Fisheries Committee on June 5th, 2008

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

It is for now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Mr. Blais.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, gentlemen.

My question will concern invasive species. This phenomenon is increasing in scope. I'm thinking in particular of the fact that, in recent years, we've essentially heard about invasive species in the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River, but that we're now hearing more about them in the Maritimes in general. A little more than a year ago, one case arose in the Magdalen Islands.

I think you've dealt with the question quite well. However, I'm trying to understand what potential solutions could be considered in this case. I understand that money is always one factor and that a sound, strict and sustained action plan is another, but I'd like you to address the deficiencies of the budget or action plan respecting what Fisheries and Oceans is undertaking, has undertaken or wants to undertake with respect to invasive species.

[Ron Thompson]

Thank you very much for that question.

Aquatic invasives is an interesting situation. There's a paragraph in our chapter 6 that I'd direct your attention to. It's paragraph 6.8. In there--I'm an accountant, so forgive me for talking in numbers and dollars--there's an allocation through DFO to look at aquatic invasive species of about $10 million a year. A little over $8 million of that goes to looking at one aquatic invasive species. There are, at last count, 184 others that the department knows about. So when you think of it, what's left is $2 million to look at 184.

Now, it's not up to us, and certainly we can't say there's not enough money allocated to this, that, or the other thing; that's actually the parliamentarians' job, and we don't want to get into that. But when you do the math, it does make you wonder. I think if you were to have DFO here, I would certainly ask them how they are able to take care of this issue, which is growing, with that amount of money. It's growing faster than they're able to look at it.

There are also a couple of other issues that we raise in the chapter. In addition to their coming in quicker than the department is able to assess them, there's also the issue of a rapid response that we point out at the top of page 3 in our chapter. We say that DFO doesn't yet have plans in place for early detection of these things or a rapid response to them once they have been identified.

It's a question of what does need to happen to get DFO ahead of the curve and ahead of this growing problem.

Mr. Chairman, I noticed that this committee is looking at revisions to the Fisheries Act. As I understand it, there's a section in that act that deals with aquatics. If it becomes law, it would give more legal clout to the department, but that's legal clout. What's needed underneath that is management clout. That's what DFO is going to have to develop an ability to deliver on. They're going to have to have the right people, enough money, and the right organization to use the clout that they might be given under this new act, if it comes through, or to use now under existing situations.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Based on your answer, I understand that the bottom line is still money. You have an accounting mind. In one sense, we all have one, but perhaps we don't account in the same way. If we had to prioritize something, should we start with the budget?

From the moment the budget is increased, we may think that the action plan will have a little more flesh on the bone. You can have a very nice action plan, but if you don't have any money or staff to carry it out, it's not worth much. Do you think the priority is to have a big budget? A big budget represents how much money, $50 million, $100 million or $500 million?

[Ron Thompson]

Let me be very clear that I would never suggest that a budget allocation be increased to one department or another. As I said earlier, that is your job, not our job, as auditors, to do.

I simply indicate, through the $10-million and $2-million issue, that these are questions you might well want to ask the department. How have they allocated the funding, which has been allocated to them by Parliament, to the various issues they have to deal with? Aquatic invasives is one of them. And why is it only that much money, given the size of the problem? These are management questions that I think the department should be asked about, quite frankly, and held to account for.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

In view of what you've said so far and of the fact that we're familiar with the issue, can we say, with no pun intended, that invasive species are invading more and that the impact, which is already estimated at several billions of dollars, may get bigger with time? We can take a cold look at these figures, but the situation is not improving. I believe that's your opinion as well.

[Ron Thompson]

Yes, that's exactly what we're saying. We wouldn't speculate about the future, but the last time we did an audit, which we're following up on now, the number of invasives in the Great Lakes was 160. When we did the audit this year, which is two or three years later, they're up to 185.

Yes, they are growing, and they're growing faster than DFO is able to deal with them. Frankly, if DFO is in the business of trying to control and eradicate aquatic invasives, it needs to be asked very directly, by this committee and other committees, why it isn't keeping pace. What needs to happen for it to keep pace?

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Do you want to add something, Mr. Ferguson?

[Andrew Ferguson, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

I would just add that our recommendation, in our 2002 work, went exactly to the point you are making, that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans needs to understand the risks that are posed by aquatic invasive species and which ones pose the greatest risk to Canada's economy and ecology. In order to set priorities and in order to justify a budget allocation or a budget request, we need to know what risks are posed by these invaders. What are the sectors of the economy that are put at most risk by them, and what would it cost? That's a question best asked to the department.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Blais.

Mr. Stoffer.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Chairman, thank you.

And thank you, gentlemen, for coming. I apologize for being late this morning.

First of all, I want to congratulate our chairperson, Mr. Matthews, Mr. Byrne, and Mr. Simms on having the Stanley Cup go to Newfoundland after last night with Mr. Cleary. Congratulations.

Also, Mr. Thompson, I know I speak for the committee when I say thank you for your service. We hope you have a wonderful retirement at your cottage and with your grandchild.

[Ron Thompson]

Thank you.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Do you have pictures with you?

[Ron Thompson]

I do. It's not of the cottage, but only the grandchild.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Vaughan, congratulations on your new appointment.

Sir, the most disturbing thing I see here is paragraph 27 of this form here. You refer to the 1990 cabinet directive on strategic environmental assessment. You've looked at it four times, and you're telling us they're still not complying with the directive—18 years, two different governments, and they're not doing it.

When you asked them, what did they say? What's their response?

[Ron Thompson]

We have asked, and the answers coming back aren't very satisfactory.

Let me give you the bad news on this and then the optimistic news, because I think there is some optimism here. The bad news is that nobody seems to care whether they're done or not. SEAs, strategic environmental assessments, are really not part of the management culture in this government, and they should be. The same thing can be said of sustainable development strategies and that process. They're not part of the management culture either. These are two fundamental tools of good environment sustainable development management, which, if they didn't exist, would have to be created. The fact is they are in place; they're just not being used.

Now, there is some good news to this. We've shone a light on this in the last year, and the government is well aware of it. There are two very important studies under way right now. There's a study of the SDS process, which Environment Canada is leading with other departments, to find out why this tool is broken and what needs to happen to fix it. That's due for report at the end of October this year. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is leading a review of the other tool, the SEA tool, and it is due to report by the end of the year. We're very hopeful that these two reviews will be well done and will indicate a way forward so that these management tools can be put into play in a proper way.

The other thing I think is extremely important is that parliamentary committees are now taking an interest in this. It has been my experience over 31 years as a legislative audit official that if parliamentary committees get behind an issue, change will happen. If they don't, things aren't going to happen, quite frankly.

You're concerned about these SEAs. There are two or three other parliamentary committees we've had the pleasure of appearing before that are similarly concerned about them. With these two reviews that are under way, plus parliamentary interest, I'm very hopeful that in a year's time we'll be looking at quite a different way that the government will go about managing the environment and sustainable development file.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Sir, you mentioned the $10 million on invasive species and that $8 million was going to one species. Is that the lamprey eel?

[Ron Thompson]

Yes, it is.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

So that's $2 million for another hundred and something other species?

[Ron Thompson]

Yes.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Now, I know you can't comment one way or the other, but maybe you could nod your head.

It seems that we have the Department of Transport, Fisheries and Oceans, and Environment Canada. We have three major departments. It appears to me, because a lot of this isn't done, that they may be saying to each other, “Well, no, you do that. No, no, we'll do that”, and they're all pointing a finger at each other. And because of that, nothing gets done.

Is there a lot of overlap, in that there's no one really taking charge of these files and saying this is their responsibility and they're going to do this, or at least encouraging another department to manage its responsibilities? You have three departments here; I'm not sure if there are more. It's frustrating to sit here and hear this, and it must be frustrating for you. Is there an overlap within the departments and no one is taking charge?

[Ron Thompson]

I think people know what they're responsible for, and some departments do a little better at getting at these issues than others.

In terms of there being a coordinating committee between the affected departments, I don't know whether Mr. Ferguson knows about that. We didn't really look at that.

[Andrew Ferguson]

I couldn't say whether there is a coordinating committee.

I know that both departments we looked at, Transport Canada and DFO, clearly understand their respective responsibilities on the issue. One is science and risk assessment, and the other is monitoring, enforcement, and control. They clearly do understand what they're responsible for. It's a matter of getting on with the risk assessments so we know which species and where these species are coming from so that Transport Canada can take the measures to respond.

[Ron Thompson]

I don't mean to be overly pushy, Mr. Chair, but since I'm retiring in a couple of weeks, it would be interesting to have those three departments sitting where we are and for a committee like this to ask them how they are coordinated to attack these issues, how they are tracking progress, and whether they are working together. I think it's a very good line of questioning, frankly.