Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 9 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, September 16, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 7:04 p.m. to examine and report from time to time upon the matters relating to straddling stocks and to fish habitat.
Senator Joan Cook (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: I welcome our witnesses this evening from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. They are Mr. Richard Wex, Mr. Richard Nadeau, Mr. Patrice LeBlanc, and Ms. Christine Stoneman. Mr. Wex, please proceed.
Mr. Richard Wex, Director General, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Habitat Management Directorate: It is a pleasure for us to be here tonight to participate in your ongoing study of fish habitat. I am the Director General of Fisheries and Oceans Habitat Management Program and my management team has accompanied me this evening. I propose to walk us through our deck presentation, which should take about 20 minutes, after which we would be pleased to answer your questions.
Page two of the slide presentation provides an overview of the basic elements of the habitat and management program. You have been through some of this before and certainly other prepared materials. My predecessor and this management team were here two years ago and we thought it would be useful to provide you with updates in developments since that last appearance before the committee.
In addition to providing members with an overview of some of the basic policy and legal elements of the program, I would like to provide an update on efforts that began in 1999 to strengthen and transform the program. I understand that committee members are interested in some emerging trends and challenges that we face in managing the program and some restoration development work that we are involved in. The last few pages of the presentation speak to those elements.
Our program mandate is to conserve and protect fish habitat to sustain the fisheries resources. The management of Canada's fisheries and the habitat on which it depends, is an important and challenging area of public policy for the federal government and for other levels of government as well. It makes a major contribution to the country's economic prosperity and is significant to the quality of life for all Canadians.
Canada's fish habitat is the life support system required to sustain the production of the many freshwater and marine fish species that are critical to providing us with significant social, economic and cultural benefits. Significant challenges facing Canada's fish habitat, include biological, chemical and physical threats from a range of human activities that directly and indirectly affect the productivity of fish habitat.
Fish habitats are essential in supporting our commercial fisheries. The figures for 2002 indicate that fisheries exports were valued at just under $5 billion. Fish habitat also supports recreational fisheries; some 3.6 million anglers spend close to $7 billion per year. Fish habitat sustains the production of fish species that are of social and cultural importance to all Canadians, in particular, to Aboriginal people, and is an important part of the way of life in many communities. In short, without fish habitat there would be no fish and no related benefits to Canadians.
The fourth slide provides an overview of the legal context beginning with the Constitution Act, which assigns the federal government exclusive legislative authority for seacoast and inland fisheries. That has been interpreted to include fish habitat, as well. The Fisheries Act contains a number of sections that support the department's habitat mandate, two of which are critical to the committee's discussion tonight: sections 35 and 36. Section 35 is known as the Habitat Protection Provision, which prohibits the ``harmful alteration, disruption or destruction'' of fish habitat — HADD — without authorization from the minister or through regulation. This section provides the review of some 10,000 to 13,000 development proposals each year by our program. We refer to those as ``referrals.'' About 10 per cent of these referrals trigger the need for environmental assessments under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which is a key piece of legislation in addition to the Fisheries Act that we apply throughout the course of our work.
Section 36 is known as the Pollution Prevention Provision, which prohibits the deposit of deleterious substances into fisheries waters unless authorized by regulation or another act. Interestingly, unlike section 35, section 36 has been assigned to and is administered by the Minister of the Environment.
In addition to the Fisheries Act, we play a large role with respect to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, CEAA. Prior to issuing any permit or regulation under the Fisheries Act or under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, we must conduct an environmental assessment. That happens for about 10 per cent of the referrals that we use throughout the year. As a result, habitat management program is involved in almost all CEAA panel reviews. The Habitat Management Directorate is a key player in the application of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. We have been involved in the vast majority of the comprehensive studies that the federal government has done under this act.
Fisheries officers carry out the enforcement measures of these acts. They are not bureaucratically part of our program but they support it in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. They are formally organized with the fisheries management group. There are about 650 enforcement officers across Canada responsible for initiating warnings and prosecutions under the Fisheries Act. They are also, for example, authorized to seize equipment and issue letters requesting habitat restoration.
In addition to the strong role that our habitat biologists play in reviewing, on a day-to-day basis, these referrals under both the Fisheries and the Canadian Environmental Assessment acts and the fisheries officers who enforce compliance with the act, our science sector is important in providing us with key environmental science relevant to habitat matters.
In the course of your study, you may wish to invite representatives from the conservation protection group and the science sector, who may be able to answer questions related to habitat management that are functionally outside of our respective responsibilities here at the committee tonight.
Slide five provides an overview of the policy foundation. The policy for the management of fish habitat was introduced in 1986. It provides a comprehensive framework for the administration of the habitat provisions of the Fisheries Act. What it really does is operationalize sustainable development. We are trying to integrate the development objectives of proponents with our environmental interest in a manner that complies with the act.
The overall objective of the policy is to achieve a net gain of fish habitat for Canada's fisheries resources. The policy includes three goals: conservation, restoration and development. Most of our work is in the conservation area, although we are trying to move and better balance the application of our policy to focus more on some of the non- regulatory means, such as restoration and development.
With respect to conservation, we are trying to ensure that there is no net loss of fish habitat. We are trying to put in place measures that would be implemented to replace the fish habitat that may be damaged or destroyed as a result of the development project that is being proposed. We call that compensation; it is not financial compensation, but it is replacement of fish habitat.
Restoration is the other goal. That refers to the treatment or cleanup of fish habitat that has been damaged to increase its capability to sustain a productive fisheries resource.
Last, we have development. We will be talking about that later on.
Following the overall objective of net gain, — and we have these three goals of conservation, restoration and development — we have eight strategies to implement these policy goals. I will not take the time to go through those eight strategies, but they are both regulatory and non-regulatory in nature. To date, the focus of our program has been largely to invest on the regulatory side. We are also trying to achieve a better balance of our regulatory efforts with our non-regulatory efforts. Public education, awareness, stewardship and planning are the non-regulatory means to which I referred.
Slide seven refers to the habitat blueprint. You may have heard about this when we were here last time. I would like to provide the committee with an update on events since we last appeared before you.
[Translation]
In 1999, we commissioned an independent national study to identify and recommend improvements to the habitat referral process. The results of that study led us to implement a habitat management program renewal project. We have called that project the ``habitat blueprint.''
When the blueprint was completed in 2002, we had in hand several of the tools that we thought we would need to meet the priorities and complete the independent study. There were four priorities: first, reduce the delays for the regulatory review of projects; second, improve consistency in program delivery; third, balance implementation of the habitat policy; and fourth, engage external groups in program delivery.
Since the completion of the blueprint, we have made great progress and I will have an update for you in the near future.
[English]
I would like to touch on a couple of other initiatives that collectively bring us to where we now stand.
In 1999, the federal government decided to strengthen the habitat management program, particularly in the inland provinces — Ontario, Quebec and the Prairies. Traditionally, the program had been focused on the two coasts. With the strengthening initiative, it became a truly national program. This is quite recent, relatively speaking. It involved the additional funding of $28 million allocated annually to the program, an increase of some 200-plus staff in the inland provinces, and we increased our Central and Arctic region's — that is, the inland provinces — presence from two offices to 17. We now have about 63 offices across the country. As a result, we have quite a presence throughout the country in many communities. We are, in many cases, the face of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in these communities and a key federal presence in the communities as well.
In addition to our strengthened inland habitat responsibilities, we have also taken on new responsibilities under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, including recent amendments just a few months ago. In June of this year, parts of the Species at Risk Act came into force, which affect the habitat management program. Our folks, who are now required to consider aquatic species at risk when we look at project referrals, work to ensure that the habitat of these species at risk is not significantly affected.
Slide eight provides an overview of our presence across the country in our six regions. We can come back to that, should you wish. Again, the point here is we now have some 63 offices and a very real presence throughout the country.
Slide 12 provides an update on the habitat blueprint and some other initiatives that we have been working hard on over the past couple of years since we were last here.
In addition to the new responsibilities that we took on and these new pressures, we have also made considerable progress with respect to the blueprint. Over the next couple of years, we will continue to focus on those four priorities that I mentioned, which are identified in the blueprint exercise.
We are developing operational policies to streamline the regulatory process. When we expanded the habitat management program in the inland provinces, we experienced a substantial increase in project approvals from farmers and municipalities for routine maintenance of agricultural drains. Some of you, I am sure, have heard about that in your visits and elsewhere. This resulted in delays in processing review requests, and it became an irritant to many farmers and detracted staff from focusing on higher risk referrals and matters.
In response, working with provinces and stakeholders, we developed a class authorization, and we have implemented that in Ontario. This means that about 90 per cent of the proposed maintenance works can now proceed without DFO staff having to do a site-specific review. This has renewed our relations with the province and stakeholders significantly.
We want to expand this type of initiative, not only with respect to drains, but also with respect to other low-risk activities across the country so that we can streamline the regulatory process, make it more efficient for proponents and, at the same time, free up our staff to work on more of the higher risk, habitat infringing activities that are taking place.
We are also developing a risk management framework. This risk management framework will reflect the impact of the works and undertakings and the sensitivity of the fish habitat. We will use this framework to prioritize the risk and allocate our energy and focus our efforts accordingly. We will be developing guidelines to support this risk management framework.
In addition to class authorizations and a risk management framework, we are also looking at the CEAA exclusions list, again with respect to low risk activities. If we can put certain things on the CEAA exclusions list, it will free our time spent on conducting environmental assessments for what we know are low risk activities, and focus on the major projects and the high risk activities.
These are some of the concrete and real examples of our efforts to streamline the regulatory framework where it makes sense to do so.
We are enhancing internal consistency through a national training program that has been launched over the last couple of years with considerable success, and new operational guidelines for staff. We have a number of courses. We train staff on the application of the Fisheries Act, section 35, enforcement issues, and applying the Environmental Assessment Act to referrals. We have a number of operational guidelines respecting the application of our policy. We are rolling these out on an ongoing basis so that all staff has the same guidelines with a view to increasing consistency across the country.
In respect of delivering a more balanced program, emphasizing some of our non-regulatory elements, we are supporting and participating in stewardship initiatives as much as our resources will permit. While we do have examples throughout the entire country, our best examples are those in the Pacific region, in British Columbia, where we do have a number of stewardship initiatives. We partner with others to raise awareness and understanding and to provide some funding for community groups to restore and develop areas that are important fish habitat.
For example, we work in cooperation with the B.C. Teachers Federation and school boards to deliver the salmonids in the classroom program. This project involves 40,000 students. Some of our staff has been telling us that this one program has done more to raise public awareness of fish and fish habitat than any other activity in which we are involved. We are keen to support these types of initiatives that involve engaging others and ensuring that habitat becomes everyone's business.
In addition to stewardship programs in terms of partnering over the past couple of years, we have also signed Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with a number of provinces. Provinces have responsibilities related to fish habitat because of their constitutional responsibilities. If not directly responsible for fish habitat, provinces certainly are involved in areas that impact upon fish habitat.
From a Canadian's perspective, it does not make sense to deal with two different governments. Therefore, we try to harmonize our efforts and work together. In the past couple of year, Mr. LeBlanc has been leading an exercise in partnering with a variety of provinces. We have now entered into agreements setting out our roles and responsibilities, highlighting areas of priority to work on together, and setting up governance structures with British Columbia and Prince Edward Island. We are in the process of finalizing our agreement with Manitoba. After that, we will be working on protocol agreements, bringing it down a level, with a number of other provinces, as well.
We have also been working with industry. We have entered into a successful memorandum of understanding with the Canadian Electrical Association doing the same sort of thing. We are talking with other key industry sectors that are interested in signing similar agreements. All of these initiatives are designed to recognize the shared responsibility we have as Canadians for preserving and protecting fish habitats.
I will quickly speak to merging trends and deal with the last two slides. In terms of emerging trends, while we have achieved significant progress over the past couple of years, new issues are clearly emerging. Our volume of project referrals is increasing significantly. In the past two years, referrals have increased from about 10,000 to 13,000 — and increase of about 30 per cent.
We have determined that the vast majority of these — 80 per cent to 90 per cent — are in the low- to medium-risk category, but they take up a significant amount of our time. We need to find a risk management framework that will free up time to focus on the balance of high-risk activities.
There have also been significant increases in economic development across the country, particularly in the North where many projects are being considered in the oil and gas sector, hydro development, and diamond, gold and other mining initiatives. The emergence of these major projects necessitates a look at delivery and resource allocation of the program.
We have a significant increase in the volume of referrals. We have new legislative responsibilities under the Species at Risk Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. We have significant major projects in the North from diamond mining to the Mackenzie Valley Project and others. We are also committed to better engaging Aboriginal groups to effectively participate managing aquatic resources and habitat.
All of this is being done in the context of a tighter financial environment and a government-wide move towards risk- based management and smart regulations. We need to find ways to balance the recognized social and economic benefits that these development projects bring to Canadians with our need to protect and conserve fish habitat for future generations in keeping with our new legislated responsibilities.
I do not know if this committee as been briefed on the Departmental Assessment and Alignment Project, DAAP, in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It is an internal exercise that many government departments are undertaking. Essentially, we are looking at all of our programs and services. We are ensuring that they are aligned properly with the strategic direction and the mandate of the department. We are ensuring that our programs are affordable, relevant and efficiently administered. We are doing the good, modern comptrollership review that needs to be done. All departments are undergoing this.
Obviously, this impacts fish habitat and management. It impacts all programs at Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We are developing options for senior management and ministerial consideration as we go forward. The blueprint positioned us quite well for this in that we understand the issues on which we need to work. We have a good plan in place to deal with that. It is all about improved service to Canadians. We are looking at our program from that perspective.
I understood that this committee was interested in some restoration and development work. I think I have covered that in my description of our efforts to try to rebalance our program and by talking about some of the stewardship initiatives on which we have been working. Related to restoration and development in the inland provinces, we have developed some primers for farmers and other users. I have left copies of our initiative for further review as an example of that sort of work.
We would be happy to take any questions the committee members may have. I will be relying heavily on my management colleagues given my relatively recent appointment to this position and their relatively long period of time in the program.
Senator Comeau: It is always a pleasure to talk about habitat with people from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Your fifth slide refers to the question of the net gain. Recently, if I recall, ``net gain'' had eight guiding principles. I will not name all of them now. If I recall, Mr. Cuillerier — your predecessor — indicated that the only true principle of the eight principles was protection and compliance. That was referred to us two years ago.
In her report of 2002, Ms. Gelinas, the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development indicated that this was the only one of the eight guiding principles that was implemented by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Am I to understand that this has changed since February 2002?
Mr. Wex: We are aware that the vast majority of investment of our resources is still on that strategy. It is the regulatory part of our policy. We need to look at all the referrals we receive from a section 35 perspective. Therefore, the sheer workload forces us to focus on the compliance and enforcement aspects of our policy.
Having said that, the blueprint did identify that we need to better balance the application of our policy. The people you mentioned were referring to that. What about the other seven strategies? In that regard, certainly in the Pacific region, for example, we have done much in respect to stewardship, integrated planning and some awareness and planning work.
Those are the other kinds of implementation strategies that we have. Another key implementation strategy included partnerships with the provinces and other stakeholders such as industry. Since my predecessor was here, we have made significant progress with these MOUs with British Columbia and P.E.I., and have come close with a number of other provinces, including the final touches on an MOU with Manitoba.
In response to your question, we have made progress, probably not as much progress as we would have liked, but we are certainly on the right track.
Senator Comeau: When dealing with government programs, it always worries me whether this is on the radar screen of the decision-makers. For some reason, I think that fish habitat has not hit the radar screen because it has not yet hit the media, which shows little interest in the subject — unless it has the magnitude of an Exxon-Valdez oil spill. Otherwise, the systematic, ongoing damage to habitat — which is happening as we speak — is probably worse than the Exxon-Valdez disaster. Yet, the media would not even consider reporting on the extent of the damage to habitat and watersheds caused by such things as encroaching cities.
If the media has no interest in the subject, then the decision-makers are not interested in the subject; and if the decision-makers are not interested in the subject, then, at the end of the day, departments such as Fisheries and Oceans do not get the kind of attention they should be getting when budgets are allocated.
I do not want to put words in your mouth but I did note that one reality you had to face in respect of the budget was the program review. Did the budget for your program take a tumble in this year's budget review?
Mr. Wex: All areas of the department took reductions in order to fund certain priorities. The reductions that we took were not as significant or severe as others. I have not been with the directorate very long and I do not know if those cuts would have a significant impact on our progress.
It is somewhat complicated and I am not in the best position to talk about it. They were not actually cuts and we set aside some monies so we will look midyear to see where we are financially as a department. That is why I say that it has not hurt us yet because we have not been through a full year. The monies could still be spent later on in the year.
Your point is well taken about the media, although I would not necessarily be asking for more media stories. In terms of polling, the environment always ranks very high in the minds of Canadians. Your point is well taken that those polling data support our efforts to try to secure resources for the program. The additional $28 million that we received a couple of years ago for the inland habitat strengthening is consistent with that.
Senator Comeau: Our capable researcher sent some polling figures to committee members. They indicated that Canadians place a high priority on fish habitat and that they do not trust politicians to mind the shop. When asked, Canadians indicated that they want us to pay more attention to fish habitat. Yet I do not see that happening in a significant way. Fish habitat has still not hit the radar screen as a priority. Senator Watt would probably be able to best explain what is happening up north and how we should be spending more rather than less on this issue.
A group from the Caledon Rockfort Quarry appeared before the committee last year to explain the request for an environmental assessment of the quarry. To my knowledge that assessment has not happened. A group in Nova Scotia requested an environmental assessment for the Digby rock quarry and that happened quickly. What were the distinctions between the two quarries? Why did one quarry receive an assessment quickly while the other assessment has not yet been approved?
Mr. Richard Nadeau, Director, Habitat Operations, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Habitat Management Directorate: There is no simple answer. However, in the case of the Caledon Rockfort Quarry, we had made the commitment upfront that we would not authorize the destruction of fish habitat in relation to this project. In accordance with our statement at the time, we worked with the proponent to avoid any impacts to fish habitat. For people familiar with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, we have to have a trigger, which in our case is the Fisheries Act authorization. We worked hard to avoid destruction of fish habitat and we did not have a trigger for a CEAA review.
With respect to the White Cove Quarry in Digby, we had many triggers, including the terminal, which is the highest level of assessment carried out at the department and is a comprehensive study. At the same time, an extensive provincial review process was being put in place. Rather than carry out two different review processes on the same project at the bureaucratic level, we agreed that it would make sense to carry out one single assessment. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans asked the Minister of the Environment if it would be possible to obtain an agreement with Nova Scotia to carry out a joint review of the project. The easiest way to do that would have been at panel level — to mesh the two processes because they do not have the equivalent of a comprehensive study in their legislation.
Senator Comeau: That makes sense.
Senator Adams: I have a couple questions concerning the Arctic. We have some quota but not all of it; it goes mostly to foreigners and those in southern parts of Canada. I understand that the revenue figure from commercial fishing is $5 billion per year. I think it is about $7 billion from tourism. We do not have much tourism in Nunavut Territory because not many people can afford to travel there, with the exception of millionaires who go up to do some caribou hunting or Arctic char fishing.
Do you have an idea of the breakdown of that income across Canada? Do you have any information on revenues from tourism and especially from fishing in Nunavut? There are also a few hunters of bear and muskox. What information does your department have on commercial fishing, angling and tourism?
Mr. Wex: Are you asking about a breakdown in terms of tourism on the commercial and recreational front across the country?
Senator Adams: Yes.
Mr. Wex: I do not have those numbers available, but we could try to get something for you and the committee on that.
Senator Adams: The Nunavut government has only been operating since the land claim settlement, and we had the 10-year anniversary in July. I think we have to work between the departments. You have a lot of departments up there in some of the communities, but we do not have anybody up there to police this kind of stuff. How are we able to promote things so that people in the community have income?
In Baffin Inlet, they have quite a few tours and only operate five weeks a year. Those people want to get something to promote a future for the economy and the community. Some of the people from the south and the environmental people are opposing that.
It is very difficult. There is all the new kinds of mining coming in, and some of the environmental people from the departments — Health, Transport, Coast Guard and Fisheries and Oceans — all operate closely together on this, so it is difficult to begin. We always have to deal with bureaucrats: Which department? How will we start?
Since we passed that environmental bill — I think about four or five years ago — I have talked to some of the guides. They tell me that every year people from the department from Ottawa tell them they have to do certain things or they cannot have tourism.
People up there do not know what regulations have been passed in the House of Commons. A couple of years after passing new legislation, we go up to the North and tell them we have new bills and regulations. The guides tell me that they may not be able to operate another year because they have to deal with too many regulations that have been implemented since they started their businesses and with which they are not equipped to comply.
That is the kind of stuff that is getting to some of the communities. In the meantime, people put in all the camps and stuff like that, so it is very difficult for them.
My second question concerns the Aboriginal Programming Framework budget you have in 2003. You have referred to this on page 10 of your brief. Can you give me an idea what it means? Nunavut is different; we are not just like any other province; we are not really included because we have settled a land claim. We had to negotiate with Ottawa and some of the departments. I just want to know what that framework program is and how that system works.
Mr. Wex: In response to your first comment, in terms of the habitat management program, our responsibility and mandate is to conserve and protect fish habitat. While it is not directly related to tourism, we realize that increased economic development proposals going on wherever they may be across Canada, have an impact or potential impact on fish habitat. For example, in the North, where we are seeing this big boom of development taking place — be it the Northwest Territories or elsewhere — we need to respond to this emerging pressure. That is what I was trying to get at earlier in our presentation. Currently, we have limited resources in the North. We have more than we did before, but given the emerging pressures, we need to anticipate and prepare. For example, on the Mackenzie Valley project, we are putting together a team to deal with that, in Yellowknife, in Inuvik, to begin to respond to this pressure.
The issue of regulatory burden what this whole smart regulation agenda is about government-wide. The habitat management program is positioning itself for that as well. That is what we are trying to do in terms of taking a balanced approach. Smart regulation is a fancy term, in my view, for an efficient framework that is clear; people understand the rules of the game and can position themselves accordingly. My experience with industry over the years is they have no problems complying with the laws; they just want to know what they have to do and what are the timelines. That is why we are trying to simplify the process.
Our efforts toward our streamlining initiative are to support the type of things I think that you were asking about in terms of the regulatory burden just to get things done.
Slide 10 mentioned the Aboriginal programming framework. There was an announcement in budget 2003. This is a new program that will begin next year, for which $8 million will be available within Fisheries and Oceans. We expect habitat management to receive some funds for this so that we can engage Aboriginal organizations, that is, First Nation communities, to be more involved in the decision-making process with respect to fish habitat. For now, that is what I am prepared to say on that.
Senator Adams: As I was saying earlier, we have a big country in Canada. You are talking about maybe 600 reserves across Canada. We have one Nunavut. You were talking about Inuvik and the area. We are representing people in the community. You mentioned Aboriginals, who may not even be included in Nunavut. That budget of $8 million may not even concern Nunavut. In the meantime, in Nunavut right now we have 8,000 metric tonnes of turbot taken every year and we do not have a policy for that.
We have close to 3,000 metric tonnes for cold weather shrimp that have been caught in the area for Nunavut. When you talk about Aboriginals, to whom are you referring? How will the budget be allocated? Are you talking about B.C. or the east? Maybe you are not talking about Nunavut and the territory. That is why I asked my question. It can be very difficult for us in the Aboriginal community. You have $8 million, but some of the areas are mostly for the B.C. Aboriginal commercial fishermen. We have been down east at Burnt Church. Of course, the Labrador Innu Association have quotas and stuff like that. We just want to make sure what you mean by ``Aboriginal'' and how the budget will be allocated.
Mr. Wex: I have certainly taken note of it. We will talk to those who allocate that budget. That point will certainly be made.
Senator Hubley: Thank you very much for your presentation this evening. You talked about emerging trends and the 30 per cent increase in your project referrals, indicating that 80 per cent to 90 per cent were considered ``low risk.'' What type of a project would be considered low risk? How do you evaluate a project as being low risk? What would be considered high risk?
Mr. Wex: It is always difficult to define phrases such as ``low risk'' and ``high risk'' in the absence of strict criteria. These are somewhat arbitrarily chosen, although I do have some examples.
When I said 80 to 90 per cent, I was categorizing that as low to medium risk. I did not want to suggest that the vast majority of our work is low risk. That low to medium risk category does create much of the volume of the work. It does not necessarily take the same amount of time. I am not saying 80 to 90 per cent of our resources are invested in low to medium risk items, or 80 to 90 per cent of our time is spent on low to medium risk items. Certainly, a certain percentage of our time and resources is spent in this area and we could think about reallocating that.
It depends on the sensitivity of the habitat in question. That matrix to which I referred involved both the activity in question in conjunction with the sensitivity of the habitat. A dock, for example, in many circumstances, would be considered to be a low risk activity. A directionally drilled pipeline under a stream, which does not impact the fish habitat, could be considered a low risk activity. Certain types of culverts and the removal of certain beaver dams are low risk.
High-risk activities are those such as significant sediment discharges into important spawning ground through mining activities or otherwise.
We are beginning to develop criteria and definitions around these phrases. We do have some idea as to where we want to go so that when we send directives to our regions we can direct them to reallocate from low risk to medium and high risk. We will have some benchmarks. Low risk is the same in all regions. We recognize that we need to put better definitions around all of that.
Senator Hubley: Does the low and high risk have anything to do with the type of fishery that might be involved?
Mr. Wex: In addition to looking at the sensitivity of the habitat in question, we also want to be results based. What is this program all about? This program is about supporting the fishery resource. We have commercial fisheries, but also we have Aboriginal fisheries and recreational fisheries. Where are the key fisheries? We should be looking carefully at ensuring that we are protecting those fisheries. The approach should be results based.
Having said this, all of this is under development. We need to do some further work on this.
Senator Hubley: I asked these questions to put the fish face on it. The work is very technical and administrative. I want to find out what is happening to the species and what is happening to the different types of fish in these habitats. I am sure that that is part of the evaluation, but I wanted an idea of how you might identify a referral as being low or high risk.
I come from Prince Edward Island and I am interested in your engaging external groups and partnerships with provinces. What types of partnerships are there?
Mr. Wex: Mr. LeBlanc can provide a more substantive answer.
Mr. Patrice LeBlanc, Director, Habitat Programs, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Habitat Management Directorate: We have entered into general agreements with provinces to collaborate on habitat management. We have identified the priorities in these agreements. For example, in Prince Edward Island, the priority is to streamline the regulatory review process between the province and the federal government to minimize overlap and duplication. Stewardship is also a defined as a priority under the MOU that we have with the province of P.E.I. Data and information sharing and ensuring that we have good communication with respect to habitat conservation and protection are priorities.
There is quite an interest in P.E.I. watershed planning. We want to bring all the stakeholders together in a watershed environment to ensure that the valuable resources are protected. We want to ensure that the objectives are defined and measures are put in place to protect the fisheries resource in those watersheds.
Senator Hubley: Do you try to partner with other industries? In Prince Edward Island, there needs to be some agreement or workable relationship between the agricultural industry and the fishery industry. Is it also part of your mandate to work on those relationships?
Mr. LeBlanc: We are working with various industry sectors as Mr. Wex mentioned. We have developed an agreement with the electricity association. We are also working with the agricultural community through Agriculture Canada under the Agricultural Policy Framework, through which we are engaging provincial agricultural departments and the industry farmers to develop environmental farm plans. These plans will define how they will meet federal legislation including the Fisheries Act.
We are working with farmers through the Department of Agriculture.
Mr. Wex: We are being approached by many industry sectors now to do exactly what we have successfully been doing with the Canadian Electricity Association, CEA. The reality is that it is quite resource intensive to do it properly. You must invest the resources and commitment of staff. We want to look at other ways to engage industry stakeholders more comprehensively than each industry sector one by one. We will need to look at strategies to do this.
I do not think week, without our being approached. Everyone wants to do what we are doing with the CEA. It has been a success story. We will have to come up with strategies to achieve those same interests in a more cost effective way.
Senator Cochrane: I will start with the eight implementation strategies based on protection and compliance to which you refer on page 5. I would like to focus on the proactive measure, the non-regulatory measures. Can you tell me what some of these might be?
Mr. Wex: I will tell you some of them, and Mr. LeBlanc and others can add to it. We have regulatory and statutory responsibilities under section 35 and there is a vast volume of referrals and projects that we must evaluate against this section. Earlier, we were talking about ways to be smarter about that — to find ways to streamline it without compromising our interests.
We have a number of other strategies in the policy. Partnering is one. We engage others through partnerships such as the MOU that we spoke to with a province or with industry. In stewardship, we provide, some seed funding to communities, for example, for restoration and development work. We leverage the resources, energies and involvement of others, which is the proper role for government and which is another way to achieve the protection and conservation of fish habitat. We develop public awareness campaigns. I referred to an example of that with some school boards in British Columbia. We visit the classrooms, speak to the importance of fish habitat and get people excited about it. They then go forward on that theme. We also have integrated planning wherein we sit down with the provinces, the conservation authority in Ontario, for example. Collectively, we map out areas and try to plan our fish habitat objectives in a certain watershed area, and we share responsibilities. These are some of the more proactive and less heavy-handed measures that we hope will achieve our interests.
We recognize that a balanced approach with all eight of these strategies is the way to proceed. Our blueprint called for that but we are not there yet. We need to try to reallocate to the extent that we can so that we have a more balanced approach to deal with some of these proactive strategies.
Senator Cochrane: You will require a great deal of time, effort, money, and many people. Do you truly hope to achieve all of this? These are high goals, I must tell you. Let me go back to the blueprint.
Your department engages external groups in its program delivery to prevent duplication. Are there scientists involved in that?
Mr. Wex: Yes, we do have the science sector involved, which is another part of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. There is another science group that has funds available for science research and activities in support of the entire department's mandate, including habitat and management. In fact, until recently, there was an environmental science group that was part of the Habitat Management Directorate structurally. We moved that group to the science sector but in reality, some science monies are available for habitat purposes. Each year, there is a review of the kinds of studies they are undertaking that would support the department's Habitat Management Program.
Senator Cochrane: I am thinking not just of the money but also of the expertise of the scientists.
Mr. Wex: For example, when we have an aquaculture referral we have to do an environmental assessment because it requires permits under the Navigable Waters Protection Act to mark them for safe navigation. We then have to do an environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. There are science questions that arise, which we are all familiar with, on the appropriateness of an aquaculture facility installation in respect of genetic diversity and otherwise. We then obtain the advice and input from our scientists prior to signing off on the environmental assessment. In addition to funding specific scientific research, we have scientists giving us advice.
Senator Cochrane: I am happy to hear that because many of them have a great deal of experience.
Senator Watt: I would like to have more information on the workings of the new policy foundation, not only in theory but also in practice.
I have an understanding of what you are driving at but I have a great deal of difficulty trying to place it in a practical sense without all the theories behind it. For example, it would be useful to have an explanation of the practical application of the policy in an area where a habitat may be at risk from time to time or may gradually be affected, by development occurring along a coastline, for instance.
As well, you talked about the framework for conservation, restoration and development of fish habitats. You also talked about the objective and net gain. First, I would like to have some indication of how that is measured. When I went through some of the explanations and highlights of the issues in your departmental policy on the management of these habitats, they talked about implementing eight different strategies, the last of which is monitoring. Knowing what is in the area being looked at is key.
Has the department done an inventory of a given area to know exactly what is happening? Is that information broken down and applied to the different provinces for the management of it?
Mr. Wex: There are a few issues. You asked about net gain and how we achieve that but first, you asked about a practical application of the policy.
Senator Watt: Yes.
Mr. Wex: Would you like us to take the practical application first?
Senator Watt: The two are connected and I want to know how they are connected.
Mr. Wex: I will speak to net gain first and my understanding of it. When we have a project for review, we look at it in terms of the possible impact on fish habitat. If we find that the project will result in a harmful alteration or destruction of fish habitat, our first order of priority is to try to relocate the project so that it does not interfere — perhaps go over a stream or occur in a sensitive habitat. We work with the proponent to try to relocate the project. If that does not work from a developer's perspective then we look at redesigning it from an engineering perspective.
Senator Watt: Are you saying that the proponent of the development might have an effect on the habitat?
Mr. Wex: Yes, exactly. If a pipeline proposal shows that it would go over a stream but that it would not go over a stream if built 100 meters away, then we would look at moving it around that stream. We would relocate the pipeline.
However, there are circumstances where, as a last resort, we cannot mitigate it through relocation or redesign. Therefore, we look to authorize, in some circumstances, the harmful alteration if we can compensate. By ``compensation'' we mean that there would be no net loss to fish habitat. It is a fair question and I will draw on others in terms of how we actually measure that we are achieving no net loss.
We create ratios. In these operational policies, to which I referred earlier, we try to develop some consistency in the application of a policy, we drill down and develop further operational policies. We just did one this year on compensation. We asked for more than a one-to-one ratio in most circumstances with respect to what we are losing. If we are losing a spawning ground of X metres, we look to create a spawning ground or some fish habitat greater than that which we are losing. We ask for it to be greater not to be heavy-handed about it but in recognition of the fact that it might take some time for this new habitat that we have created to take effect. We also recognize that it may fail in some circumstances and, on balance, we want to cover off those circumstances where it may not be successful.
Within that compensation, we have different hierarchies. Our first order of preference would be to replace the fish habitat that we are losing with a like fish habitat. If it is a spawning ground for pike, we will try to recreate the spawning ground for pike in that ecological unit. It is in the same unit, but it is a different type of spawning ground for trout. There is a hierarchy from most preferred to least preferred.
We do enter into monitoring agreements. For every new aquaculture facility in the past several years, we have entered into monitoring agreements. We get the baseline data relating to the benthic impacts on the bottom of the cage. We ensure that there are monitoring agreements with the proponents. They are required, under the agreement, to report. This is part of our adaptive management regime.
Senator Watt: Is this only after the environmental assessment?
Mr. Wex: That is right. They feed baseline data to us early on. We use all the information we have to conduct of our environmental assessment. If there are no expected significant adverse environmental effects, the project proceeds. We then monitor regularly to ensure that what we thought would happen is happening. To the extent that it is not, we take mitigation measures. If those mitigation measures do not work, then we need to take more drastic measures.
Senator Watt: In regards to navigable waters that sort of trickle into provincial authorities, I understand that you only have an overall agreement with two provinces. You still have not worked out agreements with the other provinces. Is that what you were saying?
Mr. Wex: That is correct. We have two formal agreements with two provinces. We are close to a third, but that is not to suggest that we are not working well with the others.
For example, we do not have a formal MOU with Ontario. However, there are 21 conservation authorities across the province. We are working extremely well with them in filtering the project referrals when they arrive at the province before they come to us. We have a strong working relationship with Ontario and other provinces as well pending these MOUs that we will have.
Senator Watt: After the environmental assessment takes place — either jointly with the province, or by federal government alone — and a risk to habitat has been identified, are sufficient monies being pumped in by the federal and provincial governments to have a monitoring system in place?
Mr. Wex: The proponents manage the monitoring system. They are obligated to do that.
Senator Watt: The proponent themselves?
Mr. Wex: Yes. We, too, go out from time to time. We have fisheries officers who work in our conservation and protection branch with our biologists. They are out there all the time. They are not everywhere because we have limited numbers of staff, but they are in the field looking at the projects to see if anything looks awry.
Additionally, under these monitoring agreements, the proponents are responsible for reporting to ensure that what we expected to happen or not happen is in fact the case. In some cases, we will take securities. We will take letters of credit. The company will create a bank account to ensure that the monitoring takes place, and if it does not take place, we will draw down on the account. This is not something we do all the time by any means, but our policy allows for this. We certainly have done it.
Senator Watt: The proponent is definitely accountable for the actions that they take.
Mr. Wex: Yes.
Senator Watt: There is an action that could be taken by the federal government?
Mr. Wex: Absolutely. If things do not work out, we can issue letters of warning.
Senator Watt: What about the third party's interest? How does that fit? The third party could be the private enterprises that might be affected by making a living of the habitat and being impacted by the developer.
Mr. Wex: Are you referring to other parties that might be impacted by the development?
Senator Watt: Yes.
Mr. Wex: You could have a private prosecution brought by individuals. People come to us all the time and say, ``We think that this project is having an impact on us in this way. Can you work with them? Can you work with us in seeing what can be done?''
DFO is getting involved in court cases — unfortunately on an increasing basis — usually in advance of the project being set up through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. There is public participation through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act in the preplanning stages through written consultation where people can see what is on the public registry, or through hearings.
Senator Watt: In other words, there is really no change in terms of the third party's interest in having a role to play within the development that is taking place? They still have to go to the court to prove that they have an issue to bring forward. That is what I meant by there being no changes.
Mr. Wex: Through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, third parties have a role to play. The public registry and the ability to inform in advance of projects going forward are benefits of the act. The proposal is made known and we get all the views on the table beforehand. My colleagues may want to add their own comments.
Mr. Nadeau: It is more evident on bigger projects. On smaller projects, it is a bit more complicated. We often have to deal with the ``not-in-my-backyard'' syndrome. People do not like certain things happening in their own areas.
We have many large projects with strong agreements that involve third parties. We were talking about the territories a while ago. The big diamond mines that are subject to monitoring committees that involve territorial and federal departments, as well as the communities, the chamber of commerce and Aboriginal groups.
We have the same arrangement in Voisey's Bay in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is an example of a very good interdepartmental management agreement that involves the provincial and federal governments and the communities.
We have the same in Nova Scotia with small hydro projects. The monitoring committee involves the company, provincial departments, as well as chamber of commerce people and local people concerned about the fate of the fisheries. We all take part in the process of reviewing results of monitoring from the proponents. Increasingly, we are getting into that kind of business because people are becoming more interested in being involved in these processes.
Senator Watt: I have one more question related to the same issue that I have been raising.
The Species at Risk Act was passed by the Parliament in June 2003. I believe that there is some provision in the act allowing traditional knowledge to have a role in fact-finding about what species might be at risk. This is part of the game, I can see, in regard to related initiatives that the department has. Why is there not something along that line — which is already in the legislation — to allow communities adjacent to the development to have a role to play. They are the people who know what is happening in that given area. For example, it could be Prince Edward Island or Nova Scotia, or Nunavut or Nunavik, or Labrador or any province. A given community has a direct role to play because they have the first knowledge.
Is this part of your game plan with regard to developing continuation of improving the Fisheries and Oceans future?
Ms. Christine Stoneman, Acting Director, Habitat Policy and Regulatory Affairs, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Habitat Management Directorate: As Mr. Nadeau was saying, we often speak with the nearby communities. The smaller projects are quite routine and we do not often have a lot of community involvement. Certainly, with the larger projects, especially when we are triggering a CEA, we have much more public consultation. I have worked on a lot of these projects. People from the community do write to express their concerns. We are looking at those concerns, and any issues that they may bring forward to us. We most certainly take that type of information into account.
In a more proactive way, we have become more involved with various issues such as fisheries and watershed management plans. Those are certainly areas where we involve many stakeholders and the community to work with provincial and municipal and federal agencies — including ourselves — to gather not only all the knowledge that they have, but to get an idea of where people would like to see things happening in their watershed versus areas they want to have protected. We are working more and more in that regard on those kinds of plans so that we know up front what the issues are, even before a proposal comes in.
Senator Watt: I would like to make an important point. I am from the area that was massively affected by the James Bay hydro development. So many years later, we are experiencing things that probably were not taken into account at the time — there have been effects on the wildlife, the fauna and practically everything because the landscape has been changed.
They are now in the process of another diversion in the James Bay area. There is one community called Sanikiluaq, which is an island in the middle of the James Bay area and is under Nunavut. Its residents have been hollering, trying to have their message heard; they want to be a direct participant in terms of what will be happening to them, because their livelihood will likely be wiped out. They were damaged heavily by the first development and now there is another one underway.
We have passed the Species at Risk Act, but at the same time, they were completely ignored by the last decision made by the federal government and the Province of Quebec. The recent blackout that took place has elevated the importance of the development of another dam in the James Bay area. I thought I would point that out.
I hope that will become part of your recommendations in regard to allowing the people to have a direct role. We know that they will not be able to stop the project, but I do not think that is the whole idea. The fact is that we are talking about somewhere in the neighbourhood of 500 people, if not more, on that island. It is a permanent community.
Thank you for your informative presentation. I hope that we will be able to make improvements to things we were not able to do in the past.
Senator Comeau: In the year 2002, the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development reported that the federal government had not responded effectively to invasive species that threatened Canada's ecosystems, habitats and other species. When we think of invasive species, we tend to think of the zebra mussels in the Great Lakes, for example.
However, there are invasive species that we view at a more practical level. For example, in my own community most of the rivers and lake systems have now been invaded by pickerel, which essentially eats everything — trout, eels, minnows, and toes if you happen to be in the water. It has destroyed most of the lakes and rivers in my own immediate community to the point that the pickerel is the only species left in those rivers. However, I have seen no action whatsoever on the part of government to deal with it. I would like you to comment on that.
If someone were to start putting up a dock for their rowboat, we would probably have DFO there with lights blazing in a second; but all of our lakes are being systematically wiped out of native species of fish, which have been there since time immemorial, yet no action is taking place.
Mr. Wex: This is a significant issue, senator, as you know. If you ask Canadians, ``What is the role of DFO?'' this is something that I think many Canadians would speak about. Within our department, this is becoming an increasing priority.
We are going through this departmental assessment and alignment process, where we are trying to look at our key priorities and what is important to Canadians. This is one aspect that was recently discussed by senior management: our role with respect to invasive species and where, if we were going to increase investments, they could be.
Having said that, I also know that the government as a whole is looking at invasive species; this is not a single issue within DFO. In fact, I think a government response is being developed on this very issue right now, following the recommendations of the CESD and others on invasive species. Clearly, research is critical, as well as other areas.
Mr. LeBlanc: At the last meeting of the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Agriculture Ministers, they identified invasive species as an important issue to deal with. Ontario is taking the lead in establishing a task group to look at the issue and report back to ministers. There will probably be a report tomorrow at the meeting of ministers in Quebec City. It is our hope that some progress is being made in respect of bringing provincial and federal governments to work together on that issue.
Senator Comeau: My concern is that you may not have the funding to do it. It is not a question of taking a few dollars from one budget and quickly switching it over to invasive species. I bring that up because Mr. Wex's predecessor, Mr. Cuillerier when he appeared before us in 2001, indicated to that he did not have enough money to do the proper science. Since then, budgets have been decreasing rather than increasing. He did not have sufficient research money in the budget of 2002-03 and it has been reduced since. We will not ask you to do the impossible, such as shifting the funding from one pocket to the other. You need increased funding, as your predecessor said at that time.
Areas such as mine are in the same situation in that there is no action being taken for the rivers. The committee will not be able to accomplish what it had set out to do, that is, to highlight the positive stories of how Canadians in partnership with government and industry can do their part to combat the problems of habitat degradation. That was the original intention of this committee. I am increasingly worried that we will not be able to do it. I think Canadians want to be involved but they need to see a firmer commitment from DFO and from government. I do not see that happening yet.
Mr. Wex: Certainly, being new to the habitat management program, I am quite excited about the many positive stories that we are hearing about, specifically on the proactive elements. However, I recognize your point. Going back to your first point, Senator Comeau, about where fish habitat is on the radar screen, I believe, after listening to senior management at DFO, that habitat management is increasingly on the radar screen. However, invasive species are clearly high on the radar screen given the results of some discussions. I do not know what is in the government's response to those recommendations but I, like you, would hope that they will be quite supportive and positive.
Senator Comeau: You may pass the information on that this committee definitely has fish habitat on its radar screen. If you do not obtain the needed funding, we will simply make it a bigger blip on the radar screen.
The Deputy Chairman: To follow up on Senator Comeau's questioning, does the department have sufficient funds to undertake the required scientific research? Are you comfortable that you have enough?
Mr. Wex: I encourage the committee to ask the scientists to come here to speak to their budget. They are in a better position than I to talk about their funding. All departments will say internally that they could always use more funding and that they are doing the best they can with what they have. I suppose that holds true for our department as well.
The Deputy Chairman: I am a Newfoundlander and I have been totally engrossed in what has happened to cod. We do not know why it happened and I would like to see if habitat had a bearing on the situation. I do know that we need money for scientific research. When I look at the demise of cod on the East Coast of this nation, I shake my head and wonder when will we get into the nuts and bolts of what happened.
Your presentation on fish habitat was good but I felt too comfortable sitting here. I am listening to habitat as it relates to the land, that is, the water that flows through the land, and I am looking at the habitat of the ocean. I believe that is where DFO has to focus its priorities. We do not know. However, we do know that the species are gone and, in all of the presentations that we heard, no one could answer the question of habitat or what is out there.
I just wonder how good your vision is or where your priorities are with respect to habitat and offshore fishery?
Mr. Wex: In relation to that, we are looking at our allocations of inland freshwater habitat versus marine water habitat. As more developments take place in the offshore, we need to look at that in support of the fishery offshore. In the context of the new Oceans Act and integrated management planning, we need to sit down with the provinces and stakeholders, look at the zones and the ecosystems, and get the scientists to support it. Habitat Management is a critical player in that. We provide support in developing those integrated management plans.
In respect of the vision you are referring to, you are absolutely right, Senator Cook. Integrated management of these areas is the overarching vision that we want to achieve.
The Deputy Chairman: While it grows too late, it will be too late to act at all. We are in limbo. Your mandate states that fish habitat is ``any spawning grounds and nursery, rearing and food supply and migration areas...'' It is important.
I know that the habitat of the waters surrounded by the diamond mines and quarries is part of the critical mass but I would urge you to make the ocean part of that priority, whatever ``habitat'' means in that context. Someone needs to focus in on that. As Senator Comeau mentioned, we cannot afford cuts in budgets if we are to find out what is out there and what is happening out there.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is in Halifax this week. We have been talking about enforcement authority but until we can get nations to look at the habitat of what lives in the sea and what has happened to it, we will get nowhere. Certainly, something happened to the habitat of the cod. I do not know what happened. Did trawlers cause it? I do not know. Was it draggers? No one is giving us an answer. Would you like to comment on that?
Senator Adams: There have been too many seals but that is only part of the reason.
The Deputy Chairman: I thank our witnesses for their informative presentation this evening.
Mr. Wex: Thank you for having us.
The Deputy Chairman: Senators, we will go to consideration of a draft budget being distributed now and to be presented by the Clerk of the Committee.
Senator Comeau: I move adoption of the budget.
The Deputy Chairman: It has been moved by Senator Comeau.
Senator Comeau: Deputy Chair, may I comment?
The Deputy Chairman: Yes.
Senator Comeau: The matter of editing so that the report is also produced in Inuktitut is important.
Working meals are obviously a standard run of the mill budget expense. The translation — and the clerk should correct me if I am wrong — may not cost us anything. This may be covered through the Senate administrative budget.
Mr. Till Heyde, Clerk of the Committee: As far as I am aware, this is the first time a Senate committee has undertaken such extensive interpretation of its proceedings into the three languages: English, French and Inuktitut. The technical staff are optimistic they will be able to set up a system to ensure the interpretation in room 160-S in the Centre Block, the Aboriginal Peoples Room. Tomorrow is to some extent a test run of this.
In the event that there is a problem with that room, the committee may, for future meetings, have to look at bringing in some equipment through another company, in which case there would be costs. These funds would be in the nature of a contingency, but we hope we ill not have to use them.
Senator Comeau: We hope we will not have to resort to this.
Senator Watt: Where is the interpreter coming from?
Mr. Heyde: She is based here in Ottawa. I have been advised that the quality of her work is quite good.
Senator Comeau: As usual, this committee will be treading on new ground as we did when we set up the first Web site for a committee and when we were the first to start using video conferencing. This is a first. We are on the cutting edge.
The Deputy Chairman: The meeting tomorrow will be 6:15 p.m. in room 160-S.
Senator Adams: Will it be televised?
Mr. Heyde: It will be recorded and eventually televised. It will be taped and then broadcast on CPAC in English and French. There will also be an Inuktitut tape prepared that will be available upon request. We also expect to be able to provide a sound feed over the Internet in English, French and Inuktitut.
The Deputy Chairman: In light of the subject matter, would the committee agree that Senator Watt chair that meeting tomorrow?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Is it agreed that we adopt this budget?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The committee adjourned.