Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries
Issue 15 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 19, 2002
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: In 1995, the Auditor General Act was amended to create the position of Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. These changes were made to encourage strong performance by the federal government in the areas of the environment and sustainable development. In short, the commissioner, as part of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, provides objective and independent analyses, makes recommendations on future action, and presents an annual report to Parliament.
Last October, the commissioner, Ms Johanne Gélinas, submitted a seven-chapter report to the House of Commons. Chapter 1 of the report covers the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River Basin and provides an assessment of the federal government's management of a wide range of environmental matters. In respect of fisheries, the discussion includes the important subjects of invasive aquatic species, fish habitat, scientific information, and federal and provincial roles. This committee has shown a great deal of interest in these areas in the past, as well as more recently.
We had wanted the commissioner to appear before the committee at an earlier date, but we were in the process of completing our reports, so the invitation had to be delayed.
Finally, tonight, we are pleased to welcome the commissioner, Madame Gélinas, and her colleagues. Thank you for appearing before us this evening. The committee members will have many questions after your presentation. Ms Gélinas, please introduce your colleagues and proceed with your comments.
[Translation]
Ms Johanne Gélinas, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Mr. Chairman, that was an excellent overview of the role of the Commissioner. With your permission, I would like to explore a little further that role.
First of all, thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee. With me this evening are experts who will be able to answer your questions. They are John Reed, who was responsible for the Great Lakes report, Gordon Stock, who drafted the chapter on fisheries and Neil Maxwell, Principal, Environment Audit Team. Among other things, Mr. Maxwell is here to discuss climate change with committee members.
Today, I will give a brief overview of my 2001 report, focussing on Chapter 1, ``The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River Basin'', and, in particular, the sections related to fisheries.
First, I would like to briefly describe the role and mandate of my position. The position of Commissioner was created in 1995 by amendments to the Auditor General Act. My group has a legislative mandate to audit the federal government's performance in managing environmental protection and sustainable development issues. Recent audits have covered ozone layer protection, climate change, toxic substances, and hazardous waste. We are part of the Office of the Auditor General and often work together on audit projects.
The changes to the act required each federal department to produce an action plan for working toward their sustainable development objectives, known as a sustainable development strategy. My Office has a mandate to track and report on the commitments departments have made in their strategies.
[English]
The act also provides for an environmental petition process. Canadians can petition the government, through me, for answers to their environmental questions. A petition can be as simple as a letter. My office monitors the process and the responses from ministers. Chapter 7 of my report describes the process and summarizes the status of petitions, many of which have been directed to Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
I will turn now to Chapter 1. We audited the federal government's management of environmental issues in the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River Basin for two important reasons: the basin is a critical environmental resource for the world, holding 20 per cent of the world's fresh water; and it is home to 16 million Canadians who depend on it for clean air, drinking water, and for personal health, employment and recreation.
We focussed on four main subject areas: water, agriculture, species and spaces at risk, and fisheries. Our objective was to determine whether the government was meeting its commitments, applying good management practices to the issues we examined, and using good governance overall. Activities of several federal departments were included in the audit.
Although we focused on the basin, many of the issues and federal programs that we examined are national in scope, and our findings potentially have national implications. While our mandate is limited to the federal government's activities, the successful management of sustainability in the basin depends on many other parties. This is a region of shared jurisdiction. The provinces have a strong role to play, as do other governments, industry, fishing organizations, scientists and individuals.
What did we find? There have been some remarkable environmental successes and improvements in the basin over the past three decades. Our audit specifically credits the role that individuals in the federal government have played in these improvements.
[Translation]
While some aspects of the basin's environment are improving, today's best science says that others are deteriorating as we speak. In the next generation, the basin's Canadian population is expected to grow by three million and its GDP is projected to be 60 per cent higher than today.
This growth will put added stress on an already delicate ecosystem. The aquatic ecosystem is particularly vulnerable to threats that include pesticides and toxic chemicals from agricultural run-off, untreated wastewater, the destruction of fish habitat, and the introduction of invasive aquatic species.
This brings me to my main concern. I believe that the future of the basin is at risk. Federal efforts have lost momentum. The leadership, innovation, science and diligence that served the basin in the past has diminished. There is an overwhelming sense of complacency and resignation, instead of urgency and inspiration.
Our audit's overall conclusion emphasized four major themes:
First, important issues and problems are not being dealt with and international commitments are not being met, partly because of reduced funding to departments. For example, in 1994, the Minister of the Environment announced $125 million in new funding to support the Great Lakes action plan; however, departments have received less than 12 per cent of that. The commitments the government has made with the resources it has allocated to meet them are out of sync.
Second, there are no long-term, basin-wide strategies for key environmental threats. There is no coordinated, consistent federal voice on key issues in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence regions.
Third, monitoring and measurement systems and scientific research are deficient. There are major gaps in the information needed to make sound decisions in areas like wetlands, soils, and fish habitat.
Fourth, the federal role is changing and waning. The government is not using the authorities and tools it has at its disposal to tackle the tough issues. It relies, increasingly, on partnerships to meet its objectives. Our audit raised fundamental questions about the government's role in overseeing its partners' actions and in providing assurance that federal and national objectives are being met.
[English]
I will now turn to the sections of our report dealing with the basin's fisheries. We examined four different aspects: The federal role of conservation and protection, scientific information, invasive aquatic species, and fish habitat.
The overriding message is that the federal government has not realised what its role should be in conserving and protecting freshwater fish, including those in the basin. It does not have a vision; it has not figured out where its role ends and the provinces' begin; and it has tried to delegate its responsibilities to others.
The second main message is that, in the basin, the scientific programs and expertise of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are in trouble. In the early 1990s, the levels of federal funding for scientific research in Ontario were unstable. Since then the situation has deteriorated. In Quebec, the department has conducted almost no freshwater science.
The department identified gaps in its science but had no plan to resolve them. To make matters worse, it is losing scientific expertise for the Great Lakes, with 54 per cent of its science staff expected to retire within the next four years. Because it has not defined its role, it does not know what science it needs.
The third message is that the department is not dealing with the significant and growing threat to the fisheries: invasive aquatic species. Since the 1800s, at least 160 species, such as the sea lamprey and zebra mussel, have invaded the basin. On paper, the federal government has made a strong commitment to prevent and control invasive species, but it has not translated that commitment into results.
The department has participated in an effective program to control sea lamprey through the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. However, this is an exception. The federal government has no policy, framework or organized approach to control invasive aquatic species or prevent new species from entering the basin.
The biggest known threat for new species introduction is the ballast water of commercial ships entering the basin. Canada has voluntary guidelines under the Canada Shipping Act, but they are far from effective.
This year we are continuing our work on aquatic invasive species. We are collaborating with the Government Accounting Office, GAO, our counterpart in the United States, and plan to publish our separate reports in October 2002.
[Translation]
Finally, I would like to talk about an issue near and dear to you, namely the protection of fish habitat. Although Fisheries and Oceans has had a Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat for 15 years, it has not been implemented fully. In 1995, the federal government tried to formally delegate the management of freshwater fish habitat to the Prairie provinces, Ontario and Quebec. However, this did not work and Ontario withdrew from its agreement to manage fish habitat. In Quebec the province argued that its own legislation and programs already protected fish habitat. Therefore, in 1999, Fisheries and Oceans reassumed its full responsibilities for national management of freshwater fish habitat.
The department has struggled since then to strengthen its program in Ontario, recognizing that the program needs improvement. In 1999, it received $28 million to strengthen its national program for freshwater fish habitat. However, that program is not designed to provide the same level of monitoring and enforcement in Quebec as it does in Ontario.
A second problem is that the department has limited information on the state of fish habitat in the basin. It does not know whether fish habitat is being gained or lost.
In conclusion, our audit shows clearly that there are many threats to the future of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River basin. The path the federal government is following in the basin is not sustainable.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. We look forward to all your questions.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms Gélinas. You have painted a rather sombre outlook for us. On listening to your presentation, I think we have reason to be very concerned. For committee members interested in the issue of fish habitat, to hear these comments and to realize that we need to focus on this important matter is a good starting point.
Senator Meighen: For once, I am pleased to be a member of the human race, instead of a fish, although I cannot say if my environment is any healthier. In order to put this issue in some perspective, in your opinion, are we in fact dealing with a funding problem or with a lack of will to take action?
Ms Gélinas: In my opinion, there is no question that we are dealing with a funding problem. It was noted, among other things, that federal government commitments are out of sync with the resources allocated for this purpose. Two options are available: either the government reduces its commitments, or it increases its resources: On reading the report, you will see that, in response to our recommendations, in the case of Fisheries and Oceans, it is noted on several occasions that the problem is in part related to funding levels.
Aside from this very real problem, there is also the lack of vision, a piecemeal approach to resolving various problems and a failure to set priorities. If the federal government and Fisheries and Oceans were to set clear priorities for the coming years, there is no question that we would be able to tackle some of these priorities with the funding available in the different departments.
[English]
Senator Meighen: What is the status of coordination with the provinces? It seems from your report that there are holes in that area too. If there were better coordination, there would be better expenditure of funds and resources.
Ms Gélinas: The roles and responsibilities are not clear, so it is quite difficult to coordinate something when those are not defined. One of the first steps should be to clarify the role of DOF and what the department would like to accomplish in partnership with the provinces and other organizations. They could then determine who will do what and whether the money is in the budget to proceed.
The issue of unstable funds is prevalent in the report on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Basin management.
Mr. John Reed, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: In respect of the federal-provincial coordination, I would add that in each of the subject areas we looked at, there are shared roles in water, fisheries, agriculture and protecting species at risk. Some people will describe it as an intractable problem, and that it is difficult to nail down specific roles and responsibilities. Our audit found, especially on the Quebec side, that the federal and provincial governments sat down, rolled up their sleeves and hammered out the deal. They worked out concrete roles and responsibilities for each issue they were trying to tackle, so there is evidence that it can be done. It is a matter of good management, of goodwill, of being clear about what you are trying to achieve and how you are going to achieve it. Often those things are missing when the two levels of government sit down. If you do not have a clear vision of what you are trying to achieve, it is difficult to negotiate a shared role.
Senator Meighen: When was your report filed?
Ms Gélinas: It was filed on October 2, 2001.
Senator Meighen: Has it evoked any official response? Has there been a reply, in whole or in part?
Ms Gélinas: The report contains the replies from the departments on our recommendations. In this case, DFO and Environment Canada agreed on our recommendations. In the future, we expect that they will move ahead and try to implement our recommendations. To track that progress, there should be follow-up work every two years, more or less, to monitor how the departments have implemented our recommendations.
Senator Meighen: Over the next two years, is the only way for us to verify that to ask officials from DFO?
Ms Gélinas: Yes. That, Mr. Chairman, would help us in this process.
Senator Meighen: We would be happy to assist you.
In respect of the exotic species that have invaded the basin, I thought the sea lamprey entered through the St. Lawrence Seaway. However, after looking at your report, I now understand that it entered the system in the 1830s, so I imagine they swam up the Lachine Canal into Lake Ontario. The graph indicates that there has been successful control of the sea lamprey population, but there does not seem to be, from what I can observe in my own unscientific way, any control of the zebra mussels. Were you able to detect any progress in that area and the area of other exotic species?
Ms Gélinas: There is much work to be done, and we have to take into account that it is quite costly. It has cost approximately $100 million over the last 10 years just to deal with the zebra mussel and sea lamprey species problem, without resolving it. The figures in respect of the zebra mussel on the U.S. and the Canadian sides of the Great Lakes, indicate that the damages have amounted to U.S$3 billion, to date. This is an enormous, emerging issue, and thus far we are only dealing with two of the 160 species, although they are not equal in terms of potential damages. It is a serious situation and, to date, DFO has done nothing to deal with it.
Mr. Reed: I am not sure, senator, about the nature of your question. The sea lamprey population increases and decreases, and we are into perpetual control through the use of pesticides to knock out those populations.
Zebra mussels are probably in the same category. They exist, and we are probably now into the issue of perpetual control of them as well. They are having major effects, not just as parasites on other species, but in what they are doing to the nature and ecology of the lakes. A great deal of the money spent on control of the zebra mussel is just to keep the power intakes clean enough to allow power plants to continue operations. That is the greatest portion of the expenditure.
Mr. Gordon Stock, Director, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: As to the sea lamprey and its progression to the upper lakes, this happened once the Welland Canal was built. It is thought that the species could be indigenous to Lake Ontario and that it could have migrated there on its own.
On the issue of the costs that are involved to control the zebra mussel, I do not think that science currently has an effective way of controlling it or limiting its spread. Given that and given the costs incurred to control both of these species, not including the costs of all the other species, we propose in the report that more attention be paid to preventing the initial incursion. From that perspective, we think it could be a more effective program.
Senator Meighen: Can you give us an assessment of the degree of ongoing cooperation between governments of border states and the provincial governments, or between the Canadian Government and the U.S. Federal Government, given that the basin lies, of course, astride the border? When I read that only $12 million of the $125 million of the new funding has flowed, I wonder about the reaction of our partners in the custody of the Great Lakes Basin. Are the Americans saying that, if we do not put up our money, they will not put up their money?
Mr. Reed: You have raised an important issue. Overall, a number of institutions exist to make that cooperation happen. One of those is through the International Joint Commission which pulls all of these states, provinces and the two federal governments together.
The funding decline is a pretty serious issue that is impeding the federal government's ability to meet its obligations. Frankly, our report found that the communication from the Canadian government to the U.S. government in respect of the real situation and how it was coping with its commitments was less than open and less than forthright. Perhaps there were suspicions about the state of affairs, but this will probably come as news to the U.S. It is hard to say how they will react. The reality is that the U.S. was experiencing some of the same problems and funding issues, and they are probably not meeting all of their commitments either, although we did not perform that specific audit work. I do not think the U.S. would be surprised that this is happening, because there has been informal communication on the subject. However, it is pretty threatening to the level of cooperation.
We also had a whole chapter dealing with the federal government's specific relationship to the International Joint Commission where we also raised some concerns. The International Joint Commission serves Canada very well. It is a bi-national institution that gives us a 50-50 vote on how those lakes are managed. However, the federal government has been doing a number of things that, in effect, weaken the commission's ability to do its job and protect the interests of both governments. Both issues are a concern that we addressed in the chapters of our report.
Mr. Stock: I would also like to point out that another commission helps coordinate what is happening on the fisheries side between the states, the U.S. federal government, the provinces, and Canada, and that is the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. It has taken a leadership role in efforts to control the sea lamprey. It helps to facilitate agreement negotiations on what the total catch should be in the different lakes, and to develop an ideal population for the different kinds of species that people like to fish. It does this only at the provincial and state levels for the populations, and it chooses the catch. The federal government is an observer, not an active participant.
Senator Robertson: Your presentation, I must say, is a bit discouraging. It must be hard for you to go to work some days.
I understand you were structured in 1995, so you have been in business for about seven years. I am trying to get a handle on how you operate. Do I understand from the notes that we have that you report to Parliament once a year?
Ms Gélinas: Yes.
Senator Robertson: Have you presented six reports to Parliament since your inception?
Mr. Reed: There have been five reports.
Senator Robertson: For a better understanding of how you work, where you are coming from and where you are going, how do you characterize your success in terms of having any of your recommendations implemented?
Ms Gélinas: As I was saying to Senator Meighen, we do a follow-up. Perhaps I can use an example which is not related to the fishery. Two years ago, we did an audit on climate change and there were specific recommendations established in the report. Last year, we revisited the Department of Environment to find out what they had done to implement our recommendations. This is included in our 2001 report, and this information is available to the public so that Canadians can follow the department's progress in implementing our recommendations. I would say that our recommendations have been implemented. The problem is the slowness with which they are being implemented.
However, we propose to carry on and although things are moving ahead, they are not moving ahead as fast as we would like.
Senator Robertson: Of the departments you report on, what is your biggest success? You talk about climate changes, but do you wake up some mornings and say, ``That made a difference''? Is there a discernible impact?
Ms Gélinas: Two years ago we were saying that the federal government was not playing the leadership role it should in respect to climate change. In our follow-up last year, we found that most of what we were asking them to do had been put into place. For example, the government had put in place this broad consultation process to plan measures so that they could implement a reduction in greenhouse gases to a target of 6 per cent lower than 1990 levels. Thus, there have been a couple of success stories.
However, things can always be done more effectively, and we report on that. In our report card you can see four categories: Completed; our recommendation was taken into account and put forward in a satisfactory way; in progress; and not done. You can easily follow what has been done.
I think that Mr. Reed can also cite an example. Even though it may be discouraging to hear what we had to say, some progress has been made in the past and we are able to cite a couple of promising examples.
Mr. Reed: For the Great Lakes, the report has only been out for five or six months, so it is difficult to discern a lot of movement.
In each of the years that we have reported, a major audit has led the way. In 1998, we dealt with climate change; in 1999, it was toxic substances, and in 2000, it was smog. We could find positive examples of ways the departments have responded to the recommendations for each of those activities.
Two other things are important as well. First, just the fact that we choose to audit a subject matter causes departments to take action regarding the issues that we are raising. As our report approaches publication, we know there is a tendency to pre-emptively take action respecting some of our findings.
Second, the parliamentary process is a crucial one for us, in light of the responses of departments to parliamentary committees, including Senate committees like this. It keeps them on their toes. We find people use our reports in their ongoing discussions with departmental officials. Even though it is not in the public record, there is always work going on behind the scenes that references our work. This fall, the commissioner, in consultations, was happy to hear that people use our reports. They attend meetings with departmental officials and make specific references to our reports.
There are many ways of measuring impact, and recommendations is one of them.
Senator Robertson: Do you priorize your recommendations when you are putting them forward? If you are making recommendations to DFO, do you have some recommendations that have a greater requirement for implementation than others?
Ms Gélinas: We have not done that in the past, but we will attempt to do it in the future. We would like to track our top recommendations more closely. We will then be able to see whether they have been acted upon. As a result, we can expect that the problem will be resolved more quickly.
In the past, we made a lot of recommendations and, even for us, it was difficult to determine which one should come first. We are addressing this internally and we will try to improve upon this in the future.
Senator Robertson: I come from the east coast, so I am very aware of what goes on in the St. Lawrence basin. A few years ago we were reading a lot about badly diseased or infected whales being in the river and basin area, and a lot of consternation was expressed at the time. Can you tell me if that is still the case in the basin? If whales are infected, other species may also be infected. Have we made any progress with that issue?
Ms Gélinas: We have a case study in our report dealing with beluga whales. That is one of the success stories.
Mr. Reed: There are a lot of success stories in the Great Lakes Basin. Some of them we have written about in the report; others we have not. Do not forget that a lot of good things have occurred in the basin, but we have not written about those.
The issue with respect to the beluga whale is dealt with under species and spaces at risk, page 195 of the English version of the report.
We had a mixed view in terms of this case study being a success story. There is no question that the beluga population was in trouble and that the federal government and other partners developed a plan and took action. The populations have benefited. There were prohibitions on hunting. As the general quality of the river has improved, concerns about the toxic chemicals inside the whales are beginning to be addressed. All of that is good news.
Dealing with issues such as those surrounding the beluga whales and the recovery of any species is a long-term venture. They cannot be dealt with in a three-year or a five-year program. Many of these populations, like human populations, take generations to recover.
Part of our concern was how, in a situation where you are dealing with a lot of short-term goals and short-term deliverables, do you make sure you keep long-term programs in place. It requires long-term commitment, funding, scientific research, modelling, all of the things that go into it.
That was our caution. The beluga whale is a great example of how concerted action can make a difference and has made a difference. However, the story is not finished. It will take many more years to know the final answer.
Senator Watt: I will focus on the recommendations you have put forward. You mention in the report that you have succeeded in that at least two departments are willing to act on your recommendations, and those the Department of the Environment and Fisheries and Oceans.
Before I came here, I was at our Energy committee where the witness was Mr. David Anderson, the Minister of the Environment. He described rapid changes in his department in anticipation of the passage of Bill C-32. Another bill also deals with species at risk, and that is Bill C-5.
I am from the North, the Subarctic.
Are those two bills that are being put forward by the ministers based upon recommendations that you have put forward?
Mr. Reed: No, I do not think so. Does Bill C-5 deal with species and spaces at risk?
Senator Watt: Yes.
Mr. Reed: That is not a direct response to our recommendations. We do, however, refer to the history of that bill, but we do not comment on its merits. That bill has a history, dating back at least six or eight years.
Offhand, I am not sure what Bill C-32 is.
Senator Watt: It deals with the concept of sustainable development, the protection of species.
Mr. Reed: Is it different from Bill C-5?
Senator Watt: Yes. I believe it may amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Mr. Reed: The Canadian Environmental Protection Act was passed in 1999. Bill C-32 is a little different. In 1999 we prepared a major report on the management of toxic substances. The CEPA was not a response to our report. However, many of the issues that we addressed in our work on toxic substances were echoed in some of the provisions of that act. Neither Bill C-5, dealing with species and spaces at risk, nor the CEPA, are a direct result of our work.
Senator Watt: You have painted a picture of lack of implementation and lack of knowledge, and that confirms what I have been concerned about for quite some time. We appear to be busy legislating and developing legislation to protect species and the environment, but when it involves implementation, there seems to be a lack of action. According to your report, there is no coordination between departments. That is not surprising. What do we do in this case?
Did you make recommendations to implement a monitoring system on site, in a certain geographical location, which would be an arm of your organization?
Ms Gélinas: We have often said that monitoring is the worst aspect. I do not know that we have a specific recommendation which addresses monitoring on site.
Mr. Reed: We do not make specific recommendations about areas that should be monitored. We have never specifically said that monitoring in a certain geographic place should be improved. However, as the commissioner has said, we have frequently recommended that departments put in place a targeted monitoring system to deal with the issues that they are managing.
Senator Watt: Do you think it would be helpful to establish a monitoring system? At least you would be aware of what is going on in the field.
Mr. Reed: There are many different models of monitoring and many different interpretations of what monitoring means. In many of the reports we have written, we have said that there is an absolute need to have good scientific monitoring information. It is vital for good decision making. We cite many examples in this work in the Great Lakes Basin, including the issues in which the committee is interested, that is, habitat. There is not a good understanding of habitat loss or gain by the federal government, despite the fact that they have an explicit policy around habitat protection. That kind of monitoring is crucial to good decisions.
We would not recommend what a specific system should look like. We would tend to recommend that departments need to develop one that fits the mandate they have.
Senator Watt: You raise the issue that the departments do not seem to be coordinating their efforts in such a way that we could, at the end of the tunnel, know what is happening. It sounds to me like you are saying that there is a need for a ministerial post to coordinate the departments that are directly related to health, environmental and fisheries issues. Perhaps other departments should be coordinated as well.
Ms Gélinas: Mr. Chairman, there is a problem of coordination among the departments, especially in this report on the Great Lakes. There are many players in the federal family alone. We are saying that they should get together and figure out who is doing what. We raise this time after time. There are no clear roles and responsibilities within the federal government to determine who is doing what.
The information regarding aquatic invasive species is one example of that. No department is clearly identified as having the lead role on that. DOF does its part, but the federal government has to clearly identify who will be the champion in this area and ensure that that department will gather the information, coordinate, and ensure that we are dealing with this issue.
Transport Canada is also has some involvement in this area. As well, our U.S. counterpart is involved because we use some parts of their legislation to deal with this problem. If there is a human health issue with respect to invasive species, what is the role of the Department of Health? We do not know the answer to that question.
These are questions that we have raised over and over. We are not there yet.
Senator Watt: Those are matters that all of us should help move forward.
I understand from your report that you have limited your activities to the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River Basin. The Subarctic, where I come from, has a much colder climate and the climate change is more noticeable. Perhaps this committee would consider a recommendation that you conduct audits in the Arctic in the near future. We have eyewitness evidence that people are dying from what they are drinking, eating and breathing.
We are certainly good at talking about these issues, but when it comes to understanding the issues and taking action, we are lacking.
Like you, I want to see a meaningful mechanism of dealing with these problems being put in place. We must decide what that mechanism will be, and it must be acceptable to the federal and provincial governments. I believe that they should work more closely to deal with these critical issues. It is important to act now, because we have a right to life and, before we know it, that right will be taken away from us. It is happening unbelievably fast.
Ms Gélinas: It was not in my time, but in 1999 we conducted a study on the Arctic. I am not sure that we have the right people present this evening to discuss that, but we could discuss it at some point.
We are just starting to do some work in the North. For the report which is due in October 2002, we are looking at abandoned mines and contaminated sites which are mostly located in the North. I am sure that we will have some good information to report.
However, we are looking for suggestions. If you think the commissioner's office should address a particular issue, I would be more than happy to take that into consideration.
I applaud the undertaking of the committee. I manage a process that we call the ``Petition Process.'' If any community in the North wants to know exactly what the federal government is doing in the North with respect to a specific environmental issue or a sustainable development issue, a representative of that community should write to us and we will ensure that, within a short period of time, we will respond to those concerns. This is one way — and it is perhaps not as detailed as an audit — that Canadians can find out what is going on and what the federal government is doing in their region.
I would also say that that it is an inspiration for me to get connected with Canadians. It is important to know what Canadians think.
Senator Watt: For some time now I have been doing studies in regard to what is happening with the climate change, the food source, the water and the air in the Arctic. I have gone as far as seeking out scientific information. I have information from the scientific community that made recommendations in the past. I am now analysing a huge report. I should have it finished within the week. I would be glad to share the information with you since you may find it useful in order to target areas of concern. From the list of the environmental specialists, ecologists and scientists I have, you can choose whom to consult. I have their names, addresses and telephone numbers. They could provide more detailed information.
Senator Cook: I am from the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, so the Great Lake Basin and what it represents is completely foreign to me. However, I am disturbed by what I read here.
I would like to turn to the word ``sustainability.'' In the context of DFO's responsibility, what does that mean? What are we talking about here?
Ms Gélinas: That is the million-dollar question.
I could show you the sustainable development strategy prepared by DFO. About 25 other departments are preparing similar documents. It is an action plan that reflects what they are doing in this regard.
However, I may have some difficulty addressing the specific things DFO is doing in the area of sustainability.
[Translation]
We note in our report that in the area of fisheries management, the path the federal government is following is clearly not that of sustainable development. We have identified past examples of this, particularly in your region where overfishing has impacted the communities and the economy. Sustainable development does not only mean protecting the environment. It also means ensuring that the environment is protected for many years to come.
With your indulgence, I would like to relate to you a fable that was told to me by representatives of aboriginal communities with whom I met last week. I think it provides the best definition of sustainable development. Aboriginals say that our actions must honour the seven previous generations and enrich the next seven generations to come. Where the fishery is concerned, this approach should characterize the decision-making process, whether at Fisheries and Oceans or other departments. Fundamentally, sustainable development is a way of thinking and acting, an approach to decision making that takes into account more than strictly environmental concerns.
We all have something to learn. Where sustainable development is concerned, we are at a point on the learning curve. It is a subject that we have been discussing for over a decade and we still have tremendous difficulty translating our words into actions. Doing just that falls within the specific mandate of my Office.
Therefore, to answer your question, a few years down the road, I will be in a better position to say if Fisheries and Oceans, like other departments, has chosen the path of sustainable development. My colleague Mr. John Reed is following up on sustainable development strategies. If the strategy has been well designed and if it takes into account the three components of sustainable development, then in time, we should see departments come around to a new way of thinking and acting. Then, we should be able to talk about sustainable fisheries, sustainable agriculture, sustainable communities and sustainable development.
A sustainable development strategy can be an extremely powerful tool. However, until now, it has not been given the attention it deserves. With your permission, I would like to ask my colleague to tell you more about the audit operations that will be conducted over the next few years involving strategies. Obviously, Fisheries and Oceans will be involved in the auditing process.
[English]
Mr. Reed: We have a specific mandated responsibility to report to Parliament on whether departments are implementing the actions identified in their strategies. We continue to do that on a yearly basis.
The bigger change in direction that we have undertaken involves trying to determine what results are being achieved as a direct result of the strategies that have been put in place. What has changed in the way the federal government is carrying out its business?
It is a simple hypothesis. In 1995, Parliament amended the act, and that caused the departments to write up these strategies. The assumption was that something had to change. We are not on a sustainable path in this country. The assumption was that we needed a device, like a strategy, to change that.
Much of the work that we have been doing so far has been aimed at determining whether departments have the right processes in place to deliver on all of the commitments they have made. We do a lot of process orientation in our work and they have learned how to develop strategies, put their systems in place, and so on.
From this point forward, in a nutshell, we will be answering the question: What has changed? Have departments implemented the commitments that they made? Is it making a difference in the policies, the funding and the decisions of the department? We will look for those changes. We can take the whole issue of sustainability out of the academic world and put it into a very black-and-white context. What has changed? Are the strategies working?
Senator Cook: In your presentation, you make the statement that there is no policy, no framework. I read that Fisheries and Oceans has full responsibility for the management of freshwater fish habitat. Perhaps you could help me understand this. Many players here have responsibility for oversight but is it ultimately the responsibility of DFO? Who keeps their feet to the fire, as it were, to ensure that the spirit of the mandate is kept? How can anything be sustainable if there is no policy and no framework?
Mr. Stock: The reference to no policy and no framework was specifically related to invasive aquatic species. Fisheries and Oceans does have the lead federal role in that area. It also has the lead role constitutionally in conserving and protecting fish, both in the marine environment and the freshwater environment. From that standpoint, it does have an overarching responsibility.
A number of different agencies and jurisdictions are involved in the basin. The U.S. federal government, eight state governments, the Province of Ontario in the Great Lakes and the Province of Quebec in the St. Lawrence are involved, but the role of each player is somewhat different.
On the Canadian side of the border, the federal government has the overarching constitutional jurisdiction for conservation and protection. The provincial role is to say who may catch fish and how many fish they may catch. Obviously, those two roles are intertwined because, if you take more fish out than that body of water can sustain, then you no longer have conservation and protection.
Within our audit and within our report, we attempted to present a very complex area in a simple way to get a particular point across. The federal government does have a responsibility. It may have delegated part of that responsibility to the provinces, and there may be other parties involved, but they still have, under the act, the responsibility to see that those objectives are met.
Does that clarify the situation?
Senator Cook: I recognize that they must live within the spirit of the provisions of the act. My concern relates to enforcement. I want to know which group ensures that these measures are implemented in the spirit of the act.
Mr. Stock: We make the point in the audit that, while they have delegated that responsibility, the monitoring of the activities of the other players is not taking place.
Senator Cook: Ultimately whoever delegates that responsibility must take it back because you cannot abdicate your responsibility — you can only delegate it.
Mr. Stock: I agree totally.
Senator Cook: And that person is DFO.
Mr. Stock: Yes.
Senator Tunney: At the outset, I admit to lacking knowledge in this area. My farm is near Lake Ontario, midway between Kingston and Toronto. The Bay of Quinty is close to my place. Several trout streams flow into Lake Ontario, one of them through my farm. Millions of rainbow trout come up to spawn every spring, and hundreds of thousands of Chinook come up in the fall, so the presence of lamprey eels in that area is a serious matter. Some years ago, to control the lamprey eel, a substance that turned the stream completely red was used. The process was managed by the then Department of Lands and Forests, which is now the Ministry of Natural Resources at the provincial level.
In listening to the discussion tonight, I have questions about your role and the function of DFO. Do you believe that you have adequate personnel with the right skills and training to carry out the necessary work to effectively allow you to fulfil your role? Does DFO have the right people in place to make progress rather than just stay in a holding pattern that would see your effectiveness diminished?
Ms Gélinas: I do not believe that the commissioner's office has a staffing problem. However, I cannot answer on behalf of DFO. In our report we said that DFO is having problems hiring specialists and that, in the short term, they will lose most of their scientists. We cannot go beyond what we have stated in our report, and the issue of human resources that you raised is not the focus of the audit work that we did.
I would prefer to have more staff, but I can deal with the situation as it is.
Mr. Reed: In a chapter of our report we give some statistics relating to the personnel situation at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, particularly as it relates to habitat specialists and conservation officers. They have been hiring staff as they have resumed their responsibilities. I believe they are short of the personnel they need in Ontario. They have not had much of a presence in Quebec, and I do not think they are planning to expand that.
In another chapter we talk about scientific personnel. That is quite a concern for the department, who flagged that issue. They know that they will lose many of their science experts over the next few years. It is a pretty serious problem for them.
Mr. Stock: While DFO was putting its new habitat management program in place, it formed agreements with37 conservation authorities. There is a conservation authority in your area of Ontario.
These conservation authorities play a part in the role that Fisheries and Oceans wants to provide to protect habitat. They will provide the first contact for people with questions about such things as building a culvert over their stream or putting in a dock on a waterfront property. They would be able to answer the first line of questions about how to proceed with such projects without damaging fish habitat.
These conservation authorities are built on watersheds, and the Conservation Authorities Act that governs them. They provide a good deal of assistance to Fisheries and Oceans, who have an agreement with each of those authorities in the area. However, there are a number of areas throughout the province that do not have conservation authorities. Thus, there is a further need for DFO to cover off those areas, but it does not have the necessary human resources to provide the service.
Ms Gélinas: In respect of Quebec, at the time we performed the audit, there was no official from Fisheries and Oceans and no scientist to provide good advice and information on fish habitat. That should help to answer your question.
Senator Tunney: I understand, then, that the system is totally inadequate.
You may not know, but there has been a serious discussion about eliminating pickerel fishing in the Bay of Quinty, one of the prime pickerel areas in Canada. Thousands of Americans come here in any season to fish pickerel in the Bay of Quinty. Over the last few years, the population has decreased and there was discussion about cutting off fishing entirely for one year, but now they have decided to allow it for one more year.
Is Fisheries and Oceans the authority that makes such decisions?
Mr. Stock: In the report, we said that Fisheries and Oceans does not have established criteria about when it should intervene if a particular fishery is in trouble. Again, with shared jurisdiction, it would be the province that would determine who could fish and how many fish they could catch. There is a link, but again, the criteria have not been firmly established regarding intervention on the part of the federal government, if at all.
The other aspect on the fisheries side is the need for greater levels of understanding as to why populations are changing, what it can be attributed to and making sure that information is used in future decisions.
In our report, we point to the fact that there is less monitoring going on now than there was in the mid 1990s. This problem is not only at the federal level but also at the provincial level, and it can be related to cutbacks.
Mr. Reed: An audit is like a snapshot in time. The fisheries area is one where it has taken many decades to arrive at the situation we are in today. There is a theory and a practical element to the division of responsibilities.
In theory, the federal government has absolute responsibility constitutionally and through the Fisheries Act. Over many years, they have worked out two different arrangements with the provinces, and things were probably pretty clear. Ontario was doing some scientific estimates, licensing anglers, and so on.
However, in the 1990s, a series of federal funding cuts, provincial funding cuts and attempts at delegation worsened what was a muddy situation to begin with. It is no longer clear who is supposed to be doing what. That is why one of the major messages to the department is that it needs to define the role it will play in freshwater fisheries management.
Senator Tunney: Of course, the fact that we border the U.S., complicates the issues and the solutions.
Do you have a concern about introducing new species into a water system like the Great Lakes? I am talking particularly about coho and steelhead salmon from the West Coast. We used to have smelt in Lake Ontario which fed other fish year around. If we have too many large and new varieties of fish will there be problems with sustainability?
Ms Gélinas: We have a major concern with respect to aquatic invasive species. However, I have no information respecting the two fish types you mentioned.
Mr. Stock: Both of those fish are important to the recreational fishery, in that they are much coveted by fishermen. There is a balance between the desires of recreational fishermen and the sustainable production of other fish that are living in the lake. Those must be taken into consideration before such a decision is made. It is through good science and taking into account some of the past experience that has taken place in Lake Michigan that such decisions should be made.
The Chairman: The perpetual question is: How do you deal with DFO? Every once in a while I lose faith and say that it cannot be done because of the culture of the department itself.
For example, in the past two or three reports, this committee has asked DFO if it could deal with the licensing of fishermen on the east and west coasts of Canada, on such things as private quotas. We said that we would not make a decision on this matter, and that we would like DFO to deal with it. DFO finally responded by saying that they would consult Atlantic Canadians. However, as they were getting ready to go to Atlantic Canada to consult, their own departmental officials were proposing, in various international forums and publications, that the only path available to the department was to privatise the fishery, put put it into corporate hands, which was exactly contrary to what we were asking the department to do at the time. The department was saying they did not have a policy but, at the same time, its own officials were out there promoting privatisation. I am not suggesting that privatisation is good or bad, but I am saying that you must talk to fishermen about it before you do it.
I am concerned that, if there is an agenda in the department to do such things, or to ignore advice that is given — because if they ignore the pressure that is placed on them eventually the problem will go away — the department will just bulldoze it way through this and eventually we will tire and go on to something else.
Do you have any sense that I am completely wrong? Do you, in your dealings with DFO, feel that they are ignoring whatever you recommend?
Ms Gélinas: I am new in the job and I am still optimistic, but my other colleagues may have some comment on that.
The commissioner's office exists to make sure that we can track, over time, whether DFO is delivering on its commitments. I have had a different experience from the one you have had. The fish habitat management policy was written in 1986. The problem is that only one of the eight strategies that are part of that policy has been implemented. The situation may be different, but I am not sure if that makes a difference, because the implementation just does not occur.
My other colleagues may have something to say with respect to DFO and how they deal with our recommendations.
Mr. Reed: We are dealing with six different departments in our work on the Great Lakes, but this is not the first time we have dealt with multiple departments when doing audits. I am not sure I would say DFO is much different from some of the other departments we deal with. I certainly did not have the sense that they were trying to bulldoze through policies.
Clearly, from this audit, they are not sure of the role that they should be playing in freshwater management. You must look to the senior levels in any department when the role is not clear. That lack of clarity permeates through all of the programming. They are unsure what kind of science they need, and they are unsure if they have the support they need to be pushing their habitat program in a province that does not want their presence, and so on.
To an extent in this case that fact alone makes the department look like it is not as serious as some of the others. Other departments with which we have worked have a much clearer sense of what they are trying to achieve and how they are going to get there.
The Chairman: When this committee was studying the bill respecting the Oceans Act, 1996, every member of the committee was highly supportive, including our opposition members. As a matter of fact, we went out of our way to make sure that the bill was passed as quickly as possible. Yet, since 1996, very little has changed, although there has been some progress. The act was meant to deal with some of the problems that you are identifying this evening. However, not much progress has been made.
Presently, the National Marine Conservation Areas bill is before the Senate. It appears that everything in that proposed act could be done under the Oceans Act with one simple amendment to the Oceans Act, and that amendment would have enhanced the value of the Oceans Act. We would not have to create a new police force. However, somebody seems to have completely missed the mark on this. This bill to create the National Marine Conservation Areas Act is going through Parliament as if the Oceans Act does not exist.
Earlier you told Senator Watt that there seems to be no coordination amongst the departments, even though the responsibilities of DFO are probably the most clear of all the departments. They are right there in black and white.
The act creating your department is probably one of the oldest acts passed in Parliament. It was passed back in 1868. Surely by now these people should know what they are doing. However, they do not seem to know. I am showing a little bit of frustration at this point that it has taken since 1868 for these people to even start understanding what they are supposed to be doing. Any comments?
[Translation]
Ms Gélinas: You have given us some examples of the auditing process, just as we have some examples to cite as well. One component of Fisheries and Oceans' mandate is very clear, namely protecting fish habitat. I mentioned earlier that in 1986, we drafted a policy that addressed the matter quite clearly. Had this policy been implemented, we would not be here today discussing the shortcomings in the area of fish habitat management. Fifteen years later, we find ourselves virtually back at the starting point where this issue is concerned.
In some respects, I share your frustration because at this rate we cannot even equate sustainable development with environmental protection, strictly speaking, whereas it should mean much more. I cannot overemphasize the importance that must we must collectively attach to sustainable development strategies. Clearly, we need to focus today on the Fisheries and Oceans action plan, that is on the department's commitments, aims and actions.
I can assure you that I will monitor the department's progress very closely and that I will return as often as you wish to update you on the progress achieved in meeting the commitments made. When an effort is made to put commitments down on paper and to state how these will be achieved — and clearly, sustainable development is a component of our fisheries management mission — then I feel we have a duty to monitor developments closely.
Until now, not a great deal has been said about these strategies and they have generated little interest. We plan to use them as our work tool to ensure that objectives are achieved. My most fervent wish is that over time, instead of making many more commitments, departments will concentrate more on meeting the ones they have made.
The Chairman: By all means the committee will invite you back, Ms Gélinas. I would have liked to touch on the whole issue of petitions, but it is getting rather late.
[English]
Senator Robertson: It is a little discouraging, and I am sure you must get discouraged too. You talked about the different authorities of government departments. The federal government passes some responsibilities on to the provincial governments, but the provinces are not picking up the ball and running with it. If I understood you correctly, a variety of different governments have responsibilities for some bodies of water.
In that light, is the same multiplicity of NGOs or public organizations passed responsibility by the governments, or is this unique to government bodies? Are there lots of other organizations that want to help and perhaps do?
Ms Gélinas: I said in my opening statement that this was everybody's responsibility. However, having said that, it seems that it is nobody's responsibility at the same time. That is probably not a nice way to present it.
The federal government has a clear role, in my mind, to build a vision and to determine priorities. As Mr. Stock said earlier, we have two Provinces, eight states and a number of municipalities involved in the Great Lakes issues. We must work together.
There are only so many dollars available to deal with the issues, so we must coordinate our effort.
The angler community is telling us things. I was in Toronto a couple of months ago talking about the Great Lakes report. The anglers are working very hard to press this issue. We must get together, figure out who will do what, and try to push in the same direction.
With respect to the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River Basin management, there are many players, but they are going in different directions. We think that the federal government has a key role to build a vision and ensure that all the players sing from the same song sheet.
Senator Robertson: You are telling us that all the participants are different levels of government and that they are trying to work together. The private sector is not involved in the process.
You may or may not know, but we did a study on aquaculture in this committee. In my province, New Brunswick, aquaculture is a large industry. Could one of you speak in general terms about the effects of the industry on the environment and habitat? Do you have an overview of the effect of aquaculture on the environment?
The Chairman: I am having a letter distributed from the Office of the Auditor General on the subject of aquaculture.
Ms Gélinas: My group has done very little work in aquaculture. Mr. Reed is examining aquaculture through the sustainable development strategy, and Mr. Stock can, perhaps, add to any information he may have. However, I must say that I do not know enough about the issue to make a link between fish habitat and aquaculture.
Mr. Reed: Mr. Stock can probably speak to the details. Our fisheries team has done work on salmon farming. One of the concerns about the relationship of the habitat is what happens when one of these non-native fish species escapes. That can lead to habitat loss.
Some work in our 1999 chapter on toxic substances dealt with aquaculture. We specifically looked at the application of pesticides into fish pens. In that case, there was clearly damage to the habitat underneath the fish pens. The pesticides were applied to the top, and then it sank to the bottom and killed everything. Those are two examples of habitat implications.
Mr. Stock: Beyond the letter that the Auditor General sent to the committee in December, I do not have more specific details on what the fisheries team is doing in regard to aquaculture. Basically, we have performed a number of audits on Pacific salmon on the Pacific Coast, one of which looked at fish farming. In that audit, we dealt with some of the issues that were raised in respect of aquaculture, especially caged aquaculture, the location of the pens, what happens to the habitat underneath the pens and the transfer of disease. A list of issues requires prolonged study. I know that during your study on this committee you considered most of those issues.
As to the activities of our office on aquaculture in the future, the Auditor General mentioned in her letter that we would be following up on those audits performed on the Pacific Coast. We will also take a first look at the issue on the East Coast, but I do not think we will be able to do that to the same depth as the one we did on the West Coast.
The Chairman: I know that Senator Robertson and Senator Meighen asked if the Auditor General would study the situation on the East Coast. With that in mind, we received the letter from the Office of the Auditor General that indicated they would examine the East Coast, and that the reporting date would be 2004. That is the gist of the letter we have here now. With that in mind, would it be agreeable to members of the committee that we enter this as an exhibit, to be appended to the Minutes of the Proceedings of the committee?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Meighen: On point 21 of your presentation tonight which deals with the Canada Shipping Act, I remember in my early years when practising law in Montreal, that I used to prosecute the owners of ships that discharged their fuel tanks into the Port of Montreal and in the St Lawrence Estuary. The fines were substantial, even in those days.
Am I to understand that the discharge of ballast water contained in these tanks is not subject to any obligatory regulations? Whatever the quantity and wherever it came from, can it be discharged subject only to certain obviously ineffective voluntary guidelines? Have you recommended that those guidelines should be regulations rather than pious wishes?
Ms Gélinas: There is no regulation, and Transport Canada's sustainable development strategy has committed the department to have a regulation in place by 2002. You may choose to follow up on that in the future. We will also certainly look at that in the near future.
Senator Meighen: If we both keep our eyes on it, perhaps we will succeed.
Mr. Reed: I want to be careful about this because I am not a lawyer. Presently, in the U.S., the exchange of ballast water is regulated, but it is not regulated in Canada. We have a voluntary program.
Senator Meighen: Could you explain what you mean by ``exchange''? Is that a process of taking on ballast water from one body of water and discharging it into another?
Mr. Reed: The theory is that if they exchange their ballast water of salt water, anything that lives in fresh water will be killed. When they then enter the lakes and the river, the ballast water has been sterilized of any exotic organisms. That process is required in the U.S., but it is just a guideline in Canada. Ships arrive and declare whether they have done this ballast exchange.
I want to be careful in answering your question, because you talked about the discharge of ballast water in other parts of the lakes. I do not know for sure, but there may be regulations that prohibit the dumping of discharge.
Senator Meighen: There are regulations concerning the flushing of fuel tanks.
Mr. Reed: That may be regulated under the Canada Shipping Act.
Senator Meighen: I certainly prosecuted in instances where that had occurred.
Mr. Stock: Sections of the Fisheries Act, specifically section 36, prohibit the placing of any deleterious substance into the water. It is possible that that could also be applied to ballast water or fuel.
I want to be clear on the guidelines and what happens in the case of a ballast water exchange. Ships exchange ballast in mid-ocean and that can be a risky venture for a ship, because it causes them to be unstable. The right conditions must be present before the exchange can occur. If the right conditions do not exist, then they may actually go through the system without exchanging the ballast.
The point is that our audit found that 75 per cent to 95 per cent of the ships that enter the system do not carry ballast water on board, meaning they are fully loaded when they come into the lakes. However, they still carry sludge at the bottom of their tanks. When they unload the ship, they take on ballast water. Then they may load the ship elsewhere in the lakes and then pump out the ballast water. That water is mixed with the sludge in the bottom of the ship and it all ends up in the lakes after the pump-out.
To date it has been prohibitively expensive to find a solution that can meet both the environmental standpoint and the ship owners' standpoint. They are trying to resolve that issue.
Senator Meighen: I understand that regulations will be in place in 2002 to deal with this problem.
Mr. Stock: Those will apply to ballast water exchange only.
Ms Gélinas: Will they not cover the discharge of fuel?
Mr. Stock: They will not cover the non-ballast water on ships that I was talking about. That represents three- quarters of the ships.
Senator Meighen: That would include the oily sludge — the Bunker C fuel.
Ms Gélinas: As I said earlier, we are performing extra audit work in respect of invasive aquatic species with our counterpart in the U.S. Ballast water and the regulations will be part of this audit. We will be happy to return and share our findings with the committee at a later date this year.
The Chairman: On behalf of the committee, thank you for appearing before us this evening. Your presentation was extremely informative.
The committee adjourned.