PACC Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, February 19, 2003

¹

1540

The Clerk of the Committee

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.)

The Clerk

The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance))

Ms. Sheila Fraser (Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General )

¹

1545

The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield)

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard (Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

¹

1550

¹

1555

The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield)

Mr. John O'Brien (Principal, Office of the Auditor General )

The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield)

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mrs. Ursula Menke (Deputy Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

Ms. Val Meredith

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

º

1600

Ms. Val Meredith

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Ms. Val Meredith

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Ms. Val Meredith

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Ms. Val Meredith

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Ms. Val Meredith

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. John O'Brien

Ms. Val Meredith

Mr. John O'Brien

The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield)

Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ)

º

1605

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

º

1610

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield)

Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.)

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

º

1615

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mrs. Ursula Menke

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mrs. Ursula Menke

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield)

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

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. Peter Stoffer

º

1620

Mrs. Ursula Menke

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield)

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Philip Mayfield

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

º

1625

Mrs. Ursula Menke

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mrs. Ursula Menke

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mrs. Ursula Menke

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mrs. Ursula Menke

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield)

Mrs. Ursula Menke

The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield)

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC)

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. Gerald Keddy

º

1630

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mrs. Ursula Menke

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mrs. Ursula Menke

º

1635

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mrs. Ursula Menke

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mrs. Ursula Menke

The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield)

Ms. Val Meredith

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mrs. Ursula Menke

º

1640

Ms. Val Meredith

Mrs. Ursula Menke

Ms. Val Meredith

Mrs. Ursula Menke

Ms. Val Meredith

Mrs. Ursula Menke

Ms. Val Meredith

The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield)

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. Jacques Lorquet (Director, Navigation Systems, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

Mr. Odina Desrochers

º

1645

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield)

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield)

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.)

Mrs. Ursula Menke

Mr. John Finlay

Mrs. Ursula Menke

Mr. John Finlay

Mrs. Ursula Menke

Mr. John Finlay

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. John Finlay

º

1650

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield)

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. John O'Brien

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. John O'Brien

Mr. Kevin Potter (Director, Audit Operations Branch, Office of the Auditor General )

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mrs. Ursula Menke

º

1655

The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield)

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mrs. Ursula Menke

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mrs. Ursula Menke

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mrs. Ursula Menke

»

1700

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield)

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.)

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mrs. Ursula Menke

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mrs. Ursula Menke

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mrs. Ursula Menke

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mrs. Ursula Menke

The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield)

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance)

»

1705

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield)

»

1710

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

»

1715

The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield)

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield)

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

»

1720

Mr. Philip Mayfield

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield)

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard

The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield)

Mrs. Ursula Menke

Mr. Philip Mayfield

Mrs. Ursula Menke

The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield)

Ms. Sheila Fraser

The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield)

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield)

Ms. Sheila Fraser

The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield)

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

---

NUMBER 015

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, February 19, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1540)  

[English]

    The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members, I'd like to inform you of the absence of the chair and the vice-chairs. I would receive a motion to elect an acting chair.

    Mr. Mahoney.

    Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): I nominate Mr. Mayfield for acting chair, at double the rate of pay he's currently getting.

    The Clerk: Okay, thank you very much.

    Are there any other nominations? I declare Mr. Mayfield the acting chair.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance)): Thank you very much.

    The order of the day is, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), consideration of chapter 2 (Fisheries and Oceans Canada--Contributing to Safe and Efficient Marine Navigation) of the December 2002 report of the Auditor General of Canada.

    The witnesses today are Sheila Fraser, the Auditor General of Canada, John O'Brien, the principal, and Kevin Potter, director of Audit Operations Branch. From the Department of Fisheries and Oceans we have Jean-Claude Bouchard, Associate Deputy Minister, Ursula Menke, deputy commissioner of the coast guard, Jacques Lorquet, director of navigation systems, Steve Troy, director of safety and environmental response systems, and Glen Condran, acting director of planning and performance measurement.

    Mrs. Fraser, would you care to begin by presenting your report to the committee?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser (Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General ): Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are pleased to be here today to discuss chapter 2 of our December 2002 report. As you mentioned, joining me today are John O'Brien and Kevin Potter, who are principal and director from our Halifax office.

    In this report we concluded that Fisheries and Oceans Canada has not managed cost-effectively the activities we examined and that changes must be made to ensure that user needs are met in the future.

[Translation]

    Canada's marine transportation system is an important part of our economy. Our audit focussed on the management of navigational support services and boating safety activities. These are services designed to meet the preventive side of the Department's commitment to safe and efficient waterways. They include: marine communications and traffic services, aids to navigation, channel maintenance, navigable waters protection, navigational charts, and regulation of recreational boats and boaters. We did not examine the Department's response activities, such as search and rescue and environmental response.

    In 2001-2002, preventive activities cost about $220 million. The Department also recovered about $30 million during this same period from marine services fees.

    The Department is facing new and changing service demands. Recreational boating is becoming increasingly important. Technological advances in the shipping industry and international obligations have an impact on service requirements. Fiscal restraint is a continuing reality.

    Charging marine services fees has encouraged industry to become more involved in determining the service levels it needs. However, some in the industry still appear to believe that the fees are too high for the services the Department provides.

    Although technology is advancing rapidly, there are users who prefer to use traditional services. Therefore, while the Department is putting new navigational support systems in place, it is difficult to eliminate all of the older systems.

[English]

    The department is aware of the many issues we identified. It has initiatives planned or under way to deal with them. Yet there are barriers that prevent the department from modernizing and delivering its navigational support services and boating safety activities cost-effectively. These barriers include a failure to ensure that there is one national program; the absence of key elements to ensure accountability; inadequate integration of navigational support services; provision of a service that does not contribute to the department's mandate for safety and efficiency; and the use of outdated legislation for unintended purposes. I would like to briefly discuss each of these issues.

    In 1996 the coast guard merged with Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Subsequently, the coastguard headquarters was reorganized, and some national standards are only now being developed or updated. There are limited means of ensuring that the existing national standards or targets are met. Without national targets, standards, and a monitoring capability, the department cannot hold managers accountable for achieving program objectives. We found that there are, in fact, five regional coast guards, each with its own way of doing business. Yet in the areas we examined the department must meet both international and national requirements. Departmental business lines and internal shared services must work together to deliver integrated navigational support services to users.

    The department has made considerable progress in developing frameworks for results-based management and accountability, but a significant amount of work remains for the department to make these frameworks operational. Until it does, the department cannot show how its activities contribute to maritime safety and efficiency.

    The department made a commitment over five years ago to review the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and this review has just begun.

    In recent years the department has increased its emphasis on recreational boating safety. However, it does not have stable funding to meet this responsibility. The department relies on other organizations to deliver most of these services. The department has limited information on what is being achieved.

    In 1998 the government made a policy decision to maintain staff at certain light stations. The department recognized that it was feasible to automate most of these light stations. As part of the decision to provide the funding to maintain staff, the Treasury Board required the department to conduct a review of this decision by 2003. We found that the department has not tracked the cost of operating staffed light stations.

    Fisheries and Oceans Canada has indicated that it generally agrees with our findings and recommendations. This department faces a daunting list of challenges and demands, and your committee might wish to ask officials for an action plan that outlines how the department is going to address the concerns we have raised.

    Mr. Chair, that concludes our opening statement. We would be happy to answer any questions the committee might have.

¹  (1545)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield): Thank you, Mrs. Fraser.

    I believe, Mr. Bouchard, you have a paper you'd like to put in the record. Please begin.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard (Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome and appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you today the Auditor General's report on safe and efficient waterways.

    As you may know, last year marked the 40th anniversary of the Canadian Coast Guard. Throughout its history this institution has provided invaluable benefits to Canadians by providing services that have saved the lives of approximately 3,000 mariners per year, protected their right to navigation, enhanced maritime safety, protected Canada's environment from the effects of pollution, and facilitated the development of Canada's economy. The services include aids to navigation, search and rescue, marine communications, and pollution response. You may not be aware that the Canadian Coast Guard also provides a platform on the water to a variety of other federal government institutions, including the RCMP, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, and Citizenship and Immigration. Canadian Coast Guard platforms facilitate federal work in important fields such as enforcement and scientific research. Today the Canadian Coast Guard is comprised of approximately 5,000 men and women, 104 vessels, 27 aircraft, and an extensive infrastructure of assets.

    In relation to our preventive services, it is encouraging to note that the Auditor General has concluded that the users of our services find that these services generally support safe waterways and meet their navigational requirements.

¹  (1550)  

[Translation]

    That this observation has been made is a testament to the professionalism and ability of the men and women of the Canadian Coast Guard. The Canadian Coast Guard delivers its services within an extremely challenging environment. It has faced constant significant change, including resource reductions as a result of Program Review, implementation of cost recovery, and changing responsibilities that come with new legislation. The Canadian Coast Guard operates within the national and international domain, has many clients with differing navigation abilities and needs, supports the most extensive coastline of the world in one of the most varied and harshest climates, and does all this in an era of unprecedented technological change.

    That is not to say, as the Auditor General has pointed out, that there are not challenges or improvement opportunities. We accept the Auditor General's findings and are committed to finding solutions.

    The Chapter describes some of the challenges and barriers the Department faces, including a diverse and growing client base with growing service demands; second, the need to ensure the right balance between the adoption of new technologies and continuing to support existing or traditional navigational techniques; third, fiscal restraint, particularly with respect to our limited ability to re-invest in our ageing asset base; fourth, the need to adapt and respond to changes in international standards and practices, and finally, more recently, the provision of support in response to the heightened awareness in marine security.

[English]

    In fact, as the Auditor General herself has stated, we have recognized these challenges and barriers and have started many initiatives designed to strengthen and improve the national management of programs. These initiatives, which are described in the Auditor General's chapter, will respond to the recommendations of the Auditor General.

    More specifically, the Canadian Coast Guard has reaffirmed its vision of the future and has recently completed a headquarters renewal initiative. One of the key actions from this renewal was to realign program authorities and accountabilities to facilitate a more integrated approach to the provision of coast guard services. For example, within the area of capital management, the marine programs and fleet directorates of the Canadian Coast Guard are responsible for defining the program requirements for assets, while the technical directorate is responsible for the life cycle material management of these assets.

[Translation]

    During this current fiscal year, the Canadian Coast Guard undertook a comprehensive review of its role and the services it provides for the purpose of confirming priorities and realigning available resources with these priorities. A number of opportunities for re-alignment are under consideration.

    Complementary to this assessment, the Canadian Coast Guard has commenced the development of a Marine Programs Policy Framework. The intent of this work is to enhance the national management of programs by developing policies and guidelines that will assist the Department in confirming what services are provided where by the Canadian Coast Guard.

[English]

    The first step in the development of this framework was to conduct a programs mandate review. This review was initiated last fall and included an assessment of legislation, international conventions, and bilateral agreements. It also encompassed the assessment of relevant Treasury Board and cabinet documentation, Auditor General observations, and internal DFO-Canadian Coast Guard business plans that were identified as having an impact on the mandate of marine programs of the Canadian Coast Guard.

    The next step will be to review the existing policies and directives, assure that they remain relevant, and identify any gaps where policies will need to be revised or developed. Canadian Coast Guard headquarters, in cooperation with regional colleagues, is developing a plan to update all national operational policies and standards.

[Translation]

    Lastly, the Coast Guard is developing quality assurance and performance measurement functions to regularly monitor the implementation of the policies, standards and levels of services. Throughout these exercises, the Canadian Coast Guard will continue to consult with stakeholders on services provided.

[English]

    The Canadian Coast Guard is actively developing other frameworks and mechanisms to improve the management of its programs. Primary among these are the development and implementation of a results-based management and accountability framework and the risk management framework and assessment tools. The Canadian Coast Guard will conduct its first risk-based assessment of the transportation of oil products in a waterway during fiscal year 2003-2004 in the area of the south coast of Newfoundland.

    By operationalizing these frameworks and incorporating them into the planning performance measurement and reporting structures, the Canadian Coast Guard will strengthen its ability to manage on a national basis the relationship between its services and the results they are intended to achieve. These expectations will in turn be incorporated in a very concrete way in our managers' accountability accords and will be the basis for performance evaluation.

[Translation]

    The Department will complete the review of its staffed lightstations by 2003. The Department will continue the assessment of its entire lightstation portfolio and define specific measures for the disposal or rationalization of lightstations that are not required for operational reasons, while ensuring federal heritage objectives are respected.

[English]

    Finally, while these initiatives have been under way and many are close to implementation, a management action plan specifically in response to the report of the Auditor General is being prepared.

[Translation]

    Thank you for the opportunity of appearing before you today.

    We are pleased and encouraged that the users of our services find that our services continue to meet their navigational needs and contribute to the safe navigation of our waterways. It is testament to the efforts of the men and women of the Canadian Coast Guard that these services provide valuable benefits to Canadians. We are confident that the actions presented to you today will strengthen the ability of the Department to manage its navigational support services and boating safety activities in a cost-effective manner.

¹  (1555)  

[English]

    Mr. Chair, that concludes my remarks. My colleagues and I would be happy to answer questions from your committee.

    Thank you.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield): Thank you very much, Mr. Bouchard.

    I appreciate the reports of both the Auditor General and Mr. Bouchard.

    There's also been another interesting report on the coast guard entitled “Marine Communications and Traffic Services”, a report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, February 2003. I presume you're aware of that report. Have you had a chance to look at this report, Mrs. Fraser.

    Mr. John O'Brien (Principal, Office of the Auditor General ): We've had a chance to review it recently, Mr. Chair.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield): I would commend this to the committee, along with your reports.

    We'll begin questions now with Ms. Meredith for eight minutes.

    Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Thank you, Madam Fraser and Mr. Bouchard and your support people, for appearing before us.

    I listened with interest, because I represent a riding that is on the west coast, and I hear indirectly concerns about the lack, basically, of facility and of ability of the coast guard to respond. In several cases in my particular area we've relied on the U.S. Coast Guard to help boaters in distress. So I really want to reach into your comments, Mr. Bouchard, where you talked about having the stakeholders involved in the decisions you've made or in the planning process. The ones that come to my mind are de-manning the lighthouses and foghorn issues. Have you held any public meetings to explain to people why you're even approaching these issues?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: We have conducted some public consultation on the foghorn issue. I was part of a discussion with staff in B.C. recently on that. More specifically, particularly about lighthouses, I will ask Madam Menke to answer your question.

    Mrs. Ursula Menke (Deputy Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): The lighthouse issue in particular has been a long, ongoing one, as I'm sure you're fully aware. I think we started automating the lighthouses in the 1970s. We have roughly 262 of them altogether at this time, of which approximately 210 are de-staffed. All of them are automated. Throughout the piece, starting back in the 1970s, there has been consultation. Has there been any recently? I'll have to address that question to my colleague, because there hasn't been any for a little while that I'm aware of.

    Ms. Val Meredith: I'm going to jump in because my eight minutes include your answers as well.

    I want to reach into the Auditor General's concern about there being five regional districts, each one doing it's own thing, with no national program. When you look at these issues, like de-staffing lighthouses, foghorns, providing services, the number of boats--I was interested in the number of vessels that are around--and the aircraft, is there a national program, or do you just allocate certain vessels to the west coast, certain vessels to the east coast, and they do their own thing, without there being a national program and a national overseeing body to make sure there's some consistency from one coast to the other?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: We have put in place a system whereby every year regional directors of the coast guard meet at headquarters with headquarters people and look at the needs for the year to come, and then they deploy the vessels to answer those needs. So yes, there is a national program and it is, in this particular case, the result of work with the regional people. The ultimate decision rests with the Commissioner of the Coast Guard. In the case of the lighthouses, a significant number of them were de-staffed. The only ones left with some staff are in Newfoundland and in British Columbia. We're looking at it and trying to approach things from a national point of view. But at the same time, I'd like to say it is very important for our regional offices to have the ability to make decisions in some cases that make sense for the reality of their geographic environment. So we have a national program, but with some ability at the regional level to make some decisions.

º  (1600)  

    Ms. Val Meredith: Following up on that with the regional distribution, if you will, of the decision-making process, I forget the name of the boat--somebody may be able to help me--that overturned, and there was some concern over the clarity of the regulations for responding to marine incidents. Has that been addressed?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: You're referring to the Cap Rouge II incident?

    Ms. Val Meredith: Yes.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: That has been corrected. As a matter of fact, our minister made a statement in the House recently to that effect.

    Ms. Val Meredith: That was a regional incident. Has it only been clarified for that region, or is there a national regulation that if the same thing were to happen in Newfoundland or on the Great Lakes, there is some coordination from one region to the other to make sure there's a uniformity in response?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: It has been clarified very specifically in the fleet safety manual, which is held by everybody in the coast guard across the country, but you need to know that the ability to do rescue diving is only in British Columbia and only at the Sea Island base. We do not have that capacity anywhere else in Canada.

    Ms. Val Meredith: My understanding is that you don't have it yet, but you will have it in a year, because they're not trained to actually perform the function at this point.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: At Sea Island we will.

    Ms. Val Meredith: Then the question has to be raised, why is it only on the west coast if it's a national concern? Why would it only be available to people on the west coast and not off the coast of Nova Scotia?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: It's a service that historically was established only in B.C. and only at Sea Island. It was not a service that was recognized nationally as one we thought needed to be offered or wanted to offer, so we are leaving it at that for now.

    Ms. Val Meredith: With the concern, Madam Fraser, that was raised about the fees being too high, is it the commercial marine industry that has indicated that the fees they pay for the services are too high, or is it the recreational boating community?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: I'm going to ask Mr. O'Brien to respond to that, since he's the one who talked to the people.

    Mr. John O'Brien: The recreational boaters at this point don't pay a specific marine services fee. There is some licensing, but the commercial marine services fees for ice-breaking and navigational services are the primary concern.

    Ms. Val Meredith: Are they concerned because they're paying for a service they're not receiving?

    Mr. John O'Brien: The general feeling was that the fees were out of line for the service. The industry has done many things over the last little while to improve its own safety, and yet the fees have not gone down. You have to recognize that the fees are only a very small percentage of the cost of running the coast guard and delivering these services, so it's not exactly cost recovery, it is a straight fee, only a small percentage. They have not seen any response in the size of the fees, in light of the things they have done to implement new safety measures, electronic charts, bridge management procedures, and those sorts of things.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield): Thank you.

    Mr. Desrochers.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Thank you for coming here, Mr. Bouchard. Thank you as well to the people who agreed to be here with you to discuss the safety and efficiency of marine navigation.

    Mr. Bouchard, you state the following in your presentation:

The Chapter describes some of the challenges and barriers the Department faces, including [...] fiscal restraint, particularly with respect to our limited ability to re-invest in our ageing asset base.

    You stated that you received some good news yesterday. Since yesterday's budget announced some additional funding, is this good news for 2003, 2005, 2007 or 2009? More specifically, what is Fisheries and Oceans planning for the coming year?

º  (1605)  

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: In yesterday's budget, a total of $47.3 million per year in capital expenditures was announced for the next two years. We will be able to use this money to renew the fleet or certain ageing vessels, or to repair other boats or even our infrastructures on land. All indications are that after these two years, these amounts will likely be included in our A-base.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Is that a sufficient amount to address current requirements?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: When it comes to managing as complex an organization as the Coast Guard, even if we had $200 million, we'd find a way to spend it all. However, I admit that $47.2 million will help us tremendously to manage our fleet and particularly, to correct some of the problems we face as a result of having an ageing fleet. Therefore, to answer your question, yes, it's adequate.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: You also addressed the issue of safety and security, in light of all of the changes that have occurred in recent years. As you undoubtedly know, much has been said about the expectations of both Western and Eastern Canada, but we mustn't forget the St. Lawrence that flows through Quebec. I realize that you have been hit with staff cuts. If staffing levels were restored to appropriate levels, would you be able to meet your clients' expectations?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: We certainly have the tools to manage the Coast Guard properly. We need to follow up on the steps that have just been announced. These measures are aimed at ensuring that the Canadian Coast Guard is managed with optimum efficiency. I stated in my presentation that the initiatives undertaken will be incorporated in our managers' accountability accords. We have set a number of specific goals and we will ensure rigorous management practices. We have the tools we need, but the issue is to manage the Coast Guard more effectively. We will never achieve perfection, but there will always be room for improvement.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: However, as managers, do you in fact have the staff and the funds required to achieve these objectives?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: Generally speaking, we do. As far as staffing levels are concerned, a sizeable number of Coast Guard personnel -- approximately 22 per cent in the case of navigation centres -- are set to retire in the next four years. The whole of the Public Service is grappling with a similar problem. Therefore, it's important for us to manage our staff properly and to recruit the right people.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: It's a fact, Mr. Bouchard, that when a large number of people retire at once, the government is often tempted not to replace these individuals and instead, to modernize its labour face through the use of technology. However, since your department, like all other federal government departments, was already hit with substantial staff cuts in the early 1990s and since you've stated that moreover, 22 per cent of the staff is set to retire, can you assure us that you do indeed have a manpower renewal plan in place and that you will be able to continue providing the required manpower services?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: To answer your question, yes, but I would like to talk a bit about the performance of the Canadian Coast Guard. Each year, the Coast Guard saves 97 per cent of the people it is called upon to help. A total of 3,000 sailors are rescued each year by the Coast Guard. That's pretty impressive, I would say. Moreover, to my knowledge, ice-breaking operations are done properly in the St. Lawrence and in the Arctic during the summer. I do believe the Canadian Coast Guard is doing a good job.

    I'd just like to say one more thing. As to whether we have the resources we need, I would like to point out that we do have partners elsewhere. For example, when a vessel is floundering in the North Atlantic, obviously we dispatch a Coast Guard vessel to the scene. However, we would need 2,000 vessels to ensure that one was always in the right place at the right time. Therefore, all mariners in the North Atlantic or on the West Coast serve as our auxiliaries and assist in the rescue of persons in distress. We do not work alone. We rely a great deal on ancillary workers.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: I understand that you're here to talk about the effectiveness and efficiency of your department's operations, Mr. Bouchard, but given the very large number of employees who are set to retire, the fiscal constraints you are facing, the ever-changing needs as far as the climate is concerned, and so forth, if you were to return in four or five years' time, would you be able to sit there and tell me the very same thing? That's what I'm wondering.

º  (1610)  

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: That's my goal. My job is to ensure the Canadian Coast Guard remains the efficient institution that it is. However, there are a number of ways of doing just that. Ongoing technological improvements allow us to modify the way in which we deploy our resources. Furthermore, 22 per cent of the staff of navigation centres will likely -- and I say “likely”-- be gone in four years. Not everyone who is eligible to retire decides to go, but if we look at the numbers, we could be facing that possibility. Therefore, we need to take steps to recruit persons and to train them properly. We have the right tools to do just that. My goal, were I to come back here in four years' time, would be to be able to tell you the very same thing.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. That's all for now.

[English]

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield): Mr. Murphy, you have eight minutes.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): Thank you very much.

    Again, I want to thank everyone for appearing. I just have a couple of questions for you, Mr. Bouchard.

    I have a small coast guard depot in my riding of Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, and I deal with them quite regularly. The perceptions I get from dealing with the staff concur with the finding of the Auditor General that there does seem to be a systemic management problem in the Maritimes region--of course, I can't speak for the other four regions of Canada. There seems to be low staff morale. There seems to be a total lack of accountability. Only about 18 people work there, but they all answer to somebody different in Dartmouth. They don't answer to each other, so it does create, according to them, a very confusing line of command. The personnel in Dartmouth are always changing; there seems to be a total flux with the people in charge there. You deal with one person, and two months later that person's gone, and you have no idea who's in charge now. There's a certain amount of privatization going on, and they don't seem to accept that the navigational aids privatization program is going to work. It just seems to me that there's a total malaise in that particular section anyway. So I do concur with a lot of the findings of the Auditor General.

    I'd like to get at these issues. Who exactly is in charge of the coast guard on a Canada-wide basis? Is that yourself?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: It's ultimately the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, but we have a Commissioner of the Coast Guard. We have a management model whereby the resources of the coast guard are under the immediate direction of our regional directors general, but we have national programs, as I've explained earlier, and we manage from a national point of view.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: My question was, who's in charge of the coast guard?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: Who's in charge of the coast guard? The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: But who's the bureaucrat in charge?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: It's the Commissioner of the Coast Guard, who answers to me and the deputy minister. We in turn answer to the minister.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: So you have authority over the coast guard.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: Yes, I have authority over the coast guard.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: The recommendations of the Auditor General have been accepted, so if we have a hearing in 12 months time, the responsibility--and I want to get this absolutely clear--to correct the problems is yours?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: Of course.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: There's one thing I'm totally confused about. You mentioned that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is in charge, but when I speak to people in DFO, they don't seem to have anything to do with the coast guard. It's like an uncle with a drinking problem they don't want to talk about. Has that relationship ever meshed?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: I'm surprised that senior people in the Maritimes region would treat the coast guard like that.

º  (1615)  

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: I'm exaggerating a bit, but there doesn't seem to be--

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: In my dealings with them, they are very jealous of their responsibilities over the coast guard. For example, when I visit regions, and I did that one--

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: No, let me clarify this. The area manager for Fisheries I don't think has any responsibilities over the coast guard. Does the regional director have control over the coast guard? He's got no control over them. This is the point I'm trying to make.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: Ursula, you probably can help me on that.

    Mrs. Ursula Menke: There is a regional organization there, and there are six regions for DFO. For the coast guard, however, there are only five. In particular, there is no coast guard region for the region you're talking about. The coast guard serves the Maritimes area out of two coast guard regions, the one in Newfoundland and the one in the Maritimes, but we do not have, like the rest of DFO, another region there, the gulf region. We don't have a coast guard base operating there. That doesn't mean they're not getting service, it just means that they're not getting it out of a gulf region.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: To follow the line of command, the people in Charlottetown answer to the people in Dartmouth, who answer to the people in Ottawa.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: That's right.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: And nobody answers to the government.

    Mrs. Ursula Menke: We don't have an operation out of the gulf. The gulf answers to Ottawa, but not for the coast guard.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: The gulf region has every one of the Fisheries and Oceans programs with the exception of the coast guard. The coast guard reports in that region to the Maritimes region. But they report to somebody.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: My own sense is that when the coast guard was transferred from Transport to DFO, it really wasn't done that well. Do you agree with me?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: Well, yes and no. Let me explain why I say that.

    What I hear a lot is that because of the transfer to DFO, funds were siphoned off the coast guard to DFO. That is not the case. I've looked at the facts. In 1995, when that transfer happened, it was immediately after a program review. In program review there was a decision to reduce the budget of the coast guard by a significant amount of money, close to 30%. But immediately afterwards--and I insist, immediately after--the coast guard was transferred from Transport Canada to DFO, and the perception by a lot of people on the line was that of course, DFO siphoned off the money. Well, I'm sorry, that's not the case. If the coast guard had stayed with Transport Canada, the reduction in budget would have happened anyway, because it was decided before.

    Second, there is a different culture among the coast guard employees from that of the rest of Fisheries and Oceans, I agree with that. There is difficulty in integrating the two organizations. Problems today are much fewer than before, but we do still have some problems of integration.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: This additional money allocated yesterday in the budget it's my understanding is all capital and really won't help to handle the management issues.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: It will certainly help in repairing older vessels, in replacing some of them, in beefing up the infrastructure on the ground. That will go a long way, in my opinion, towards improving the morale of the people of the coast guard. As far as management is concerned, it's up to us to put in place the system to manage it rigorously. I think we have the system in place now. It's up to us to follow through and do it, definitely. It's not a question of money, it's a question of managerial organization. I am confident that we have that in place now.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield): Thank you, Mr. Murphy.

    Mr. Stoffer, eight minutes.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, all, very much for coming.

    The Auditor General suggested we ask you, sir, for an action plan. So allow me to ask. On page 10, paragraph 17, you say one “will be prepared”. You didn't say when.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: We are preparing one right now. My colleague Ursula has come equipped to outline to you what the action plan that is being developed contains right now.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Sir, I'd just like to know when. You must have a date for when this is to be completed.

º  (1620)  

    Mrs. Ursula Menke: Well, this year.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: This year. Thank you.

    Mr. Bouchard, I couldn't quite believe what I just heard from you. You said to Mr. Desrochers, we have what we need to manage the coast guard. Those are your words. You also said, we have the personnel we need. You also said, when coast guard went from Transport to DFO, about the diversion of money, “In 1998 I asked the acting director, Mr. Turner, and he specifically told us in committee that $200 million was diverted from coast guard into DFO.” You just said, we have what we need to manage the coast guard, but when we were out in Vancouver on the MTCS report with the DFO committee, Mike Henderson, one of the coast guard people there, when I asked him point blank whether he had the resources he needed to do the job, said money was not a problem. That's exactly what he said. Then we went out into the field and heard every single person completely condemn him.

    So on page 21 of our report, a unanimous report, we said:

It's not clear whether senior management is in denial or simply doesn't appreciate the depth of the problems caused by chronic underfunding, while senior Canadian Coast Guard management in Ottawa acknowledge the shortfall.

So in one meeting we hear, we acknowledge the shortfall, and you don't acknowledge the shortfall.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield): Mr. Stoffer, are you referring to the Fisheries and Oceans standing committee report?

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, sir.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield:

    Thank you.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: I have an awful lot of coast guard people in my riding, and I spoke to them yesterday about the budget that came down. They are extremely ticked off at the minister and this federal government for the chronic.... Morale will not go up, it will go down. In fact, an awful lot of people may just leave the coast guard. I simply cannot sit here and accept what you said, that you have what you need to manage the coast guard. When we were in Newfoundland, I asked the manager up there of the coast guard how many ships were patrolling the water of Newfoundland and Labrador right then, and he said, one. “Where is it?” “It's in the harbour.”

    You said in your report you've protected Canada's environment from the effects of pollution, but every single year thousands and thousands of shore birds show up on the shores of Newfoundland and Labrador with pollution on them, and we have no idea where it came from.

    I simply cannot buy your estimate, sir. I don't mean this on a personal note, but either the senior management here in Ottawa simply do not appreciate or understand the concerns of the regions of the coast guard or you're simply in denial. I'd like you to respond to that.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: You've made a lot of comments and asked a lot of questions. I'll do my best. I'll ask Ursula to help me if I need to.

    On the $200 million, the facts are absolutely clear and can be verified. Whoever told you the money was siphoned off from DFO, I'm sorry, those are not the facts. The $200 million, the 30%, was cut before the transfer from Transport Canada to DFO. I cannot accept what many people in the coast guard believe today, that the money was siphoned off from DFO, because the facts are contrary to that.

    You're referring to the report from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I want the committee to know we are preparing our response to that.

    You are quoting me as saying we have the resources to manage it. I think we have the resources to manage the coast guard. Will it be managed in such a way that there will never be any oily birds showing up on the shores of Newfoundland? No, even if we had, in my opinion, hundreds of millions of dollars more. We are doing some surveillance over the waters off Newfoundland to try to establish who's doing that. We catch quite a few people, but not as many as we want.

    I'm not in denial. We understand very well the challenges of the coast guard, but I think we have the resources to manage it. Frankly, the injection of capital of yesterday is going to go a long way. I understand that employees of the coast guard in a lot of cases are very frustrated and think $47.3 million is just a little bit, but that's not my assessment. Am I in denial? No, I'm not in denial.

    Ursula.

º  (1625)  

    Mrs. Ursula Menke: Technology changes, that's one of the things we're seeing. When people say there aren't as many ships steaming, that's true, but because we do things in other ways. For example, specifically with respect to the oil pollution, we're spending a lot more doing air surveillance. We're developing better equipment to identify it better. We're doing some work right now with respect to satellites, to do that more effectively. So it's more a question of doing things differently, and that's what people aren't necessarily seeing on the ground.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: The pride and joy of the coast guard is the Louis S. St Laurent, is that correct? It's over 35 years old.

    Mrs. Ursula Menke: But it had a complete mid-life refit.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: True. How much would it cost to just replace that one vessel, which has been asked for by many people within the coast guard?

    Mrs. Ursula Menke: It would be a significant amount of money, but I couldn't give you a figure.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: A lot more than $95 million.

    Mrs. Ursula Menke: Yes, I would guess so.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: My point, of course, is that we've heard many coast guard officials state that at least a half a billion dollars would be required over a three-year program to seriously fix what we call in the military a rust-out, the ships that need to be replaced, literally everything else.This $95 million I know isn't your doing, it comes from the finance department. You don't have any control over the money you receive, and I appreciate that. But the fact is, I don't believe you have the resources now to do the job effectively. This is not according to coast guard union officials, but also to your management people in the regions. They were very open and very frank with us, saying, we simply don't have the resources to do our job effectively. This is what they say in the regions. Ship replacement, of course, would be very expensive. I know my colleague Gerald Keddy would appreciate a shipbuilding policy in Atlantic Canada. There's no question that more capital investment is required in the coast guard to replace the ships and other facilities that are required. Do you concur with that?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: If we wanted to replace the Louis S. St Laurent, for example, yes, we would need more capital. We haven't finished working on managing the coast guard, and I am hopeful that down the road we will be able to find ways of replacing the Louis S. St Laurent or doing something different. I don't know.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield): Thank you, Mr. Bouchard.

    Before Mr. Keddy begins, I'd like to ask Ms. Menke about the action plan in preparation. As soon as that's prepared, could you provide a copy to the public accounts committee, please?

    Mrs. Ursula Menke: Absolutely. That was our intention.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield): Thank you very much.

    Mr. Keddy.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to our witnesses.

    My understanding of the facts has, after listening to the discussion here, been blurred. It's my understanding that when the coast guard came out of Transport Canada into DFO, they didn't bring any budget with them.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: I didn't say that, I said their budget had been reduced by about 30% as a result of program review.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: So they came with the reduced budget, but they did have some budget. How much budget did they have?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: We could provide you with that answer. I wouldn't want to guess.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: That would be fine, I'd appreciate that.

    To take Peter's line of questioning on the chronic underfunding, Mr. Bouchard, you've been trying to defend the position DFO has taken, I appreciate that, but it's certainly my understanding that we have a number of coast guard vessels that get pulled out in the fall, not because they're not seaworthy, not because of winter ice conditions, but because there's no budget for those vessels to operate. We also have a rampant and continuing occurrence of part-time help on coast guard vessels. The majority of coast guard employees are not full-time employees and don't get paid full-time benefits. They are part-time employees and get paid part-time benefits. I can give you names of individuals who have been pulled off boats after they've reached so many days at sea and so many days in total during the year, because if they went over that period, they would become full-time.

º  (1630)  

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: I'll make a couple of points, and then I'll ask Ursula to answer specifically the point about the part-time employees.

    As to the replacement of vessels, definitely some of them need to be replaced.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: Excuse me, I wasn't suggesting they needed to be replaced. I'm saying you have seaworthy vessels that are pulled up now.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: We in DFO have had significant problems with the alignment of our resources and our mandates, and we launched a few months ago what we call a departmental assessment and realignment project. We want to have a look at everything we have and rationalize where we're going to put our resources. In some cases, particularly towards the end of the fiscal year, budgets become very tight, but it's our job to manage and to forecast those ahead of time.

    As to personnel, I would need to defer to Ursula.

    Mrs. Ursula Menke: When we pull out vessels, it's not necessarily because there's no money. There is a reality about the schedule and the type of work we do such that they only work part-time. When you're doing buoy tending, you tend to do it at the beginning and end of the season. So there's a natural ebb and flow to the amount of time we need our vessels.

    As far as our employees are concerned, the majority are not part-time. Most of our employees are full-time indeterminate. We do manage also with term employees and with casuals, because that's the nature of our work as well. We do have seasonal work, and we do use casuals for that, but we're trying very hard to avoid that as much as possible.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: I appreciate that answer. As a point of clarification, I would ask you to supply for the committee a list of your employees and how many are part-time, this year in particular.

    Again, for clarification, the question was raised already about the tragedy in British Columbia and the fact that the dive team were on site and were not able to dive. It is my understanding that it was more of a mix-up in orders, as they were actually waiting for permission to dive, and I want clarification on it. I would think just about any group of professionals in Canada--and I'm using the word professionals to mean police officers, fire fighters--have to make any emergency decisions on site at the emergency. Wouldn't it make sense for the coast guard to do exactly the same thing, so they wouldn't be waiting for word from someone else's office, but would make that decision? They're the best qualified to make it, and they're already on site.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: I'll ask Ursula to answer. We've spent quite a bit of time recently on that.

    Mrs. Ursula Menke: We had 2 divers on site. They didn't wait for permission to dive. They got there roughly 19 minutes after the call was made. Within about five minutes they were in the water. You have to understand that in this particular situation there's an awful lot of preparatory work before anything further can be done. They did not try to penetrate, because they basically ran out of air before they were able to go any further. They did manage to pull one person out, and they tried to resuscitate that person, unsuccessfully unfortunately. They were very busy. They were at the time an open-water diving team, and they did their jobs appropriately.

º  (1635)  

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: I wasn't suggesting they didn't.

    Mrs. Ursula Menke: The minister has announced a new policy. The policy has been changed now. In fact, there never was an issue about having to go somewhere else for permission, but now they will be doing the assessment of whether or not they should enter, because that's the first thing that always has to happen. What is the actual situation? What is the risk? Diving is extremely risky. It's done very rarely. We're the only coast guard in the world that does rescue diving. Nobody else does it, because it's so risky. The chance of actually rescuing is limited.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: To change direction, electronic navigation has certainly changed the role of the coast guard. It is widely accepted by people who use the waterways, especially fishermen. GPS is used by every fisherman who sets a net or a trap. However, there is a difference between using electronic navigational equipment and taking away a foghorn or a bell on a reef. There's a huge difference in taking the light out of the lighthouse and depending on your electronic navigational equipment. It automatically assumes your electronic navigational equipment will always work. It works 99% of the time, but it doesn't always work. Is there a plan for a certain amount of backup all along the coast? We have huge coastlines on both the east and the west.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: We always consult people before we remove a navigational aid. Can we have backup so that absolutely everything will work all the time? The answer is probably no. On the foghorn, the jury is out. You speak to different mariners and they have a different point of view on the foghorns. I was part of a discussion on that. Many mariners will tell you they can hear it, but they don't know from which direction it's coming when it's very foggy. Others say they rely on it. So there's an ongoing discussion on that.

    Ursula.

    Mrs. Ursula Menke: What you have to understand is that we assess our navigational aids on a regular basis, and we have a lot of navigational aids out there, around 18,000. We assess them regularly to ensure that they're still appropriate. As we said, the discussion with foghorns is a case in point. There are different points of view.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield): Thank you very much, Ms. Menke.

    In the second round, we'll give each of you four minutes.

    Ms. Meredith.

    Ms. Val Meredith: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I want to go back to something you said, Mr. Bouchard, that you have partners in and around the coastal areas that assist you. Who are they, and do you have a formal arrangement with the United States to provide coast guard services on the west coast?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: I'll ask Mrs. Menke to answer that.

    Mrs. Ursula Menke: We have several levels of partners. As you know, in search and rescue cases National Defence is very much a partner. They, in fact, are in overall charge of the national program. In addition to that, we have the coast guard auxiliary, more than 5,000 people all across the country helping us out. And not the least important are boats of opportunity. There's a very significant partnership with respect to search and rescue, for example, at all levels. Occasionally, we have municipal partners as well. So there's that kind of partnership going on regularly.

    With respect to the U.S. and Canada, we help each other out. On the west coast in particular, where it happens more frequently than on the east coast, we have an agreement that's been in place for some close to 30 years with respect to vessel traffic services, for example. We certainly spell each other as vessels of opportunity with respect to search and rescue also. It works both ways.

º  (1640)  

    Ms. Val Meredith: With the new security parameters being put in place after September 11, has the relationship with the U.S. Coast Guard in providing marine security changed, or has it been addressed at all?

    Mrs. Ursula Menke: Our role with respect to security is quite different from the U.S. Coast Guard's role. The U.S. Coast Guard has a primary role with respect to security on their coasts, we don't. We're very much a support provider with respect to security. We primarily provide platforms and information with respect to security. The primary suppliers of security would be National Defence.

    Ms. Val Meredith: How many active vessels do you have on the west coast that would be providing support service, and how many vessels does the navy have on the west coast for providing marine security?

    Mrs. Ursula Menke: I can't supply you with those numbers with respect to the navy at all, I'm afraid, but we can get you our numbers.

    Ms. Val Meredith: Could you please provide the committee with not only the number of vessels that are active on the west coast, but perhaps on all the coasts, and the percentage of them on the waters at any given time?

    Mrs. Ursula Menke: I'll do my best to get you that information.

    Ms. Val Meredith: Thank you.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield): Mr. Desrochers, four minutes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Bouchard, the St. Lawrence flows through my riding. In 1997, a program was in place to help owners deal with the problem of shoreline erosion. This program no longer exists. I'm told that the vessels using the waterway are now larger and travel at higher speeds and that the environmental effects of this traffic on shorelines is becoming increasingly noticeable. As part of the reorganization process to ensure the safety and efficiency of marine navigation, do you think a program should be introduced or assistance provided to persons who deal with this problem on a regular basis?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: First of all, as we discussed prior to the committee meeting, vessel speed and size is a matter under Transport Canada's jurisdiction. This is not the responsibility of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

    Secondly, in so far as bank erosion is concerned, perhaps someone has an answer to that question, but my colleagues and I do not feel that this is DFO's responsibility. I would even say that I'm 99.9 per cent certain of that. However, I could try and find out who is responsible for the issue of bank erosion.

    Mr. Jacques Lorquet (Director, Navigation Systems, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I admit that the Coast Guard did have a program in place, but it was terminated since this wasn't really something under Coast Guard jurisdiction. I will say, however, that the Coast Guard does have a role to play. It's involved in St. Lawrence Vision 2000, along with group of environmentalists and industry people. Just over a year ago, a decision was reached and the shipping industry voluntarily agreed to reduce vessel speed in order to preserve the shoreline. The Coast Guard continues to be interested in this issue, but there is no longer any funding available for this kind of program.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: However, the need hasn't disappeared, Mr. Lorquet. It's all well and good that the Coast Guard took action to address the problem and that vessels navigating on the St. Lawrence reduced their speed. I too have taken some steps after witnessing a near catastrophe one afternoon. A boat was travelling at high speed in a small marina and had some of the volunteers on site not moved quickly, the consequences could have been far more serious.

    The program was terminated in 1997. I understand that it came under your department's jurisdiction. However, the need hasn't gone away and at stake is the value of our river banks and the value of the St. Lawrence itself. Do you know if this program could be reinstated or reintroduced in some other format? Should we be knocking on someone else's door? I'm often asked the question when I talk to people who reside along the shore of the river -- and a long stretch of the river flows through my riding , from Saint-Antoine-de-Tilly to Saint-Pierre-les Becquets. A total of seven municipalities are affected by the problem.

º  (1645)  

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: Right now, we have no plans to reinstate this program, as you may have guessed from my answer. The matter was not brought to my attention before today's meeting. Given DFO's wide ranging aims and responsibilities and available resources, I have to say that quite frankly, this isn't likely to be one of our priorities.

    As for the speed of the boats, again, this area is regulated by Transport Canada. Unfortunately, it's not up to DFO or to the Coast Guard to police the St. Lawrence Seaway.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: All I can say is that...

[English]

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield): Mr. Desrochers, your time is up.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Really? You can't be serious, Mr. Mayfield? Already?

[English]

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield): Yes.

    Mr. Finlay, four minutes.

    Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I have a few questions that may seem a little niggling compared to some of the others, but this is my first time through this.

    You said the industry considered your fees out of line, fees for service, I presume. Have they been checked with other maritime countries, like the U.S., Japan, or wherever else these services would be? Is it just the user trying to knock us down on the price, or have we not done enough research on it?

    Mrs. Ursula Menke: I think it's fair to say every country has its own regime on these kinds of things. We have done some work on it, but it's all over the place. We are unique with respect to one part of it: ice-breaking is more of a problem in Canada than in most other countries, it would appear. So the regime we have in place doesn't necessarily compare easily to other places.

    Mr. John Finlay: Thank you.

    You mentioned that most of the lighthouses--I have down 262--are automated. There are some that still have staff, but the lights are automated. What are the reasons for staff in those particular lighthouses? Is it heritage? Is it also a tourist attraction?

    Mrs. Ursula Menke: Actually, we were in the process, as I said earlier, of de-staffing all our light stations. There was a decision of the government in 1998 to stop the de-staffing temporarily. We are going to be reporting to the government at the end of this year with respect to that issue, and we'll see what happens from there.

    Mr. John Finlay: I don't think it's a big item, but since you've done it with so many, you must have facts to go on.

    Mrs. Ursula Menke: I think it's fair to say we haven't noticed the loss of lightkeepers affecting safety.

    Mr. John Finlay: I suspected that. It's more emotional than factual.

    The other thing I wanted to comment on is on page 4:

The Canadian Coast Guard operates within the national and international domain, has many clients with differing navigation abilities and needs, supports the most extensive coastline of the world in one of the most varied and harshest climates, and does all this in an era of unprecedented technological change

I think that says a mouthful. We may have to airlift an ice-breaker into the heart of Quebec to smash up some of the ice that's been there. Surely the technological change, however, is an ally in doing the job right and taking away some of these problems and dangers. Am I right in that?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: You are absolutely right. One example that comes to mind is our ability now to know, through satellite detection, the thickness of ice and that sort of thing. It's helpful. You don't have to go there and start breaking to realize what kind of problem you have. There are many other examples I am probably not qualified to give you, but technical advances are making our job, in one sense, easier, in other cases, much more complicated.

    Mr. John Finlay: Exactly.

    I go back to something Mr. Murphy was talking about, and I was confused, I'm sure. I understand there are five regional areas. Can you name them for me? I would guess the west coast. You said there were two on the east coast. There is Newfoundland and Labrador.

º  (1650)  

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: Newfoundland and Labrador, Maritimes region, Quebec, the gulf region, which is New Brunswick, part of Cape Breton, and P.E.I., and central and Arctic, which is everything between the Quebec border and B.C.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield): Thank you very much, Mr. Finlay.

    Mr. Stoffer, four minutes.

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

    Madam Fraser, when you folks were on the west coast discussing the MTCS and issues of the coast guard, were you able to speak to American officials in that regard?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: I will ask Mr. O'Brien to answer that question.

    Mr. John O'Brien: Yes, we did.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Is it possible to give a brief overview of what conversations took place? Because on page 4 of our report we show that they gave quite a damning view of the Canadian Coast Guard in respect of manpower and resources.

    Mr. John O'Brien: I have to stretch back, but I think the U.S. Coast Guard had a very good working relationship with the Canadian Coast Guard. They shared information, they were quite impressed with the information technology. There were some discussions about resource constraints, but on the whole, the discussion was more along the lines of the excellent cooperation that existed between the two agencies.

    Do you have anything else?

    Mr. Kevin Potter (Director, Audit Operations Branch, Office of the Auditor General ): The other difference between our coast guard and the U.S. Coast Guard is that their staff rotate positions. Our staff are a lot more experienced at doing the work you're talking about with marine communications and traffic services.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: The reason I ask is that when we were in Seattle, we were talking with the officials, and they had great respect for the men and women of our Canadian Coast Guard and the interoperability and the coordination, but there was a joint session they have almost on a yearly basis, and the Canadian people had to leave two days early, because the budget ran out. They felt very sorry for what they called the financially weak cousins. That's exactly what happened.

    On page 4 of the MTCS report we did it says:

The Canadian Coast Guard was forced in August of 2002 to withdraw from the agreement to backstop each other's systems in the event of a systems failure because they lacked the training and equipment to fulfil their responsibility.

That is important, because in February 2002 a major system failure occurred as a result of an earthquake near Seattle, and because Canada was able to backstop that, we were able to avert a complete disaster of a 188,000 tonne oil tanker. Now we've pulled out of that agreement because we simply don't have the money or equipment or training to do that. When we spoke to officials of the coast guard of the U.S., they just shook their head and said, it is unbelievable that for the amount of money that would be required, Canada would have to pull out of this particular agreement.

    So my question is, have we got back into it?

    Mrs. Ursula Menke: We've had this ongoing agreement since the 1970s, as I said earlier. The specific agreement you're referring to was a back-up agreement, for backing up each other in the respective territories. In other words, we would help the Americans out in theirs. There was a U.S. outage, and our experience was that it was more difficult to help the Americans in their territory when they were out, because our coverage, of course, wasn't complete. We have complementary coverages, so that we don't all have everything duplicated. So it was a little difficult to do the work and back them up when they were out of service, because we didn't have complete coverage, we didn't have the local knowledge. We're still looking at doing that, because it's still a sensible thing to do, but the reason we backed out of it was lack of local knowledge, lack of complete coverage. They couldn't do it any more than we could. But we are trying to help each other and we are looking at ways of trying to do that. It has nothing to do with lack of resources.

º  (1655)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield): Thank you very much, Mr. Stoffer.

    Mr. Keddy.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    In the Auditor General's report she stated that the Office of Boating Safety estimates that about 1.6 million licensed recreational boaters fall into the category of motorized recreational vessels of less than four metres in length, but by the end of 2001 only 308,000 of those recreational boaters had been licensed, with cards showing that they're competent in the care and control of their motorized vessel. It's my understanding that these cards were to become mandatory by the end of 2002. What are we doing about the other 1.4 million people out there who don't have their cards issued?

    Mrs. Ursula Menke: We are looking at it. We have to find a solution to that problem, and it is a problem right now. We're not an enforcement agency, that's part of the issue, but we are looking at it, trying to find a sensible solution.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: I very much appreciate the fact that you're not an enforcement agency and it would be difficult to enforce even if you had all the resources to do it. But why make laws if we can't enforce them? The majority of the recreational boating community have been adamantly against this. Certainly, the small boat users in coastal Nova Scotia, who may not hold a full-time fishing licence, but have a motorized vessel of some sort, have been adamantly against this from the very moment it was mentioned. Yet we've got it, it's law, and they're breaking the law, they're in non-compliance, and could be arrested.

    Mrs. Ursula Menke: I think you have to understand that this was motivated by an issue regarding boating safety, and clearly, that is the focus of the regulation. There is quite clearly a problem, and we will have to address that issue.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: If I could make a suggestion, you should take a look at the issue of boater safety when you're involving motorized watercraft, especially Sea-Doos and power boats, with the situations that have arisen in the inland waterways, because it's a serious problem. I don't think the risk is as great where the majority of boats are and people are better trained to use them. Maybe I'm wrong there, but that does seem to be part of the mix. You'll never convince anyone on the east coast that they need this licence because somebody in Ontario was involved in a boating accident on the Great Lakes. That doesn't make it right, but that's certainly the perception.

    The other issue here I really think we need to deal with, especially when these folks are here, is the whole question of the Navigable Waters Act. The Auditor General has really put her finger on it. It's become the forum to settle disputes that really have little or nothing to do with navigable waters, for instance, with the aquaculture permits. There's a huge backlog, there's no money dedicated to the system to get rid of this backlog. I just don't see that moving tomorrow, I see the backlog actually increasing. We have more and more people living along the coast, especially in eastern Canada and British Columbia, or anywhere where there's coast, quite frankly. Those people don't necessarily have the same views and opinions as people who have depended on the fishery all their life or on making a living from the ocean. I never heard the word viewscape 10 years ago. Now, all of a sudden, buoys are in your viewscape.

    Mrs. Ursula Menke: We are looking at the policy framework that underlines that act, with a view, in the not too distant future, to having the minister come forward with a piece of legislation amending it. The act is sadly out of date.

»  (1700)  

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: We're also cross-delivering two of our projects in some places, fish habitats and navigable waters. We try to have one employee dealing with the two, instead of having those two programs, with great difficulty in some places, with more success in others. We have five pilots going, and in my opinion, that's going to be the way to do it in the future.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield): Thank you very much.

    Mr. Tirabassi.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): This has been very good for me, because my riding is in the Niagara Peninsula,. I have the Welland Canal that comes through the Great Lakes connecting Lake Ontario to Lake Erie. How far inland-- because I need to learn more--does the coast guard come, down the St. Lawrence River, for example?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: We have the coast guard everywhere in the Great Lakes. We have the coast guard on Lake Winnipeg. We have coast guard stations everywhere in the country where there are sizeable bodies of water.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: So from time to time, no doubt, I have seen the coast guard ships go right through the Welland Canal, for instance.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: And we have coast guard bases in the Northwest Territories.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Excellent.

    Some of the concerns I've heard expressed here this afternoon are with regard to accountability and who answers to who, and I'm asking this question again to learn. Has there been a shift over the years in the coast guard, as there has been with other departments, to farming out or contracting out certain services? Could you comment on that?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: Ursula can give examples.

    Mrs. Ursula Menke: The government as a whole is looking at delivery of services by public servants, as you well know. All through the country, with respect to navigational aids, we are very much looking at the opportunity to contract out some of that work. We have done some of it, and the work we have contracted out so far is actually done more quickly and more effectively than it is by us. When you have someone working in the location at home and they only have to go out a short distance to the harbour to put in or take out some navigational aids, it can be done earlier in the year and later in the year than when we have to go steaming up and down the coast to do it. So in those kinds of situations we have been contracting out, and it's been very effective.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: So it would be contracting out of not only personnel, but equipment. People would be contracted with their own boats.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: Contractors have come in with their equipment, yes.

    Mrs. Ursula Menke: They come with their equipment, but they're still using our buoys.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Okay.

    The Auditor General noted that it has not been determined whether relying on third parties to educate boaters--Mr. Keddy eluded to this--or for enforcement or compliance has been successful or not. Give me examples of where you work with third parties in this area. Who would the third parties be, and why do you work with the third parties?

    Mrs. Ursula Menke: We work largely with the coast guard auxiliary to provide the boating safety program, specifically going around--and we do some of this ourselves as well--to trade shows and things like that to enhance the profile of boating safety. The matter of licences is one of the things that comes up in those kinds of situations. We haven't measured the results, but from our perspective, the more the merrier. We're trying to get our message out there, so if we have more people to do it, at least it's getting out a bit further. How effective it is, that's a question.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: But you simply wouldn't have the resources in-house to reach out as broadly.

    Mrs. Ursula Menke: Exactly.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield): Thank you very much, Mr. Tirabassi.

    Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

    I wanted to ask our Fisheries and Oceans witnesses about their own research and planning capacity, perhaps looking at issues of right mission, partnering, or creating a more comprehensive service, strategically looking at maybe an RCMP coastal marine function, maybe a coastal military function. I'm trying to push the boundary of your thought there, because the budget clearly said yesterday they're going to look at up to $1 billion every year of reallocation. This is the old program review, but it's perhaps not as driven to balance a budget, rather asking the fundamental questions: why are we doing this, is this the best way to serve the public? So there's a commitment of the government to the country that they're going to continue to look at a variety of services, and maybe shaking up the whole mix in the box. I would think the kind of business you folks are in is going to be a prime target for that. Are you ready to supply answers yourselves or new visions before they might be done to you from the outside by someone else? The government says they're going to do it, so are you ready to offer some solutions arising from an internal research and strategic planning capacity? What are you doing in that regard? It might be in your own interest.

»  (1705)  

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: We started last year with the coast guard and our science sector a complete re-evaluation of our mandates, our resources, and how we do the job. Is there a better way of doing it? Can we find other partners? I think we've done quite a good job on that. We are now extending the departmental assessment and realignment to the whole department. We started that a couple of months ago. There will be no sacred cows. We want to look at everything and see how it can be done better, how we could do more more efficiently and more effectively.

    If you are asking me whether we have an opinion about a different role for the coast guard, we do. Have we done a lot of research on it? A bit. For example, a question that often comes to us is, why does the U.S. Coast Guard have a different role? Most Canadians don't understand that we have a different mandate from the U.S. Coast Guard. If you want to transform the Canadian Coast Guard into a U.S. Coast Guard with the same mandate, that would be quite a transformation. Do we have an opinion? Yes. Have we done in-depth research on this? No, because frankly, we have other challenges, like managing the coast guard within the limits of our actual mandates. But we're reviewing everything in this department. We will be at the forefront of the re-examination the government announced yesterday.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Well, I hope so. Certainly, those questions will be asked from the outside. I guess the major thing is that you can't manage what you don't measure.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: I agree.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: If you don't have good numbers on what it costs to do now, how can you provide a variety of decision options for cabinet? You are the experts in the field, you are in touch with what's going on around the world, as you compare yourselves with everybody else, and you should be providing very quickly some choice options for political decisions to be made by others; you outline all those scenarios and the numbers that go with them.

    Below that level, have you got a good capacity to recount what it costs to do what you're doing now and be able to project, if you're changing your mission, what the various contingencies would cost?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: We certainly don't have all the numbers or data we would like, and the Auditor General has pointed that out in her report. We are acquiring it, and we have a certain capacity of analysis, not as much refinement as we would like. We're trying to acquire it and to do it. Measuring is a very important word you mentioned. I certainly believe in measuring things and making sure we can determine whether we're doing our job as well as we think we are. We have put in place a framework, and we'll now have to follow through and make sure we actually do it.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield): Thank you very much, Mr. Forseth.

    I took this job with the proviso that I could ask a question or two, so it's my turn now.

    I've listened with great interest, and I must say I have some of the same concerns Mr. Stoffer had. I'm from the west, and I have some idea of how the coast guard operates in the west. I've been through their environmental response warehouse and seen the equipment, had the operation explained. I know something about search and rescue. I know the problems with the hovercraft, not only the old one, but the new one. I am concerned when I hear stories of what's happening, and then I hear you say the coast guard has everything it needs to manage it, all the personnel it needs,. That just doesn't square with what I understand to be the situation. I'm not questioning what you say, I suspect you are saying what you believe to be correct, but let me give you some examples of what I'm talking about.

    Coast guard environment does not have the resources to respond. There was an ethylene glycol spill during the fishing season last year in the Vancouver harbour, and there was no response by the coast guard, because they didn't have the means to do it at the time. I reported that to Fisheries. I am concerned that there is a 50-foot environmental boat tied up. That boat at one time was used as a standby for search and rescue, but it's not in mechanical condition to respond, they can't be sure it'll safely get into the mission and back home. Apparently, it would take about $300,000 to put in two new engines and to refit it so that it would be up to standards necessary for the task it has. In the meantime, while it is apparently on the books as operational, it's not in good enough shape to actually leave the dock. They're afraid to take it away.

    Furthermore, considering the agreement with the United States, it's my understanding that there is a necessity for the Americans and the Canadians to understand each other's operations, because they hand off traffic control from one to another on a regular basis, but at this time the Americans come to Canada to understand the Canadian system, but the Canadians don't have the resources to go down to the States to be trained in the American system. Further to that, I've recently heard of a course that was being offered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA. People from the west coast were invited to go down to the States for this. It was a free course. One person particularly wanted to go. He arranged his own transportation, but they couldn't find money for him to get a bed or cover the cost of his meals. So this opportunity was foregone for shortage of funds.

    So I'd like to take at face value what you say, but it concerns me when I hear the managers in the west saying to their subordinates, we don't have the money and you can't do this. We don't have the money to operate the system we have adequately. Can you comment on that, please?

»  (1710)  

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: I'll make a general comment on the financial situation of the B.C. regional office. In B.C. we certainly have a lack of correspondence between the mandates we define as having to be fulfilled and the resources we have available. You're absolutely right that there's a significant financial problem in the B.C. region. We have approved a plan to bring it back to financial stability, and that is under way. There are a number of causes. One is them is that a number of programs were sunsetted, came to an end, and you have employees who are doing those jobs, but there is a variety of other reasons. It applies to the whole region, not specifically to the coast guard.

    You gave the example of the glycol spill in the harbour at Vancouver. Frankly, I'm not aware of that, and I will ask my colleague Ursula to answer .

    You referred to a vessel that is not operational and needs refit. Every year we have a number of vessels scheduled for refit. Do we at all times have all our vessels operational, ready to steam? No. We will provide Ms. Meredith with an answer to her question on how many vessels we have everywhere in Canada and how many are operational.

    I didn't want to paint a rosy picture. This is a tough job. This is a complex organization. With the injection of new funds yesterday, we were very happy, because we needed that kind of money. I don't want to tell you it is easy, it isn't, but I honestly believe we have the resources and the people to the job and to do it well. Facts prove that, in my opinion. Do we have problems? We have lots of problems, like any complex organization.

»  (1715)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield): What would make me much happier, Mr. Bouchard, when Mr. Stoffer talks about what the manager said and compares it to what the people on the line have said, would be that you people were aware of the differences in those conversations.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: I am very aware of that.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield): Are you?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: I am.

»  (1720)  

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: Does that mean the people who are actually on the boats doing the search and rescue and are not responding to environmental spills? There's so much traffic there. I was really amazed, reading the standing committee report, that over half of the traffic in Canada is into the west coast. In Canada there are some 830,000, in the Pacific region there are almost 430,000. It's astounding. When I realize that the traffic system in Seattle and Victoria and Prince Rupert handles more traffic than all the east coast of North America and see the resources the west coast has, I wonder about the allocation of resources. It seems to be a big job on the west coast, and there is probably a shortage of resources for doing it.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: First, I am very aware of what the employees of the coast guard and other employees of DFO think. I made a point, and the deputy minister also has made a point, of visiting very regularly. I'm not one to shy away from listening to what they have to say and from pushing back sometimes to better explain the bigger picture. I don't think we've done a good enough job of discussing with our employees the big picture, what it is we're trying to manage with the resources we have. So that's one thing we need to correct.

    When you talk about the size of the task at hand in B.C., this is our biggest region in terms of employees and money. Is it big enough? I really don't know, and the departmental assessment and realignment will look at that. We will look at our management model. The Auditor General is referring to five coast guards. We have done a lot of work making sure we manage the coast guard nationally, but at the same time, I've worked in departments where everything is managed from Ottawa, and frankly, there are problems with that model also. We will look at the model, we are looking at resources, we're looking at allocations, but with all due respect, we're working toward one coast guard. I am not convinced personally that the solution is to have one coast guard managed from Ottawa. I have seen departments that are managed from Ottawa, and people on the ground are sometimes not very happy with that model.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield): My own understanding is that the link needs to be more firmly established between Victoria and Seattle, rather than Victoria and Ottawa. That's where the real business is done.

    The next question I ask you requires a yes or a no answer. Are you aware how many of your employees in the west measure the amount of overtime in years?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard: No, but we have that information.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield): My final question is right out of the Auditor General's report and concerns fatality statistics. I see in the 2001 performance report a drastic drop in the number of fatalities from 1991 to 2000, but I look at the Auditor General's report for the same period, and the drop is really quite small. Can you account for the variation in those statistics?

    Mrs. Ursula Menke: There is actually no variation in the statistics. The Auditor General pointed out to us, quite correctly, that the way we had prepared our graph was misleading, not that the statistics were incorrect. We started on the Y axis with a base of 150 instead of zero. So if you look to the way the Auditor General says we should have represented it correctly, we start with a base of zero again. That changes the slope, but the numbers are the same.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: The numbers do work out to be the same.

    Mrs. Ursula Menke: They are the same.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield): Mrs. Fraser, why was the graph put in this way? Do you have an explanation for that?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: That is up to the department. I think that's up to the department to answer.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield): As I say, I found the report of the standing committee on the coast guard extremely interesting. I hope those who are responsible for the coast guard will take this hard work by the committee into consideration. I look forward to discussing our meeting here with the committee a bit later.

    Are there any other questions?

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: I don't have questions, but I'd like to advise the committee on a motion for the future.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield): Just a moment, Mr. Stoffer.

    Mrs. Fraser, you have been very quiet throughout this meeting, but I'm looking forward very much to your concluding comments, if you would give them to us.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I'd like to thank you and the committee for the hearing today. We were quiet, but it was very interesting for us as well.

    We raised several issues in our report. We are pleased with the response of the department. They have agreed with our recommendations and have certainly indicated a commitment to act on them. We look forward also to the action plan and implementation of the action plan in response to the recommendations. As is our custom, we will be coming back in the future, at some appropriate moment, to do a follow-up audit. We will probably include this audit, as well as the previous one we did on fleet management, and combine the two to give a more comprehensive follow-up to those at a time we will look at with the department that we think is a reasonable time to judge progress, because there are many issues that have to be addressed.

    Thank you.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Philip Mayfield): Thank you, Mrs. Fraser.

    In conclusion, I want to thank all the witnesses for coming. This is a very interesting subject for all of us, relating to the safety of those who use the water, relating also to our ability to conduct commerce, the number of ships that come to and leave from our shores. The ability to do that safely is extremely important. So this is all very interesting to us.

    I want to thank all of those who took part in asking the questions, and I thank you for your confidence in having me sit here today.

    Before we leave, Mr. Stoffer has given us a notice of motion that will be dealt with at a future meeting.

    If there's no other business, the meeting is adjourned.