[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, March 18, 1997
.0909 
[English]
The Chairman (Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order.
I'd like to welcome this morning Mr. David B. Watters, the new commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard.
Welcome, Mr. Watters. I imagine we'll be seeing you occasionally in the future.
Please start off today by giving us your background and talking about where you see the Coast Guard being now and where you'd like to take it in various relationships, with the integration with Fisheries and Oceans. Then we'll open the meeting to round table questions.
Commissioner David B. Watters (Canadian Coast Guard): Thank you very much,Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to have a chance to meet you early on in the new job I started. I began just in January of this year.
.0910
My background is in the Public Service of Canada. Going back to 1972, I've worked in a number of departments: the Canadian International Development Agency; Treasury Board; and Energy, Mines and Resources. I've also worked more recently in Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada; I was assistant deputy minister of the consumer programs in that department.
Then for three years I was in a position in the Department of Finance and in the Treasury Board. This particular position had responsibility for overseeing and advising ministers on crown corporations - the 48 major crown corporations the federal government has - and also on privatization and commercialization issues. I was involved in assisting the government in the privatization of Canadian National and in several other initiatives, such as the transition that was made to the structure of the Air Navigation Service.
More recently in Treasury Board, for about the last year, I was involved in developing some proposals on alternative service delivery that the Treasury Board is working on with a variety of departments. So I have line and staff experience and policy and operational experience in my particular background in the federal government.
Since assuming my new responsibility in early January as commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard and the assistant deputy minister for marine services, I've tried to get out and visit each of the regions. I was advised - and it was good advice - to try to get on board the ships and talk to as many people who are providing services to Canadians as I could, to get a sense of how they feel about the organization and the challenges it's facing. I've alternated one week in Ottawa and one week getting out to each of these regions. I've completed four of the regions so far.
In terms of the challenges the Coast Guard faces, I would summarize them as three major ones that I can see right now, from my perspective.
The first is dealing with the merger itself. The Coast Guard has been part of a culture in the Department of Transport, quite a strong culture. It has been taken out of that and is now being merged with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. This creates some challenges in preserving the positive features of the Coast Guard and the very professional approach it takes towards resolving issues, but also making it a little more flexible and a little more businesslike in a number of its operations.
The fleet merger has been a key component of the overall merger. My sense is that seems to be going reasonably well. There still is a lot of work to do, but we have fully integrated ships now, in terms of having Fisheries officers on board, the single platforms we now have, and the multitasking of those platforms. A variety of issues still have to be worked out in terms of that multitasking to ensure that everyone's program, from a program point of view, is able to get sufficient access to the fleet.
The second major challenge I see is the whole issue of downsizing in the Coast Guard. We're still on a four-year plan and making progress there. This involves downsizing both in terms of employees and also in terms of a number of our operations. We want to do this without sacrificing the safety of the services we're providing, and we think this can be done.
The third area of significant challenge that I see is really the new governance structures that we seem to be developing inside the Coast Guard in relation to a number of our services. These focus on the regional advisory boards that have been created, focusing initially on the marine service fees, and then also the national advisory board. In addition there are advisory boards on recreational boating.
.0915
In opening up these programs, there are difficulties in explaining how the programs operate. There are also particular challenges in the costing of government programs, which are accounted for in a different way from private sector programs. We have private sector people looking at these programs and quite interested in them and how the costing is done, so that's a challenge.
One of the concerns I have is to ensure that those advisory committees are operating in a more businesslike way, and there's a lot of room for improvement. The responsibility is ours to make sure we can make progress in those areas. I would also like to make them a little more strategic in their orientation - in other words, to form real partnerships with the advisory boards and get them working with us to identify other areas for cost reduction and other areas for potentially outsourcing or for alternate service delivery. I'd like to have them advise us on some of the areas where we might be able to introduce new technology a little more quickly than perhaps we had done in the past, and to really work with us in trying to make the Coast Guard programs better.
In summary, those three areas - the merger, the downsizing, and the new governance structures that are emerging - are the three key challenges I can see.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Bernier would like to lead off with some questions.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): First, I would like to welcome the new commissioner.
I'll go straight to the point. You were talking about the amalgamation of services, but I am always a bit concerned when I hear talk about rationalization and a new structure without a plan being presented and without people knowing what direction they are headed in. I have been waiting a long time. I hope that in the course of our next meetings, we will have those plans on the table.
What is the status of the famous socioeconomic impact study concerning the introduction of the new fee structure for coast guard services, such as aids to navigation, deicing and dredging? When you have those answers and some knowledge of the impacts, you can then look at how you might rationalize. You can determine whether you can work cooperatively with the industry. Should certain activities be privatized? How would the industry like to see things done?
I think you are going to have to look at these things if you want to attain the government's financial objectives. Be that as it may, I don't think that that approach will solve the problems the coast guard is facing. I must say that even though those are the challenges you must meet, they're really administrative challenges. I should warn you that if you do not ask for clear direction from the minister with regard to the definition of services, all of the administrative work you will do will have to be done over again in a year or two. That concludes my first question.
Commr Watters: I consider that study to be an essential document. It was prepared with a very specific objective in mind: it is a study of service fees, which amount to some 60 or $75 million. I believe the study will be distributed this week, although I do not know the specific date of its release.
This study is very important since it shows the real impact of all of these new fees and tariffs which the government is adding on. We must have some sense of the overall impact; that is to say whenever the government imposes new fees we must have a sense of the overall impact of those fees. In that sense, the study is very important and we should be able to carry out the same kind of studies in the future; this is very important, in my opinion.
.0920
You suggested that we needed specific direction with regard to the level of services for all of the coast guard programs, such as deicing, dredging and aids to navigation. I believe you are right.
I intend to work very hard with the regional advisory councils and the national group to improve our understanding of service levels. We have already worked very hard with the Maritime Seacoast Advisory Board, and we are going to have to continue that work throughout the country. I spoke with the advisory group for the Laurentian regions and we agree that this is where we should begin to work harder.
You also mentioned the administrative costs of the coast guard. We have also worked harder with our regional and national members in this regard in order to find ways of reducing costs and to examine the possibility of marketing and outsourcing in those sectors. I have raised those points with the national group and I am about to look at all of this in a broader perspective. We have had a certain number of specific proposals, but I prefer to adopt an overall perspective to carry out the study and work with the regional and national groups.
Mr. Yvan Bernier: If I might go a bit further, in pursuing your three objectives, you are about to undertake rationalizations which include staff reductions and service reductions, which are administrative measures. You do not yet have an image of what the coast guard will become or what it should be, a vision which you could formulate with the help of your impact study on socioeconomic costs. To what extent can we impose fees on the industry? What services can the private sector provide and what services will continue to be provided by the government? After looking at those factors, you will be in a position to undertake rationalization or necessary budget cuts.
As long as we don't have a clear picture of the situation, as long as we don't know how much the industry can pay and what services will have to continue to be paid, this is just a paper rationalization. There will be frictions and no one will agree on the objectives to be pursued.
You tell me that the study is supposed to be released this week, Thursday according to press releases. I have two questions. Will new fees be imposed this year or is it too late to do that since the study is only being tabled now?
Secondly, how do you intend to work in co-operation with industry? You will have to obtain feedback, see whether it understands the study and see what the industry can do and what the coast guard can do, since there will be a reorganization. I think you must first of all agree on the definition of the problem and the definition of the solutions; the bills will follow.
I believe the directives come from on high, from the Department of Finance which decided there had to be cuts of some 20%, and now people are having to justify this 20% reduction. Personally, I think we should approach things from another angle and try to determine the best service the coast guard can offer together with industry; then we can look at the costs.
.0925
Commr Watters: I will begin with the second question, the one about the feedback from the Department of Industry. The Department of Industry was involved in the study right from the beginning, and took part in drawing up the terms of reference. We also had discussions with the department and the people who did the work. Thus, the Department of Industry really participated in the study as it progressed.
I know that the study probably has some weak points, but over-all, it is quite well done. As I said, it is quite a good basic document. However, to use it, if I understand your second question, we have to determine the impact of all the new fees on the industry, and we must be very cautious in this regard.
The coast guard has an objective which is to ensure the security of the seaway systems for people and for the environment. In light of those two principles, we have to consider the pros and cons.
It would probably be naive to expect that in this process we will reach a fair balance right from the outset. It may take some time. This process which consists in
[English]
open the books, to discuss with them what the programs are, levels of service, cost production, and so on,
[Translation]
is new for everyone.
We've had a lot of discussions about the
[English]
systems of accounting in government.
[Translation]
I think we have made quite a bit of progress. Both parties, I believe, understand the difficulties and we are going to have to try to resolve them in the coming months.
Mr. Yvan Bernier: I would like to ask a question which will allow you to summarize the situation for the commissioner and the members of the committee.
I want to ask you to try to determine the best possible service the coast guard can provide at the least possible cost. You are carrying out a rationalization exercise on paper. I would invite you to carry out some research with the Quebec bureau with regard to the Laurentian region.
You eliminated a rescue service in the Gaspé region and a survival patrol vessel service at Rivière-au-Renard. The vessel in question was the Cap Goélands. Some groups asked that it be replaced because it wasn't big enough and didn't have enough autonomy at sea in stormy conditions. Thus, fishers asked that they be provided with a larger vessel.
The coast guard chose to understand that this meant that the Cap Goélands was no longer necessary. So it was removed and replaced with a larger vessel. But the new vessel, the Louisbourg, has two roles: to patrol to ensure that fishermen are not engaging in fraud - because the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is sometimes obsessed with the idea that fishermen are cheating - and it also has a patrol vessel to protect life and ensure survival at sea. The vessel operates from the tip of the Gaspé Peninsula, at the tip of Quebec, but it must also provide service to the whole Chaleur Bay region. It takes from 10 to 12 hours to reach the end of Chaleur Bay and the same period of time is needed to go to Anticosti Island.
How can a coast guard vessel do survival patrol when it is engaged in the surveillance of lobster fishermen - you might remember the conflict with the Aboriginals at the far end of Chaleur Bay - when it takes 20 hours to go back to Anticosti Island to help a vessel in distress? Since the work has only been done on paper, you cannot reconcile the two.
.0930
So, I invite you to do your homework and to tell us what your objective is. How can this be done for less money?
While the cost of obtaining fishing permits and navigation services are being increased, the fishers have the perception that services are being eliminated. They have to pay, but there are fewer services. How can those things be reconcilied?
Can you justify the coexistence of those two roles, ie the sea patrol service and the safety and survival services? I have never seen any documents produced by your department in this regard.
Commr Watters: I don't know the specific facts of the case, but I could certainly find out. You are quite right to say that it is difficult. It is a challenge for all those who have the responsibility of managing the money, but I feel - and I have talked with people from the Laurentian region and other regions - that we are headed in the right direction. I think that in all regions,
[English]
it's working. There are problems that still have to be met, but it seems to be working.
One of the challenges I think we will have is to explain clearly and in a very transparent way to people who are affected on a regional level what we're doing and why we're doing it. That's something that I think we should be doing a better job on, and we can certainly try to do that.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Watters, at the beginning of your presentation you listed an impressive résumé for a bureaucrat, but in all honesty I heard nothing in your résumé that suggests to me that you're the guy to be running the Coast Guard. I wonder if perhaps you've left something out.
Commr Watters: I don't think I've left anything out of that.
One could make the argument that the key challenges facing the Coast Guard are to become more businesslike in its operations and to become a little more flexible. My sense of the organization so far is that it is a highly professional, task-oriented organization. It has strong systems and procedures, but in the newer, faster paced environment in which all organizations are operating, public and private sector, it has to anticipate issues that are going to affect it sooner.
As the previous speaker has mentioned, it has to do a better job of explaining what it is doing and how it intends to accomplish its objectives. It has to be much better at adjusting itself to working with the business community. There are some aspects of these challenges that I think I do have in my background and I would like to and hope to bring to making the organization better and working better with its clients.
Mr. John Cummins: In your presentation you don't discuss at all the problems that I see facing the Coast Guard, and those have to do directly with the delivery of service. I'm wondering what advantage there is of bringing someone with your qualifications and expertise - and I don't deny that they're considerable - into a position for which the responsibilities, the line responsibilities, are so at odds with your background.
.0935
Commr Watters: Perhaps I can illustrate with an example. As assistant deputy minister for the consumer bureau in the former Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada, I had a responsibility for administering a variety of programs providing services to Canadians across the country. We were operating a large operation on a regional basis. There's quite a similarity in terms of the operation of the Coast Guard there.
I'm sure you're all familiar with the problems in terms of the tensions you get between regions and headquarters in delivering programs. Each tends to operate in a slightly different world and a lot of understanding is needed in terms of translating for each component that is necessary in order to get a job done.
Secondly, in terms of understanding the clients, that really was the nature of the job in Consumer and Corporate Affairs; it was to understand what Canadians wanted and what Canadians expected. We had to look at the marketplace from the bottom up instead of from the top down. In this case, that means that instead of looking at the government providing services, you have to look at it from the point of view of those who are receiving services. How well are they receiving them? What's the availability, what's it costing them, what's the quality of the service they're getting? How can they redress problems if they think they have a complaint?
Mr. John Cummins: But the problems you've listed are all organizational problems. What I'm talking about is simply the delivery of service.
As an example, last summer I was in a spotter aircraft monitoring a seine fishery off Prince Rupert and a young fellow got yarded off the deck of a seine boat into the water. He got his leg caught in the bite of rope and he lost his leg. He lay on the deck of that seine boat and we were circling in an aircraft above him for almost an hour. There was a Coast Guard helicopter in Prince Rupert 20 minutes away, but we waited and waited and waited, and finally sent out a fixed-wing aircraft from a private operation just a hundred yards away from the Coast Guard station and removed the guy with that, because there seemed to be gridlock within the Coast Guard. Yes, they did dispatch some people from a vessel by Zodiac, but it certainly wasn't the best way of doing the job.
It seems to me that someone in your position should have some kind of experience dealing with these things and understanding the difficulties that people face on the ground. I think this is a hell of a lot different from Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Commr Watters: I think parts of the background I have are going to be of value to the Coast Guard, particularly during this period of time when it's making a transition.
In a sense I agree. In a large organization there are two ways you can look at the problems, and each is real. The difficulties I have mentioned of dealing with the private sector and trying to get the marine service fee issue on a better track affects the credibility of the entire Coast Guard and becomes a priority. It affects everybody in the Coast Guard. These kinds of issues demand a lot of care and attention.
Getting into the operation of the fleet, maybe there are better ways of doing it that would have more private sector involvement or might involve -
Mr. John Cummins: Excuse me. I assume that may be the case, but I think you understand where I'm coming from, that issue.
I have one last question here. Last fall the Federal Court accused the Department of Fisheries and Oceans of manipulating the consultative process with regard to the advisory boards it had established. In particular an advisory board at that point was dealing with halibut quota.
The court was brutal in its condemnation of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. If I had used the language the court used, I'm sure I would have been accused of inflammatory rhetoric.
.0940
Nevertheless, why should I believe that the marine advisory board system you've set up will operate any better than the advisory board set-ups that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has been operating over the past few years, whereby people appointed to those boards seem to have more allegiance to the department than they do to the people they purport to represent?
Commr Watters: I'm not familiar with the particular advisory board mechanism you're talking about, but I have met with the national boards and have spent a couple of days with them. I've talked to a number of the chairmen of the regional boards, and I met with one of the regional boards. I have four meetings coming up with them in the next couple of weeks.
Those advisory processes are working okay, but they need to be improved. In primary discussions with the national board and some of the chairs that I've mentioned, we're trying to look at an agenda over the next year that can make substantive improvement on how they function. This involves some of the things I had talked about in terms of setting out an annual agenda of the issues that will be looked at so that the regional boards can have input into the national board in trying to focus more comprehensively on issues such as ultimate service delivery on cost reduction, appropriate service levels, and the introduction of new technology. These are the issues the boards want to deal with and we want them to deal with.
They are focused almost exclusively on the fee issue at the present time, but they want to expand and look at these other issues. We want to do the same thing, and I think there are ways we can make the relationship between these regional boards and the national boards work better.
Mr. John Cummins: Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, could I just ask -
The Chairman: We'll come back to you.
Mr. Regan.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Watters, my riding is Halifax West, and as you may know, the port of Halifax is an east coast port with tremendous natural advantages. It is a deep harbour that requires no dredging. It is ice-free and does not require ice-breaking. From Halifax, cargo can be delivered via an unsubsidized railway to the rest of Canada and the U.S. midwest.
For many years federal governments have ensured that those natural advantages were diminished by subsidizing ports in the Great Lakes and along the St. Lawrence Seaway through navigational aids, subsidized ice-breaking, and other things. I want to know whether you think this is a fair situation. If you don't think it's fair, how would you change it?
Commr Watters: Just to make sure that I understand, you're saying the federal government has subsidized in the past the...?
Mr. Geoff Regan: The point I'm making is that Halifax has natural advantages. If you didn't subsidize any ports at all, Halifax would probably be the Vancouver of the east. It would be far busier, undoubtedly, because you wouldn't be ice-breaking, for instance, in the St. Lawrence.
Obviously there should be ice-breaking, but commercial costs.... If you're talking about moving to commercial principles.... Do you think it's fair to subsidize some major ports in this country at the expense of others? Doesn't moving products from place to place when they can be moved more cheaply from Halifax add to the cost of the products?
Commr Watters: Quite honestly, that's a question that falls outside of my responsibility. But to make one potential link, in terms of the marine service fees that have been put forward, one of the elements that I think is important is to look at the kind of economic impact those fees are having on a regional basis to ensure that one is not doing damage to a particular region or to a particular industry. I think that's very important to look at in practice, as is having established a principle of operation, certainly in terms of the marine fees we're looking at. That was the basis for the economic study this committee had recommended one have a look at. But I think that's the primary link there. In terms of port policy, that really is an area that's outside of my area of responsibility.
.0945
Mr. Geoff Regan: Do you not advise the minister on issues related to port policy?
Commr Watters: No, I don't advise the minister in terms of issues related to port policy. It's really the Minister of Transport who has that responsibility.
Mr. Geoff Regan: For instance, in relation to the marine fees, you advise the minister -
Commr Watters: Yes, we would, but -
Mr. Geoff Regan: - and surely you must consider the issues are transport issues in doing that.
Commr Watters: Yes, we do try to make a link in terms of what kind of impact our fees are going to have on a regional basis, yes.
Mr. Geoff Regan: As you move to cost recovery - you tell me if this is again a policy, but even if it is, I think it's good for you to be aware of these concerns even if you can't respond directly - it seems to me it is reasonable to ask users to pay for the justifiable costs of their use. I'm thinking in part of the extent to which the Coast Guard is being efficient in the costs it occurs and then tries to pass on to users.
As you say you're moving - and it's good to move - toward commercial principles, how do you reconcile moving toward commercial principles and charging user fees with the need to subsidize certain ports, for instance, certain small ports that are important to their communities, important to their provinces, such as the port of Summerside? How do you deal with that? Why wouldn't we be doing that through general revenues rather than through other user-pay fees? Again, that may be a policy issue, but I think it's important you be cognizant of the issue. Perhaps you can respond to whatever extent you can.
Commr Watters: Again, in terms of port policy and so on, that's not an area I have responsibility for. But there is an issue you raise that I think is an important one. That is, in terms of a federal service that is being provided, what portion of that really is benefiting all Canadians and what portion of it is benefiting a particular group of users?
One must make a distinction between that in terms of the service being provided so that you're charging only in relation to the program being provided to a particular group of commercial users as opposed to that which is benefiting the public interest in general.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Thank you.
The Chairman: Harold.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton - Charlotte, Lib.): Welcome, Mr. Watters. I'm sure we'll be seeing and hearing a fair amount from you over the next several weeks and months.
As I understood it, from your perspective you see the current issues as being threefold: dealing with the merger with DFO instead of formally with transport, as it was; the downsizing program; and the new structures being developed inside the Coast Guard itself, as you indicated.
I have a number of questions and I'll try to get them in. First of all, from your perspective what do you see as the priorities as you begin to move forward in the area of responsibilities for the Canadian Coast Guard of the future?
You mentioned you had been out into the regions, to the areas. Will there be an area-by-area review, for example, of the services required in specific areas and then subsequent consideration? For example, we talked about fees, or others have talked about fees, and subsequently fees being based on the costs for those actual services that are required in those regions so that indeed we do have some fairness, because, as we would all know, we have a large geographic country and a large geographic coastline.
I have never heard anyone say to me they aren't prepared to pay a fair share of the services they feel are required in their particular region or jurisdiction. But there is certainly some bracing of the feet to pay for services they don't believe they need and are maybe only benefiting some other region or area.
Could you comment, first of all, on those two items, please?
.0950
Commr Watters: Yes. In terms of an area-by-area review, there is no plan I have other than what is taking place right now to look at downsizing and to look at the merger activity on a regional basis. In other words, the Coast Guard really does operate on quite a decentralized basis in each of the five regions, with a strong control by the regional director in each of these areas. I think that's the appropriate way to operate.
The function of the national group is primarily to create the standards or the principles under which a national program will operate but also to give a lot of discretion in terms of the execution of those to each of the regional directors. I think that is working well. So there's no intent on my part to look at changing that. I think that's quite appropriate.
On the question of the fees, I agree very much that one shouldn't pay a fee for a service that is not provided. One of the difficulties sometimes - and it's been a matter of understanding and I think that understanding on everybody's part is getting better - is that for some services, let's say, particularly aid to navigation, while one group - picking an example of commercial shippers - may feel that particular aid is not necessary for them, you may find recreational boaters, fishers or other groups do use it.
We have to indicate to the shipping industry that in their particular area, let's say, of forty aids to navigation while they're saying there are twenty they really don't need, there are others who in fact do need those particular aids. So you're not going to see those eliminated. Maybe there are others that are not needed by commercial shippers, fishers or the recreational sector, in which case let's get rid of them, let's take them out.
I think that kind of mutual understanding is taking place at the regional level. Again, the thing I keep in mind is that on the merger itself, which is little more than eighteen months into place, the sense I get in terms of other mergers that have taken place, particularly in the private sector, is that it takes a long time for those mergers to really be effective and take hold. I think the progress has been quite reasonable in terms of the existing process.
In looking at the other aspects then in terms of working with the private sector much more closely, again my sense for the Coast Guard is that this is quite a new experience. This is not something they have been used to, to the extent that it's taking place right now. It's been rough in spots and we can make it better and we intend to make it better. There's a learning process for everybody. There's no doubt there's a learning process for us, but there's a learning process taking place for our clients as well. I think progress is being made.
Mr. Harold Culbert: Thank you.
Will the Coast Guard assume part of the DFO enforcement branch responsibilities due to the availability of Coast Guard ships? From your perspective, could you tell us the practical knowledge requirement in the Coast Guard that would be within your reach or within your department, so to speak?
People who have been out there on the water know the coastline. It's quite different - I'm not being critical of anyone at this point - sitting in an office in Ottawa from being out there in the forefront on the coastline and seeing the needs.
I come from an area in the Bay of Fundy, the coastal region of New Brunswick. When you're dealing with islands, for example, inhabited islands where there's a population, where emergencies arise either through the fishery or within the islands, and, as was mentioned earlier, there are occasions when there's a serious injury or sickness, when there's a requirement for fast and rapid transportation, will that be part of the Coast Guard's area of concern, of responsibility? Will it be part, let's say, of being a good corporate citizen of the area, if nothing else?
.0955
There's another thing that perhaps you could mention briefly or you might actually be able to provide either presently or subsequently to this committee or all members of the committee. You mentioned the regional director in each of the five regions. Could you perhaps give us a flow chart of how you see that operating? In other words, if there are problems in our regions, I think we want to know who our staff should be talking to and where that area of responsibility lies - a flow chart from the region up to you, for example.
Commr Watters: Those are five or six excellent questions. On the first one, in relation to enforcement, there is an area there that it may be useful to explore. I'm not sure how far one can go in that area, but in providing the floating base for our colleagues in both science and the enforcement area, we're mixing in the crew who were part of DFO, working both on enforcement and on the science side. I think that's going well.
The question then becomes whether we can go a little further in terms of assisting in some of the less rigorous kinds of enforcement activities. That is an area we want to explore a little bit. That's something we want to look at especially if it can produce some cost savings for the department.
One of the things that has struck me very much in getting out to the regions - and it was my experience as well in terms of consumer and corporate affairs, and I really mean this - is how fortunate I feel I am as a Canadian citizen when I see the dedication of people who are out there serving the needs of Canadians. I really mean that.
I get very energised when I see that kind of commitment. Ottawa is a different kind of world we live in here. It's very important to make sure you get out there often enough to see and to feel that.
I have also picked up a strong sense that the Coast Guard because it is so decentralized and is involved in a variety of activities.... I can remember in some of the very small stations both on the east and west coasts some of the people who volunteered to provide courses to local public schools and high schools and this kind of thing. Hypothermia was one of the examples this young lady was describing to me.
I want to encourage that kind of thing because I think it's an important part of the job. I don't believe we should lose sight of that kind of community involvement, integration and just helping out. I think it's extremely important.
On the question of who to talk to in the regions, to me it is the regional director. That is where I would direct any inquiry that very clearly deals with a Coast Guard issue. One thing I have done is spend a lot of time restructuring the way in which the headquarters and the regions are going to operate.
I want to have us operate more on the basis of being a management board in which each one of the regional directors and the headquarters regional directors is there, not only representing the particular functional expertise or regional expertise they have but also making a contribution in all areas of the responsibility of the Coast Guard and on all issues. So far, the approach has been greatly appreciated.
I don't think these kinds of large operations can afford to operate in silos. You have to have people assuming responsibility not only for their direct area of responsibility and their client group, either functionally or regionally, but also in terms of making the Coast Guard better overall. That's something I'm trying to do with that group.
What I'm trying to say is the regional director clearly is the focal point in terms of comments and concerns, and those get fed in weekly - if it's urgent, obviously daily, and that does happen. But there's a very close link between the headquarters and regions now, which I'm I'm trying to strengthen.
Thank you.
.1000
The Chairman: Thank you. Yvan.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: I want to ask the new commissioner if he can assure me that the socioeconomic impact study does exist. Does the department have it in its possession? Will it be tabled this week?
Commr Watters: The study certainly does exist. I'm not certain, but I am almost sure that it will be tabled this week.
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Could we obtain a copy before everyone else, since it is the committee who had asked that this study be carried out? I would like steps to be taken so that we can obtain it first and then discuss it among ourselves and ensure follow up.
To conclude my questions to the commissioner, I would like to...
[English]
The Chairman: The minister is going to table it on Thursday, and I think your office will have a copy of the impact study on Thursday.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: In any case, we can discuss the committee's timetable again. The last question I would like to put to the commissioner is similar to the last question I asked during the first round. I would like him to take notes because the question has two parts. First, I would like to know what will happen in Rivière-au-Renard this year, and secondly, I would like to give him the opportunity of defining the direction the coast guard is to take.
If you don't have time to do everything you will have to delegate but insofar as I am concerned you are the first person responsible and the head of the coast guard, after the minister. Can you justify your mandate to me with regard to Rivière-au- Renard? Then it will be easy to extrapolate.
I would like someone to tell me how you can justify that a rescue vessel can be at one and the same time a patrol vessel. If you are a patrol vessel, you are pursuing people who are engaged in fraud but if you are a rescue vessel you are on standby in case you have to go to the site of an accident, to where a vessel might have sunk. How can you reconcile the two? I would like to know whether there is a plan guaranteeing that security is ensured at all times.
When the vessel has gone off on a patrol mission at the far end of its territory, how can it be ready to do rescue work elsewhere? You must surely have some kind of plan that allows you to ensure security at all times. If that is not the case, I would like you to take steps to do so as quickly as possible. I would like you to forward a written reply to the committee in this regard, and to myself. I want to make that a formal request this morning.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes, I wish to support that question. It is a question fishermen have, especially in the lobster industry, where they've made protection their number one concern and they don't see protection coming out of this amalgamation of the two fleets. They think the Coast Guard is more interested in the safety aspect and search and rescue and so on, and not in protecting the resource.
I think some of the boats that are assigned to those particular seasons are not equipped even to pull traps, let alone fast enough to catch somebody who might be poaching or fishing illegally. So there is a major concern among fishermen in regard to exactly what the function is. Is it protection of the resource, or is it safety? I think it's a very good question, which should be of great concern to you as commissioner.
Commr Watters: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to give a response, but to also indicate that if you'd like, if there's something here I could have a look at for the committee and come back to the committee on, I'd certainly be willing to do so.
.1005
In terms of the question that was raised, my interpretation is you have each emphasized a slightly different aspect. My understanding is you've raised more the concern about search and rescue and how can you maintain that safety capacity, that ability to respond quickly. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is you're raising the issue of whether, if you have an element of that focus, you are diminishing your ability to provide the enforcement capacity you're supposed to be doing. There's no doubt that this is a challenge.
I think all Canadians need a guarantee on the safety aspect. There's a minimum level of safety beyond which you're not going to reduce your capacity, and I haven't seen any evidence of that. The safety standards are being maintained; there is no sense those standards are being altered. The way in which it is being executed locally sometimes is being changed because of local conditions and knowledge, and I think this is important. You're giving an element of discretion in terms of how you're going to enforce those standards on a local area because it's the local people who are living in those communities who understand the response times and so on.
My understanding is that in some cases, if you have a base here that has a whole area of operation and you have ships on standby - some of the smaller ones, the 47-footers and so on - you may have a ship that is going up into one of the outer regions and that ship can have a capacity, as it is operational, to provide some search and rescue activity during the period of time it is actually out there. It can respond much more quickly to the particular incident, which then permits the ship on standby, if there is an incident down in this region, to respond to it. It's better positioned to do so.
This is the kind of logistical change that is made. We're trying to maximize the use of ships going out for a particular purpose that can perform a search and rescue function as they are out on that kind of patrol.
I think the issue then comes back to yours, Mr. Chairman, which is to make sure you're not diminishing your capacity then on the enforcement side with that kind of a system. So far it seems to be working. But if there are concerns, or if we can provide more information on that, I'd be pleased to do so.
The Chairman: Mr. Cummins.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Allow me to ask you to complete your answer, since you have broached the topic of my question.
I asked you for a written reply about the safety plan, because I want to make sure that nothing is falling between the cracks. I want to make sure that nothing escapes us and I would like to receive a written reply as quickly as possible. That would mean within a week or two, because the fishing season will be opening soon.
People have asked that we ensure that this be done. Thus, I am expecting your reply at the latest after the Easter holidays, which gives you approximately three weeks.
When you prepare that reply, you will understand the relevance of the question, since we are talking about the amalgamation of Fisheries and Oceans and the Coast Guard. In the village I referred to this morning, with regard to the justification of the two mandates, the rescue station in Rivière-au-Renard has been closed and the office of the resource protection agents office has also been closed.
That is a good example of services being eliminated, not amalgamated. I would like you to examine this problem, since the chairman has raised the issue of conciliating resource protection and rescue work.
In Rivière-au-Renard, in the Gaspé, there has not been an amalgamation of services; rather, they have just been eliminated. I would very much like to read your reply in this regard.
.1010
Afterward, at a subsequent meeting of the committee, perhaps we could have Mr. Rowat, who is a manager with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and the new commissioner?
When you were talking about lobster resource protection, you said that we might need faster ships than the coast guard now has at its disposal in order to catch those who are cheating.
How can the management of this fishery be ensured? Are there other means of control on land? What do you think of dockside monitoring? Have these questions been studied? This is very important. When we know how fisheries are managed, we will be able to say to our police officer, the Commissioner of the Coast Guard, who must at one and the same time ensure protection and chase those engaged in fraudulent activities, what he must do.
There are several persons responsible within that department, but discussions have not necessarily taken place.
I would like to obtain written replies to the questions I have asked this morning, especially concerning the rescue plan and the fact that we cannot talk about amalgamation of services at Rivière- au-Renard, since the two services provided by the coast guard and Fisheries and Oceans have been eliminated.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, Yvan. I think some of those questions should be reserved for the minister or deputy minister. It goes well beyond Mr. Watters' capacity. But some of the responses on what Mr. Bernier's asked for should be reported in three weeks.
Mr. Cummins.
Mr. John Cummins: First, I'd like to raise a similar issue. As you may be aware, the container portion of the Roberts Bank terminal in Vancouver will be coming onstream shortly and there will be a tremendous increase in the traffic of commercial vessels to Roberts Bank as a result of that.
The ferry terminal, as you know, is probably only a mile away from the Roberts Bank terminal. It's very busy. At times there can be intense commercial fishing activity in that area, and sport fishing activity. So the area is a very busy area. There's going to be more and more large vessel traffic into that area, and yet at the same time the services provided by the Coast Guard are being downgraded at the False Creek Coast Guard terminal. It's gone from a 24-hour service to a 12-hour service with 24-hour standby. I think, given the increase in traffic, that it's probably only a matter of time before there's a collision there. It's going to happen, isn't it? When you have these large vessels in a confined area with continuous traffic, sooner or later something is going to happen. Yet we're downgrading the services currently available.
I wonder if you could provide the committee at some point, if not this morning, with the Coast Guard's feelings on that issue, because I think the budget restraint here could have a serious negative effect if there was a happening there.
Commr Watters: On the trip to the British Columbia region, we took the ferry and we were looking at the site and actually looking at the number of aids to navigation that are in this particular area. Again, this was in January, so you can well imagine you had a lot of recreational traffic, and you get the sense of how busy it can be there.
The main services that would be relied upon would be the vessel traffic control and also the aids to navigation. I haven't heard of any particular problem in that area in terms of the expected increase in traffic, but I will check into it. The regional advisory board is where you would pick that up, but I'll make a particular inquiry just to check on this. As I say, I'm not aware of any particular concern that has been identified. What it does raise, in general, is the question of new economic activity throughout the country, that being a major one. That's a huge facility, an amazing facility, just quite large. Then you think about on the east coast the Hibernia and Voisey's Bay and several others that will be coming on stream on the east coast.
.1015
We are working with the private sector to develop these projects so that safety needs are factored into the plans as they are developed and as they change. We can then look at the kinds of resources we will be expected to put forward early on in the process and also in terms of any regulatory constraints so that we don't have an impact on delaying the projects. In other words, we can anticipate and work with the private sector and other regional interests as they develop.
On the Roberts Bank area, I'll check into that.
Mr. John Cummins: If that then is just a hugely busy area where traffic is increasing and in the summer especially you can have commercial fishing activity and these huge boats right in front of that area, the potential for a collision there is really high.
I have one other question. We were talking earlier about these marine advisory boards. How do you ensure the independence of these boards? You talked about how well they're functioning, but how could the public be ensured of the independence of the boards?
Commr Watters: They're functioning okay. I wasn't really going beyond that, because some improvements have to be made in them. In fact one of the areas in which improvements have to be made is to ensure that they are representative of all of the marine interests in a particular region.
I understand that several have gone through different changes. For some of them, at some point recreational boaters were involved, but because of the nature of the issues that were being discussed, which were more commercial in nature, they dropped out. This is one of the areas I want to look at exactly to ensure there is a better cross-section of marine interests or to suggest to the boards themselves that they should ensure that there's a better cross-section of all marine interests represented on them, because that's where the trade-offs will have to be made. It's better that all parties are there when that's being suggested.
Mr. John Cummins: Just to emphasize the last part, again, I'd appreciate it if you could advise the committee of any discussions the Coast Guard may have had about safety concerns at Roberts Bank and what you're likely to do about it. I do want to impress upon you my concern about safety issues there and the availability of a quick response. Just to bring the Coast Guard vessel from False Creek to Roberts Bank could take probably 45 minutes to an hour. I think that's probably inadequate, given the high volume of traffic there. Some other arrangement should be made to provide another level of safety.
The Chairman: We'll need that information to be sent to the clerk and he'll distribute it from there.
I know John Murphy has a question for you.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley - Hants, Lib.): I'm a member from Nova Scotia. I'm not a regular member of this committee, but my concern is from the gypsum industry about the marine fees.
My understanding is that the MSAB has asked for some representation to talk with you because they understand, obviously, that you have been to the west coast, Quebec, and Newfoundland and have not addressed that group. They are concerned that the announcement is coming and they have not had the last kick at the can. We've been working very diligently with this group now for about a year and a half. One of my team members has weekly contact with the gypsum industry because they're really concerned about the fees and the retention of jobs. Some of the orders are moving away from our area.
I would ask you why that group has not had the opportunity, even though they have requested it. They feel they're being treated differently. I'm wondering how we could do something about that prior to Thursday's announcement. Thank you.
.1020
Commr Watters: I'm pleased to inform you that yesterday we met with the Minister of Transport for Nova Scotia, Don Downe. He had with him several other individuals, one of whom in fact was representing the gypsum industry, and we had a thorough and a very good discussion of all issues. I'm sorry I can't recall his name right now. In giving out the business cards I had two, but I didn't get his. I can assure you that he was there, and I chatted with him afterwards. I think we have quite a good understanding of the nature of their concerns.
The second thing is that I will be in fact meeting with the Maritime Seacoast Advisory Board next Monday, and I have been in touch with the chairman of that board on a couple of occasions to talk about issues of concern.
Finally, I'm trying to encourage the use of the regional capacity of the Coast Guard much more. Our regional director, Bob Kingston, is part of the MSAB, and he has been at virtually all of their meetings and has in fact done a lot of work with the MSAB. I'm trying to encourage that very strong link between the MSAB and the regional director on this.
There has been a lot of discussion on all of the issues. As I said, we met yesterday with Minister Downe and also with this representative of the gypsum industry.
Mr. John Murphy: I'm sorry I didn't know that, but as of this morning we were told it had not happened. Anyway, thank you for your answer.
The Chairman: Okay, Harold.
Mr. Harold Culbert: I would like to indicate to Mr. Watters that I have the growing port of Bayside in my region. It is an ice-free, deep water port that has few or little requirements as far as the port area itself goes. Again, I would like to bring forth a concern with the fee structure in those requirements.
The other point I wanted to make is in regard to a previous conversation in regard to search and rescue as part of the mandate. Some time ago, I understand, there was some consideration of the Coast Guard that they would assess a cost-recovery fee in certain areas for search and rescue missions. Could you just elaborate on this and tell us exactly where that is at? In other words, if someone decides they're going to fly their hot air balloon over the Atlantic and they go down in the water and the Coast Guard is called out to pick them up, is there a fee? Can you tell us how that operates?
Commr Watters: I can try to respond as best I can, but I don't have a great deal of information on this. When I was visiting the maritime region in Halifax, there was an issue being discussed involving what I think were called ``adventurers'', those individuals who might want to take a 10-foot dingy and sail across the Atlantic. I gather there are groups that organize these kinds of events. At that particular time, in the international press there was a situation of an individual who was lost in terms of an international race of that description.
The question is that in terms of the search and rescue efforts it can be quite expensive, especially if you get into fixed-wing aircraft and so on, or into boats going out for extended periods of time. Yet these individuals know before they set out that there is a significant risk involved. I know the question has been raised of whether the organizers of these events should get insurance, basically. Should they be somehow responsible as the organizers of these events for paying to national jurisdictions if they are required to come out to rescue people involved in these activities?
I don't think anything has progressed beyond that. There's just been some discussion of the fact that there seems to be an issue here. I don't believe we have an assessment of how often it occurs, what the total expenses involved are, and how you would go about trying to collect on this kind of system.
.1025
Dick, are you aware of anything that...?
A witness: My understanding is the same as yours.
Commr Watters: People are becoming more aware of this kind of problem, but I think we're trying to get a better understanding of it at this point. I don't think any action has been taken on it.
Mr. Harold Culbert: Thank you.
The Chairman: I'd like to ask the witness about the Canadian Coast Guard's policy for dredging, specifically in areas of emergency dredging if required. Do you have any knowledge of that yet, or have you got into the...?
Commr Watters: We have general knowledge. There has been a decision that the Coast Guard, in terms of its core activities, should diminish its involvement in dredging over time. I think one of the reasons is that the Coast Guard primarily acts as a contractor. The dredging services are provided by the private sector, and all the Coast Guard basically does is organize and arrange for this. In many cases the private sector can do this just as effectively as the Coast Guard can.
An announcement was made some time ago - as much as a year ago - with respect to our beginning to phase out our involvement in dredging. In each particular area there's a slightly different track in terms of phase-out, depending on the local conditions and the local situation. I'm afraid that's as much information as -
Mr. Harold Culbert: As far as paying for the service if required is concerned, I know the federal government doesn't have dredges any more. DOT has got rid of all its dredges, but it will still be doing dredging through contract with the private sector. Will the Canadian Coast Guard be doing the same thing?
Commr Watters: In some circumstances, if it would help in terms of a transition for the Coast Guard to manage that process until the private sector organizes itself to do it, I think it would be reasonable for the Coast Guard to try to assist in doing that. We've indicated some elements of flexibility there, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
I just want to comment on your background and your résumé. I was quite impressed with it. Maybe John wasn't. I think you come to the job without any bias to the fisheries culture or the Coast Guard culture. I think you're better able to make judgments with respect to the downsizing and what will be required to have an efficient operation in the Coast Guard. I was quite impressed with your background, and I wish you all the best in your new job.
Are there any more questions? John.
Mr. John Cummins: One other concern that has been raised with me a number of times on the west coast has to do with the level of cooperation between the Coast Guard and various auxiliary organizations, whether they're Coast Guard auxiliaries or the Canadian Lifeboat Association - that sort of thing.
As I'm sure you're aware, there's a growing number of sporting boats and pleasure boats on the west coast. I think these auxiliaries provide a valuable service to the public, but the equipment they operate with is far from satisfactory. I think even if it were new it would be inadequate.
I think there's quite a role to play for these organizations. I wonder whether you would be able to provide the committee with some indication of what the Coast Guard intends to do in this area. Is there a role for these? Does the Coast Guard intend to somehow provide these people with equipment and the necessary training? Just how do they fit into the picture? I think it's an important issue, and I'd like to have a better idea of what your plans are on it.
Commr Watters: I agree completely. The sense that I've been able to pick up.... I had a chance to visit one of the auxiliary units - one of the closest ones to Victoria. These people are volunteers. They spend their own time, effort, and energy. I think it links the federal government to communities. The program, I understand, has had excellent results. It's one of the most cost-effective uses of money.
.1030
We have made a commitment. We're in the process of trying to increase the amount of money we can make available to these particular groups. There's a real sense of pride that you can see in the auxiliary members, and I think this is exactly the kind of thing we should be doing more of. I completely agree.
The Chairman: I believe the report on the impact study will be tabled at 3:30 p.m. on Thursday. Whether the report is controversial or non-controversial, I think we've taken it upon ourselves to look at that and study the results. When we come back, after the Easter break, you'll probably be asked to come back again, and we'll go over that report.
Commr Watters: I'd be pleased to. Thank you very much for your comments, Mr. Chairman. I've enjoyed this introductory meeting with the committee, and I look forward to working with it in the future. Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
The meeting is adjourned.