Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 16 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 21, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 7:09 p.m. to examine matters relating to the fishing industry.
[Translation]
Mr. Till Heyde, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, as Clerk of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, it is my duty to advise you of the unavoidable absence of the chair, and to preside over the election of an acting chair.
[English]
Is there a motion to that effect?
Senator Adams: I move that Senator Watt take the chair.
Mr. Heyde: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Adams that the Honourable Senator Watt take the chair for this meeting. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Mr. Heyde: Carried.
Senator Charlie Watt (Acting Chairman) in the Chair.
The Acting Chairman: We are very pleased to have before us this evening Ms. Gélinas, Canada's Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. She leads a specialized unit within the Office of the Auditor General of Canada. Her focus is on environmental matters and she is known as an environmental watchdog. Also here tonight are Mr. John Reed and Mr. Neil Maxwell, both principals in the commissioner's office. Ms. Gélinas appeared before this committee in 2002. At that time, her presentation focused on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River Basin. Unfortunately, at that meeting Ms. Gélinas did not have time to answer our questions concerning the environmental petitions process, so hopefully we will have the opportunity to have that discussion today.
Please proceed.
[Translation]
Ms. Johanne Gélinas, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Thank you for the invitation to appear before the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I am accompanied by my colleagues, Mr. John Reed, to my right, and to my left, Mr. Neil Maxwell.
When I appeared before you in February 2002, I gave an overview of Chapter one of my 2001 Report, the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River basin, and in particular the sections related to fisheries.
Today I will provide an additional briefing on several aspects of my work in the area of fisheries and oceans. I will address some key features of my audit findings, the petition process, and the concept of sustainable development.
My group has a legislative mandate to audit the federal government's performance in managing environmental protection and sustainable development issues. My report this year discussed our audits of how the government has dealt with pesticides and road transportation, along with our work on petitions and sustainable development strategies.
In Chapter 1 of my 2001 report, we focused on four main subject areas — water, agriculture, species and spaces at risk, and fisheries. Our objective was to determine whether the government was meeting its commitments, applying good management practices to the issues we examined, and using good governance overall. Activities of several federal departments were included in this audit.
My main concern at that time was my belief that the future of the basin was at risk. Federal efforts had lost momentum. The leadership, innovation, science, and diligence that served the basin in the past had diminished. There was an overwhelming sense of complacency and resignation, instead of urgency and inspiration.
We examined four different aspects of fisheries: the federal role of conservation and protection; scientific information; invasive aquatic species; and fish habitat. The overriding message was that the federal government had not figured out what its role should be in conserving and protecting fresh water fish, including those in the basin. It did not have a vision; it had not figured out where its role ended and the role of the provinces began; and it had tried to delegate its responsibilities away to others.
Among other things, we found that the scientific programs and expertise of Fisheries and Oceans were in trouble; the department was not dealing with invasive aquatic species — a significant and growing threat to the fisheries; and Fisheries and Oceans was struggling with the management of fresh water fish habitat and had limited information on the state of fish habitat in the basin. It did not know whether fish habitat was being gained or lost.
[English]
The detailed follow-up of that audit has not been undertaken, but our office has asked Fisheries and Oceans Canada, as well as other federal departments, to provide us with a progress update of the recommendations we made in our past reports. Overall, many of the responses were vague, and based on the update from Fisheries and Oceans Canada we see no reason to believe that much has changed in the handling of the issues we reported in 2001.
I have provided a handout of highlights of the report recommendations and the department's commitments and responses.
We need to ask what has been changed to address federal-provincial relations? What has changed to address issues of data and scientific knowledge? We must continue to examine the issue of invasive species.
Chapter 4 of my 2002 report focused on the government's management of alien invasive species. We have found that despite long-standing commitments, agreements and accords, the federal government has shown a lack of practical action to prevent alien invaders from harming Canada's ecosystem. As a result, the incidence of invasive species both on land and in water has grown. Government inaction has left the door open to invasive species that threaten our ecosystem.
Mr. Chairman, we are not alone in our concern. The U.S. General Accounting Office and the International Joint Commission have released reports concerning the threat posed by alien invasive species. The reports indicate that decades of government policies and plans have lead to the grave situation that faces us today.
I appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in February, and in May the committee issued a report on aquatic invasive species. The report highlighted the importance of aquatic invasive species and made a number of recommendations to speed up the governments' actions concerning this problem.
Experts long ago concluded that invasive species are second only to habitat destruction as a cause of biodiversity loss. Recent studies indicate invaders now threaten ecosystems right across Canada and cause billions of dollars of damage to our economy every year. All Canadians should be concerned. This is a national problem that affects communities from coast to coast.
Included in my report is a profile of the green crab, which is aggressively colonizing our Atlantic coast, and putting the clam, mussel and oyster industries at risk. These industries have a lot to lose. On the Pacific coast where the green crab has also been discovered, the value of native clams and crab catches in the year 2000 was about $25 million. The landed value of Atlantic clams, mussels and oysters was $57 million in 2002. Catches of Atlantic lobster, which scientists believe may also be threatened, were worth over $500 million in 2000.
In addition to my auditing work I am the guardian of the environment petition process. If any Canadian is concerned about an environment matter that involves the federal government the petition process is one way to voice that concern. The petition can be a simple letter addressed to me. I understand your committee has called one such petitioner to provide testimony to this committee.
Just a few weeks ago Mr. Myles Kehoe petitioned the House of Commons committee on the issue of military chemical weapons dumpsites on our Atlantic coast. The federal government response to Mr. Kehoe's petition can be found in chapter 4 of my report.
To date, over 100 petitions have been submitted to this office and approximately one-half of them, solely and jointly with other departments, are addressed to Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The issues addressed in these petitions vary but all focus on the potential impacts of fish and their habitat. All petitions are listed on the Office of the Auditor General of Canada website.
[Translation]
For example, there are petitions concerning the overall management of the salmon aquaculture industry in British Columbia in the wake of an alleged outbreak of sea lice in wild salmon; the development of intensive hog operations in New Brunswick and its impact on water quality and fish habitat; and the federal government's policy on the rearing of genetically engineered fish.
Departmental responses, specifically those from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, can give this committee an opportunity to question departments on the content of their responses and in some cases on the commitments they have made.
The Auditor General Act also requires each federal department to produce an action plan for working toward their sustainable development objectives — known as a sustainable development strategy. I have here the strategy produced by Fisheries and Oceans Canada for 2001-2003.
My office has a mandate to track and report on the commitments departments have made in their strategies. The first two rounds of sustainable development strategies were released in 1997 and 2001. The third round of strategies are to be tabled in the House of Commons in December 2003.
I am often asked what sustainable development means. Aquaculture provides a good example of this very issue. As Fisheries and Oceans Canada states, aquaculture offers socio-economic benefits. However, while Canadians want to achieve these benefits, they are also concerned about the potential environmental impacts of aquaculture.
Sustainable development is the integration into decision- making of environmental considerations as well as economic and social ones. To date, I have been dissatisfied with the performance of departments in the past, including Fisheries and Oceans Canada. As for the strategies, this year, I released a document entitled ``Sustainable Development Strategies — Making a difference.'' It sets out my expectations for the third round of sustainable development strategies.
[English]
With respect, I believe your committee should call upon Fisheries and Oceans Canada to explain how its sustainable development strategy makes its policies and programs more sustainable. The department should be asked how it is improving its sustainable development strategy for 2003, and how it is addressing aquaculture to maximize the benefits while minimizing the negative impacts.
Parliament's involvement in this process is key to its success considering that as a whole the sustainable development strategies of departments are the action plan to put Canada on a sustainable development path.
What is the Government of Canada trying to achieve through the action plans? What has it achieved, and how do the results contribute to a sustainable development path?
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Thank you for your very informative report.
Over the years I have played and active role in the Atlantic Salmon Federation. I am very interested in the conservation, preservation, and promotion of wild Atlantic salmon. The people from the federation are disappointed in the lack of federal response to their request to share their goals and programs. I mention this issue as part of a piece of a large puzzle.
I do not want you to comment, but want you to be aware that the Atlantic Salmon Federation is discouraged with the federal governments' lack of response.
Ms. Gélinas: The Canadians who have used the petition process have been very pleased with the answers they have received from the various federal departments. It is not a perfect system; it is a work in progress. It is a simple way for any association, individual, municipality, to be heard. One just has to write a letter stating his or her concern, and within 120 days, he or she will receive a clear response.
I also represent the environmental arm of the Office of Auditor General of Canada, and it might interest you follow- up on some of the work that we are doing in that area.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: What is the status of the Atlantic coast green crab invasion, a species which has come here from the U.S. coast?
Ms. Gélinas: The green crab was discovered on the eastern U.S. seaboard, if I am not mistaken, around Cape Cod in the 1950s. It slowly began to creep up along the Canadian east coast. Now it can be found in the Maritime provinces. I am sure that Fisheries and Oceans Canada could provide you with more information. We used the example of the green crab to show that the problems were not only in fresh waters, but that there were problems related to invasive aquatic species in both oceans, on both coasts. This tiny crab, which can fit in the palm of your hand, is a predator. It can consume up to 40 clams a day. It is causing a lot of havoc. It colonizes the neighbouring environment, which contributes to the disappearance of other species.
Senator Robichaud: I know another species that consumes a lot of clams every day. It also eats salmon, mackerel, herring or any other fish that turns up at river mouths. On the Kouchibougouac River, in the Northumberland Strait in New Brunswick where I live, a herd of seals is devouring every aquatic species in our area. Can they be considered an invasive species? There used to be fewer of them but now there are so many that it is becoming a problem for fishermen. They are so ravenous that they go right into the lobster traps to eat the bait. This has a direct impact on fisheries, all the more so since the bait that used to cost practically nothing now costs 75 cents a pound.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada is trying all kinds of things to control the impact of seals or wolffish on fisheries in that area. Have you looked into this phenomenon?
Ms. Gélinas: We did not examine any species in particular, but the matter was raised on several occasions, i.e. should seals be considered an invasive species? It is not up to me to answer that question, but it would be interesting to ask what status the Department of Fisheries and Oceans gives to seals. We did not look at this aspect in particular. When we refer to certain examples such as the green crab, it is more by way of illustrating what we mean by invasive species, because when we talk about such species, for many people this brings nothing concrete to mind. The best known example is the zebra mussel. When we can provide different examples, this allows people to relate the problem to their own areas.
Senator Robichaud: In the Great Lakes Basin, there was the lamprey. Programs were put in place. I visited Sault Ste. Marie or some area in the vicinity, where they had implemented very specific programs targeting the lamprey. They used electrical current to get them to come out of the sand and then captured them. Have you examined the effectiveness of that program as a means of control? Did it have an impact?
Ms. Gélinas: We did two studies on the sea lamprey. The lamprey is considered an invasive species.
In 2002, the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission spent 14 million dollars U.S. to fight that species. Canada contributed 3.9 million. Once invasive species have colonized their environment, we are looking at extremely high costs to control their numbers. The best way of avoiding the introduction of invasive species is precisely prevention, because once they have colonized an environment, it is difficult to get rid of them.
[English]
Mr. John Reed, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Yes, we did look at the sea lamprey control program in our report and we concluded that although the sea lamprey is difficult to control, the program has been effective in its efforts to control the spread of the invasive species. We feel that it is important to continue with the program.
Our study pointed out that the federal funding is not coming from a secure source. We see the need for the government to stabilize the funding it provides to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: When you examine a program such as the one to control the lamprey, do you take into account the funds that are spent on control by governments, as well as what the industry may contribute? Industry benefits from these programs. We know that the lamprey preys upon various whitefish species that are an important industry for the Great Lakes. Do you analyze the contributions of both industry and governments? The Province of Ontario is also involved in these programs. Should private industry contribute more so as to harvest a better quality of fish?
Ms. Gélinas: Our audits usually focus on federal departments and federal agencies. This does not mean that in the course of our audit activities we cannot interview people from academia, the private sector, environmental groups and industrial associations.
We gather information from them to illustrate situations such as the ones involving invasive species. We have set out their impacts on industry, not their benefits but the negative impact of the zebra mussel on the industry. We referred to Ontario Power Generation, among others, and to all the funds they have had to invest to clean their pipe intakes and the research they do to find mechanisms to curtail the presence of the zebra mussels.
We can obtain information of that type but as a general rule, most of our work will focus on government activity, its responsibilities, the sectors of federal responsibility.
Senator Robichaud: It can be said that the lamprey control program is a success because we have managed to bring them under control to a certain extent. We cannot say as much about the zebra mussel.
Ms. Gélinas: Some species are easier to control — and that is a big word — than others. For the lamprey, we control the eggs by destroying them. I do not know if we will be able to eradicate it.
As for the zebra mussel, it is incredible; once it has colonized an environment, there is very little left to do. We say that the emphasis must be on prevention. In the report, we have some information that concerns the Rideau River.
[English]
The density of the creature increases from one animal per square metre to 385,000 per square metre in just three years.
[Translation]
You get some idea of the extent of proliferation of species once they have invaded the environment. We do not know the number of invasive aquatic species in Canada. We have a general idea for the Great Lakes. One hundred and ninety species had been inventoried at the time we prepared the report on the Great Lakes. The total number of invasive species is not known. This was the subject of one of the recommendations we made at the time.
Senator Robichaud: You say you made recommendations; did Fisheries and Oceans authorities follow up on those particular recommendations?
Ms. Gélinas: In each audit chapter, there are a certain number of recommendations. As to invasive species, we mentioned that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans needed an action plan so as to begin counting the number of invasive species.
After that, a priority list is needed to determine how the government will order its priorities according to the damage these species cause and the risks they present. Coordination among the departments was a problem. My colleague Neil will give you further details on the way in which we do the follow-up on our recommendations and what the situation is with regard to invasive species.
[English]
Mr. Neil Maxwell, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: We do the follow-up in different ways. Each year we ask the departments that have been the subject of a recommendation to give us an update. The update is used as a monitoring tool that keeps us informed as to what actions have taken place. Periodically we send in one of our audit teams to ascertain whether they have achieved the progress they claim to have made.
We have been monitoring the case of invasive species. As the report was released in 2002 it is a bit early to track any action that might have been made.
One of our key recommendations to Environment Canada was to create an overall action plan on invasive species. Our report stated that an action plan was long overdue.
Canada made a major international commitment when it signed the 1992 United Nation Convention on Biological Diversity, and as a result Environment Canada issued a biodiversity strategy in 1995. We have not seen much action and due to a long-standing track record of inaction we have been monitoring that department quite closely.
We have received recent updates on the actions taken at Fisheries and Oceans Canada. We have had some signs that they are getting things accomplished. We are cautiously optimistic in that regard, however a great deal of action is necessary before Canada will see any progress in turning the tide of invasive species.
Mr. Reed: Mr. Maxwell referred to the 2002 chapter on countrywide study of invasive species. In our 2001 report we included our findings concerning the Great Lakes. In that report we made specific recommendations on what the department needed to do in order to deal with invasive species.
We recommended that they develop programs to prevent species from arriving. We recommended risk assessments to identify the most serious species, the ones that pose the greatest risk and deserve the greatest attention. We recommended further research, particularly in the control of ballast water, and we made recommendations to get on with the job of introducing legislation to help control the problem.
As Mr. Maxwell stated we do annual monitoring, and we have received some information from the department regarding the recommendations that we made in 2001. They have characterized their implementation of the recommendations as being fully implemented, which was somewhat surprising to us given the history Mr. Maxwell described in the second chapter follow up.
If the committee is interested it might be quite fruitful to bring the department before you and get some specific responses as to how they have fully implemented the recommendations that we have made.
Senator Robichaud: Are you questioning whether they have fully implemented your recommendations?
Mr. Reed: There was not enough information in the substance of the response to inform us whether they have or have not fully implemented our recommendations. The response is broken into different parts. The department has to categorize its actions in such a way that we understand if they are in the planning stages, if the plans have been substantially implemented, or whether the plans have been fully implemented.
The filling in of a data sheet is part of the response. The department fills out the data and marks the appropriate box, and they have marked the box that says fully implemented, however, the text that they presented does not give us enough information to ascertain whether they have taken all of the measures that we recommended.
As Ms. Gélinas said in her opening statement, many of the responses were vague. They may have done it, they may not have; we cannot tell you on the basis of the information that we have received.
[Translation]
Ms. Gélinas: There is a difference between the information provided during a follow-up on departments and the information we obtain in the course of an audit. During an audit, all of the information is verified, and corroborated by the departments. During a follow-up, the departments provide the information. We have not yet checked it. However, when we do a formal follow-up and go more in depth, we add audit elements to ensure that when we report on progress, any information we report has been verified and corroborated, which is why we invite you to put greater emphasis on follow-up or on the progress the departments claim to have made during the past few years.
I would add that in my opening remarks I mentioned a report produced by the House Fisheries Committee which contained recommendations, and, in fact, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is to provide responses in the near future on the implementation of the recommendations made by the committee. This will probably occur within the next few weeks.
[English]
Senator Adams: Are you studying the waters in the North to determine if they are affected by pollution?
Perhaps you can expand on how your department works. We live in a big country. I think Nunavut may find many opportunities for the future, mostly with clams and mussels and perhaps scallops.
You mentioned you often have to make recommendations to committee in the House of Commons. Is that the only way your department works? Do you have to have a budget approved to do your work?
Ms. Gélinas: We are not a department; we are part of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, and in that capacity we are government watchdogs.
I am part of the AG office. When my position was established in 1995 I was given a dedicated budget of around $3 million per year.
With my team of 40 people we decide on the topics that we want to audit. We have established a strategic plan for the coming years. We started that in 2001.
We have met with different people from across the country such as environmental groups, industrial associations, and academic departments, and we have tried to identify which areas are at risk. Based on our conversations and preliminary work we established a five-year strategic plan.
We have looked at the effects of urban transportation on climate change. This year we were focusing on pesticides. Next year we will focus on international accords. In 2005 we will focus on water and air issues. We are always on the look out for good ideas. In 2006, we will be looking at natural resources such as oil and gas. Perhaps there will be a link in that study to your area of the North, even if it is not specifically in Nunavut. We have done a report on abandoned mines in the North.
We have studied the diamond mines, and have made recommendations as to how they should be operated in the future. We do not want to see a recurrence of what happened in the past. As you know, there are diamond mines in Nunavut.
Each year I must report on the progress of the departments' sustainable development strategies, and also on the petition process.
Senator Adams: You are a watchdog for Canada, but you are not really a part of the Canadian government. You prepare reports such as we have here. You mentioned mussels and clams and lobster.
Do you report to the government, the House of Commons, or a committee?
Do you work with fishermen as well on effective, environment and pollution controls so that our mammals are not killed from eating polluted food?
Do you report back to the House of Commons? If you need a bigger budget to do a study, are you given extra funds to do so?
Ms. Gélinas: Maybe I should not say this too loud but we have not had any budget problems so far, although that may happen in the future. We will always welcome a larger budget and might need one in the future in order to hire more staff. We are still a young organization. Perhaps my colleagues think we need an extra million.
Senator Adams: You mentioned that it might be 2006 before you get up to Nunavut.
In the old days, at low tide, you could go and pick mussels and clams. Now we have people that dive and collect the clams.
According to the Fisheries and Oceans Canada, we have billions and billions of clams to be harvested, but we cannot harvest except in certain communities. We have ten registered divers only, whereas we could have many more people employed in that industry.
We cannot get licences because the clay and the water have to be tested to see if they are environmentally suitable for harvesting the clams.
I am looking to you for help to provide a future for the people of the North.
Last spring, the Standing Senate Committee on Energy and the Environment passed Bill C-5, which dealt with invasive species. My concern is with shellfish, polar bears, and whales; the food that the people of the North eat. When a bill is passed it is often the case that it is only then that the people realize what is safe to eat.
We have had to cut down some of our quotas. Does your research involve the investigation of the quotas?
I am concerned about shellfish and the environment and the type of studies you do.
Ms. Gélinas: We do not do research, sometimes we do studies, but usually we stay involved in the business of environmental auditing.
The petition process can be very useful to the people in your community. If they have a concern then the process can be used to raise an environmental or sustainable development issue. It can be the link between development and the protection of the environment, or the use of the natural resources, the fisheries, and so on.
Mr. Myles Kehoe raised an issue that was virtually unknown before his presentation to the House. It was through the petition process that the environmental issue of marine dumpsites came under discussion.
We never know what the outcome of one of the petitions may be, and that is good because the issue can often be resolved and make things better for the future.
If the Auditor General were here today she would tell you herself that the welfare of the aboriginal communities is one of her top five priorities. Each of us in the audit group must factor this equation into our work.
Senator Adams: You mentioned that you are studying a mining company and the problems related to its start up. Two mines closed down last year, and another gold mine closed a couple of months ago. You also mentioned diamonds.
What is the difference in the environmental damage between diamond and gold mining?
I live not far from Rankin. They found a ``pipe'' there. Maybe you are familiar with the mine. In the old days there was a flame that came out of it that shot the diamonds out. The mining companies called the pipes a diamond. Maybe it was so hot that it melted everything.
Does diamond mining affect the environment more than other mining?
Do they still use chemicals in the mining process?
Ms. Gélinas: What is coming out from the mine is more exciting, I can tell you that much. I think it depends on the process that the mining company employs. There are closed mines and exploration mines and the petition process can bring attention to the type of mining and how it affects the environment.
Through the petition process you can ask any department what type of mining is going on and what type of provisions have been made to clean up the site once the mining is completed. Generally, there must be funds set aside for post-mining clean up of the area. Once you have presented your questions you will have a response within 120 days.
Sometimes we do a follow-up on the commitments that are made by the department with respect to those specific petitions and the responses that came out of the department. If you have a question in mind, write it down, send it back to us and then we will make sure that you will have an answer to your question.
Mr. Maxwell: I believe Ms. Gélinas pointed out that as yet we have not received a petition from a senator, although we have had several from members of Parliament.
You will note that we have included a map in our report. The map records all of the locations of petitions that our office has received. There were 38 petitions last year and not one came from north of 60. We would certainly welcome any petitions that you would like to send us.
The Acting Chairman: The last time you were here you expressed the same frustration concerning Fisheries and Ocean's and other departments lack of an effective action plan.
Does our government have the proper technology to deal with some of the issues that you have raised?
Alien species are invading the navigable waters, and how are we able to combat this invasion?
You mention the military dumpsites issue. A few weeks ago we heard from two private individuals from the Maritimes and what they had to say was alarming. I must add that, the individuals were not funded by any organization or the government. They were doing the work on their own. It was alarming to hear that those dumpsites have been there for many years.
Why have we not taken strong actions to correct that problem?
If we do not have the necessary technology, why have we not tried to learn the technology from other countries where they likely have had the same problems?
I am sure that other countries have problems with military dumpsites. The Arctic is a dumpsite. It was not intended to be a dumpsite but the ocean currents have taken the refuse to the North. The currents have contaminated the fish that are a major food source for the people of the North.
The two witnesses explained that the incidence of cancer has escalated in that area. We heard that cancer is affecting the younger generation, whereas in the past, it was only the older generation that was affected by that disease.
I believe we discussed this subject in 2001. The rise in cancer may not be wholly due to the military dumpsites but there is a strong suggestion that they contribute to the increase of the disease in the North.
The sites have toxic contaminants buried underground and due to climate change we are feeling the effects of the toxic waste.
Climate change is also affecting the permafrost. The vegetation in the sub-Arctic is growing wild but further north the permafrost is melting and seeping into the lakes, rivers, and so into our food supply. That water has the potential to make our people ill.
This information scares me. I know that you are also looking for help, and so are we. We know what is happening to our people in the North and to all of the people in Canada.
Is it your assessment that the Government of Canada does not really care about the grave situation this country is in?
Ms. Gélinas: You asked whether we have the technology to overcome these problems. Based on the various audits that we have conducted we have discovered that the lack of adequate technology may explain some of the reasons why we have not moved as fast as we should have, but that is the exception rather than the rule.
It is a question of priorities. The Government of Canada does not place environmental issues at the top of its priority list. The different departments within the government are trying to do what they can, but in most instances it is too little too late.
In our 2003 report that was issued two weeks ago we discussed federal management of pesticides. You and are both aware of what is going on up north, and I share your concern. Even when we raise issues like the use of pesticides, which we know almost every Canadian using in one way or another, we come to the conclusion that the federal government is not fulfilling its mandate to protect public health and the environment. The re-evaluation of old pesticides is not being carried out. That is pesticides that were in use 50 years ago are not still re-evaluated against current standards. I am concerned and troubled by our pesticide audit.
I am not in any way suggesting that the marine dumpsite issue is unimportant, but the dumpsites are but a subset of a broader problem of contaminated sites management.
Our office has come to the conclusion that over the last ten years the federal government has done almost nothing to address its contaminated sites. We are talking federal government environment liabilities in the order of $2.5 billion.
In our report on abandoned mines we came to the same conclusion. One of the mines was built on the hypothesis that the permafrost would last forever. After a couple of years, engineers discovered that the permafrost was melting and the waste from the mine was leaking all over the area. It is urgent that we do something about that mine right now.
Each year we hear about these horror stories and see that the problems are not dealt with quickly and efficiently.
We have two major issues in this country. We have to deal with the problems of the past, and deal with the future.
You have asked me what Parliamentarians can do. With respect, you must pay more attention to the sustainable development strategies, because these strategies are the federal game plan to build a better world for our children.
If we do not pay attention the environment and sustainable development will remain a low federal priority.
My office tries to push the agenda to make sure that people pay attention, but there is only so much that we can do. Parliamentarians and the general public must become involved in the process. We should not wait to become personally affected by a tragedy before we speak up.
I come to committees to make sure that we are taking responsibility for our work. Our job is to make sure that the government delivers on what it has said it will do. We are here to discuss the commitments that the government has made and to tell you whether their commitments have been implemented.
I would like to comment on Health Canada. Through different audits we have identified what we call ``environmental health,'' which covers health problems related to a condition of the environment. The federal government has not recognized this health problem.
As part of next year's agenda we will look closely at the work being done at Health Canada and make ourselves aware of its plans to deal with the issue of environmental health.
While preparing the pesticide audit we noted that scientific information is not always available to assist in making valuable decisions. We made the same statement in the fisheries chapter. We raise these and other issues while performing our audit, but we also need your help. We need you to become part of the follow up to help ensure that Canadians know just what is being done.
Mr. Reed: All of the 24 federal departments are required to produce a strategy every three years. We audit those strategies. In our 2002 report we concluded that by and large the strategies are not blueprints for change, but are largely used to codify existing practices and plans.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada is in the process of drafting their next strategy. Now is the time to influence their plans for the future. They must table their strategy in the House of Commons sometime between December and February.
If you have the opportunity, you might want to request the department to appear before you and ask the representatives what they are going to do differently that will not result in the same outcome.
There are many issues that you are very familiar with that you can ask questions about: aquaculture, stream protection, habitat protection, the management of fisheries and so on. You have an opportunity to do this now, but you will not have it four months from now.
Mr. Maxwell: The commissioner showed you the sustainable development strategy. I will run through some of the commitments that they made three years ago.
They committed to the enhancement of the fish habitat management program, in terms of improving the scientific research, and to promoting and supporting a sustainable aquaculture industry.
It is a very long list of commitments, five key goals, six objectives and 30 different targets. There is a lot of opportunity for Parliamentarians to question the department about what they have achieved.
The Acting Chairman: We do our part and we try to have the ears of the politicians, the ones that are normally in the position to make the decisions make things happen.
At times they do not listen to us too well. That does not mean we do not try and we are going to continue to try as committee and I will make sure also that our chairman, when he comes back, will hear about your presentation.
I do not see that any changes have been made since 2001, but that does mean that action has not been taken. I hope that some actions have been taken, however small they might be, in Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Health Canada and the other departments.
I tend to feel that the time to ask questions passed a long time ago. I think we are beyond that point now. That is my assessment. Action should have been taken years ago. We are almost at the crises stage. I think you highlighted that very well in a very mild way.
Unless there is an opposition to the government or think-tank groups that are strong enough to be able to put pressure on the government, and make sure they take actions on what they say they are going to do, I think that things will remain the same.
Maybe what you need to do within your organizations is to take a good look at how you restructure. You have outlined many different areas where you have made strong recommendations, but the results have been poor. Maybe you should try to elevate your recommendations, and not just your organization. Perhaps you should start up petitions and ask others to send them as well.
I am scared with what is happening. Tomorrow we might not have any food sources. We are not going to have what we think we are going to have forever.
You talk about sustainable development. I remember the time when sustainable development was merely a concept. I was part of the Arctic Council at the time. At that time I asked myself, do they really know what they mean?
Do they understand sustainable development?
I do not think our politicians understand what sustainable development means because all they do is give it lip service.
You need us and we need you. I think what we should do is find the solution to join forces. If the House of Commons is not listening, maybe we should find the solution ourselves.
You are doing a good job but I think probably what is needed now is another organization to be put in place that could become a pressure cooker. I think that is what is missing.
Ms. Gélinas: You are absolutely right; we have to work together. We are too little not to find a way to put all our efforts together and make things move forward.
Last year I talked about an ``environmental deficit.'' It was a first time that this subject was discussed. We have to make sure that we reduce that deficit and become able to say, as we said about the financial deficit, ``mission accomplished.''
One thing that I like to use this meeting as an opportunity is to say thank you to this committee. We are trying to raise awareness, and I would appreciate the opportunity to speak to other committees. You are the only committee to have invited me on two occasions. I am still trying to find my way to the other committees where we can stress the need to keep environmental issues on the agenda.
Senators, if you sit on other committees, perhaps you could send us an invitation and thereby give the fisheries committee a break.
The Acting Chairman: I am also a member of the Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee. I will speak to the chairman and see that you receive an invitation.
One of the topics we are going to be dealing with the action plans in regards to the Kyoto accord. Since we are dealing with that subject matter, maybe we will make sure we bring you into that area of discussion.
Ms. Gélinas: We have a chapter dealing with that subject, and we would be happy to attend that meeting.
The Acting Chairman: We will do what we can. I think we ought to get ourselves organized and become a little more forceful, if we can.
Senator Mahovlich: My home province is Ontario, and as you know we have a new provincial government. Mr. McGuinty has put a stop to a development at Oak Ridges Moraine, at the headwaters of Lake Ontario.
Are you aware of this or do you work with the province? Do you know if any similar situations exist elsewhere in the country?
Ms. Gélinas: Senator, I am unaware of that situation. Please send us the information, and we can certainly have a look at it and figure out if we have covered some of the issues related to that specific situation in some of our audit work.
You can certainly use the petition process, or ask one of your constituents to use it to find out what the federal involvement, role, and responsibilities are regarding that situation.
Senator Mahovlich: I will send you information because I think it is important.
Ms. Gélinas: In Ontario you are fortunate because you also have a provincial commissioner of environment. You are able to consult with both of us regarding this issue.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Your office is part of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, is it not?
Ms. Gélinas: That is correct.
Senator Robichaud: The Auditor General of Canada reports to the Parliament of Canada, does he not?
Ms. Gélinas: Yes.
Senator Robichaud: Why is your report, the ``Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development'', addressed to the House of Commons and not to Parliament? It could have been tabled with the Senate so that the senators could read it and perhaps follow up on it. I do not mean to put you on the spot, but I would like an explanation.
Ms. Gélinas: I am an officer of Parliament in the same way as the Auditor General of Canada is, and my report is submitted both to the Senate and to the House of Commons. In fact, on the day preceding the release of the report, I inform the Speaker of the Senate. He is aware that the report will be tabled the next day. Often, in your deliberations in the Senate, following the tabling of my report, you or some of your colleagues discuss certain aspects of it. The report is tabled in both Houses.
Senator Robichaud: So this report was tabled?
Ms. Gélinas: Yes.
Senator Robichaud: It says: for the House of Commons.
Ms. Gélinas: I will check and I will let you know what is behind that. I cannot tell you. It is probably related to the way the act was drafted.
Senator Robichaud: I would like the Senate to acquaint itself with this report. I know that when the last report of the Auditor General concerning the situation we had recently was tabled, she came to give a briefing to the government leader. Unfortunately he could not be there and as deputy leader, I replaced him at that briefing. This is a report to Parliament. I was just wondering. We are a bit jealous here at the Senate and we want to be treated in the same way as the House of Commons.
Ms. Gélinas: I hope it will be perceived in this way. I have no preference. I like being invited by both Houses.
Senator Robichaud: Maybe we will not invite you anymore unless you change! I am teasing you, of course!
[English]
The Acting Chairman: I think Senator Robichaud is correct: We are very jealous. Is it possible that that you include the senator when you distribute your next report?
Ms. Gélinas: My colleague will look into that and get back to you whether that is feasible or not.
The Acting Chairman: It is a strong recommendation from this committee, if we are going to be effective in any way, shape or form.
Ms. Gélinas: Are you telling me that you do not receive a copy of my report in your office?
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: They send us tons of documents and often we ask our assistants to set them aside and we study them as soon as we have a free moment. I must say that I have not had a chance to acquaint myself with all of the documents that have been placed on my desk and I do not remember seeing it. It may be my ignorance that led me to ask this question. If that is the case, I do apologize, and if not, perhaps we will hear some explanations from the people who are with you.
[English]
The Acting Chairman: Thank you for your excellent presentation. Hopefully, when we see you again, we will have joint action plans in place. We need to shake up the departments; they need it.
The committee adjourned.