other issues, fisheries enforcement, science, and so on.

As I said in response to an earlier question, Mr. Chairman, I can't put a number on the overall capital replacement program. I would want to be clear that whatever reallocation we do internally to better serve Canadians in a variety of different ways will not be adequate to replace the fleet over time. That will be a long-term proposition over time. I would hope the capital program would enable us to move forward such that--and the point was made by at least one honourable member here--it would be timely replacement. If we have a long-term capital plan and we replace things over time, I think it's good for Canadian industry. It's good for the fleet. It doesn't all have to happen at once.

I'm not saying we're in a crisis here, in those words. I am saying we need to pay attention to it and we need to move forward. We need to come to grips with it in a sensible way.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Mr. Murray, it's not exactly what I'm thinking about.

I'm more concerned about what I think has happened in some areas. In a given year's budget, some money is set aside that's supposed to be for capital replacement. But let's face it, we are in tight fiscal times. There's a tendency, perhaps, to dip into those funds for operational purposes as opposed to earmarking some funds not to be ever touched except for capital replacement that's been identified, whether it's five years away or 10 years away.

What I'm thinking of specifically is that if we have a capital plan that identifies, for example, a specific ship in the fleet whose life will be exhausted at a point in time, then we know there's going to be a capital expenditure. From the uninitiated, from a layman's standpoint, what's wrong with saying that if we have to spend $500 million three years from now, then we should put $175 million away for the next three years specifically for that expenditure? I don't think we do that. I'm worried about the $47 million that you identified. I'm worried that it possibly never gets used for an actual capital replacement expenditure.

From where I sit, I'd like the government to say, here are the items that we will be required to expend moneys on for capital replacement. This is how much money is needed. We don't need it today, but this is how much money we need to set aside. It can never be touched, because it will be needed in a certain year. Do we do that?

» (1720)

Mr. Larry Murray: It's an excellent question and an excellent point, Mr. Chairman. Certainly the minister has made it crystal clear to me where he wishes us to spend, for example, the $47.3 million. It's exactly in the manner and in response, to some extent, to the concern and the issue raised by the honourable member. That's a fair point. We do need to move forward and have a comprehensive capital plan and spend money in the manner that the member has suggested.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Do you not--

The Chair: Carmen, I'm sorry, you're out of time, but good questions. You've made your point.

Before I call on Mr. Stoffer, I'll just bootleg 30 seconds. Commissioner Adams, I wonder if you'd do us a favour. In the next little while, would you be kind enough to send us a flow chart, I'll call it, of the chain of command of the coast guard, starting, of course, at the top with the minister, down through the deputy minister, etc., all the way down so we can see who reports to you specifically, Mr. Adams, and who you report to specifically, in particular? I'm thinking about after June 30, when this new downward reporting kicks back in. Perhaps you wouldn't mind doing that for us.

Mr. Murray.

Mr. Larry Murray: I wonder if we could take a broad interpretation of your opening question as well, Mr. Chairman. I think it's extremely important for the committee to have access to the information that exists relative to the coast guard fleet and so on as it exists today. I wonder if your research staff might like to separately get together with perhaps the commissioner or his people to take the broadest possible interpretation of your question about providing information on the age of the ships and all that. Certainly we can respond positively to your most recent one.

However, as you embark on this particular study, I think it probably would be useful if we shared what we have, and certainly we're more than prepared to try to give you all the information we can on the coast guard today. We could use your opening question as the basis to do that in as fulsome a manner as possible.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Murray, for that invitation. We will take you up on it and we will be comparing our coast guard with the coast guards of other nations or how they handle their coastal needs. It would be very helpful if we knew clearly what we do and how we do it and then we can do a proper comparison with other nations.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Quite possibly you also could provide the information on exactly how many ships we have in the coast guard.

The Chair: I have that.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay. And their roles and how many employees full-time, part-time, etc., would be very helpful.

There is another concern that I have. A few years ago, they had a boat race between Marblehead and Halifax, I believe. There were no coast guard vessels out there. It was actually a military vessel doing that work. I always thought it was a bit strange that we wouldn't have any coast guard ships but we would actually have military.

When we were in Newfoundland recently, I asked a person there how many coast guard vessels were patrolling the waters of Newfoundland and Labrador. He indicated that there was one and that it was in the harbour right now. I just looked at that vast map, with a 200-mile limit, overfishing and everything else, and we don't have any ships out there watching what's going on. And now, with the downturn in the fishery, the great concern is that without having fishermen on the water, the ears and eyes of what's going on, we may have nobody on the water and that pillaging of our resources may go on.

Mr. Murray, what is the direction of the coast guard in terms of physical controls, not just the ones you do with provincial airlines...? They do a very good job, by the way, with their King Air, but I don't think they have enough resources, obviously, to do as much as we would like in terms of surveillance, not only surveillance in the air but on the water, with vessels out there patrolling the waters for environmental pollution, oil and gas concerns, overfishing, dumping, etc. Is that seriously being looked at, and will we see improvements in that in the future under your tight fiscal concerns?

» (1725)

Mr. Larry Murray: I think, Mr. Chairman, it's an excellent question.

In terms of the first question, I would have to say that as a young naval officer I had the privilege of being in a small naval vessel that did accompany a yacht race, and it was a lot of fun. We cooperate actually very closely between the navy and the coast guard in these sorts of things, so I wouldn't take that as a particular signal.

However, the broader concern you raise is a very valid concern and something we're obviously very concerned about. The minister is very concerned about it, and it's one of the reasons we're focusing on what we do, what we deliver, and how we do it most effectively.

I'd ask the commissioner to give you a sense, if he can, on a typical day. But the nature of the operation is so diverse, depending on what the particular tasking is and what's happening. I don't know, John, whether you could say a few words about the specifics. I mean, at some stage of the game the committee might wish to visit the headquarters or visit one of the regions and actually get an overview on what we're doing on a typical day or whatever. It would also give you an opportunity to pursue the concern you've raised there in an operational setting.

The Chair: Mr. Murray, the committee's budget is probably tighter than your ministry's budget, and I would say the likelihood of our travelling anywhere in the relatively near future, except perhaps by airwaves, other than what we've already been authorized to do, is nil. But it's a good thought.

Mr. Larry Murray: We could probably bring that knowledge to the committee here in Ottawa. I think it would be useful if you had an overview of what we do in the context of a typical....

Commr John Adams: What we could arrange is for the director general of our fleet directorate, in fact, to show you his Ouija board and where the vessels are in any given time. I don't know just when it was you asked Newfoundland, but at any given time, depending again upon what the requirements are and what fish management is doing, we would probably have a vessel at the 200-mile limit, with fishery officers on board that coast guard vessel. We generally would have a vessel on the north coast, south coast, west coast sort of thing, but they might be at sea, or they might be sitting in Corner Brook, for example.

The challenge we're always faced with when we're so-called patrolling is that we have a very large ocean and the longest coastline in the world, and inevitably if your search and rescue vessel is in the northeast quadrant, the incident will happen in the southwest quadrant. So what you try to do is position yourself where you're kind of equidistant from all of the quadrants. To have enough vessels to really have a presence in every quadrant would be probably a bit unrealistic.

So that's a challenge. But we'll certainly take you through a typical day as to where the vessels are on any given day.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: That would be really wonderful.

I want to raise two specific points that you can take back to the minister. I know my colleague did not want to raise it, but I'll do it. We did a report on the issue of the sea lamprey program. That's specific and I know it's not with the coast guard, but perhaps you could take back, sir, the concerns of the committee to the minister to ensure that this program does not get cut at all. In fact, if anything, it should have more money. If it gets cut, then we're not holding up our end of the bargain and it could seriously devastate the Great Lakes fishery.

Last, of course, my colleagues were talking about river guardians, and the Atlantic Salmon Federation, which is working very closely for salmon enhancement throughout Atlantic Canada, and internationally for that matter, has been working quite hard to secure some resources and to work in collaboration with DFO in order to bring the salmon back. I'd like you to at least take their considerations to heart when you look at your budgets in the future.

Mr. Larry Murray: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We'll certainly do so in terms of the latter.

I guess I would like to underline, in relation to the initial question from the honourable member, that when I indicated that our short-term measures are attempting to go after overhead so that we do deliver services to Canadians of the nature they expect, one of the fallouts of that has been that the minister has given very clear direction that we will not reduce sea lamprey funding this year. So that will not happen and we will find the resources from overhead elsewhere. But the sea lamprey program would be funded at the same level as last year and at some very clear direction from the minister.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Murray.

No doubt you'll have an opportunity to review our unanimous report on aquatic invasive species. While that's wonderful news, we're calling on the government to meet our 31% commitment, and we're not meeting that now. That will require more money, so that will require the government to allocate the appropriate resources. We can't blame the Minister of Fisheries for that; that will be a discussion that he has with the MInister of Finance.

We just wanted you to remember that we have a 31% share of the Great Lakes, and 69% belongs to the United States, which is carrying a greater load than we are on the sea lamprey program, and that's just unfair. We want to reinforce that the Canadian government has to take its responsibility for its share of the Great Lakes and protecting the lakes against this devastating nuisance species.

I'm mindful of the time and we've already gone past the 5:30 mark, so I'm going to call the meeting. But I do want to thank our witnesses today. I think they were excellent and candid, and it was very much appreciated.

Good luck to you, Mr. Murray, in bringing some order to some level of chaos, if I can put it that way.

Commissioner, we'll look forward, perhaps, to hearing from you again after we get some of this material. We thank you for your offer of our researchers getting that information from us

Thank you.

» (1730)

Mr. Larry Murray: Thank you.

The Chair: If I don't see you, have a nice summer, everyone.

The meeting is adjourned.