Fisheries Committee on June 5th, 2008

[Ron Thompson]

Yes, thank you.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

I know you understand French very well too; I had the opportunity to check that with Mr. Vaughan this morning. It is indeed “Vaughan”?

[Scott Vaughan, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Yes, it's “Vaughan” in French.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

I'm pleased to see that we have a high-level official here who speaks French. Our fear, as francophones in Canada, is that we won't be able to communicate readily with officials of this level.

In case I don't see you again, Mr. Thompson, I'm going to wish you a happy retirement. You said you would be leaving in a few weeks. Some of our acquaintances told us a few weeks as well, but they're ultimately leaving in four years, 11 months and a few weeks later. You, however, seem to be happily contemplating retirement, and I wish you a good one.

Mr. Vaughan, I wish you well in your position. You're very young; you still have a good 30 years left.

In chapter 13, you outline the progress achieved by the Department of National Defence in addressing the main findings on military dumpsites. They constitute a serious danger. In his letter to the committee, the Commissioner states that the Department of National Defence has made satisfactory progress. In 2003, the committee recommended the following: That the Department of Fisheries and Oceans cooperate with the Department of National Defence in locating weapons dumpsites and that it encourage National Defence to provide information on dumpsites in order for the Canadian Hydrographic Service to update its nautical charts.

Based on your audits, has DFO played a satisfactory role in that respect? Have the nautical charts of the Canadian Hydrographic Service been updated in accordance with the committee's recommendations?

[Ron Thompson]

Thank you very much for that question, and thank you for your best wishes as well, sir.

Certainly the charts aren't updated yet, but perhaps I could ask my colleague, Richard Arseneault, to join us, if that would be agreeable, who has had a look at this one.

Mr. Arseneault.

[Richard Arseneault, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

As regards the necessary information to update the charts, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will do the required work once the information has been transmitted to it. We found that the two departments were not communicating in optimum fashion. We have no basis for criticizing the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which is doing its job in that regard. However, the Department of National Defence was unable to quickly transmit the new information it had on the location of its military sites.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

It was to transmit them to the Commissioner?

[Richard Arseneault]

No, to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans so that it could update the charts. That department is ready to do so. In our opinion, the lines of communication were not very effective. The Department of National Defence has made a commitment to do what is necessary.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

All right. Thank you.

The current negotiations with the World Trade Organization include talks on the prohibition of subsidies to the fisheries. There is a lot of talk in the context of these negotiations about the fact that ecological mpact would serve as a basis for determining sanctions on certain trade practices.

Did your audit take international trade agreements into account? Has the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development already started the sustainable management of fisheries and government subsidies for the fishing industry?

[Ron Thompson]

Thank you for that question.

Certainly not as part of this audit and this report. Over the years I believe we have, but I haven't been personally involved in that, sir.

The issue of sustainable development, if I could come back to that without taking too much time, is so important to have at the front of everyone's mind. The various elements that go into making a sound government decision, the social policy elements, the economic elements, and the environmental elements.... The question, frankly, that I would ask of any witness coming before this committee or others is how did you take into account, in deciding to do this or the other thing, these three elements? How did you bond them together? And if you didn't, then go back and think a little more.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Lévesque.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen, you also indicated that you looked at the agreements that Canada has, NAFO and the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Did you have an any opportunity to delve into one of those? I'm thinking of the Pacific Salmon Treaty.

I know it's always difficult to get information regarding whether the treaty did what it was supposed to do. When you ask the fishermen and you see stock declining and all the other concerns, you wonder what we're doing, right?

But because they've signed an agreement with the state governments--the federal government and aboriginal groups in Washington, Oregon, Alaska--and our own, have you had an opportunity to delve into one of these treaties to see if indeed all the fanfare and trumpeting behind it actually met the criteria at the end of the day?

[Ron Thompson]

The Pacific Salmon Treaty was one of the twenty that we looked at out of the hundred. It was part of our sample.

If you look at DFO's website, at least the national one, you'll see there isn't anything about it there. There may be something in the regional website. But the point is--and I'm really glad you raised this issue--that's the very thing that's lacking. How can you get a sense of whether these international agreements that are being signed are having any effect? They were signed for a purpose, presumably. What is that purpose? How is the government department organized to achieve that purpose, and how is it getting along in doing so? That's the kind of information that I think is owed to you and it's the kind of information that isn't being made available.

DFO has responded to our recommendation and it has indicated it is going to beef up quite substantially the information being provided about its agreements, as have the other departments. That should happen over the next year or year and a half.

So I would put a watching brief on that, frankly, and see what happens.

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

As you know--and I know it's not your place to comment--there is a new treaty signed in principle. It hasn't been ratified yet, but I think it's supposed to be done by the end of the year. One of the frustrating things is trying to find out what is being signed, what is being done. It is frustrating.

When you ask them those questions, what do they tell you? It appears that openness, transparency, and accountability, which we hear a lot about, just isn't materializing.

[Ron Thompson]

I guess they have other things to do. I don't know why they're not putting this information out. I presume it's available within the agreements. At least, if it isn't, it should be. But for something like the Pacific salmon, I would presume there'd be information in there that you would find useful to have.

I don't know why they're not putting this out, and I think that would be a very good question for you to ask these three main departments that we looked at. They should be. They owe that to you.

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

When you went to places like P.E.I., did you have an opportunity to speak to fishermen, their organizations, and the industry about non-compliance and delayed action, what effect that has on them? You mentioned the billion dollars, but what are they saying to you? Did you have that opportunity?

[Ron Thompson]

Mr. Stoffer, I didn't go to P.E.I.

I'll ask my colleague Paul Morse about the work that was done.

Are you talking about international agreements?

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

No, I'm talking about when you went to P.E.I. and talked about invasive species. What did the industry or the people say to you? Obviously you wanted to know what impact it has on the users of the resource, right?

[Andrew Ferguson]

We understand that the club tunicate is having a devastating impact on the mussel industry in Prince Edward Island. As I recall, if my memory serves, it is about a $40 million a year industry. They're struggling to keep the organism under control, but it seems to be well established and it is causing economic hardship for the people who are in the industry.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Kamp.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

I just wanted to refer briefly to chapter 9, where you talk about strategic environmental assessments. Just for clarification, my understanding is that those are environmental assessments of programs, policies, or directions that a department wishes to take, trying to assess the environmental impacts of that anticipated projected policy or program.

It seemed to me that I was hearing some criticism of DFO's progress on that, and if that is warranted, that's fair enough. But in your report you say you found that Fisheries and Oceans Canada has made satisfactory progress in developing and implementing its SEA management system. Later in that paragraph you say that while all key management system components are in place, you observed some deficiencies in the way SEAs are tracked.

Can you just give us a bit more clarity on what you think DFO should be doing that they're not doing in this regard?

[Ron Thompson]

It's a good news and bad news story with DFO, as you quite rightly point out. We met with them earlier this week to talk about this. They have put a process in place to deal with this and ensure that as new policies or revisions to existing policies are being put forward to their minister, strategic environmental assessments will be conducted where appropriate. They have an architecture or a mechanism in place within the department, but they haven't yet ensured that it works every time it should. They haven't yet monitored it to ensure that what was put into place as a management process is in fact doing what it was designed to do.

They had to start somewhere, and they were starting with nothing. So the good news is they're organized to deal with this; the bad news is they haven't yet put it fully into play.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

What does that mean? What does tracking mean in your last sentence? Do they do the assessments and just not report them or follow up on them? I'm not quite sure what you're saying there.

[Ron Thompson]

We've found out that they don't really have assurance yet within the department that the process they've put in place is working the way it was designed. In other words, they don't yet have a way of saying, “What proposals have gone up to the minister that require SEAs? Let's go back to see if they've actually been done.”