Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries

Issue 9 - Evidence for October 16, 2001

The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries met this day at 7:00 p.m. to examine matters relating to the fishing industry.

Senator Gerald J. Comeau (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: Tonight we will continue our examination of matters pertaining to the fishing industry. We are fortunate to have with us, Mr. Cuillerier, Director General, Habitat Management and Environmental Science.

I thank you for appearing before the committee so that we may better understand the challenges, issues and emerging ideas related to the fishing industry. Mr. Cuillerier, please proceed.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Cuillerier, Director General, Habitat Management and Environmental Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the invitation to speak to you about fish habitat management in Canada. I am Director General of the Habitat Management and Environmental Science Directorate. With me are two of my directors: Richard Nadeau, Director of the Habitat Operations Branch and Patrice LeBlanc, Director of the Habitat Program Branch.

[English]

As you are well aware, the sustainable management of Canada's fisheries resources is an important area of public policy, given its major contribution to the country's economic prosperity and its significance to the quality of life of all Canadians. Canada is blessed with a large array of fish species that provide Canadians with economic, social and environmental benefits in perpetuity. However, fish comprise only one element of the fisheries resource. The fish are the product of a more basic Canadian resource - fish habitat - the life support system that fish depend on directly or indirectly and that is critical to sustaining the production of the fish species that live in our fresh and marine waters.

In addition to sustaining economic, social and cultural benefits to Canadians, healthy, productive fish habitats are also an indicator of a healthy and safe environment, including clean water and diverse aquatic biota. There are significant challenges facing Canada's fresh water and marine fish habitat, including biological, chemical and physical threats from a range of diverse human activities that directly and indirectly affect the productivity of fish water and habitat. As a result of those threats, fish habitat can be damaged and lost due to changes big and small, and in ways that are both obvious and subtle.

Canada has established a legal regime that recognizes the importance of conserving and protecting fresh and marine fish habitats. The federal government has the constitutional responsibility and strong legislative powers under the Fisheries Act for the conservation and protection of fish habitat.

[Translation]

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans cannot and does not operate alone in achieving the objectives for which it is responsible. Indeed, habitat management is everyone's business. It is important for DFO to work in collaboration with provincial and territorial governments, other federal departments, local governments, private firms, First Nations and Aboriginal groups, community and volunteer groups, international organizations and the public.

DFO has developed a policy framework with two key elements: the first is the principle of "no net loss" of fish habitat that translates the concept of sustainable development into operational terms; and the other is promoting a balanced approach of regulatory and proactive activities.

[English]

Building on the legal regime and policy framework for fish habitat conservation and protection, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has established a program dedicated to the sustainable management of Canada's fish habitat resource base, which I will speak to this evening.

More specifically, I will review with you the following: What is fish habitat and why is it so important? I will also review DFO's habitat management program, the challenges that we face in implementing our program, and the path forward.

[Translation]

I have a document that might be distributed. If you will allow me, I am going to talk about it.

The Chairman: Certainly.

[English]

Starting at the overview of fish habitat and why it is so important, I will first talk about DFO's habitat management program, laws, policies, mandate, resources, locations, the challenges that we face in the program, and the path forward.

I will now deal with the subject of fish habitat, which is on the next page. We define "fish habitat" as any spawning grounds and nursery, rearing and food supply in migration areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly to carry out their life processes.

What does that mean in layman's terms? This is a broad definition. It means not only the water itself but also the areas that provide such things as food and protection. For example, vegetation provides cover and controls temperature. Both are necessary to the survival of fish.

Next we have the importance of fish habitat. Canada's fish habitat provides a life support system that is required to sustain the production of the many and vast number of fresh water and marine fish species that are critical to providing Canadians with a wide range of economic, social, cultural and environmental benefits. As a result, fish habitat is of particular interest to a wide range of partners, stakeholders and clients - the federal government, the provinces and territories, and the general public.

Fish habitats are essential to support our commercial fishers. Commercial catches of over 1 million tonnes, with a value of $1.7 billion in 1998; and fisheries exports of over .5 million tonnes, valued at $3.7 billion in 1999.

We also have recreational fishers, and many of us know some of those people across the country. Over 4.2 million adult anglers spend $7.4 billion. They comprise vast numbers with a direct interest.

Fish habitat also sustains the production of fish species that are of great social and cultural importance to Aboriginal people and are an important part of the social fabric and way of life of many communities.

Healthy fish habitats are also an indicator of a healthy and safe environment, including clean water. The bottom line is that, without habitat, there are no fish and no related benefits to Canadians.

Our next slide deals with the habitat management program, or legislative foundation. The Fisheries Act, one of the oldest acts in Canada, was proclaimed in 1868 and contains specific habitat provisions assigning the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the powers to conserve and protect fish habitat in Canada's fishery waters. The act applies to the whole of Canada, including private property in every province and territory.

There are two main provisions of the act: habitat protection and pollution protection.

In the habitat protection provisions, which is our domain of responsibility, there is reference to section 35 of the Fisheries Act which basically prohibits the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, commonly known in our language as HADD, without appropriate authorization. It prohibits the harmful operation, disruption and destruction of fish habitat without an authorization from the minister, as provided under section 35 (2), or through a regulation.

The key section of the pollution provisions of the Fisheries Act, section 36, prohibits the deposit of a deleterious substance into fisheries waters unless authorized by regulation or another law of Parliament. The administration of section 36 has been assigned to the federal Minister of the Environment.

With the proclamation of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 1995, the habitat management program was assigned new responsibilities. Its mandate was expanded to include the conduct of environmental assessments pursuant to the CEAA, prior to the department making any regulatory decisions under the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the National Energy Board Act.

I will talk now about our policy framework for fish habitat management. In 1986, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans tabled, in Parliament, the policy for the management of fish habitat - the habitat policy - as the framework for the department's habitat management program. The policy seeks to strike a balance between habitat protection and economic development, a principle that received universal recognition in 1987 by the Bruntland Commission Report and later in 1992 at the Real Earth Summit.

The habitat policy includes an overall objective of net gain. It has three goals - conservation, restoration and development - and a guiding principle of no-net-loss of the productive capacity of fish habitat as the basis of regulatory advice and decisions.

The policy includes eight implementation strategies that provide for a balanced approach to the conservation and protection of fish habitat. First and foremost, and the one that we have been applying for many years, is protection and compliance. In the last couple of years, we have been looking for more proactive ways to deal with the public, with other levels of government and with Aboriginal peoples. We want to have a more cooperative action because, as I mentioned earlier, we believe that fish habitat is everyone's business.

The next slide concerns the habitat management program mandate. The legislation policy we reviewed provides the mandate for the habitat management program to conserve and protect fish habitat in Canada's fresh and marine waters, and conduct environmental assessments of development projects requiring regulatory decisions.

In the habitat management program, we have slightly over 400 people from Newfoundland to the Pacific and to the North, with approximately $38.7 million to support the program.

The actual delivery of DFO's habitat management program is decentralized to six regions. You can see that the Gulf has none of the resources. That is because, in the last week or so, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans identified it as a new region. We will now negotiate new resources to support that particular region.

The actual delivery of the program is decentralized to six regions with staff located in about 70 offices across Canada.

Senator Meighen: Where is the Gulf?

Mr. Cuillerier: From the slide, you will see that it is in Newfoundland.

Senator Meighen: Does it include the entire Gulf of St. Lawrence?

Mr. Cuillerier: The slide identifies the locations of the resources.

Senator Watt: Mr. Chairman, on a point of clarification, what is FTE?

Mr. Cuillerier: FTE is "full-time equivalent" of people, or in bureaucratic language, it is "person years." That is the number of people we have allocated to the program.

Senator Watt: That is for "Central & Arctic."

Mr. Cuillerier: That number is 186.

Senator Watt: Where are they hiding?

Mr. Cuillerier: Would you like an answer to that now, Senator Watt?

Mr. Cuillerier: As you know, after one or two years of negotiation with the provinces, in 1999 the federal government decided to implement a habitat program within DFO, and that there would be no derogation of those responsibilities to the provinces. Those were mostly inland provinces, that is, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. Prior to 1999, the three prairie provinces and Ontario were responsible for the habitat provisions of the Fisheries Act within those provinces.

After a number of years of discussions with the provinces about the federal government's desire for more activities in the area of the habitat provisions of the Fisheries Act by the provinces, there was negotiation with the provinces. The delegation, unfortunately, broke down after a couple of years of tense discussions. Ontario walked away from the table in 1997. Alberta walked away in early 1999. The discussions fell apart at that time.

The federal government and cabinet instructed us to develop a program. I joined the department in the fall of 1999. At that time, we were given $28 million to implement a program from coast to coast to coast, and to fill the gaps where we had no presence to ensure that there was habitat protection across the country. Basically, there was the luxury across the country of having people looking at projects that might affect fish habitat.

At that time we reviewed the program. We had to allocate, of course, a number of resources to support the program in Ontario and the three prairie provinces. We allocated to Ontario some 103 people, which is the equivalent of FTEs, to support the program in the province of Ontario. In Alberta, we have a total of 49. In Saskatchewan, we have a total of 48. In Manitoba, we have 31. This was how the program was introduced in the three prairie provinces and Ontario.

We are presently hiring people to fill those positions. In Ontario, since the province walked away in 1997, we have hired people to support the program. We are about 90 to 95 per cent complete in our staffing of offices within Ontario. I can tell you exactly where those offices are in Ontario, as well as in the prairie provinces.

It took more time to staff the positions in the prairie provinces, as well as to find proper locations for those offices in the three prairie provinces. I am told that about 60 per cent of the hiring is complete in the three prairie provinces. By the end of this fiscal year we hope that most positions will be willed in those offices to implement the program.

Senator Adams: Why do you lump "Central" with the "Arctic?" You only mentioned Ontario and Alberta.

Mr. Cuillerier: You are quite right, senator.

Senator Adams: Are there no full-time employees in the territories, Nunavut and Yukon?

Mr. Cuillerier: Our presence in the North is deficient. I will be the first one to admit that. At this time we are looking for means to address that particular issue. Currently, there is an initiative involving northern science and technology and there are northern oil and gas initiatives. We are involved in those because we are conscious of the fact that we need a better presence in the North. All the economic development activities happening in the North require that presence, and it is not there. We are dealing with it at this time. It is something that must be addressed in a timely manner by the department.

Senator Adams: Mr. Chairman, up until now we have been mostly concerned with habitat management. Are you not concerned about tourism?

Mr. Cuillerier: Economic development has been fairly strong in Canada. The number of development projects that affect fish habitat across the country has also increased. By 1999, we found that we were reviewing 12,000 projects on a yearly basis in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. That can include everything from the installation of a culvert, to the Champlain Bridge here in Ottawa, to Voisey's Bay, to diamond mine projects in the North. We are involved in many economic development activities across the country. Some 800 of those 12,000 development reviews became environmental assessment reviews under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act because they did affect, very significantly, fish habitat across the country.

We in DFO were also strong players in this business. We have been responsible for 11 of the 12 CEAA panel reviews. Panel reviews are the highest type of review you can have for projects across the country. We have over 60 per cent participation in comprehensive studies.

With any mine or forestry project across the country, the chances are that the developer must cross a stream. Then people knock on our door and ask us if there are any fish habitat issues to be taken into consideration. That is why we are involved across the country. We deal with those types of projects.

As I mentioned earlier, we have about 70 offices across the country. Our staff is scattered among those offices. We are actively staffing the positions in the prairie provinces so as to have a full complement in the not too distant future.

Our polling across the country indicates that public concern is focussed on the decline and loss of fish habitat. People want to ensure that there is a good balance between economic development and taking care of the environment. That is what sustainable development is all about.

Industry is concerned about delays and inconsistencies in reviews or development proposals. We hear that all the time, and sometimes rightly so. Sometimes, unfortunately, I think that concern is unfounded. However, we recognize that we should try to be better at it. We are now struggling with referral delays. People think we have too many delays because we are looking at too many details and, therefore, delaying the project.

Last year, we initiated on our Web site an online application system whereby people can submit their applications to us directly over the Internet. In terms of industrial development across the country, be it in the mining sector, the forestry sector or any other sector, people should be aware, at the front end, of the requirements of DFO before they embark on their project. Unfortunately, that is not always clear. We are clarifying all our guidelines and our guidance documents for industry.

We are also working with the provinces. Many of the projects in which we are involved are also relevant to provincial agencies. We would like to try to harmonize our processes so that we all get our information at the same time, lose less time and, obviously, have better decision making as a result.

We want to improve the balance of regulatory and proactive activities. I mentioned earlier that we have eight strategies in our habitat policy. We can say quite openly that the only strategy that has been fully implemented has to do with regulations and compliance. That is reactive. To a certain extent, people have to do that with limited resources, and by working with the provinces. It is not an easy business to get into. However, again, we should be better at that. We want to be more proactive.

We have initiated discussions with Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. We want agreements with the provinces on how we can support each other in our business and ensure that we do not overlap and duplicate our business. In this way, hopefully, we can streamline the entire process, in the interests of both the provincial system as well as the federal system.

We must be more proactive. We want our people to go to schools and to talk to children about how important fish habitat is. We want to work with industry at the front end. In the last two months I have met with the Canadian Electrical Association, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and the Canadian Forestry Association to express some of our concerns about their industries, and they, in exchange, have expressed their concerns with DFO. We engage in that kind of discussion.

Some industries now want protocols or agreements with us, as well as an exchange of information. I believe the Canadian Electrical Association wants to have some of our fish habitat provisions integrated into their staff training programs. As well, we want to ensure that our staff is aware of the requirements of the Canadian Electrical Association.

Our many discussions that are taking place involve a more transparent dialogue, there are more open debates, and there are clearer requirements for information. Hopefully, all of this will lead to more timely decisions on projects.

We want to enhance our scientific knowledge base. We do not have, from my perspective, the level of funds we require for our research. We have about 200 environmental scientists in laboratories across the country. We have a strategic fund, which we can allocate on a yearly basis, of $5.4 million. We want to ensure that we direct those funds to priorities. We also want to ensure that our decisions are scientifically based, and that people understand how and why we make those decisions. Our scientific program is critical in order to support the habitat program itself.

Of course, we want to engage Canadians in the processes. With a good stewardship program, more people will be involved, and habitat will be at the forefront of people's minds. We will protect fish habitat much more in the future.

In moving forward, we want to streamline the regulatory process. We are developing one window - one online review capability - with developers. We are strengthening our capacity to ensure that fish habitat requirements are integrated in planning and stewardship activities.

We are working with provinces and industry. We have added modest resources to our science capacity, and we are working with the provinces to find ways to combine our science capacities. We are actively building partnerships with provincial agencies, industry, non-governmental associations and First Nations. Today I met with representatives from the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, FSIN, to discuss how we can work together. These are ongoing discussions with groups across the country.

Senator Adams: My main concerns are about DFO and our fishing needs in Nunavut. I met with a representative from Tourism Canada, Mr. Jim Watson, former Mayor of Ottawa, to talk about the new Nunavut Territory and fish habitat.

There are hundreds of lakes in our territory. If someone wants to set up a fishing camp, does DFO have to assess the number of fish first to determine how many can be taken? People who live in the small communities in Nunavut want to know what they can do to in terms of commercial fishing. Presently, the only community in Nunavut involved in commercial fishing is Pangnirtung. Cambridge Bay receives a few visitors who want to fish for char. In looking towards the future, my main concern is that no progress will be made.

I am also curious about your human resource figure for "Central & Arctic," which is 186 employees. Will the Department of Fisheries and Oceans deal with the issues surrounding fish hatcheries in Nunavut in the future?

Under the current regulations, Nunavummiut cannot fish commercially. They remain with their families in their communities. Right now, we have about 40 fishermen in Baffin Island who have nowhere to go. How do they contact the government so they can get the boats and the equipment they need to fish? In the rest of Canada those needs are met, but they are not met in Nunavut.

Mr. Cuillerier: I want to ensure you that we understand DFO's mandate. We are there to conserve and protect fish habitat. Fisheries management is another section within DFO. They have allocations in respect of the commercial fisheries, recreational fisheries and the subsistence fishery. I do not like to put it that way because it sounds so bureaucratic, but it is another area of the department that deals with those concerns.

We want to have a better presence in Nunavut. In the next few months there will be Northern oil and gas issues to deal with, because energy security in the United States and in Canada must be dealt with. We will need to talk about the Beaufort Sea, the MacKenzie Valley and the Foothills pipelines. We are not sure which line people will take, but we know that industry will ultimately make those decisions, and it will have an impact on the North.

We must ensure that we protect those resources in the North. We are now preparing ourselves specifically for that. I mentioned earlier that we have approximately 128 people in the three prairie provinces. We have advised our people in the regions to move people from the provinces to the North because of that increased demand, which is growing as we speak. We are quite aware of that.

We are not in the fisheries management business. We ensure that there is habitat so that there will be more fish in the future. We want to ensure that we have that level of protection across the country. I recognize that we still have gaps, and certainly, there are some areas in the North, probably some in Central B.C. and some in other parts of Canada, where our presence is not strong enough. We are working on those areas now.

Senator Meighen: Could you clarify whether your role is always proactive or reactive? In other words, if I see the chairman digging in his backyard and I think that he is getting close to a stream, can I phone you and ask you to come and take a look at what he is doing?

Mr. Cuillerier: We are careful about those things. We are reactive to situations where people inform us that someone is building a dock or is filling in the shoreline. We go and we look at that. Some enforcement actions may be taken, but hopefully not. We can work with individuals and ensure that repairs are made if any damage has been caused. We like to be proactive, at the front end of discussions. That is what we tell industry.

If someone, say, wants to develop a quarry somewhere in Canada, we like to be at the planning process. We want to discuss issues regarding ground source water: Are there streams in the area; and will the project affect fish habitat? If you work in a certain way, and build in a certain way, you may be able to protect fish habitat and have fewer regulatory issues to deal with. If we are part of the planning process, there should be less need for a reactive stance, if not enforcement measures, at the end.

Senator Meighen: It sounds encouraging. Are you suggesting that you might be able to play a role as an arbiter or a mediator in a situation where, for example, someone may want to change the shoreline in order to dock his boat and you may suggest an alternative that would not damage the shoreline?

Mr. Cuillerier: We do not think we see ourselves as mediators or facilitators. We are there to protect fish habitat. People may come to us and tell us they intend to build a bridge. Our concern is not that they want to build a bridge or anything else, our concern is to protect the fish habitat and give the best guidance possible to them in undertaking whatever activity they are planning.

If someone tells us an individual is doing something on the shoreline, we will go and talk to that individual. If we determine that Fisheries Act issues are involved, we will ensure that the situation is corrected. Obviously we will talk to the person in confidence and ensure that people are satisfied that the issues have been properly addressed.

Senator Meighen: If you come to the conclusion that there is an HADD, can you then refuse to issue the authorization under section 35 or 36 of the Fisheries Act?

Mr. Cuillerier: Ultimately, we could refuse.

Senator Meighen: Therefore, the dock, the quarry or the bridge will not be built; is that correct?

Mr. Cuillerier: That is correct, it would not be built.

Senator Adams: Or a pipeline?

Mr. Cuillerier: Or a pipeline.

Senator Meighen: Is there any danger that you could come to that determination when the bridge, pipeline or quarry is three quarters completed?

Mr. Cuillerier: That is one of the challenges we face. We are sometimes faced with projects that have provincial authorizations or licences. They had forgotten about DFO and moved ahead. Someone along the way had suggested that they talk to DFO about habitat issues. On occasion we have walked into a partially built project and had to address those issues. They are not easy. You see less and less of those situations now because of our presence. We are more known across the country. People talk to us. However, unfortunate situations do arise, and they need to be addressed.

Senator Meighen: I take my hat off to you. The fact that you must deal with 10 provinces with different regimes must be a nightmare for you. Could you elaborate on that somewhat with particular reference to the part of the country I come from, Ontario? Someone said that Ontario walked away from the table. What is the situation in Ontario?

Mr. Cuillerier: We actually have a very good relationship in that province, at the official level. In Ontario we work very closely with the conservation authorities that have been set up by the province across the province. They are usually our window to DFO. When a project is about to be initiated in a particular area where there is a conservation authority - and that covers most of the southern part of Ontario - they will receive the request for the project. Initially, they will consider whether it will affect fish habitat. We have trained those people. If the determination is made that there is no fish habitat issue, the developer will go ahead but, if there is an issue, then these conservation authorities will refer the project to us. It is a first screening at the community level by people in that area. They have better knowledge and understanding of those projects.

When it is referred to us, senator, we look at the project. We send out a biologist to talk to the promoter. We determine whether there are any potential impacts to fish habitat. If there are, we try to do three things. The first thing we want to do is avoid any fish habitat concerns. If we cannot avoid them, because of the nature of the project or because of its location, we will try to mitigate the habitat issues. Therefore, the project proceeds in a way that will have less impact. We must feel comfortable with that. Ultimately, if we cannot avoid or mitigate, compensation is our third item. We always issue an authorization under section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act if there is an impact on fish habitat. Under our policy of no net loss, we expect to be compensated for the loss of habitat in another way. In a negotiation process with the developer and the promoter, we work out how to compensate so we meet our objective of no net loss.

Senator Meighen: What has been the impact or the effect of Ontario withdrawing from undertaking Fisheries Act authorizations?

Mr. Cuillerier: We like to believe that we are doing a great job in Ontario in protecting fish habitat. We believe, in Ontario, someone walked away from their responsibilities somewhat before 1997. We wanted to ensure that people in Ontario were aware of the requirements. Up front, we informed Ontarians of the federal government presence through Fisheries and Oceans and tried to ensure that they were aware of some the requirements. By word of mouth, by speaking to people and advertising, we have achieved that, so, hopefully, people know that they must talk to us before moving on projects.

Senator Meighen: According to the department's estimates for Ontario, spending for fish habitat and environmental science in 2000-01 was $135 million. Planned spending is expected to decrease in 2001-02 to $97.2 million. In the next fiscal period, 2002-03, spending will be lowered to $92.3 million. In the following fiscal period, 2003-04, it will be down to $80.8 million. You are on a downward spiral.

The inference from Senator Adams' comments, and I would agree with him, is that you scarcely have enough people to fulfil all the responsibilities you have now. What will you cut out when you go from $130-odd million down to $80-odd million?

Mr. Cuillerier: I would like to respond more fully in writing to this question. However, I believe that that business line in that report also includes the oceans program. I am not sure if the budget for the oceans program is decreasing.

Possibly, senator, in 1999, when we did get some money to implement the program, that front-end money was supplemented because we wanted to buy front-end equipment such as trucks. We need trucks and machinery to do the job. We were given more money in the first years, and that has been scaled down. We ended up with $33 million. Ultimately now we will be capped at $28 million. We ended up with a little bit more money in the first years to catch up on some purchases, capital projects and expenditures. The budget will now maintain the staff that we have and the program. It will stabilize as of this year at $28 million, plus the moneys that were already allocated prior to the decision in 1999.

Senator Meighen: I appreciate your answer. If there is anything you wish to add would you get back to the committee?

Mr. Cuillerier: We will take a note of that.

Senator Meighen: Did you not get a grant or special allotment for fish habitat protection on the West Coast, specifically for salmon protection?

Mr. Cuillerier: That is the Canadian fisheries resource program. There was $100 million given to that program over a number of years. I believe it sunsets next year. I am looking for my information on this.

Senator Meighen: Was it aimed at fish habitat protection?

Mr. Cuillerier: It was aimed at fish habitat and restoration for salmon only. That program will sunset this year. It will terminate with the remainder of a $30 million endowment fund that was managed by people from the communities. From the interest earned on this endowment fund, they hope to continue the stewardship and restoration programs on the coast in order to protect salmon.

Senator Meighen: Since that program, it seems, was reasonably successful on the West Coast, do you have a similar program earmarked for the East Coast?

Mr. Cuillerier: Unfortunately, we do not. We have met with the salmon federation from New Brunswick and with a number of representatives of communities in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Recently, we met with people from Ontario. Representatives from Ontario have also been given an endowment fund and, with the interest, will do some restoration and stewardship activities on the East Coast. These initiatives have come about in the last year. When we received the money in 1999 to implement these 28 programs, cabinet requested that we come back to report on the implementation of the programs. We want to report on how we geared the program so that we would be more proactive and less reactive, as well as how we are working with the province to meet our common objectives.

We were hoping to supplement our budget, to close some of the staffing gaps across the country, and look at endowment funds that have worked well. We are not there yet. With the current fiscal situation, I am not sure, senator, where that will take us at this time.

The Chairman: Will you get back to us with some numbers?

Mr. Cuillerier: Certainly, yes.

Senator Callbeck: You spoke about agreements with provinces to streamline processes. Is one of those the environmental assessment process?

Mr. Cuillerier: Yes.

Senator Callbeck: You mentioned Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Do I take it that the environmental assessment is streamlined in those provinces between the feds and the province?

Mr. Cuillerier: No. I will make one correction. The harmonization of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act with provincial acts is being led by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. They are in the process of negotiating, and have been for a number of years, a harmonized environmental assessment process with the provinces.

On occasion, provinces have some fish habitat issues. They certainly have fisheries issues. When a project is submitted to us, we want to ensure the information requirements between the provinces and us are met.

Senator Callbeck: You told us that there are nine offices in the Maritimes. However, in looking at the map, I see that there are 11 offices in the Maritimes. In some of your figures, you add four for the Gulf and seven for the Maritimes which amounts to 11. In the Maritimes, will four of those offices be close to the Gulf?

Mr. Cuillerier: This is all being discussed as we speak, senator. I know that Tracadie, Moncton and Charlottetown will be tied to the Gulf region.

Mr. Richard Nadeau, Director, Habitat Operations, Habitat Management and Environmental Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans: These offices already exist.

Mr. Cuillerier: They are already in place.

Senator Callbeck: Will they be part of the Gulf region?

Mr. Cuillerier: Yes.

Senator Callbeck: I see a blue area on the map that delineates the Gulf area.Is Charlottetown included in that?

Mr. Patrice LeBlanc, Director, Habitat Program, Habitat Management and Environmental Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans: The Gulf includes P.E.I., part of New Brunswick and part of Nova Scotia. The dividing line is the waters that drain into the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

Senator Callbeck: Then that does not depict the Gulf.

Mr. Cuillerier: It does not accurately reflect the lines.

Senator Callbeck: P.E.I. will be included in the Gulf.

Mr. Cuillerier: It is part of the Gulf region.

Senator Callbeck: On the preceding page you deal with FTEs and the budget. Does this mean that, for the Maritimes, some of those 45 FTEs will be in the Gulf?

Mr. Cuillerier: That is right.

Senator Callbeck: Will there be no more added?

Mr. Nadeau: Six years ago there was a separate Gulf region, which was Scotia Fundy and which included part of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. They merged the Scotia Fundy region with the former Gulf region to create the Maritimes region. The number you see there is the total number of people who were working in those two regions at that time. As a result, the resources will be divided accordingly.

Senator Callbeck: What is the explanation for splitting it?

Mr. Nadeau: Fishermen in New Brunswick fish mostly in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, while in Nova Scotia they fish mostly in the Scotian Shelf and the Banks. A few years after the merger, New Brunswick fishermen complained that they were not well treated by Fisheries and Oceans because fisheries were managed out of Halifax or Dartmouth. This caused the department to recreate the fisheries region. As a result, the Gulf fisheries region was created about three and a half years ago.

Part of the Gulf region was with fisheries. Some people working in the same building were attached to the Maritimes, such as oceans, habitat and a part of science. Finally, the department decided to put everyone back together. The Gulf is a fully self-sustaining region.

Senator Callbeck: Is everyone in Prince Edward Island happy about that?

Mr. Nadeau: I would say so.

Senator Callbeck: That is all I want to know.

Senator Watt: I would like to deal with three areas. The first deals with conflicts between the federal and provincial governments. During the Hydro Quebec development in which I was involved in the early part of the 1970s until 1980, many questions were raised in my mind. The first was: Where is Fisheries and Oceans when it comes to the enhancement of fish habitats in the James Bay area? When conflicts arise, sometimes the provincial government deals with the development side while the federal government tries to fulfil its responsibilities. I have been involved in negotiations between the two governments. Has a new mechanism been developed to deal with conflicts, or are they still operating under the same regime they operated under in the old days?

Mr. Cuillerier: Are you talking about the Province of Quebec, Senator Watt?

Senator Watt: Yes.

Mr. Nadeau: Nothing has changed. It is no better than it was 10 years ago. About 10 years ago, we had a sort of gentleman's agreement with different provincial departments regarding DFO implementing its programs and carrying out joint environmental assessments. Although it was not an official agreement, we at least were exchanging information. We were participating in the environmental assessment process. They were providing us advice, as we were providing them advice, on different projects.

It came down to the point in the past few years where they told us openly that they have their areas of responsibility and we have ours. They said that we should each do our jobs. If there is a need to talk, let us do so.

Senator Watt: Especially when the magnitude of the project is huge and X number of millions if not billions of dollars have been spent. In the past the federal government has sometimes taken, not a hands-off position completely, but it has eased off on pressure that I think they should have continued to apply. That is one of the reasons that I wanted to know whether this has changed over the past 30 years.

Is the only mechanism that exists today the environmental impact assessment?

Mr. Nadeau: Quebec is one of the few provinces where there is no harmonization agreement. The only agreement that exists which involves the Cree and Inuit of Quebec is the JBNQA whereby the four parties can sit down and discuss environmental assessment.

Senator Watt: More work has to be done in that area if there is to be a comprehensive solution to the problem.

Mr. Nadeau: That is correct.

Senator Watt: We all have a tendency to look at things from a different perspective. You said in your presentation that what makes you move is the magnitude of the project. It could be a hydro project, a mining project or whatever.

Earlier in your presentation you noted that the population of this country is increasing. The population in the Arctic is also increasing quite rapidly, and at a rate that is probably higher than the average, according to the newspapers.The problems that this increase in population creates may not be the direct responsibility of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans but your department must certainly be concerned about the drainage of community waste into the river system and then into the ocean. Do you have any programs to determine how this effluent can be harnessed and which is aimed at allowing small communities to start regulating themselves? Currently, they are totally unregulated.

In my small community of Kuujjuaq, which has a population of about 2,500 to 3,000, septic tanks are pumped into trucks and then that is released into a small stream adjacent to the community. That stream flows into the river system. That has been going on for too long now. I would suggest that the federal government take steps to encourage the Government of Quebec or the regional or local governments to do something about this totally unacceptable practice. I think that should become part of your responsibility. I recognize that mining waste or waste from hydro projects is a problem, but disposal of local waste can also be major problem. Kuujjuaq is probably not an isolated example of what goes on in the Arctic, and I would remind you of what happened in Ontario where drinking water was contaminated. The problem may seem small or insignificant at the outset, but it has the potential to become a major issue. I suggest that your department look at that and try to do something about it.

In your presentation you mentioned a figure of, I believe, $5 million in your strategic fund.

Am I correct that you were in Kuujjuaq when this committee travelled there?

Mr. Cuillerier: No, I was not, senator. I was not personally present there.

Senator Watt: We have a small private company that has undertaken to try to enhance the Arctic char in an isolated location adjacent to Ungava Bay. They have been doing this on their own, with no help from the federal government. They may have had some technical help from provincial representatives. They have been looking for financial aid. Your responsibility is restoration and enhancement of habitats, and that is exactly what this small company does.

We will hear from a witness from Kuujjuaq next week. Perhaps representatives of your department should be here to listen to what they have to say. It may be helpful to you if you hear the evidence as it is given to this committee.

The Chairman: By all means, you are invited if you wish to come.

Senator Watt: If there is money, and you mentioned a figure of $5 million, I think they would be eligible for that program. Would they be eligible for that program?

Mr. Cuillerier: The $5 million I referred to is the moneys we have to support our environmental science program.

Senator Watt: This could be linked to that.

Mr. Cuillerier: I am not saying it is appropriate or not for this particular project, but the money is geared for our science program. Our people across the country try to scientifically look at the business we are in and find solutions aimed towards protecting fish habitat and to give us some sound advice. Currently, we do not have significant funds for restoration and stewardship. I would be pleased to meet with the individuals from Kuujjuaq and talk about how we can work together.

Senator Watt: I would like the opportunity to talk to any one of you involved in this program to get more information. Then I could relate more information to you about what those people are trying to do in the North. In addition to you meeting with them, I think that would be helpful. I could arrange to meet with you privately when they are here.

Mr. Cuillerier: It would be my pleasure, senator.

Senator Mahovlich: A few years ago I was up in Northern Ontario with the boreal forest committee when an environmentalist appeared as a witness. He was complaining about how the forests were being stripped to within 15 feet of the lakes and rivers. This was in compliance with the forestry regulation. I asked him, what he would recommend, and he said 60 feet. Have you come up with a new restriction, or is it still 15 feet?

Mr. Nadeau: The standard buffer zone is not 15 feet, it is 15 metres.

Mr. Cuillerier: That is 45 feet.

Senator Mahovlich: On one of those lakes it certainly looked like it was 15 feet. In the first five feet, the trees die, because they are exposed. Then you only have 10 feet left and all the mud, all the topsoil goes into the rivers and lakes.

Mr. Cuillerier: That certainly affects fish habitat.

Mr. Nadeau: The standard guideline, depending on the landscape, is 15 to 30 metres. What happens is that the company people read the book, but the contractor who actually cuts the trees does not always look at the books.

Senator Mahovlich: Then it must be policed.

Mr. Nadeau: We have a case that I should not talk about because it is before the courts. However, we went up against a company. One of our newly appointed fishery officers was touring around the back country of one of the provinces and he witnessed workers from a company cutting trees straight down to the shore of a river. He approached the loggers and asked to see their permits. They claimed that they had provincial permits to do the work, but they could not produce them. We may be taking the province to court because the province said that they had allowed this to happen. That is what can happen when there is insufficient enforcement capacity to travel around the country to check on these things. However, with an increase in the number of enforcement people, companies will comply more quickly.

Senator Mahovlich: I have a cottage on a lake in an area that is becoming more and more crowded. At night, the area is lit up like a city.

Areas that were once marshland and generally unappealing to prospective purchasers are now being sold and dredged. The loons used to be found in that marshland area, but now they have gone. I am afraid that the loons will not return. Would the province approve this type of action? Approval would probably be required, would it not?

Mr. Nadeau: It would first need to be approved by the province, but the destruction of marshland would necessitate fisheries authorization. When marshland is adjacent to a lake it is even more important from the perspective of fish habitat. People tend only to see the lake, the water. They do not think about what is underneath the water. Marshland is quite different from a lake. Most often it will give off an odour and people with cottages near marshland would prefer to have the area bulldozed or turned into beaches. However, that is not allowed. Even provincial regulations are pretty strict on this. It should never be done before being reviewed by the provincial or federal authorities.

Senator Mahovlich: Apart from the Great Lakes being an inland fishery, they also form part of our border with the United States. Are there special agreements with the provinces in respect of these bodies of water? Are the Great Lakes strictly under DFO management?

Mr. Nadeau: The Great Lakes are somewhat complicated. They are managed under different regimes. The most important one is the International Joint Commission, which is an American-Canadian commission that includes the provinces that border on the lakes, the federal government, and the federal and state levels of the American government.

Senator Mahovlich: They work together.

Mr. Nadeau: Yes, they work together to manage the fisheries, to manage pest control, the lamprey issues, and to manage the levels of the lakes and the flow of the St. Lawrence River as a system.

The Chairman: Perhaps I am dated on this, but my recollection is that there were agreements between the federal and the provincial governments up to a certain date. Do I understand, or did I hear correctly, that in 1999 all of this stopped, so that after 1999, the federal government took control of what used to be the bilateral habitat management agreements? Am I correct in that?

Mr. Cuillerier: I am not sure to what extent we had formal agreements, but there was a derogation of habitat provisions of the Fisheries Act to certain provinces. A regime used to be in place. Did we have formal agreements, Mr. LeBlanc?

Mr. LeBlanc: No, the only province that we had a sub- agreement with was Ontario for habitat management. We now have one with B.C. However, in the inland provinces, we have fisheries agreements for managing the fish, not the fish habitat. For Ontario and the prairie provinces, we have agreements that date back into the early 1900s, through various acts, agreements and court decisions respecting the division of power between the federal and provincial governments. That exists in the inland provinces and in B.C.

For example, B.C. manages some of the inland fish on behalf of the federal government, but they do not manage any of the anadromous species - the salmon and some of the char.

The Chairman: The only province with which you had a written agreement for fish habitat management was Ontario.

Mr. LeBlanc: Yes, and now we have one with B.C. We signed one in the year 2000.

The Chairman: B.C. is the only one in addition to Ontario.

Mr. LeBlanc: That is correct.

The Chairman: Over the years have you tried to develop these agreements on habitat management as was done with aquaculture?

Mr. LeBlanc: Yes, senator. We have ongoing discussions through a new initiative called a Freshwater Fisheries Initiative with the inland provinces, and habitat management is foremost.

Parallel to that, we have held meetings with New Brunswick, P.E.I. and Nova Scotia to find any interest in developing a bilateral agreement on habitat management. We are actually re-entering new discussions with Ontario for a new agreement on habitat management. I will attend some meetings next week. For Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, at the moment, we are developing protocols, that is, at least some agreement in terms of how we will work, because we have introduced a number of new people in those provinces.

We will also have meetings as we proceed with the territories, Nunavut, Northwest Territories and Yukon. We are moving on a number of fronts at the moment.

The Chairman: I work with a volunteer organization that does work on or around bodies of water every once in a while. Up to now, with the passing of the years, we have always applied for provincial authorization to allow us to do that work around a body of water. My understanding is that the provinces always advise the federal government about what is going on. Is this done strictly informally?

Mr. LeBlanc: It depends on the province.

The Chairman: What about Nova Scotia?

Mr. LeBlanc: With Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and P.E.I. we have agreements that involve the two levels of government where we review proposals. They receive a water authorization permit. They review it and work out our requirements. They work out guidelines for the project, which we need not see as long as the group follows the established guidelines. For example, if you install a culvert and follow the guidelines that have been established by us, then the province will give you a permit, but they will attach our guidelines to ensure that the intent of the Fisheries Act is met.

The Chairman: I noticed that on the Water Alteration Applications that we have submitted. The system works, even though it is informal.

Mr. LeBlanc: That is right.

The Chairman: Would it be possible for you to provide a table or chart for us with that kind of information about each province?

Do I understand correctly that one of your objectives is to make this a more formal process?

Mr. Cuillerier: I think that is very important.

The Chairman: I assume it would be in the province's and your interests because of the resources required. I know that the Province of Nova Scotia, from my judgment of the way they have done the work there, are pretty good at it.

Mr. LeBlanc: We have a good relationship with the governments of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, where we work collaboratively on the review of proposals. Yes, we would like to be that much more formalized, and have what we call "protocols" to ensure that everyone is clear on who will do what, when and why.

There is an agreement to at least inform us when a non-compliance issue arises. At the end of the year, we would like to assess what has been accomplished through these processes so that we can better report to Parliament. As you know, we are required to report on how well we protect fish habitat. You have a copy of our 1999-2000 annual report to Parliament.

The Chairman: Returning to the hypothetical question posed by Senator Meighen, if I decide I want a new wharf at my camp and just go ahead and build one, and everyone in the area knows that I am doing it and no one does anything about it, could DFO, a year or two later, say that I should have asked permission to build a wharf and that I must now take it out, as well as impose a fine?

Mr. Nadeau: We have done that before.

Mr. Cuillerier: Yes, on the Ottawa River. That also affects the surrounding area and the shoreline of your neighbours. If you put more sand in the water you get more weeds and different species. It affects the habitat altogether. Unfortunately, on occasion, we must take retroactive action. It is not pleasant. It depends on the gravity of the situation, of course.

The Chairman: If I put a wharf in front of my camp you could come back retroactively?

Mr. Cuillerier: We are looking at the productivity of the habitat. If that is a very productive area for the habitat, that becomes very important. In an area where the habitat is not very productive, we may negotiate other terms. It depends on the productivity and the importance of the particular project.

The Chairman: Might you use it as an example to others to show what can happen if you do not get a permit?

Mr. Nadeau: If it happens, it almost becomes an enforcement action. We must prove that you have damaged fish habitat.

The Chairman: I am still not quite sure about "no net loss." Do I understand correctly that "no net loss" means that if the government does an action that damages habitat, it does a counter-balancing action to increase productivity elsewhere so that, in effect, there is no loss in productivity?

Mr. Cuillerier: We compensate with something else.

The Chairman: Therefore, "no net loss" means that you always try to improve.

Mr. Nadeau: It is the last option. We do that when we believe that the loss of habitat productivity can feasibly be compensated for elsewhere in the area. It is a last-resort type of action.

In terms of our hierarchy of options, the first one that our people are trained to apply is relocation. When someone proposes something, an assessment is done. If the resulting damage would be something that DFO cannot accept, or something that would make it impossible for DFO to meet its objective, the first option is to have the proponent relocate. That is not always feasible. When it is not feasible, it is redesigned. That could involve realigning a breakwater or choosing a better location for a wharf, redesigning its shape or changing the engineering to ensure that it will cause less damage to fish habitat.

The next option is full mitigation, if possible. In many cases, it could be just a question of time. If you do the work in the spring when salmon are going upriver, it could cause damage. If you do the work later in the summer or fall, it might cause less damage because the fish are already upstream. That is the kind of mitigation we are talking about.

Compensation is the last option.

Senator Watt: Does mitigation also deal with compensation? If there were no way to rectify the damage done to the habitat, if the project were more important, you would have to consider providing compensation, would you not?

Mr. Nadeau: In terms of the Fisheries Act, no, it is not the same thing.

Senator Watt: It has been used many times, though.

Mr. Nadeau: Do you mean physical compensation?

Senator Watt: Yes. I have been involved many times in that type of activity.

Mr. Nadeau: Every time we issue an authorization, a compensation agreement must come with it. We negotiate an agreement with proponents to ensure that the habitat is compensated for in terms of productive capacity.

Senator Watt: My point is that at times habitat is not the most important item. Sometimes something else overrides that, such as a developer's interest.

Mr. Nadeau: That may happen.

Senator Watt: It happens many times.

Mr. Nadeau: We do refuse projects.

Senator Watt: I do not want to argue about this. I have been a witness to that many times.

Senator Cook: I have heard much about other provinces of Canada. What protocols do you have in place for Newfoundland?

Mr. LeBlanc: We had initial discussions with the Province of Newfoundland to identify interest in developing a bilateral agreement on habitat management. In the Province of Newfoundland, as you know, the federal government manages both the fisheries and the habitat, unlike in Ontario where the federal government manages the fisheries and we must work very closely with the province. We still have to work closely with Newfoundland, especially when we do major reviews under some of their legislation.

We have been in touch with them and have had some initial discussion. We have not yet sat down face-to-face. Discussions have been over the phone. We are planning to meet with them to determine whether they have an interest in an agreement. If we determine that such interest exists, we will sit down with the regional people and the headquarters people to negotiate an agreement.

Senator Cook: I am thinking primarily about industrial operations having an effect on fish habitat. I look back to the phosphorus plant at Long Harbour that was, in my opinion, a disaster. I look at the potential of the new smelting process for Voisey's Bay that may be built near the ocean. That would certainly have a large impact on fish habitat. I am wondering about what happens offshore, or are you covered under the environmental assessment?

Mr. Nadeau: I cannot speak to the phosphorous plant.

Senator Cook: That was yesterday. The herrings were red and the lobsters had three claws.

Mr. Nadeau: I can talk about the potential for a new nickel processing facility potentially to be built around Argentia Bay. A bigger project than the one being considered now was reviewed under CEA. That front is covered. We have a very good working relationship with the Province of Newfoundland. We work in close collaboration. They have a process similar to the one in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. They call it the "Liaison Committee." All the federal departments, provincial departments and agencies that must make decisions on different projects work together to do the best assessment possible and make joint decisions on what can be approved and what cannot be approved.

With respect to the offshore, the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board is looking after offshore development, and there is a lot happening in Newfoundland.

Senator Cook: Have you delegated your responsibilities, sir?

Mr. Nadeau: No. Responsibility for the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board - the CNOPB - on the federal side is with the minister responsible for Natural Resources Canada. All these projects are also reviewed under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, under which we have responsibility for Hibernia, Terra Nova and White Rose, along with the board, which is also responsible under CEAA for special regulation. We participate in all these review processes. We provide advice and guidance to the board as to what is acceptable and what is not. We also issue authorizations.

Senator Cook: You also have the onshore storage facilities that are adjacent to the waters, such as Whiffen Head; is that right?

Mr. Nadeau: The terminal at Whiffen Head was the subject of an extensive compensation agreement because some damage was done to lobster habitat and some capelin spawning grounds. They put together a compensation program that amounted to hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is ongoing and we are still monitoring it along with the company. It seems to be working well.

Senator Adams: I remember our study on Bill C-14 when it was before our Transport Committee. How closely do Environment Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Coast Guard work together? Bill C-14 deals with environmental issues as well as with fish habitat. How closely do you work together?

If I do something in the future that involves a contract with a big corporation or something like that, who would I go to see first? Would I come to you first or would I go to Environment Canada? How does the system work with the other departments?

Mr. Cuillerier: If I understand the question, senator, you are asking how closely we work with Environment Canada.

Senator Adams: That is correct.

Mr. Cuillerier: We work closely with them. Today, there was a senior management meeting of both departments to deal with common issues, such as municipal waste water. A number of issues were brought to the table today. We work on an ongoing basis with Environment Canada. We talk to Environment Canada every week. We have common issues.

As I mentioned earlier, they manage section 36 of the Fisheries Act, the pollution provisions. We work in concert with them on a number of projects. We must work closely with them as our objectives are closely aligned and complement each other. In other projects we consult with each other.

Senator Adams: If there is anything to do with the environment or fish habitat, do the decisions have to be made by both your department and Environment Canada? Who makes the final decision?

Mr. Cuillerier: The final decision on questions of fish habitat is with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It rests with us.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I wish to thank our witnesses for their very informative presentation. I also thank them for being willing to meet Senator Watt's electors when they will come back.

[English]

As we progress through our study of habitat, questions may arise from time to time. If that happens, could we ask you to appear before the committee again? We would give you plenty of notice, of course. Toward the end of our study I am sure that we would want you to assist us again so that we do not get bogged down in things that we do not understand.

Mr. Cuillerier: It was a pleasure to be here this evening and to engage in this discussion. I say that sincerely. As I mentioned in my opening statement, it is important that more people are aware of fish habitat issues. It is everyone's business. It is critical to the environment, to the whole of everything we do in Canada. We would be more than pleased to answer any questions you might have. Please give us a call, and we will be pleased to meet with you.

The Chairman: When we first approached the idea of looking at habitat, every senator here tonight, and others who are not present, was very much in agreement that it is an outstanding subject which we should be studying. Thank you again for your appearance this evening.

Is it agreed that the material provided by DFO this evening be filed as an exhibit with the committee?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Mr. Nadeau: In relation to Senator Mahovlich's question about the Great Lakes, the Auditor General's office just released an audit on how good the federal department does on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence systems. It covers DFO, Environment Canada, the IJC and all the federal groups involved in the management of the Great Lakes. It is a very good report.

The committee adjourned.