This Web page has been archived on the Web.
Opening Statement to the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries
Commissioner's Briefing
21 October 2003
Johanne Gélinas
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before this Committee. With me this evening are my colleagues Neil Maxwell and John Reed.
When I appeared before you in February of 2002 I gave an overview of Chapter 1 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 petitions 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 hadn't figured out what its role should be in conserving and protecting freshwater fish, including those in the basin. It didn't have a vision; it hadn't 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 freshwater 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.
We have not yet undertaken a detailed follow-up of that audit, but this year our office asked federal departments, including Fisheries and Oceans Canada, to provide a progress update on various recommendations from our past reports. Overall, many of the responses were vague; it was difficult to ascertain whether any progress had been made. Based on that update, we see no reason to believe that much has changed in Fisheries and Oceans Canada's handling of the issues we reported on in 2001. I have provided a handout that highlights some of the Report's recommendations to the Department, with the Department's response and the commitments it made at that time. There are some questions that could be asked. What has changed to address federal-provincial relations? What has changed to address issues of data and scientific knowledge?
Because the issue of invasive species is so important, we have continued to examine it. Chapter 4 of my 2002 Report focused on the government's management of alien invasive species that affect Canada's ecosystems both on land and in the water. This included the effects of invasive species on fish habitat.
We found that despite long-standing commitments, agreements, and accords, there has been a lack of practical action by the federal government to prevent alien invaders from harming Canada's ecosystems. As a result, their numbers in Canada have grown steadily. In short, Canada has left the door open to invasive species that threaten our ecosystems.
We are not alone in our concern. Reports by the United States General Accounting Office and the International Joint Commission also tell us that the threats posed by alien invasive species persist, unabated by decades of government policies and plans.
In addition, as you may know, I appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in February of this year, and in May that committee issued a report on aquatic invasive species. Its report also highlighted the importance of the issue and made a number of recommendations that the Committee believed would help the federal government focus and speed up its actions to counter the threat of aquatic alien species.
All Canadians should be concerned. Experts long ago concluded that invasive species are second only to habitat destruction as a cause of biodiversity loss. Recent studies indicate that invaders now threaten ecosystems right across Canada and cause billions of dollars of damage to our economy every year. This is a national problem that affects communities from coast to coast.
One of the invaders profiled in my report is the green crab. It is aggressively colonizing along our Atlantic coast, putting the clam, mussel, and oyster industries there at risk. To show the magnitude of what is at risk, the landed value of Atlantic clams, mussels, and oysters was about 57 million dollars in 2000. Catches of Atlantic lobster, which scientists believe may also be threatened, were worth over 500 million dollars in 2000. On the Pacific coast, where the green crab has also been discovered, the value of native clams and crab catches in 2000 was about $25 million.
In addition to my auditing work, I am the guardian of the environmental petitions process. If Canadians are concerned about an environmental matter involving the federal government, the petitions process is one avenue for seeking an answer. The petition can be a simple letter addressed to me.
In fact, I understand that your committee has called a petitioner to provide testimony. Just a few weeks ago, Mr. Myles Kehoe appeared before the committee on the issue of military chemical weapons dumpsites off Canada's Atlantic coast. Partly as a result of his petition, the federal government is taking some action and the details are contained in Chapter 4 of my Report this year.
To date, over 100 petitions have been submitted to this office and about half of them are addressed to Fisheries and Oceans Canada solely, or jointly with other departments. I have provided a handout with summaries of some petitions tabled in the House of Commons that relate to Fisheries and Oceans Canada. All petitions are posted in their entirety on the Auditor General's Web site, along with the responses from the Departments to the petitioners.
The issues addressed in these petitions vary widely but all focus on the existing or potential impact on fish and their habitat.
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 (petition 54); the development of intensive hog operations in New Brunswick and its impact on water quality and fish habitat (petition 39); and the federal government's policy on the rearing of genetically engineered fish (petition 38).
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. 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.
To date, I have been dissatisfied with the performance of departments in the past, including Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 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.
I believe your committee can play a very beneficial role by calling Fisheries and Oceans Canada to explain how its sustainable development strategy is making its policies and programs more sustainable. The Department could also be asked how it is improving its sustainable development strategy for the 2003 round. And how is it addressing, for example, aquaculture, in the context of sustainable development? How is the Department managing aquaculture so as to maximize the benefits while minimizing negative impacts?
Considering that as a whole, the sustainable development strategies of departments are the action plan for putting Canada on a sustainable development path, parliamentarians' involvement in looking at these plans and the results is key. What is the Government of Canada trying to achieve through these action plans? What has it achieved? How do the results contribute to a sustainable development path?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee. We look forward to your questions and to continuing this discussion.