Opening Statement to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development of Canada—2004

2 November, 2004

Johanne Gélinas
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members. Thank you for inviting us here today. Joining me at the table are Ron Thompson, Assistant Auditor General, Neil Maxwell and Gerry Chu, who have conducted most of the audit work related to fisheries in the Report.

Thank you for the opportunity to present some of the aspects of our Report, tabled last week in the House of Commons, that are relevant to this Committee.

Even though this is not my first appearance before this Committee—we appeared after our 2002 audit, Invasive Species, and after audits of salmon management—let me briefly explain what my mandate is as Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development for the benefit of new members.

My environmental audit teams and I are part of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada. Our mandate is to audit the operations of the federal government and report to Parliament about significant environmental and sustainable development issues. We focus on the effectiveness, efficiency, economy, and environmental aspects of federal government programming.

I will speak today primarily on Chapter 5 of my 2004 Report, titled: Fisheries and Oceans Canada—Salmon Stocks, Habitat, and Aquaculture. There are, as well, in our 2004 Report other important fisheries and Department concerns such as:

• the proper establishment of conservation targets in the international agreement on straddling and highly migratory fish stocks,
• the slow development of regulations with respect to genetically engineered fish, and
• weaknesses in Fisheries and Oceans Canada's implementation of the environmental assessment of policies, plans, and programs, known as Strategic Environmental Assessment.

Chapter 5 is actually a Follow-up to three previous audits that assessed the Department's progress in implementing our recommendations of 1997, 1999, and 2000. In those audits, we reported that Pacific salmon stocks and habitat were under stress, that the Pacific salmon fisheries were in trouble and their long term sustainability was at risk, and that the legislative obligations to protect wild salmon populations from the effects of aquaculture were not being met. Our Follow-up presents a long list of shortcomings in the same areas as those found in our previous audits.

In parallel with our audit work, the auditors general of British Columbia and New Brunswick conducted their own audits on these topics, and their findings identified gaps very similar to those we found.

I will go over with you quickly some of our main findings in the areas of salmon stocks, habitat, and aquaculture. I will conclude with some of our observations that might be of assistance to the Committee as it looks at the matters raised in our report.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada has not yet finalized its Wild Salmon Policy, even though it aimed to release it in early 2001. This required policy would provide a framework for defining conservation objectives for wild salmon, including direction for fisheries and resource management, habitat protection, and salmon enhancement. These are fundamental matters that have to be clearly established, so the delay in finalizing this policy concerns me greatly.

As the Committee is aware, there are some salmon populations on both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts that are in trouble, to the extent that several populations have recently come under the consideration of the Species at Risk Act. That fact alone says a great deal about the urgency for prompt action to protect weak salmon populations.

Major gaps in information on Pacific salmon stocks and habitat continue. For example, a number of Pacific Salmon stocks have not been assessed in the last three years. What is not being measured cannot be managed effectively.

I turn now to managing and protecting salmon habitat. Since 1986, the Department has had in force their Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat. The Department's objective is to achieve an overall net gain or increase in the amount of habitat available to salmon. But the Department's own analysis suggests that habitat loss—not gain—is occurring.

For example, a recent review of 52 development proposal authorizations found that many projects resulted in net losses to habitat, contrary to the policy, and, in some cases, contrary to the specific authorizations.

The Department needs to re-examine the objectives of the Habitat Policy and make it work. In short, Parliament and Canadians need to know what the game plan is and how progress is being made.

Finally, I turn to salmon aquaculture. The Department has put in place an aquaculture policy framework, representing a significant step forward. The Department does, however, continue to face significant challenges in balancing its regulatory role and its enabling role.

The Department is spending $12.5 million over five years to assess and reduce the potential effects of aquaculture on aquatic ecosystems. It is spending another $20 million on research and development to enhance productivity of the aquaculture industry.

There are significant gaps in scientific knowledge about the potential effects of salmon aquaculture. Again, it is difficult to manage wild salmon without sufficient knowledge of the risks and potential impacts of aquaculture.

But, little is known about the potential effects of salmon aquaculture on aquatic ecosystems, particularly issues such as diseases, sea lice, and escapes of farmed salmon to the wild.

Research and information are not the only weaknesses—others include the difficulty in assessing cumulative environmental effects, the need for credible siting criteria for aquaculture projects, little progress in controlling the release of substances from aquaculture operations that can harm fish stocks and habitat, delayed environmental assessments, and inadequate monitoring to prevent habitat destruction.

Overall, we said we found the progress made by Fisheries and Oceans Canada in response to our observations and recommendations made in 1997, 1999, and 2000, is simply unsatisfactory. The implementation gap is significant and the track record of progress is unimpressive.

And judging from the responses from the Department published in our chapter, the pace is not going to pick up. Almost all the responses can be characterized as 'we are acting, and will continue to do so.'

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to end my presentation today with some of my own observations as Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

I fear that salmon are on the course recently followed by cod. After all, the Atlantic salmon commercial fishery has been closed in the Maritime provinces since 1985, and several Pacific salmon populations are being considered by many as endangered.

As the responsible federal department, Fisheries and Oceans Canada must ensure that this does not happen. It is promising to do what is required, and it has, or is developing, the policies, programs, and tools to do the job. But its track record on timely delivery on such promises really is not encouraging, and the salmon just can't wait.

As in so many other areas of my audit work across all of the government, there is a significant implementation gap here—one that is growing into a credibility gap.

This Committee can really help to rectify this situation by keeping the Department's feet to the fire, so to speak. The Committee could, for example, ask Fisheries and Oceans Canada for a detailed plan of the actions it will take not only in response to our recommendations, but also with respect to the many issues and suggestions raised throughout our reports. The Department could then regularly report to the Committee on its progress in implementing the action plan commitments.

After four audits and the documented slow progress, I am simply asking the Committee to hold the Department to account, so that we can all know that the Department is doing the right things, and doing those things right.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my opening statement and we welcome any questions that the committee may have.