This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Opening Statement to the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries

Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River Basin

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before this Committee. With me this evening are my colleagues John Reed and Gordon Stock.

Today, I will give a brief overview of my 2001 Report, focussing on Chapter 1, The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River Basin, and in particular the sections related to fisheries.

First, I would like to briefly describe the role and mandate of my position. The position of Commissioner was created in 1995 by amendments to the Auditor General Act. My group has a legislative mandate to audit the federal government's performance in managing environmental protection and sustainable development issues. Recent audits have covered ozone layer protection, climate change, toxic substances, and hazardous waste. We are part of the Office of the Auditor General and often work together on audit projects.

The changes to the Act required each federal department to produce an action plan for working toward their sustainable development objectives—known as a sustainable development strategy. My Office has a mandate to track and report on the commitments departments have made in their strategies.

The Act also provides for an environmental petition process. Canadians can petition the government, through me, for answers to their environmental questions. A petition can be as simple as a letter. My Office monitors the process and the responses from ministers. Chapter 7 of my Report describes the process and summarizes the status of the petitions, many of which have been directed to Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Turning to Chapter 1, we audited the federal government's management of environmental issues in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River basin for two important reasons:

• the basin is a critical environmental resource for the world, holding 20 percent of the world's fresh water; and
• it is home to 16 million Canadians who depend on it for clean air and drinking water and for personal health, employment, and recreation.

We focussed 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.

Although we focussed on the basin, many of the issues and federal programs we examined are national in scope and our findings potentially have national implications. While our mandate is limited to the federal government's activities, the successful management of sustainability in the basin depends on many other parties. This is region of shared jurisdiction. The provinces have a strong role to play, as do other governments, industry, fishing organizations, scientists, and individuals.

So, what did we find?

There have been some remarkable environmental successes and improvements in the basin over the past three decades. Our audit specifically credits the role that individuals in the federal government have played in these improvements.

While some aspects of the basin's environment are improving, today's best science says that others are deteriorating as we speak. In the next generation, the basin's Canadian population is expected to grow by three million and its GDP is projected to be 60 percent higher than today.

This growth will put added stress on an already delicate ecosystem. The aquatic ecosystem is particularly vulnerable to threats that include pesticides and toxic chemicals from agricultural run-off, untreated wastewater, the destruction of fish habitat, and the introduction of invasive aquatic species.

This brings me to my main concern. I believe that the future of the basin is at risk. Federal efforts have lost momentum. The leadership, innovation, science, and diligence that served the basin in the past has diminished. There is an overwhelming sense of complacency and resignation, instead of urgency and inspiration.

Our audit's overall conclusion emphasized four major themes:

• First, important issues and problems are not being dealt with and international commitments are not being met, partly because of reduced funding to departments. For example, in 1994 the Minister of the Environment announced $125 million in new funding to support the Great Lakes action plan; however, Departments have received less than 12 percent of that. The commitments the government has made with the resources it has allocated to meet them are out of sync.
• Second, there are no long-term, basin-wide strategies for key environmental threats. There is no co-ordinated, consistent federal voice on key issues in the Great Lakes and the St Lawrence regions.
• Third, monitoring and measurement systems and scientific research are deficient. There are major gaps in the information needed to make sound decisions in areas like wetlands, soils, and fish habitat.
• Fourth, the federal role is changing and waning. The government is not using the authorities and tools it has at its disposal to tackle the tough issues. It relies, increasingly, on partnerships to meet its objectives. Our audit raised fundamental questions about the government's role in overseeing its partners' actions and in providing assurance that federal and national objectives are being met.

I would now like to turn to the sections of our chapter dealing with the basin's fisheries. We examined four different aspects: the federal role of conservation and protection, scientific information, invasive aquatic species, and fish habitat.

The overriding message is that the federal government hasn't figured out what its role should be in conserving and protecting freshwater fish, including those in the basin. It doesn't have a vision; it hasn't figured out where its role end and the role of the provinces begins; and it has tried to delegate its responsibilities away to others.

The second main message is that in the basin, the scientific programs and expertise of Fisheries and Oceans are in trouble. In the early 1990s, the levels of federal funding for scientific research in Ontario were unstable. Since then the situation has deteriorated. In Quebec, the Department has conducted almost no freshwater science.

The Department identified gaps in its science but had no plan to resolve them. To make matters worse, it is losing scientific expertise in the Great Lakes, with 54 percent of its science staff there expected to retire within the next four years. Because it hasn't defined its role, it doesn't know what science it needs.

The third message is that the Department is not dealing with a significant and growing threat to the fisheries: invasive aquatic species. Since the 1800s, at least 160 species such as the sea lamprey and zebra mussel have invaded the basin. On paper, the federal government has made a strong commitment to prevent and control invasive species, but it hasn't translated that commitment into results.

The Department has participated in an effective program to control sea lamprey, through the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. However, this is an exception. The federal government has no policy, no framework, and no organized approach to control invasive aquatic species or prevent new species from entering the basin.

The biggest known threat by new species is in the ballast water of commercial ships entering the basin. Canada has voluntary guidelines under the Canada Shipping Act, but they are far from effective.

This year, we are continuing our work on aquatic invasive species. We are collaborating with the Government Accounting Office (GAO) of the United States and plan to publish our separate reports in October 2002.

Finally, I'd like to talk about the protection of fish habitat. Although Fisheries and Oceans has had a Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat for 15 years, it has not been implemented fully. In 1995 the federal government tried to formally delegate the management of freshwater fish habitat to the Prairie provinces, Ontario, and Quebec. But this didn't work, and Ontario withdrew from its agreement to manage fish habitat. In Quebec, the Province argued that its own legislation and programs already protected fish habitat. So in 1999, Fisheries and Oceans reassumed its full responsibilities for national management of freshwater fish habitat.

It has struggled since then to strengthen its program in Ontario. The Department recognizes that the program needs improvement. In 1999 it received $28 million to strengthen its national program for freshwater fish habitat. However, that program is not designed to provide the same level of monitoring and enforcement in Quebec as it does in Ontario.

A second problem is that the Department has limited information on the state of fish habitat in the basin. It does not know whether fish habitat is being gained or lost.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, our audit shows clearly that there are many threats to the future of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River basin. The path the federal government is following in the basin is not sustainable.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee. We look forward to your questions and to continuing this discussion.