ADMINISTRATION 235 



in loss of morale, staff turnover and strains within the 

 Department, which inhibited the policy development 

 needed to cope with the rapidly changing circumstances. 



Present Deficiencies 



Effective and efficient administration can be expected 

 only when the administrators have clear policy objectives 

 and an orderly framework of legislation and procedures 

 for carrying out their responsibilities. At the outset of this 

 report I noted that coherent objectives and policies for 

 the Department are conspicuously lacking. This void is 

 manifested in archaic legislation, ineffective licensing 

 arrangements, conflicting programs and other deficien- 

 cies I have examined in other chapters. 



Aggravating the general vagueness of policy is the 

 widespread perception that administration itself lacks 

 consistency and vigour, and that policy decisions are pli- 

 able in the face of lobbying and other pressures. Recur- 

 ring examples of important decisions that are subse- 

 quently reversed or modified undermines confidence in 

 the government's competence, invites partisan pressure 

 from affected groups and demoralizes the public service. 

 Weaknesses in enforcement, in statistical information, in 

 the consultation process and simply in policy documenta- 

 tion, among other weaknesses identified in this report, all 

 contribute to the impression of loose administration. 



I must also call attention to an apparent unresponsive- 

 ness to urgent needs. Sometimes this is associated with 

 administrative processes in the Pacific region, such as the 

 failure to issue fishing licences by the time the fishing 

 season opens. More serious is the inability of Ottawa 

 headquarters and other government agencies to cope 

 with the demands put on them. I have been informed 

 that, because of delays in governmental procedures in 

 Ottawa, local officials had to try to enforce regulations 

 while lacking the legal basis for doing so. For instance, 

 the freshwater sportfishing regulations for this year, pre- 

 pared and adojinistered by the Province of British 

 Columbia but requiring federal formal approval, were 

 submitted to Ottawa last year; but they were not 

 approved, so had no legal force, until mid-July, halfway 

 through the fishing season. Under these circumstances, 

 the province's conservation officers must rely on bluffing 

 or intimidating sportsmen into complying with them.' 



Furthermore, while I acknowledge the need for con- 

 trols and sometimes burdensome procedures in a large 

 government, I must still conclude that in some cases the 

 procedures prevent the government from attending to the 

 tasks it has set for itself For instance, simple changes in 

 fishing regulations involve cumbersome and time con- 

 suming procedures. And designing and implementing 

 amendments to section 33 of the Fisheries Act took more 

 than four years. The result of such cumbersome processes 

 is a slow, umesponsive and unbusinesslike administra- 



tion, though this may not be the fault of those in the front 

 line of responsibility. 



These are difficult issues for an external Commission to 

 deal with because they call for an appreciation of func- 

 tional relationships within the broad framework of the 

 public service. This can only be obtained by means of a 

 thorough review of administrative processes, lines of 

 responsibility and financial resources. The remainder of 

 this chapter examines some broad concerns that have 

 been brought to my attention and suggests some steps 

 toward improving the administrative system. Some 

 important related matters are dealt with elsewhere in this 

 report, such as recommended changes in legislation and 

 licensing, measures to reconcile provincial and federal 

 responsibilities, provisions for enforcement, and changes 

 in management, research and consultative arrangements. 



TOWARD MORE EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION 



Strengthening Representation in Ottawa 



Some participants in the Commission's hearings sug- 

 gested that a special Minister of Fisheries for the Pacific 

 be appointed on grounds that, although Fisheries and 

 Oceans is a relatively small department, it has more 

 direct contractual links with individuals and firms 

 through licensing than almost any other federal depart- 

 ment, and so calls for continual attention from the Minis- 

 ter. Moreover, the circumstances of the Pacific coast are 

 so different from those of the Atlantic and other regions 

 that it is unreasonable to expect one person to attend 

 adequately to all. 



While these arguments have some force, I cannot rec- 

 ommend two (or more) Ministers of Fisheries and 

 Oceans within the federal government. With the whole 

 Department accounting for less than one percent of the 

 federal spending by all departments, and only 1.6 percent 

 of the public service, it does not, realistically, justify more 

 than one Minister. Such a situation would also give rise 

 to questions about responsibility to Parliament for gen- 

 eral fisheries policy, legislation, budgets and administra- 

 tive arrangements in Ottawa. Nor do I recommend more 

 than one Deputy Minister for Fisheries and Oceans, since 

 that would almost inevitably generate conflict, competi- 

 tion and biases. I have concluded that the present struc- 

 ture, with one Minister responsible for Fisheries and 

 Oceans for Canada, one Deputy Minister, and geographi- 

 cal responsibilities divided at the Assistant Deputy Min- 

 ister level, is appropriate. 



But certain improvements can be made. One is in the 

 geographical location of the Assistant Deputy Minister 

 responsible for the Pacific region. This senior official was 

 recently moved to Vancouver on an experimental basis, 

 though the Minister, Deputy Minister and the three other 

 Assistant Deputy Ministers are all stationed in Ottawa. 



