Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 8 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 10, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 7:03 p.m. to examine issues relevant to the fisheries industry.
Senator Gerald J. Comeau (Chairman) is in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Order, please. We are continuing tonight our study on matters relating to straddling stocks and fish habitat.
[English]
We are continuing our study on fish habitat. Our guests this evening are Mr. Victor Shantora and his colleague, Mr. Garver. Mr. Shantora is the Acting Executive Director, Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America, or CEC. The CEC was created by Canada, Mexico and the United States to build cooperation among the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, partners in implementing the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, the NAAEC, the environmental side accord to NAFTA.
Prior to joining the CEC, Mr. Shantora was with Environment Canada for some 26 years, where he held senior policy and technical positions in a variety of sectors. Mr. Shantora brings a wealth of experience to the committee this evening. We hope to be able to pry some of that experience out of him to help us understand both the positive and negative aspects of habitat, especially relating to the North American Free Trade Agreement. We look forward to your presentation, Mr. Shantora.
Mr. Victor Shantora, Acting Executive Director, Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America: I would like to cover four areas. First, I will give you a brief background on the CEC, and the three other topic areas all touch on habitat and also fresh water marine ecosystems. One has to do with a process we use related to citizen submissions on enforcement. The second area is fresh water, and we are presenting something on this to our council in two weeks time. The third area is biodiversity, to give you an overview and, in particular, deal with alien species.
I apologize if we have provided you with a little information overload, but I did not know how much you knew about the CEC. I will be speaking from a prepared PowerPoint presentation. We have also given you a copy of our work program for this year and the following two years and a status report on submissions that we have had from the public on enforcement matters.
In looking at North America, I think it is important to set something of an environmental or ecological regional perspective. We have 400 million people here. We have a shared ecosystem, and the reality is that there is transboundary flow of air, water, species and invasive species between our three countries. We now have an open economy. About $11-trillion worth of goods and services are produced in our three countries. That is our GDPs added together. Since 1993, under NAFTA, trade between our three countries has doubled. It is about $640 billion a year now.
You may recall that back in 1993, when negotiations on NAFTA were coming to a conclusion, there was a fair amount of public concern about what may happen to the environment. That was a concern of all three governments, but in particular the administration of President Clinton. President Clinton knew that he would need something in addition to NAFTA itself to get it through Congress. Environmental and labour side agreements were negotiated and signed. In 1994 the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation was put in place, and under that agreement the Commission for Environmental Cooperation was set up at arm's length from government. People call us a "watchdog." Our role is to bring the three countries together to deal with problems of mutual concern.
The United States has the world's largest economy. Canada has the eighth largest economy in the world. We have two industrialized countries. Mexico has one foot in the developing country camp and one foot in the developed country camp. Mexico typically has the 14th or 15th largest economy in the world. Even though we might consider them to be a developing country, having the 14th largest economy in the world is pretty significant. They have a will to do the right thing. Often, that will is hampered by a lack of institutional mechanisms and infrastructure. Part of our efforts as three countries is to try to raise the bar in terms of environmental performance, but also to make a special effort to ensure that the focus on Mexico allows it to bring its institutions up to par with the United States and Canada.
Our mission is to enhance cooperation between the three countries, and do it through a mode of public participation to foster conservation, protection and enhancement of the North American environment. We do that in the context of increasing economic and trade links. The CEC does environmental work, but in the context of trade. What is the impact of trade on the environment: Good, bad or indifferent?
There are three key areas in the structure of the CEC. The first is the council: David Anderson for Canada, Victor Lichtinger for Mexico and Christine Todd Whitman for the United States. They meet once annually and provide us with the political direction for our program.
We have the secretariat, which I am heading up right now, in Montreal. We implement the requirements of the agreement.
We have the joint public advisory committee. This is a new feature that I have not seen in other international environmental agreements. It involves 15 citizens, 5 from each country, with a broad mandate from ministers to go out and check the pulse of public opinion and public concerns on environmental issues.
The CEC's role is a catalyst for regional cooperation. This is not to suggest that there was no cooperation before the CEC was established, but under the environmental side agreement we have legitimized and formalized the working relationships. We have working groups, task forces of experts that are pulled together to identify and solve problems.
We are a centre for independent information and analysis. We take that step back and look at the environmental issues from a three—country perspective. You do not get a domestic view; you get the overview of what the issues are for North America.
Finally, we are a forum for public dialogue and participation. We were specifically asked in the agreement to go out and seek public input and engage the public in all of our work.
To give you a sense of some of the things we do in terms of regional cooperation, we have been working on a number areas: Sound management of chemicals, children's health, enhancing trade in environmentally preferable goods and services, and bird conservation in North America.
We do a number of things with respect to information and analysis. We publish an annual "Taking Stock" report on pollution releases in Canada and the United States. We track them and report on them, and soon Mexico's contribution will be linked into that. We also have state-of-environment reporting, NAFTA effects and special reports such as on the North American electricity market integration.
We are also active in public consultation. We take citizens' submissions. If they believe laws are not being enforced, we examine those independently. We have set up a fund to give grants to local community groups that are interested in working on projects that integrate a North American way of thinking into local environmental issues.
We have a U.S. $9-million-a-year budget, which is shared equally between the three countries. Our headquarters are in Montreal, with a staff of 55 people.
Let me turn to the issues related to submissions on enforcement matters. If citizens in North America believe that an environmental law is not being enforced, they can make a submission to us. We have some criteria for judging those submissions. If we determine that a submission appears to have some validity, we can ask for further information. We can review it in more detail and, as a secretariat, ask council to authorize us to prepare a factual record. A factual record is a pulling together all of the facts that are available to us. We will go out and find those facts and provide that in a public forum. We make no judgments, conclusions or recommendations, but simply say there was an allegation of a law not being enforced and here are the facts surrounding that case.
We have handled approximately 39 submissions in the last nine years. We currently have 13 that are active. You will see that the eight of the 13 submissions relevant to Canada centre on enforcement of the Fisheries Act, either the habitat protection provisions or the pollution prevention provisions.
Next is sustainable use and conservation of fresh water in North America. That is an issue in which your committee is interested. When council met in 2001 they recognized that fresh water is a major issue now and will be in the future, and mused about whether the CEC should be looking into some aspect of this. They asked us to go away and do some more investigative work on it.
We put together what we called an "options paper" last fall and then we went through a process of public consultation on that paper. It was wide ranging, including governments, the International Joint Commission and the International Boundary Waters Commission. Our criterion was to see if there was an area related to fresh water that the CEC was well suited to cover. We did not what to duplicate what other people were doing but we wanted to see if there was something meaningful that we could do.
We took the nine options and boiled them down to two, based on the public input, and we hope to present them to council in a couple of weeks. The first is to identify how affordable techniques and technologies can help conserve water and repair aquatic environments and the barriers to their implementation. The second area was to identify examples of sustainable watershed practices in North America.
On the first point, the notion of affordable techniques and technologies applies all across North America, but particularly to Mexico. They cannot afford high—priced, sophisticated solutions and it is important to identify the things that are simple, doable, and relatively cheap and cost effective to implement. That is the nature of the proposals that we will be bringing to council in a couple of weeks. Unfortunately, we have to wait for council to consider, decide and give us direction, but I wanted to share our sense of the priority for the CEC in the North American context and the importance of not duplicating the work of others.
The final area of cooperation is related to North American marine species and spaces. As this committee knows, we have a number of challenges facing us there, not just in Canada, but across North America: habitat fragmentation and disappearance; population increases, particularly on the coast; overfishing and conflicts in resource use; resource management. We continue to see species lost, changes in abundance and range and protected areas potentially becoming conservation islands. With the expected growth in global trade, we see alien invasive species being able to move quickly into regions where they did not exist before. We see increasing energy demands that will put pressure on our pristine habitats and ecosystems.
What has happened? We know that in the 1970s we had about 800 protected areas across North America, and today we have over 3,000. That represents an increase from about 100 million hectares to 250 million hectares, or approximately nine per cent of the continent's land area.
We also see that with further economic integration, perhaps there are some opportunities for environmental and ecosystem integration as well. In addition, we think there are some opportunities for public-private sector partnerships and for better engaging civil society in helping to manage and conserve our species and spaces, particularly through public education and ecotourism — doing the right thing at the right place at the right time.
We have been pulling together a range of expert biologists from across North America to try to better understand our eco-regions. These experts have been helping us to identify sub-regions and eco-regions on a sub-continental level. Then we will be in a better position to identify the particular needs of these sub-regions and how to enhance protection and conservation. Therefore, we will be able to better engage those experts, so that if we are trying to save a particular species of whale, we will have a better sense of the habitat and the pressures in a particular eco-region, and the focus of attention for those experts can be on that particular area in that region.
We have identified some priority conservation regions. Habitat is not equally threatened in all areas, but we know of some current critical habitats and the appropriate action. We have identified particular conservation areas from Baja, California, to the Bering Sea. We have identified marine species of common conservation concern and are in the process of setting up a stewardship network to help protect those areas that are at risk.
Finally, just a quick word on aquatic invasive species: We are in the process of developing a North American invasive species information network, a computerized database, so that people can share information. There is a lot of information out there, but it is fragmented. We are trying to pull together the experts and their data in order to have a way of sharing those data on a common basis.
We had a workshop in San Diego where we identified some invasive species that are a common concern and some invasion pathways. In particular, we are focusing right now on some vegetation that is growing in California and its coastal areas. That will be our focus for the next year or so. We will use our usual tools of pulling experts together, getting information out to the public, raising awareness and working with industry to see what we can do to combat some of these invasive species.
That is a little about who we are, what we do and how we can relate to your committee's important work.
Senator Watt: This is the first time I have heard of your organization, which is made up of the three countries. To what extent is the council involved in the Arctic? The Inuit Circumpolar Conference has been dealing with pollution, food chains, habitats and other issues in the Arctic. Are you aware of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference and do you have any relationship with that group?
Mr. Shantora: We are aware of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference. We have an initiative with them, but it deals with the sound management of chemicals. That initiative focuses on the persistent toxic and bio-cumulative chemicals that are of direct concern in the Arctic. We have action plans currently underway for DDT, mercury, chlordane and PCBs. We will develop an action plan for lindane, a persistent organic pollutant, and for dioxin and furans.
It has been recognized that while a number of countries are contributing to the problem of persistent toxic chemical pollution in the Arctic, we in North America have to do our fair share. Through these regional action plans, Mexico, the United States and Canada have come together to start to turn off the tap on this type of pollution.
We launched some of these action plans back in 1995, 1996, so it was well ahead of the Stockholm convention, which was just ratified over a year ago. We have a working group on the sound management of chemicals. They met in Alaska two years ago, and I believe they may have met with members of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference as part of their public meeting. We appreciate the work of the circumpolar nations and the conference, and we try to keep abreast of the concerns of the Arctic through that chemical management initiative that is underway.
Senator Watt: I have been involved with the Inuit Circumpolar Conference and the Arctic Council and I come away from the meetings feeling that there is no action plan. When the action plan is laid out, would you be inclined to establish a monitoring system in the Arctic? I think it is important to make sure that whatever we decide to do in the Arctic, we establish a monitoring system, not only for the purpose of the environment, but also in regards to climate change.
Mr. Shantora: This is an important point. I neglected to mention that one of our plans that council approved was to develop an environmental monitoring and assessment action plan targeted at organic pollutants. It is true that we do not have the kind of monitoring that we could or should have in the Arctic. We do not have the monitoring we should or could have in Mexico. We are in the process of setting up a work program to deal with that. It will come down to money. This will be a resource—intensive initiative. We hope to find some partners and pull together resources to help establish monitoring in some of these key regions.
I should add two points. We have done a study looking at toxins, furans and source-receptor work. In other words, where is the dioxin coming from? Where in North America is it ending up? That is the so — called Commoner study. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we could make that report and some of our action plans available to you.
The Chairman: If you would, thank you.
Mr. Shantora: I am happy to report that Mexico stopped using DDT and chlordane, effective about 18 months ago. North America is a DDT-free and chlordane—free zone. I think that is a bit of good news for our colleagues in the Arctic.
We are looking at climate change in a narrow sense. We have not scoped a comprehensive program. We are looking at renewable fuels and how they might be introduced in the marketplace. I cannot address any of the questions that you were asking in that area.
Senator Cochrane: I would like to know how your North American network got set up.
Mr. Shantora: The network of experts that I described?
Senator Cochrane: Your marine protected areas network.
Mr. Shantora: One of the powers of an organization like ours is if we put out a call saying there is a concern about a particular species, biodiversity, birds or terrestrial animals, we gain the attention of the three federal governments in North America. If we put together a workshop or a conference, we get tremendous support from experts who are concerned about their ecological region or the animal they are trying to protect. Recognizing that whales or migratory birds, for example, travel across the continent, they see that their piece of the puzzle needs to be added to those of others. Establishment of those networks happens almost by osmosis. It is not rocket science. People are so energized that they will come together and share information. That sharing of information does not stop when the meeting ends. They get on the phone or on the Internet and will establish a small node whereby people can use the Internet to share the latest data, and it grows. It is wonderful how that works.
Senator Cochrane: We have been told in this committee about the difficulties that exist in building international support for conservation — based ideas. I am pleased to hear that you are having successes. Could you tell us what level of cooperation existed initially between the partners?
Mr. Shantora: Initially, the cooperation tended to be ad hoc. If someone knew somebody or people met each other at a conference, the working relationships would continue. The model that we employ as a commission, where our council of ministers might say that they have, based on expert advice, identified five or six migratory bird species that are of concern right across North America, seems to spark the experts in the federal governments getting together and then bringing in state and provincial authorities and some local, non — government organizations. In the past it was ad hoc. The council of ministers saying, "We think this is a priority to which our three governments need to pay some attention collectively" is the trigger for bringing the experts together and mobilizing them.
Senator Cochrane: Could we have your expertise in helping with the fishery problems on the East Coast?
Mr. Shantora: I do not see why not. What we would need is a mandate from council to work in that area.
Senator Cochrane: That is all it would take. Getting that is something else. That is the concern.
I know that you are developing a series of comprehensive reviews and background reports on marine species of common conservation concern. The first report is focusing on commercial and non—commercial fishery activities. Can you tell us anything about this work so far?
Mr. Shantora: I am afraid I cannot. I should have brought our biodiversity expert with me, who probably could have given you a good explanation. I could, Mr. Chairman, take the question back with me and hopefully get a better answer.
The Chairman: Absolutely, yes.
Senator Phalen: On page 3 of your submission you talk about understanding trade and environment linkages. What do you mean by "environmental issues to trade?" Can you expand on that?
Mr. Shantora: When NAFTA was signed there was a lot of public concern about what would happen to the environment. Would trade law trump environmental law? Would industries move from a jurisdiction with the most stringent standards to the ones with the most lax standards? There were a lot of opinions and ideas floating around, but there was no documented evidence of, or a methodology to determine, the implications of free trade for the environment.
We have worked with some leading economists over the last few years to develop a methodology to help us do the right kind of economic study to understand whether if there is increased agricultural trade, for example, will that be good or bad for the environment. If North America has an increasing, which it does, insatiable demand for energy, electricity, what are the environmental implications? Are the laws sufficient to make sure that the environment is not adversely affected?
We have done two symposia now. We just finished one in Mexico City in March, where we broke the trade linkages down by sectors. In the latest symposium we looked at agriculture and energy. We asked the best experts to tell us how the environment has been affected by the increasing trade regime. There is not one answer. In some cases it has been bad. In some cases it has been good. In some cases it has been neutral. That is the kind of analysis we undertake.
Senator Phalen: Last week we had a panel here giving us information on the dumping of munitions and chemicals; is that a concern for you or have you done anything on that?
Mr. Shantora: Not munitions. You did say munitions?
Senator Phalen: Yes.
The Chairman: During the Second World War, and subsequent to that, munitions were dumped off the East Coast of Canada.
Mr. Shantora: No, we have not done anything on munitions. We are looking at the trade in hazardous waste between the three countries. We are also looking at their hazardous waste standards. How similar or different are they? How could they be better linked so that we have better protection related to hazardous waste? However, I do not think that is the area in which you were interested.
Senator Phalen: They have dumped mustard gas at a lot of these sites. Would that be a concern for you?
Mr. Shantora: It has never been raised in our committee work.
The Chairman: This would be a great opportunity for Senator Phalen to raise it under a citizen submission, would it not?
Senator Phalen: Yes. I think it would.
Mr. Shantora: Yes, sure.
The Chairman: I think it is wonderful that you do have this kind of approach, that a citizen who has a concern can submit it to the commission. I will encourage Senator Phalen to do it.
Mr. Geoffrey Garver, Director, Submissions on Enforcement Matters Unit, Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America: We are open for business. I would be happy to send the committee more information. We have a booklet that has the text of the agreement as well guidelines for the submission process focused particularly on people who might be interested in filing submissions.
The Chairman: Please send it. We would love to have it. Thank you.
Senator Mahovlich: Was there a study done of the zebra mussels in Lake Ontario? I heard that they are cleaning it up. Eels were probably brought in to devour the mussels. It has been quite a problem.
Mr. Shantora: The zebra mussel populations have been expanding throughout the Great Lakes and the surrounding region.
Senator Mahovlich: Would Mexico have a problem like that?
Mr. Shantora: Yes, they do. The problem is coming up through the Mississippi River system and through the United States. We have not focused on that. The International Joint Commission has in the last six months put out some recommendations to governments on not only zebra mussels, but also other alien invasive species. The concern seems to be that those have been brought in via the ballast water of ships that bring cargo from overseas. However, I have not heard that there is a natural predator that is reversing the effect.
Senator Mahovlich: You talked about whales travelling from Baja to the Bering Straits. How many conservation regions are there in that route, or is it all under conservation? I know the whales go to Baja to mate. That is a lot of territory to cover.
Mr. Shantora: It is happening in perhaps 10 of the eco-regions all up the coast. Perhaps 40 or 50 have been identified, all different and unique. They are not always threatened, but some are. By segmenting the coast in that way, it is easier to know what your intervention measures ought to be. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, this is something on which we can provide more information.
Senator Mahovlich: I was up in Whitehorse on the way to the Arctic and went to see the swans. Would your commission be monitoring the number of birds every year, or would people just phone in and give you a count?
Mr. Shantora: We do not do that kind of work. Various levels of government usually do it, in cooperation with the public. By pulling the experts together, we are able to put a North American overlay on that kind of information to get a sense of which species need protection.
One thing that we have identified as critical to migratory bird protection in Mexico is we are starting to understand better where bird habitats are. We have identified, in cooperation with the Mexican government, six key areas that represent a significant percentage of the migratory bird species. Those areas are in need of protection because of infringement of farmlands or forest cutting or human population. If we can work with the Mexican government on those areas, having established the partnerships with the local community groups in the United States and Canada, we will have a kind of chain or flyway that will better protect those species.
Mr. Garver: At least two of the citizen submissions raised issues regarding migratory birds, including one that focused on logging activity and the impact of logging in Ontario. The modelling and the data were based on information that may have been developed by the Canadian Wildlife Service. There are a lot of data that show which birds go where, particularly in the United States and Canada, and how there are. Through those models, the people who filed the submission were able to estimate that logging in 59 provincial forests in Ontario in one year likely destroyed something like 85,000 bird nests, based on precise and localized data.
Senator Mahovlich: We have loons in Northern Ontario in the Muskoka Lakes, and as properties are being developed it is taking away some of their shoreline habitat. It would be interesting to find out their numbers and where they go in the wintertime.
The Chairman: We might want to look at that with a separate group. That is an excellent question that we should pursue further.
Senator Cook: I have been listening carefully to my colleagues in an attempt to find out who you are and how you might be of use to me as a Newfoundlander concerned with the crisis in the cod fishery in the North Atlantic.
I see what your mission statement is. You talk about your work in the context of increasing economic and trade links. Do you just provide oversight of the three countries, Mexico, the U.S. and Canada, or do you advocate for Canadian regions? How can you help Canadians in the context of this agreement with what is happening in the North Atlantic due to the collapse of the cod fisheries. Is that a part of who you are?
Mr. Shantora: Let me try to explain it this way: First, we are not an organization that pries into Canadian, U.S. or Mexican domestic affairs. Our role is to bring the three countries together and identify the common concerns. Not being a marine biologist I cannot say for sure, but I think the northern cod fishery is a domestic Canadian issue. That would not be of concern to us in a North American context. A threatened species of migratory bird that winters in Mexico, flies across the United States and nests up in the Arctic would be a concern.
If there is something happening within the economy or our trade relationships that is putting added pressure on our collective environment, that is definitely something with which we concern ourselves.
Senator Cook: On the freshwater systems within North America — I am thinking of Lake Winnipeg, the Devil's Lake diversion, which is common to the United States and Canada — there was a lot of concern about an invasive species coming from the United States into Canada.
The Chairman: The Mississippi River system would go through a diversion into Lake Winnipeg, which would then create a situation where that invasive species could travel from the south to the Artic.
Senator Cook: Would that be a concern? I am trying to understand what your mandate is with respect to the marine ecosystem.
Mr. Shantora: I believe that particular issue, the Mississippi River and the diversion, is being handled through the International Joint Commission. I do not think we could offer any value added over and above the work that is being done.
Senator Cook: Your mandate would be one of oversight?
Mr. Shantora: Yes, oversight in three countries, not bilateral border issues.
Senator Cook: Oversight on issues that would be common to the three countries?
Mr. Shantora: That is right.
Senator Cook: The collapse of northern cod would only concern Canada, so it would not come to your secretariat for any kind of deliberation?
Mr. Shantora: I do not believe so, no.
Senator Cook: What about the trade traffic that crosses the Atlantic and creates problems with the dumping of oil and pollutants? Would that be a concern to your group?
Mr. Shantora: I do not think so. It has not been raised. We have been concerned about trade between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. A large part of that traffic is by truck, and there are seven border crossings that are choke points. We have been doing some work on air quality concerns. What are the emission standards that those trucks are meeting? There may be some shipping traffic, but trucks and some rail traffic predominate. That is the focus of our attention right now.
Senator Cook: Would there not be a fair amount of transborder traffic between Canada and the U.S. going through the Great Lakes?
Mr. Shantora: I understand the Great Lakes traffic is coming from overseas, down through the St. Lawrence system and into the Great Lakes. It is trade, yes, but it is not trade in a Canada, U.S. and Mexico context. It is trade between Canada and some other part of the world or between the United States and some other part of the world. In that sense, it has not been a preoccupation for us.
Senator Cook: Your mandate is only that which impacts on Canada, Mexico and the U.S., and there is no concern with issues that affect two out of the three or anything of that nature?
Mr. Shantora: That is right.
Senator Adams: Has there been a study of migratory birds, of the snow geese, in the Arctic?
Mr. Shantora: I would have to go back and ask our experts about the work that we have done in that area. I cannot be sure. We have the North American Bird Conservation Initiative. I think the problem with the snow geese is that there are too many of them, not that there are not enough. Mr. Chairman, we will undertake to get some more information.
The Chairman: I have been going through some of the submissions. You have done a great deal of work on a wide range of areas.
Is this the first time you have made a submission to or appeared before a parliamentary committee, or have you done this sort of presentation before?
Mr. Shantora: My predecessor had done some work with the Environment Committee. I appeared before that committee and they expressed an interest in the report that we are doing on reporting on pollution in North America.
We have been discussing that internally, that we do not do enough of that in the three countries. As we are developing some expertise and information, we think it is worth sharing. If the committees agree, we are happy to present and provide information at any time.
The Chairman: As you appear before committees, there may be issues, such as those raised earlier by Senator Cook, which we could submit to your council and our governments for a possible response. If we have concerns, there may be ways of responding to some of them, and this is one possible way.
I imagine your group must be an embarrassment to Maude Barlow, David Orchard and other environmentalists, because the North American Free Trade Agreement was not supposed to be helpful for the environment. Is it fair to say that your organization may be an embarrassment to Maude Barlow?
Mr. Shantora: I suggest you speak with Maude Barlow. We have taken a detached view. We had no preconceived opinions or thoughts on whether free trade was good, bad or indifferent for the environment. We were specifically asked in our agreement to delve into it. We will provide you with a report that we have just completed on trade- environment linkages. Using the best experts we could find in North America, we are finding some areas where trade has been bad for the environment, some areas where it has been good, and some areas where it has been neutral. There is no one size fits all. It does need careful analysis to understand it better.
Mr. Garver: To add a historical perspective, one third of our staff is from each country. I happen to be from the United States and tuned into what was going on. The whole NAFTA debate, and even our side agreement, split the environmental community in the United States. About seven of the big organizations in the United States said if we could come up with a good side agreement, they would be in favour of the entire package. It was a difficult time for those organizations collectively because they were split on the issue. What has happened since will be of special interest this year because we are coming up to the 10-year anniversary of NAFTA on January 1, 2004. A number of organizations are starting to look at that. Our council asked us to support an independent effort to look at what has happened in the 10 years since NAFTA, both in terms of environmental effects and whether this commission that was created is doing worthwhile work.
The Chairman: There are some people in this country shuddering at the thought of reviewing what NAFTA has done over the last 10 years.
Going back to Senator Cook's question about the straddling stocks off the East Coast of Canada, especially in the NAFO areas outside Canada's boundaries, you said that is a Canadian domestic issue that might not impact on your commission. I would ask you to reconsider that, because in fact the U.S. and Canada are both partners in the NAFO enforcement area.
Would your decision be based on Mexico not being one of the partners in NAFO? Would it have to involve all three countries, or could the fact that Canada and the U.S. have a great vested interest in the protection of fish stocks in the NAFO region be of interest?
Mr. Shantora: It is hard to say. I would prefer to go back and think this through a little and give you a more considered reply. It has not been raised in our sphere of activity. It does continue to strike me that there is no Mexican involvement, and it is usually the three countries getting together and identifying a common issue that is the trigger for action.
The Chairman: It is a North American concern. I have been monitoring the U.S. media in the last few months and the U.S. has been showing an interest in fisheries issues, especially conservation and the diminishing fish stocks in the North American context, as well as the increase in the size of the European fleet through subsidies. There have been strong comments on stocks that are migratory between European and North American waters.
I am pleased the Americans are showing a greater interest in this. They have started to say that fish stocks off the U.S. coast should be looked at in a more national context rather than in terms of the regional councils that have been managing the stocks in the recent past. The Americans seem to be taking an increasing interest in fish stocks. The Pew commission will be issuing another report soon. Some landmark reports are coming out. One of my interests has been to get increased U.S. involvement in such issues.
I appreciate that you will be looking at this a little further to see if you can consider it from a North American perspective.
You have a sizable budget, approximately U.S. $9 million. When you do specific studies, do you use your own staff or hire experts from universities?
Mr. Shantora: Both. Our staff members tend to be the core experts in an area. They may well contract out studies, or they will bring together the best experts they can find in a workshop or some other setting where information can be exchanged, analyzed and digested, and then they will put together an interpretive report. I would say that we rely a lot on outside experts to help us pull information together.
The Chairman: The citizen submission process is very similar to that of the Commissioner on Sustainable Development, who is attached to the Auditor General's office in Canada. Ms. Gelinas appeared before the committee and told us they have not received as many citizen submissions as they expected. You have had a rather large number yourself, but not the kind of numbers that I would have expected. What is the reason you are not getting as many citizens submissions as you might expect?
Mr. Garver: The predictions at the beginning were wide ranging. We have not seen an increase. One factor to consider is what other options are available to people to take action at the domestic level that might solve the problem. The United States and Canada provide more options than Mexico. That might explain some of it.
I think organizations are still trying to decide whether it is worth making the investment to gather the information they need to support a submission. Some groups are concerned that at the end of the process there is just a report of the facts, with no recommendations to the countries to do something or requirements for specific action.
We have seen the information we have produced as a result of a number of submissions make a difference, spurring governments to act differently and look at a problem a little more closely. People are still trying to find out where this process fits with all their other options.
The Chairman: You mentioned a stewardship network. Could you tell us about that?
Mr. Shantora: We do not have any legal authority. Our power is to bring people together. If they identify a consensus around a particular problem, then the solutions tend to be put together using the power of those people and other like-minded people, other stakeholders, and we call that a stewardship network. It will include the various levels of government, non-government environmental organizations, local community groups and the private sector. It is stewardship in that sense — not rigid and regulation-bound, but more a common sense of purpose.
Senator Watt: What is the duration of the existence of this organization?
Mr. Shantora: The North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation does not specify a time limit. We will be around as long as someone has use for us. We are coming up to our 10-year anniversary and our council has asked for an independent review committee to look at what we have done and make recommendations for the next 10 years. My sense is that we will have periodic reviews of who we are, what we have done and whether we have been effective, and the first one is coming up next year. Stay tuned and see what the experts advise. My sense is that there is value in the work that we do, and it is not we who are saying that, it is the people with whom we work. There is a sense of purpose out there; if North America is an ecosystem, then we need to think in North American, in addition to in Canadian, American or Mexican terms.
Senator Cook: I agree with you that we need to think globally. From a geographical perspective, the three countries border on two oceans, so we have a common marine ecosystem that is fraught with climate change dangers and pollutants, from coal-fired plants to nuclear plants, and I submit that perhaps in the next 10 years we will have to get used to a diet without fish if we do not address the concerns that we all seem to talk about and on which we do not seem to be able to get a handle.
My vision for your work would be expanded if you could move into the marine ecosystem. The countries do border on two oceans. Someone has to conduct some oversight and make sure that resource is protected. In addition to the work you are already doing, I would like to see a broadening of the scope to include that kind of vision.
Mr. Shantora: I am just thinking that this is an independent 10-year review committee that will be established, but certainly I will make sure that your views are conveyed to them. Their mandate will be such that if they so chose, they would be able to sit down and hear your collective views.
The Chairman: If you would not mind passing that message on, that we would be interested in meeting with them to generate more interest in the subject of the straddling stocks and the lack of enforcement powers under the current NAFO regime. It impacts both Canada and the U.S. directly, and indirectly our Mexican partners, in that we will not be producing as well or sustaining our fish stocks in that area. It will impact all of us, not only Canada and the U.S., but also Mexico and future South American partners. I think it is in our interest not to go through the kind of soul- searching that is happening in Europe now. That 10-year period when certain European nations were not allowed to fish in certain areas is coming to an end now. Some more conservation-minded countries are realizing what is going to hit them. I think you know which countries I mean. We do not want that to happen here.
Thank you. We appreciate the time you have given us and your expertise and knowledge.
The committee continued in camera.