Fisheries Committee on June 5th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

We'll bring the meeting to order and welcome everybody here, after a great night of hockey last night.

We are proud to say that for the first time in our history, a Newfoundlander and Labradorian will be etching his name on the Stanley Cup, so we're delighted about that on The Rock. Mr. Danny Cleary has made his mark. And to be honest with you, we're overjoyed, but we're trying to keep it down until we get home.

[An hon. member]

So meeting adjourned?

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Meeting adjourned.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

He happens to be from the riding of Avalon, and I'm not necessarily being pushy here.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

That one along the goal line didn't make it any easier for him.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

No matter, a win is a win. We don't count the ones that don't get in.

Anyway, I'd like to welcome our guests here this morning. We certainly look forward to hearing from you. Basically, our process here is that we have an opportunity for you to have some opening remarks, and then we allow our colleagues to have some questions. We'll see where it goes from there.

I'd just like to advise the committee members that following the presentation and the questions and answers this morning, we need to hang around for a few moments to take care of some committee business. So don't be hasty to get out of here.

With that, I would ask that our guests introduce themselves first. I understand that Mr. Thompson will be doing the opening remarks.

If you would all introduce yourselves first, we'd be delighted.

[Ron Thompson, Assistant Auditor General, Former Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We are pleased to be here today to discuss chapters 5, 6, 8, 9 and 14 of our 2008 Status Report, which was tabled in Parliament on March 6.

Chapter 5 deals with protection of species at risk, chapter 6 with control of aquatic invasive species, chapter 8 with international environmental agreements, chapter 9 with strategic environmental assessments and chapter 14 with genetically engineered fish.

I am accompanied at the table by Andrew Ferguson who is responsible for our work on species at risk and aquatic invasive species. Behind us are Richard Arseneault and Paul Morse who are responsible for the other work that we may discuss this morning. I am delighted to have with me at the table Mr. Scott Vaughan, who was appointed Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development by Auditor General Sheila Fraser on May 5.

I have agreed with Mrs. Fraser to help manage the transition to Mr. Vaughan before retiring at the end of this month. This includes appearing before parliamentary committees such as this one to discuss audit reports that I have had the pleasure of presenting to Parliament while Interim Commissioner.

As the Committee knows, status reports from the Office of the Auditor General show what departments and agencies have done to address issues that the Office has raised in some of its past reports. In determining whether progress on an issue is satisfactory or unsatisfactory, the Office takes into account the complexity of the issue and the amount of time that has passed since the original audit.

This is the first time that a Status Report has been presented to Parliament by a Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. It deals with the government’s management of environment and sustainable development issues. Of the fourteen chapters in our Status Report, five report satisfactory progress. Progress in nine areas is unsatisfactory—largely because the government did not follow through on commitments that it made when responding to past environment and sustainable development audits.

The first three chapters deal with chemicals management, and we were pleased to report satisfactory progress. Chapters 4 through 7 focus on ecosystems, and we rated progress as unsatisfactory. Chapters 8, 9, and 10 concern management tools, and once again we rated progress as unsatisfactory. Chapters 11 through 14 look at actions taken in response to environmental petitions; two of these audits reported satisfactory progress and two reported unsatisfactory progress.

I would like to now turn to the chapters that I understand the Committee is particularly interested in, beginning with two that deal with ecosystems.

The chapters in this section of our report deal with issues that affect the quality of the natural environment that we'll pass on to our children and to our grandchildren.

According to the government, degradation and loss of habitat is the major threat to plants and animals in Canada. The government committed to addressing these issues years ago, but it has yet to follow through on a number of these commitments.

In chapter 5 we observe that the federal government has not met the deadlines required by the Species at Risk Act, SARA, to prepare recovery strategies for species at risk. As of June 2007, the three departments responsible for producing recovery strategies had produced only 55 of the 228 strategies required under the act. Those departments are Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment Canada, and Parks Canada. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, for example, had produced 13 of the 40 for which it was responsible at that point in time.

The committee may wish to ask the responsible departments what they believe needs to be done in order for them to comply with the deadlines specified in SARA, and what their action plans and timelines for doing so would be.

As we point out in paragraph 5.7 of chapter 5, the federal government has made budgetary commitments of some $563 million for species at risk since 2000. The committee may also wish to ask the departments whether sufficient funding has been provided at the program level, and if not, what the shortfall would be.

Chapter 6 points out that aquatic invasive species are entering Canadian waters faster than Fisheries and Oceans Canada is able to assess the risks they pose to Canada's environment and to Canada's economy.

Experts point out that aquatic invasive species cause billions of dollars of damage to Canada's economy every year, and are second only to habitat destruction as a leading cause of biodiversity loss.

In 2006 Transport Canada introduced regulations for the control and management of ballast water to reduce the likelihood of introducing aquatic invasive species into Canadian waters. However, at the time of our audit, these regulations were not yet being enforced consistently across the country.

The committee may wish to ask Fisheries and Oceans Canada what needs to be done in order for the department to assess aquatic invasive species on a more timely basis, and whether an appropriate action plan, timeline, and funding are in place.

The committee may also wish to ask Transport Canada whether regulations to control management of ballast water are now being enforced consistently across the country, and if not, what actions are under way and planned to do so.

I would now like to turn to chapters 8 and 9, which deal with what we call “management tools”.

We believe the federal government should lead by example in managing environmental issues. In that respect, both of these chapters portray a disappointing picture.

In chapter 8 we report that Canada has signed more than 100 international environmental agreements over the years, but the information on Canada's compliance provided to Parliament and to Canadians is weak.

In chapter 9 we explain that strategic environmental assessments have been required of federal departments and agencies for the past 17 years. These assessments, together with sustainable development strategies that we reported on last October, are two fundamental management tools the government has put in place to protect the environment. Unfortunately, both tools are broken, and both tools need to be fixed.

The 1990 cabinet directive on strategic environmental assessments was to ensure that the government would assess the potential environmental impacts of its policies, plans, and programs before approving them. This is our fourth look at the issue, and we found that departments are still not complying with the directive.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is leading an evaluation of the strategic environmental assessment process, and results are expected a bit later this year.

Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying a few words about environmental petitions.

Last October our retrospective study of petitions over the last ten years showed that petitioners value the process. It provides a forum for voicing their concerns about the environment and assures them of a formal response from ministers.

In prior years we have audited whether the government has followed through on certain commitments made to petitioners by ministers. This year we took a second look at four of these commitments to assess the government's progress on addressing recommendations and findings from our earlier audits.

In chapter 14 we report that Fisheries and Oceans Canada has still not developed regulations on genetically engineered fish, even though the minister committed to doing so in 2001 and again in 2004.

The department now says that genetically engineered fish would be captured under the new substances notification regulations of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. However, we believe that some weaknesses exist in these regulations, which need to be covered off in some manner. For example, under the existing notification regulations, there is no requirement to disclose research activities, and there is no mandatory reporting of accidental releases of research and development organisms.

The committee may wish to ask Fisheries and Oceans Canada and related departments--Environment Canada and Health Canada--what actions are under way to address these weaknesses and the action plan, timeline, and funding required to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that these remarks and suggestions have been of interest to the Committee. Perhaps it might make sense for the Committee to invite departmental officials to a separate hearing or hearings in order to explore with them whether actions are underway and planned to address the issues we raise in our Status Report. We would be pleased to participate in any such hearings.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my opening statement. We will be happy to answer any questions that the Committee members may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

I believe Mr. Simms will begin our questions. Mr. Simms.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Thompson, Mr. Vaughan, Mr. Ferguson, thank you so very much for coming. You have certainly given us a lot to digest here, all sorts of things.

Referring to the section of your report on management tools, I'll start with paragraph 25 from your brief, which says, “In Chapter 8, we report that Canada has signed more than 100 international environment agreements over the years, but the information on Canada's compliance provided to Parliament and Canadians is weak.”

Can you expand on that, citing one recent example of an international agreement? I wouldn't like to do all one hundred.

[Ron Thompson]

I'd be delighted to.

There is, at present, a listing of these environmental agreements. One can determine by piecing together information from various departments what the agreements are. What is lacking, sir, is an indication of what the agreements are designed to bring about, what kind of result is expected from signing these agreements, the expectation that was in people's minds when they were signed.

Secondly, very often what isn't clear is how the related government departments or organizations have organized themselves to implement the agreements and to bring about those results.

Thirdly, there's really not very much of a measure very often of what the results are to date in relation to carrying out the clauses of those various agreements.

So what was expected, how you are organized to get there, and how you are doing in getting there seem not to be reported very much at all by many of these departments under many of these agreements.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

A lot of this has come from the Oceans Act of 2002, I believe. What I'm thinking of specifically would be something like a marine protected area ocean management plan.

Did you look at marine protected areas in your study and gauge the status of them?

[Ron Thompson]

Are you referring to the agreements, sir? I could tell you the four agreements we looked at under Fisheries and Oceans Canada, if that would be helpful.

We looked at four of the agreements that are the responsibility of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. We looked at the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna, the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, and the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Those were four of the hundred or so agreements that we looked at specifically under Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

In regard to NAFO, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, could you elaborate on what your findings were and how they are up to measure?

[Ron Thompson]

One of the things we didn't do is put the details in the chapter. We didn't try to analyze agreement by agreement. I might suggest that the member might like to have a look at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans website, where a lot of this information should be. We pulled that out just this morning and found not very much information about that.

You were asking about the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Yes.

[Ron Thompson]

I'm looking at DFO's website, and here's what you will find about that on the website.

NASCO was established under the convention for the conservation of salmon in the North Atlantic Ocean, which came into force on October 1, 1983. NASCO uses the best scientific evidence available to promote the conservation, restoration, enhancement and rational management of salmon stocks that migrate beyond areas of fisheries jurisdiction of coastal states of the Atlantic Ocean north of 36 degrees north latitude throughout their migratory range. Canada is one of seven contracting parties to the organization.

This is what you find on DFO's website. What isn't mentioned is any indication of what the agreement is trying to achieve, how the department is progressing towards achieving those results, how it is organized to go after those results, or what's yet to be done.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Would it be fair to say, then, that we're not following up on our responsibilities in our major international agreements regarding environment?

[Ron Thompson]

What we are saying is that the information that the department has isn't being made available to parliamentarians and the Canadian people.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Let me switch gears for just a moment. I want to talk about the recovery strategies.

You cite here that 228 recovery strategies are required under the act. We've only produced 55. But I want to cite the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which you say produced only 13 of the 40 for which it is responsible.

On the east coast, we have the recovery of the northern cod, but what do you think is the main problem here? Why can't we seem to get our act together for recovery?

[Ron Thompson]

That's a very good question. This is an area of concern to us as legislative auditors. On the one hand, we look at a fairly large amount of money that's been allocated in budgets to this area. But on the other hand, we don't see much action. In fact, 13 out of 40 is not a very good track record.

What we wonder about is whether or not the budget allocations have actually found their way down into program funding and program activities. That is something that we have not yet audited. That is certainly something that this committee could ask the departmental officials about and get to the bottom of.

We don't understand why these three departments—and let's just stay with DFO for the moment—are so far behind. Is it a lack of funding? Is it a lack of manpower, person power? We just don't know. These are questions that we would very much encourage this committee to address to the department and get some answers.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Your chapter 8 review talked about strategic environmental assessments and the role of departments in performing those strategic environmental assessments.

We sometimes wonder whether or not the fly swatter meets the size of the fly. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans in particular will spend a fair bit of time and resources doing an environmental assessment for a project to put 50 feet of armour stone along a beach. Huge resources are spent on that, and it often delays the project. Many people involved in something like this will say they know that there are no significant environmental impacts, yet the resources have to be spent.

Then you have other very significant projects that obviously require environmental assessment, and the amount of resourcing that gets put into them is often no greater than what's allocated to the smaller-scale projects.

Are you following me?

[Ron Thompson]

I am, yes.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Could you comment on whether or not appropriate resources are being put in place relative to the scale of the environmental assessment and the project that's being requested?

[Ron Thompson]

Mr. Chairman, I'd certainly be pleased to answer that.

The one thing I should say, though, is that in chapter 9 we looked at something called strategic environmental assessments, not at what you're referring to, I think, which are environmental assessments. They're quite a different thing. Our chapter dealt with a different management process.

If I may just be permitted to comment on what we did look at, strategic environmental assessments are one of the fundamental tools of good environment and sustainable development management in the Government of Canada. They just simply aren't working. Now, we don't know why they're not working. We can speculate. One of the reasons, perhaps, is that nobody has even been either promoted or fired for doing a good or a bad one. Nobody really seems to care whether they're done or not. That's not a very good situation.

What's good about this at this particular time is that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency realizes that this fundamentally important ENSD tool isn't working, and they're leading a review right now to get to the bottom of this, to find out why the tool isn't working. We're very hopeful that by the end of the year they'll come up with some recommendations to have it work.

Now, on the issue you're raising of practicality, one would hope that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency would be aware of that and would be taking that into account as its broader review that would go beyond the SEAs.

I don't know whether that's answering your question, sir. I suspect it isn't, but--