FOPO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, December 7, 1999

• 0906

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): I'll call the meeting to order.

Today we're going to look at chapter 20 of the report of the Auditor General of Canada, “Fisheries and Oceans—Pacific Salmon: Sustainability of the Fisheries”. With us from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, we have Mr. Desautels, who is the Auditor General, and Mr. Robins, who I believe is the principal of audit operations on this issue.

Mr. Desautels, I think you know the procedure here pretty well. We'll hear your opening remarks and then go to questions. Welcome.

Mr. L. Denis Desautels (Auditor General of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to discuss with the committee the results of our audit of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans regarding the sustainability of the Pacific salmon fisheries.

As you said, I am accompanied this morning by Dr. Geoff Robins. Geoff is a principal in our Vancouver office and he has a long history in this field. He has a Ph.D. in fish biology, specializing in Atlantic salmon, and he had 22 years of experience with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans before joining our office back in 1991.

Mr. Chairman, salmon have a special place in the quality of life of residents of the west coast, being both an indication of a healthy ecosystem and a source of cultural, social, and economic benefits.

As salmon require both freshwater and ocean environments to complete their life cycles, and in so doing travel large distances, they are vulnerable to a wide range of impacts, including overfishing and deterioration of both freshwater and marine habitats. We were not surprised to find, therefore, that the numbers of salmon returning to spawn in British Columbia streams, rivers, and lakes are declining.

The seriousness of this situation is reflected in the drop in catch, especially that of the commercial fishery. The value of this fishery has dropped in five years from $250 million to less than $50 million, yet the regional office currently spends approximately $85 million of its $230 million budget on salmon, including habitat, enhancement, science, and fisheries management.

As Canadian fisheries, whether aboriginal, recreational, or commercial, depend on a healthy resource base, our audit has focused on the management of salmon rather than on the socio-economic consequences of declining fish stocks.

The conservation and protection of freshwater habitat was the focus of our first audit of Pacific salmon management. The results of this audit were reported back in 1997, and I'm pleased to note, Mr. Chairman, that the public accounts committee held a hearing on that chapter back in February 1998. At that time, habitat was being lost in spite of the department's policy of no net loss, and we found nothing to change that observation in our recent audit. To this, however, has been added another potentially more serious threat to salmon sustainability: a decline in the survival of salmon in the ocean. We were all given a wake-up call earlier this year when only three million salmon appeared out of a predicted run of eight million in the Fraser River.

• 0910

Ocean survival is, of course, outside the department's control, as to a certain extent the full protection of habitat depends on provincial regulations that consider habitat conservation when managing the use of land and water. Hence, our concern in this chapter with federal-provincial relations.

[Translation]

There are areas where the department needs to improve. In the chapter, we have noted six areas requiring urgent attention: information needs, stakeholder consultations, implementation of integrated fisheries management plans, fleet downsizing and restructuring, establishment of an allocation board, and federal- provincial relations.

For example, I am concerned that the department has reliable information on only 60 percent of the 8,000 plus salmon stocks in British Columbia. If it is to conserve salmon stocks while realizing fishing opportunities, it will require more precise information to develop and implement integrated fisheries management plans. One of the major difficulties facing the department is the need to safeguard the genetic diversity of existing salmon stocks, and to establish acceptable catch levels—targets—and levels beyond which no fishing will occur—conservation limits—for the most important stocks. In the absence of reliable information, the application of the precautionary approach, as required under the new policy, will likely result in more frequent and extensive fishing closures to conserve weak stocks. This will likely result in subsequent hardship to aboriginal, recreational and commercial fishers.

The department is far from having the confidence and cooperation of stakeholders—a necessary prerequisite for the long- term sustainability of the fisheries. As noted in the chapter, the department's record to date in stakeholder consultations is poor. While significant progress has been made on reducing the size of the fleet—38 percent of licenses bought back to date—the issue of fishing capacity has not been adequately addressed. The department and the provincial government must work together on habitat and other problems if progress is to be made toward their resolution.

[English]

In our report we cite the management of coho salmon over the last 30 years as an example of a crisis in the making. Not until 1998 did the then Minister of Fisheries and Oceans acknowledge the seriousness of the situation and take action to conserve dwindling stocks by closing the fisheries.

In the fall of 1998, the department announced its A New Direction for Canada's Pacific Salmon Fisheries. This policy identifies three objectives for salmon management—conservation, sustainable use, and improved decision-making—together with principles to guide the policy's implementation. For example, there will be more emphasis on genetic diversity and the application of the precautionary approach, the use of selective fishing and the creation of a smaller and more diversified commercial fishery, and improved stakeholder consultation and input into decision-making. These major changes will be effected through a series of four new operational policies based on discussion papers circulated for public review and comment. The first policy on allocation has been released, the discussion paper on selective fishing is presently undergoing public reviews, and the papers on wild salmon and improved decision-making are under development. In the meantime, the regional office is making progress in some areas under its new management strategy for 1998-2001.

The department has therefore determined its policy destination and is planning the best route to reach it. However, the momentum achieved earlier appears to be slowing. For example, the final two operational policies have been delayed. Our concern is that the department's commitment as expressed in its new policy may not be followed through with the urgency that is warranted. This is an issue, Mr. Chairman, that the committee might wish to pursue with the department.

The department will also need the support and help of stakeholders if they are to share the burden, especially with the cost of implementing the new measures as proposed under the new policy. The department's ability and timing with respect to the implementation of these measures is undoubtedly key to future sustainability of the salmon resource and the fisheries it supports. We are concerned that the costs of policy implementation have not been determined nor priorities set for the spending of existing funds.

• 0915

The department has accepted our recommendations, and, as I stated earlier, there is evidence that it is moving in the right direction. But given the magnitude of the task ahead and the new threat of declining ocean survival, the future of the salmon fisheries is at best uncertain. The need for the department to address sustainability and biodiversity issues with respect to the many other species under its jurisdiction will add to the challenge of managing salmon fisheries in the new millennium.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Robins and I will be pleased to answer the committee's questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your overview. No doubt there will be questions. There always are for you.

Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to thank the Auditor General for his appearance this morning and for another outstanding report. I certainly look forward to the reports produced by the Auditor General, for their depth and clarity, and this is no exception.

I would have liked to get into a couple of other issues, but I'm concerned about one point you raise in the report, and that is, “the new threat of declining ocean survival”. Certainly that's the story the government would have you believe; that's the spin that's put on the problems we experienced on the Fraser River this year.

But I think within your report you raise issues that raise questions about whether or not there is a new threat of ocean survival. You talk, for example, about poor data collection. You make quite an issue—and correctly so—about the problems with data collection on the returning spawners.

We could go into detail about that, which I would have liked to do, but I want to address this issue of ocean survival, because estimates of spawning salmon returning are based on a number of factors. The first instance would be an accurate estimate of the spawners that returned to the gravel and the survival rate that first year, whether it's about feed in the lake, safety, the ability to travel to the ocean, and those kinds of things. Then when they do go to the ocean, it's a great black hole, and back they come. If any of that data is incorrect, if you've made a mistake in your data collection and you overestimate the number of spawners, you're going to overestimate what returns.

What I would like to know is this. When you made these statements about this new threat—which statement in fact reflects government policy—did you consider, for example, that in Alaska this year the returns were probably 50% greater than anticipated? They had over $40 million sockeye return in Alaska. Also, returns to the west coast of Vancouver Island, to the Alberni Inlet in particular, were better than expected, stronger than expected. Did you consider that the only area where there were weak returns that were unaccounted for was the Fraser River?

If you think all of those fish—the fish from Alaska, the fish from Alberni—all swam in the same pond in the north Pacific, perhaps the problem is not poor ocean survival but goes right back to the issue you make here about poor data collection and poor estimates of spawners.

Mr. Denis Desautels: I'll ask Mr. Robins to react to those statements.

Mr. Geoffrey Robins (Principal, Audit Operations, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Mr. Chairman, I think there are two points we want to make here, perhaps first of all with respect to where salmon go. Certainly they do share the Pacific—all species from both the northern states, Canada and Alaska—but we have to remember that the Canadian fish do have to travel from Canada north and are exposed to a number of different conditions than those in Alaskan waters.

There's no question that ocean survival is a factor. I don't think it's a government plot, if I may use that term. We've certainly talked to a great number of scientists, both within the department and in academia. Certainly there is a growing body of evidence indicating that the oceans are having an effect on salmon survival.

• 0920

It can range from fairly simple things, such as the movement of mackerel, for example...because of changes in ocean temperature, mackerel have become more plentiful off the rivers of B.C. and have been responsible for feeding voraciously on young salmon that have been leaving the river. There's one example of reducing the numbers of small salmon that would travel out into the ocean and ultimately return as adults. Certainly from the evidence we've gathered and from the people we've spoken to, it is a factor.

We don't know at this point whether we are in a cycle. We are now seeing some research coming forward that is showing that there have been natural cycles in the past. Whether we're seeing just a natural cycle or an abnormal cycle, there is certainly a great deal of evidence that tells us that ocean survival is going to have a profound effect on the numbers of salmon coming back in the future.

Mr. John Cummins: I agree, but I don't accept that the only issue here...and I don't want to get into an argument with you about the details of it, but I think there's more to it than just the fact that a fish travelling from the Fraser River has a distance to travel before it hits the north Pacific.

I've never seen any government document that talks about the unnatural difficulties they may encounter between the mouth of the Fraser River and the North Pacific. Mackerel are not a problem in the Strait of Georgia. Mackerel are a huge problem on Alberni Inlet, yet the returns there this year were stronger than returns to the Fraser River. Mackerel certainly isn't the issue in the Fraser River.

But let's go back to 1995. I'm sure that in your studies here you looked at the issues in 1995. I know you looked at John Fraser's concerns. Is it not correct that John Fraser, in his reports, the reports of the Pacific Fisheries Conservation Council, notes the same problem that you do with data collection with regard to spawners?

Mr. Geoffrey Robins: Mr. Chairman, this is not a simple problem. It's a highly complex one.

You're quite right. As we've indicated in our report, there is a data problem. There's a data problem now because of the way in which the department is shifting its management approach. Perhaps in the past they were more primarily concerned with the commercial fishery and some of the larger stocks. They have fairly good information on the large stocks—some good time-series data—so they've been able to come up with some fairly good predictive models.

What was happening in the ocean was fairly stable in the past, and you could feed into a model and come up with a fairly accurate predicted run. If you look at the information available over the last 20 years, except in very recent years the prediction and the actual run are pretty good; there's a pretty good correlation.

But now we're moving towards what you might call genetic diversity, biodiversity, where we're more concerned with the weaker stocks, the smaller stocks, and the data problem is coming to the fore. In the past, there were a lot of fish, you might say, and you were concentrating on large stocks. It was not a problem. Now, when you're trying to manage all species and to conserve the weaker stocks, obviously you're going to have to manage much more effectively, and you need better data to do that. Certainly I think the evidence is there, as we say in the report, that for over 40% of the stocks—I think it's something like that—most of them smaller stocks, we have virtually no information at all.

So you're quite right, data is a major problem, but from the point of view of the past and predictions based on ocean survival in the past, they were pretty good correlations, so something has happened.

Mr. John Cummins: But if you took a look at the predictions and the issue of ocean survival and you said, well, this year the prediction out of the Fraser River was such that because they came in less, then we conclude it's ocean survival.... If you looked at other areas, if you looked at Alberni, if you looked in Alaska, and made the same predictions based on the number of spawners, you may find that there's a huge discrepancy between what happened in the Fraser River and what happened elsewhere. Did you take those kinds of looks?

Mr. Geoffrey Robins: Mr. Chairman, it would be very difficult. There are a great number of scientists that are looking at that issue. We certainly couldn't go into such depth—

Mr. John Cummins: Would you—

• 0925

Mr. Geoffrey Robins: We can only reiterate that we have spoken to many scientists. The ocean is a big place and a lot of things seem to be going on there.

The only thing I can say, and I think we're safe in saying it, is that although we don't make a great deal of reference to it in the chapter, ocean survival is becoming a serious concern. If I may suggest, it's an issue that could be addressed to the department, because of course they do have scientists looking at this issue now and I'm sure they would be able to indicate their findings as well as the findings of their colleagues in academia and elsewhere.

Mr. John Cummins: May I very quickly make one last—

The Chair: You may ask one last quick question.

Mr. John Cummins: One area in which you may not have looked is at my press releases in 1995. In 1995 I was predicting there would be no fishery in 1999, based on the management by the department in 1995, the data collection, and the illegal activities that were ongoing in the Fraser River. So there were predictions in 1995 that 1999 would be a disaster.

The Chair: We have it on the record, John.

Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Iles-de-la-Madeleine- Pabok, BQ): It's not a question.

First of all, I want to thank Mr. Desautels and our other witness for coming. I must admit that I'm not as familiar with the West Coast fishery. I will try to ask questions much like Mr. Desautels does as Auditor General when he sets about auditing the operations of certain departments. Admittedly, we can't expect him to know about all of the problems or about all of Canada's fisheries on three coasts.

Paragraph 14 of your submission caught my attention. In it, you clearly voice your concern about the department's ability to implement measures and you see this as the key to future sustainability of salmon stocks. The last sentence of this paragraph sounds an especially alarming note. You state the following:

We are concerned that the costs of policy implementation have not been determined nor priorities set for the spending of existing funds.

In other words, if I read between the lines, the department appears to be improvising. Admittedly, I'm not as familiar with this area and I'd like to know what the department is doing. Was the amount announced by the department more or less an estimate? How did department go about doing its calculations? How did it arrive at this figure? It doesn't seem to be able to provide an explanation. Perhaps you can enlighten us a little.

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, I'll start by answering Mr. Bernier's question, and then I'll turn to Mr. Robins who can provide additional clarification.

I would remind the committee that we are concerned about the department's ability to implement all of the programs it has announced. Judging from our past experience, there is a difference between what the department says it intends to do, and what it eventually does do. We noted in this and in the previous chapter on habitat that fairly significant management problems have been identified in a number of areas, including planning, availability of data and the lack of a resource management framework. We noted a similar problem with respect to the Atlantic fishery. Therefore, there is a difference between what the department says it intends to do and its demonstrated ability in the past to implement some of its policies.

In paragraph 14, we point to the fact that the department isn't clear on the cost of implementing the various initiatives put forward or on whether program funding will be sufficient to achieve the stated objectives.

Perhaps Mr. Robins could elaborate further on this matter.

[English]

Mr. Geoffrey Robins: When we looked at the management program, we certainly had to give the department good points for developing a sustainable fisheries framework.

• 0930

As Mr. Desautels has indicated, it was a major concern we had on the east coast. I think from the timing point of view, it's good; they do have a sustainable framework in place. It was announced in October 1998. As Mr. Desautels indicated in the opening statement, they are in the process of developing what you might call operational policies that will take the department further toward the practical application of the new management regime they have developed under the 1998 policy.

I think the first thing, though, when you're looking at this is the complexity of the policy. There's an awful lot in there. It's interesting; I think they are the right things to say. But I think the concern we have is one that was expressed by the commissioner, and the office of the Auditor General also, in the more general sense, dealing with government policy. That is the so-called implementation gap and the difficulties in putting policy into effect in a practical sense.

I think when we look at the situation, as Mr. Gilmour has raised, we see that the data gap alone to generate the information that's required, to manage to the fine level as the department must do now to protect biological diversity, genetic diversity of stocks, requires a lot of new information.

I think we're just a little concerned that even now, as Mr. Desautels indicated, $85 million of the $230 million is being devoted to salmon. In other words, a large portion of the budget is now going to salmon, and we can see where we are in this process and what now needs to be done. But we do have other issues facing the department. Biological diversity means they have to look after the stocks of all species under their mandate, their jurisdiction.

I think these are the sorts of things that concern us, that not only do we have more work to do in the salmon area, but there's a lot more to do for other species, marine species especially. I think the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is probably the one department that is very heavily affected by the biological diversity approach the federal government is now adopting.

So the question from our point of view is, what goes? You know, if there's only so much money then one has to set priorities. What falls off the bottom?

The Chair: Mr. Bernier, very briefly.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I have a brief question which our witnesses can come back to during the second round if they run short of time. The question goes to the very heart of this matter.

It also ties in with what the previous speaker was saying. As Mr. Desautels noted, everyone seems to agree that there are shortcomings in the management of Fisheries and Oceans on both the west and east coasts. Is the problem financial in nature, or it is it related more to management methods or to the structure of fisheries management? At some point, we're going to have to ask ourselves that question.

You say that we will need to rely on the involvement of the community. However, is the system structured in such a way that we can tap into the knowledge of those who live in these communities? Can we integrate this knowledge quickly into the management process? Can an audit lead to action on this front? We're seeing problems everywhere. I'm not sure how to put this question, which may be of a political nature, although that's not the focus I want it to have. We need to identify the root of the problem.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Robins.

Mr. Geoffrey Robins: Mr. Chairman, I agree. I think there's been a major turnaround in the way the department is going to manage fish. We have a major change in the way in which they will be managed. In fact, one scientist related to me that we're now going to be in the business of managing fish rather than fisheries. I think this is because of the major declines in salmon runs.

So I don't think it's so much a question of whether they've been managing wrongly in the past. It's probably more of a question, does the management structure fit the new conditions the department must face? I think the short answer to that, as we've said, is no, they have to make some major adjustments in the way they manage. I do agree with you it's something they cannot do on their own. They must involve stakeholders.

• 0935

We've raised that issue in the chapter, that their stakeholder consultation is very poor. They will have to use traditional knowledge. Again, it's an issue we've addressed briefly in the chapter, Mr. Chairman. We do think that's extremely important; the department recognizes it's important. We shall have to see whether indeed there will be a means of incorporating it more effectively into the management process.

The Chair: Just before I go to Paul, you said the stakeholder participation is very poor; the department is very poor in terms of gaining stakeholder participation. Yet if you talk to fishermen, especially on the west coast, they seem to indicate they're run off their feet in terms of consultation. Why are the two not coming together? Are they consulting and not listening, or why are they not coming together? I mean, if you talk to the fishermen and heads of organizations, they're in meetings related to this issue all the time. Where are the two not catching up to each other?

Mr. John Cummins: Good point.

Mr. Geoffrey Robins: Mr. Chairman, I think there are obviously a large number of problems associated with the consultation process, as you've indicated and certainly as we've found in talking to stakeholder groups, as we indicated in the chapter. I don't know. I think it's a very deep-seated one. I think it's perhaps as fundamental as not knowing what the roles and responsibilities of the various participants are. Perhaps it's a question of ensuring that information gets out in time to enable them to have a meaningful input. Perhaps it's the problem that there isn't enough information to be able to make the decisions that should be made.

I think in brief, Mr. Chairman, the department certainly has recognized it's a major problem area. In fact, one can find in their own documents, back to the nineties, an indication that they are going to overhaul the consultation process, although essentially it never took place. We do understand from the reaction to our chapter that belatedly that will now be done before they come out with an operational policy on improved decision-making.

The Chair: Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Good morning, gentlemen. I think if there's one aspect of committee work that all of us look forward to, it is to meet with the Auditor General. I think it's one time when we can look to someone who'll give us an unbiased, honest approach to some of the issues, addressing them head on, without having the political interference that often takes place.

I haven't read all aspects of your report, but I'm just looking at some of the things that have been said this morning. Not knowing the issue as site-specific as Mr. Cummins does, I want to base my questions more broadly perhaps on the general aspects of what has gone wrong and why we are not fixing the problem. I mean, most of us have been here a number of years and we know really nothing much has changed. Even though you have given recommendations and we've looked at some of these recommendations and there have been overtures made in terms of addressing that, the overall impact is really that it's getting worse instead of better.

You talk about the impacts on fishing, the overfishing, the deterioration of both our freshwater and our marine habitats. I guess the question could be, which one of these is the most serious and which ones have we not addressed? But you go on to say in bullet number five that the habitat is being lost in spite of the department's policy of no loss, or wanting no loss.

I think Mr. Bernier touched on something that's very important, and that is this issue of traditional-based knowledge versus science-based knowledge. We talk about consultations and the fact that these are ongoing, that there seems to be no shortage of that kind of consultation. I just don't understand, for the amount of money we're expending, that we're not seeing some results, even marginal results. It appears to me we're seeing very little result in terms of how this department is running this whole issue of fisheries.

What are your general comments on my comments? I know they're very broad-based, but I think all of us here are concerned that unless we do something and take some remedial action immediately and see some results on a year-to-year ongoing basis, we're not going to have a fishery in this country.

The Chair: Mr. Robins or Mr. Desautels.

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, I'll start my answer, and if Mr. Robins wants to add, I'm sure he will.

This is a really fundamental question. I myself am not an expert on fisheries, but I've been noting through our work that the department has faced a number of very serious situations, a number of very serious challenges. The end result is that it hasn't come through as appearing to be in full command and mastering the situation, whether that be on the Atlantic coast or the Pacific coast.

• 0940

So we've noted in our work a number of management deficiencies that in fact have not made it easier to react to these new challenges. In various chapters we've talked about poor planning, which has led to some improvisation rather than a lot of foresight and clear plans. We've talked about a lack of a management framework for making decisions around the fisheries, both on the east coast and on the Pacific. We've talked about inadequate data. We've talked about a failure to protect the habitat, particularly on the Pacific coast. We've talked about poor cooperation with stakeholders in many instances. More specifically on the Pacific, we've talked about too much emphasis on the commercial fisheries as opposed to fisheries in general.

So we've noted over time a number of what you would call “management deficiencies”, which are not necessarily in themselves the cause of all the problems, but they certainly haven't made it easier to overcome the challenges and the pressures the department has faced.

Geoff, I don't know if you want to add something.

Mr. Geoffrey Robins: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to add a couple of points. I think certainly it's been a crisis in development. I think in the chapter we do indicate that with coho, for example, there were some pretty disturbing trends with respect to the numbers of coho back in the seventies. But the former minister did recognize in 1998 that a crisis was upon the department and they did take action to develop a new policy.

I think if there's any criticism that we could certainly put at their door, it is, as Mr. Desautels has said, certainly that they should have seen some of these things coming. They should have been more effective in their planning and perhaps been ready to head off some of these major problems.

But I think we do have to recognize, as I say, that they have now put conservation number one, and that does change the way in which they manage. It will have an impact on fisheries, because if primarily we're concerned with the conservation of fish, then it may be that closures have to occur. Of course, that's a real struggle for the department, which has to make fishing opportunities available as well as protecting the resource.

So I think a lot of things have happened fairly suddenly, and it's a very difficult position they find themselves in. I think they're honestly trying to find their way out of it, and they've developed the structural framework as a first step.

But I think to come back to the earlier part of your question, that we are in a crisis and things have to be done now....because if we don't act fairly quickly, a lot of these stocks are going to disappear, and they may be the ones we want in the future.

Mr. Paul Steckle: What prompted my question along those lines is the fact that I don't see the department really understanding economics. I come from a freshwater-based fishery. Coming from the heartland of central Canada, I can tell you that there are certain things that are very important to the freshwater fisheries, and that is the preservation of the sports fishery industry, which injects into the total economy of the federal government, the whole Canadian economy, something like $65 million to $70 million in GST in Ontario alone in the sport of fishing.

To protect that sport fishery, we need to inject about $8 million into the elimination of some of the non-indigenous species in the Great Lakes, particularly the sea lamprey. We have recommended that this be done. Here is a positive, the best story that the fisheries department can talk about. There is no story they can talk about and take credit for more than that particular program. Yet we have to go back year after year after year to get baseline funding for that program.

We simply cannot get them to understand that if we take that program away, and it is an international program, with the Americans, an IJC program.... Why is it we can't—and I think you can make independent comment on this—get them to understand that this is important? Why do the politicians not realize the importance?

That's just one area where we're talking about economics. This is preservation of a sport, and the species, of course. Some of these other issues are very much more difficult in a sense. But this is a very simple analogy of a problem that is not being addressed simply because we need the money. I really don't believe money is always the question.

• 0945

My final question would be a very straightforward one. I think I know the answer, but I want you to put it on the record. Are we realizing our goal, our values, in terms of the money we're expending in Fisheries and Oceans? Are we spending the money as wisely as we should? Are we getting good value for what we're spending, because it seems that everything we do always requires more money? In my humble opinion, we don't always need more money; we just need a better expenditure of those funds we already have. Do you believe we're expending our money wisely in this department?

The Chair: Mr. Robins or Mr. Desautels.

Mr. Geoffrey Robins: Mr. Chairman, I think I have to go back to the change in conditions we're now facing since 1998 and the emphasis on conservation. If we look at the way in which the department is spending its money, say, since 1998 under the new management regime that we've indicated is now being put in place under the policy, I think it's questionable. As we've indicated, I think they do need to do some risk assessment. They do need to look very closely at the objectives of the new policies and realign their funding. I think certainly there is something to be done there. The department has to get down and look at that fairly soon, and we do make reference to that in the chapter.

I think it's unfair to compare the situation before 1998 because the set of circumstances under which they were operating changed so dramatically. But I think certainly it is questionable whether they're spending it in the right areas now. They have indicated that they have to look at their programs again and realign their funding, and I think it's something, Mr. Chairman, that certainly we should encourage the department to do.

The Chair: Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I must say, I have some difficulty buying into the low ocean survival story, because if you look at DFO's record it is not pristine. We go back to the late 1970s of reports on Atlantic cod and the impending collapse of the cod fishery. Yet we had 15 years of mismanagement before that actually happened.

We got all the stories: it was ocean fleets that were foreign fleets, it was the seals. There were all sorts of excuses, and it was anything but DFO.

Now we're on the other coast, and as my colleague says, we had good runs in Alaska, record catches. Alberni is in my riding. We had an excellent sockeye run this year, yet the Fraser River sockeye fishery collapsed. We're only 100 miles apart here.

My question goes back to 1995, four years back from the collapse this year. We expected eight million fish to come up the Fraser. We got three million. It was 40% of what DFO was expecting. So go back to 1995 when you have an aboriginal fishery. We had rampant poaching, numbers were not collected, yet the story we're getting is that it's ocean survival. Can you tell me, in your estimation, what is the reason for the Fraser River collapse and how much did the aboriginal fishery have to do with that collapse?

Mr. Geoffrey Robins: Mr. Chairman, I'm afraid I can't answer the second part of the question. I'm afraid the department perhaps could deal better with that. All I can say, going back to the earlier part of the question with respect to ocean survival, is I am a scientist, I've read papers, I've talked to my colleagues both in this country and elsewhere, and I'm certainly convinced something is happening out there. I don't think we're saying it's solely the result of ocean survival. I don't think anybody would tell you that. But I think there's no doubt that there's enough evidence there to show that something is changing, something different is going on out there that somehow is having an impact on the numbers of fish that are coming back. There's a great number of speculations as to whether it's disease, whether it's temperature, whether it's something else. We really don't know at this point. But I would say that there is something happening; it's contributing to the problem. It may not be the sole cause, but it's contributing to it.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I'm sure it's contributing to it, but why would you have them only affect the Fraser River stock and not the Alberni stock and not the Alaska stock? If it's contributing, that's fine, because it will affect every stock in a like manner, I would assume. But the Fraser River fishery collapsed. If you take away the deep oceans, what other factors were there in the collapse of the Fraser River fishery?

• 0950

Mr. Geoffrey Robins: I'm afraid I can't answer that in any detail, Mr. Chairman, at this point. I think it's probably a question more rightfully addressed to the department.

The Chair: Yes, I think this is a good line of questioning. I think Mr. Gilmour's point is valid. Why the Fraser and not the others? Do you know where we should go for further information on this? We are going to B.C. Maybe we could hold a hearing with somebody out there who would have this kind of information. Why the Fraser and not the others, if it's ocean survival?

Mr. Geoffrey Robins: Well, there has been some work done on the west coast at the universities, and there are several scientists who could contribute to that discussion and could make information available to you.

The Chair: We'll have to look into that.

Mr. John Cummins: I have a point of information, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. John Cummins: A good deal of that answer is in paragraph 20.59.

The Chair: Okay.

You've got about a minute, John. Go ahead.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): I want to add my voice to the concern. I think this is just a giant leap of logic to say that low ocean survival is being blamed for the Fraser River collapse. I think that's a giant leap of logic. To me there's nothing in the report that backs up that statement, and that is not up to the standard I would expect of this kind of report.

The other things in the report I find very interesting indeed, and I just wanted to talk for a second about the stakeholder consultations, because we had some discussion about that.

I think DFO right now has over 400 stakeholder groups. That's the problem. There are too many groups, and they're all paid lip service. The only people who are really happy with their consultation are the ITQ fisheries. The reason is that they have a degree of control that DFO is not prepared to give up in their normal consultation process. So I think if you looked at the ITQ consultation arrangement, there would be some lessons for the other consultations.

The Chair: Could we give Mr. Robins or Mr. Desautels a quick moment to answer?

Mr. Geoffrey Robins: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that I'm trying to give some information on ocean survival. I'm not suggesting we covered this to a great depth in the chapter, but the issue came up and I'm trying to respond to it. I'm merely indicating to you that it is one of the factors that is contributing to declining numbers. I think there will be more information available from the department.

As far as it being a giant leap in logic is concerned, I think a lot of things are happening around us, and we can't afford to not look at these things and give them the appropriate time to see whether or not they are contributing to the problems we're facing. So with the way things have been happening lately, I think it's something that's worthy of further review by you, with the department and perhaps with other experts.

In regard to the stakeholder consultation aspect, yes, it's in a very, very bad state. Certainly it's been that way, as we stated in the chapter, for a long time, and certainly the department acknowledges that they have to do something about it. They have agreed that it will be part of developing this new operational policy on improved decision-making—they will be talking to all groups. We've pointed out to them that their groups, the number—they don't even know what they're supposed to do, which group does what, their roles and responsibilities. They've accepted that. They've recognized that they will be looking at the whole process and trying to put it into a better state.

So again on your first point, I didn't wish to imply that we could put all of the concerns at the door of ocean survival. I was merely pointing out that it is a new element and it seems to be an element that is having some effect on the survival of fish.

On your second point, they are going to look very carefully at stakeholders. But I think perhaps, Mr. Chairman, it's something for you to raise with the department to ensure that they do indeed carry thorough the review of their consultation process in depth as they've agreed they will.

The Chair: Mr. Assadourian, and then Mr. Stoffer.

• 0955

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much.

My question was touched on earlier in some format, and it comes from paragraph 20.2 of your report.

Have you come across any studies on the environmental impacts on fisheries? We've heard reports in previous sessions that there are a lot of fish on the west coast of California, but not so many on the west coast of B.C. I'm sure the environment has a lot to do with the fisheries in the rivers or the oceans, but I don't see any mention of the environmental aspect of the fishermen. Fisheries may be a science, but there is so much environmental effect on the fisheries, and I didn't see any mention of it in detail or in brief. Can you elaborate on any studies you came across in the department while you were making your studies on the environmental impact on the fisheries, on either the east or west coasts?

The Chair: Mr. Robins.

Mr. Geoffrey Robins: Mr. Chairman, this is the second audit we've done on Pacific salmon. The first one was essentially on salmon habitat. We were very much concerned with the environmental impacts on the resource base and the ability to harvest it. We reported on that in 1997, and as we indicated, there's a great deal of environmental deterioration going on in fresh water that is contributing to the decline in the numbers of salmon. Certainly, if one looks at the coho, for example, which utilize small streams on the east coast of Vancouver Island and the Vancouver mainland, urban development alone is responsible for reducing the numbers of coho salmon in those areas. We did look at the environmental impact, primarily on habitat because of its importance with respect to the production of fish, in our 1997 report.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Do you think the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has enough studies to see that this is the situation and develop policies to prevent that for the future, be it in fresh waters or in the ocean? If that is the issue we will be facing in the next century, we may as well start doing it now, because if you don't do it now, it's going to get worse down the road.

Mr. Geoffrey Robins: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it's certainly true it is getting worse. I think both the department and ourselves agree that habitat is being lost. So the situation is getting worse as we sit here.

I think the major problem, though, in that particular instance is that the department can't do it all itself. It has to depend very much on the provincial government, because much of the provincial legislation affects habitat. I think the one issue we addressed in the chapter here is the need for the two governments to get very close together, to have common objectives, to know where they're going collectively, so that they are not duplicating work but are working together on some long-term plan to improve the numbers of salmon.

So I think the most important aspect of the environmental degradation, certainly in fresh water, is that the biggest move forward would be a better working relationship with the province and some common objectives along which both governments could act.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Can I ask a question of you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Would it be possible to receive the B.C. environmental auditor's report regarding these fisheries, so we could compare it with our federal environmental—

The Chair: I think we can request that.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Can we request a copy of that?

The Chair: We'll make that request.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think the Auditor General and his staff have done such a great job, I would like to present him with my Christmas calendar.

He's allowed to accept a gift under five cents.

First of all, I want to thank you and your staff again for focusing on fisheries, which is such an important matter. But I have two questions.

The government announced $400 million for licence buyback or rearrangement of the fisheries, and that's not in the report. My question is why?

Mr. Geoffrey Robins: I think, Mr. Chairman, we do cover that. We cover the Mifflin plan and the Pacific fisheries adjustment restructuring.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: But I'm thinking in terms of where the money has gone, how much of it is gone, how much of it is left, and whether it has gone where it's supposed to go.

Mr. Geoffrey Robins: Yes, we have looked at the direction in which it's gone from the point of view of improving stocks, habitat work, and what have you. We've noticed the improvements with respect to reducing the fleet. We have reference here to the number of licences that have been bought back, for example. Certainly, from the point of view of spending the money, they've already bought back 38% of the licences, so there is some tangible evidence of how the money has been used. There are a great number of projects being set up to improve the habitat situation in fresh water, which is particularly important working with local communities. There is certainly evidence of that work being done.

• 1000

I think we tried to cover those elements in the chapter. Perhaps we didn't cover them in the depth you would like to see.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay, and this is something I don't often say, so you're about to hear something. I know this is being recorded, but I can't agree more with my colleague from Vancouver Island on the fact that it appears, it gives the perception, that if we blame everything on the habitat, on the ocean survival, that we're letting DFO come up with a leap of logic, as he says. I can't agree with him more.

The fact that we've been pounding away at DFO...I mean, my former colleague Jim Fulton was pounding away at DFO for years and years and years, and now it's 1999 and we're still at this. You may know, sir, that there's a gentleman by the name of Mr. Dan Edwards, from Ucluelet, who's on a 43-day hunger strike as of today, and he says exactly what you said on page 20-24:

Because of the Department's poor record of transparency in its consultations, stakeholders are wary about the possibility that it will give preferential treatment to certain interests.

That's what Mr. Duncan had said earlier, that the people who have the ear of DFO will get the preferential treatment, and those inshore fishermen and their coastal communities will be ignored. I'd just like you to comment on that, please.

The Chair: What section was that, Peter?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: That's page 20-24, section 20.89.

The Chair: Okay, thanks.

Mr. Desautels.

Mr. Denis Desautels: Well, let me just start, Mr. Chairman, with a reaction to, again, the same issue that was raised by Mr. Duncan on this leap of logic. We certainly don't want to let DFO off the hook on anything, and we've been tough critics of DFO both in Atlantic Canada and I believe as well on the Pacific coast.

But everybody, I suppose, Mr. Chairman, has their own explanation as to why the Fraser run was the way it was, and I don't think it would be right to pin it all on one or another cause. What we're saying is that, yes, there could be problems of under-reporting, as we've raised in paragraph 20.59, I believe, but there could also be natural factors there, and they should be looked at. Our raising these or referring to that in our report should not be read as a way of letting DFO off the hook, because I think we want to continue to be a tough judge of DFO, as we've been in the last few years.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you. The other concern I have—

The Chair: Mr. Robins, was there anything you wanted to add?

Mr. Geoffrey Robins: No, not at this point.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Stoffer, this is your last point.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, sir, the last question I have is this. Of course, I've been saying for a while that the minister of DFO is usually surrounded by bureaucratic sycophants, present company excluded, of course. The fact is, regardless of who the minister is, whether it's Mifflin, Tobin, Anderson, or Dhaliwal, the problem is the same.

I think the real problem in this is the people who are in DFO, the senior ministers who've been there for years and years and years. As my colleague from the Reform said, we had the cod crisis by these same people and now we're having the salmon crisis by these same people. I know you can't go into personalities in that regard, but I feel that's a major problem, as well as the Pacific Salmon Treaty.

My question is, will you be doing an audit fairly soon, or a report, on what the Pacific Salmon Treaty has done and on aquaculture, what that has done—

The Chair: Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm done.

The Chair: Give the gentlemen time to answer.

Mr. Desautels.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I can't have the Tories' five minutes; he won't let me have it.

I'm agreeing with Reform today. It's unbelievable.

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, I'll try to take the two questions. The first one I think relates quite closely to an issue we've been raising, both again on the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts, and that has to do with the lack of a proper framework within which to make all of the decisions that are made over time in dealing with the fisheries. I think having that kind of framework that would be known to all of the participants would in fact introduce a lot more rigour and transparency into all of the DFO decisions that are made, whether it be on the east coast or the west coast. It's a common theme in both this report and the previous report we made in Atlantic Canada.

• 1005

To answer the second question, our next project on the Pacific coast is to look at fish farming, so we will be looking at aquaculture. I'm not sure of the date of that proposed report, but it should be within the next two years.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Merci.

The Chair: We'll be able to compare notes because we're going to look at it too.

Claude.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Desautels and Mr. Robins, for taking part in the work of our committee. Yours is a thankless job, although it must be rewarding indeed to verify whether the government is providing the best possible service as cost effectively as possible. Your efforts deserve to be noted.

Before I get to my questions, I suggest we study the NDP to see if that party's spending is in order. I'm just kidding Peter about his calendars.

You mentioned that the department had unveiled a new direction for the salmon fishery, one that involves consultations with stakeholders and a series of new operational policies, and that the department's regional office was making progress in some areas under its new management strategy for 2000-2001.

You went on to say that the department was planning the best route to reach its policy destination. Immediately after this, you say that the momentum achieved earlier appears to be slowing. In your opinion, to what can we attribute this situation and why is the department not reacting quickly, in light of the troubled state of the salmon fishery? Those are my questions.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Robins.

Mr. Geoffrey Robins: Mr. Chairman, I think the most obvious answer is it's difficult. I think it's difficult for us all when we say something to put it into practical terms, and I think in this particular case it's a very complex policy. It's the sort of policy you can't do in bits and pieces. You've got to do the whole thing, and one thing impacts on another.

I think the only concern, from our point of view, is that when you're changing your management regime—and it's quite a significant change, as I said, from a focus on a few major stocks and a commercial fishery to a focus on all stocks and trying to improve the situation of all fisheries—it requires some major changes to the way you do business.

I think we've merely raised in the chapter the important point that now you've committed to all of this, you'd better see if you've got the wherewithal, the appropriate resources to follow through. We're suggesting to them the first thing they should do is to look at the cost of the program, what it's going to cost to them, and whether indeed they can follow through on this and presumably take appropriate action once they've got the findings from that review.

But I think it certainly has been a problem, as we indicated, in government generally. I suppose “to walk the talk” is the hackneyed expression one always uses, but I think it's still valid in this case. From our perspective and as we state in the report, I don't think the department is fully aware of the costs—the implications of costs, if you like—for the new policy, and I think it's probably again better addressed to them. They can indicate how they intend to follow through on those various elements, given the level of funding at present.

The Chair: Mr. Drouin.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Drouin: Are you telling me, Mr. Robins, that the department has failed to evaluate the costs as well as the resources required to implement these new policies? Did I understand you correctly?

[English]

Mr. Geoffrey Robins: This is certainly the impression we have, Mr. Chairman, yes. Again, it was necessary to develop the policy approach, the structural framework, if you like, under which salmon will be managed in the future. Now we have biodiversity, which is a new demand being placed on the department, a government-wide demand. With these things happening so relatively quickly, they have not done the pricing, the resource homework, if you like, that's necessary to see that the policies can be followed through.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Drouin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Before I go to Mr. Cummins.... In your whole section on fleet overcapacity, which has been coming up several times, you're basically saying in point 20.80 that the measures are not in place to see whether the department is being successful or not, as I understand it, in terms of the criteria that are available. But in your section as a whole we're looking at fleet reduction. If there's anything we know on the east coast, fleet reduction may be important, but what's really important is impact on the resource itself.

• 1010

Do you have any points to raise on that? Is the department measuring the impact of the aboriginal fishing strategy? Is it measuring the impact—even though you reduced the fleet—of new technology, etc., and the impact on the environment? Are all those measures there to get to the bottom line of how the resource itself is doing?

Mr. Geoffrey Robins: The short answer is no. We raise the issue here that we think it's a capacity issue, not a numbers issue. We feel that if they're going to create a viable fishery, they must have some sort of conception of what that means in terms of capacity and the structure of the fleet, that it can indeed be viable.

As we mentioned here too, there are many other factors that have to be taken into account, as you have indicated. We don't think they've done that. They have indicated that they want to revisit their target. I think their original target was 50% of licences bought back, with no direct application to capacity. But they have indicated they want to revisit that and see what the final number should indeed be, taking these other things into account.

But again, our short answer is no. We feel they have to look at the ultimate size of the fleet, given all the various changes that are now going to be imposed, as a result of the new policy.

The Chair: I don't want to get into a debate either, but maybe by looking at the ultimate side of the fleet, that's not the problem. It may be one of the factors, but maybe there are other factors that are just as important and they're not being measured.

Mr. Geoffrey Robins: I agree with you that there are other factors, like the ability of the fishermen to catch fish, the effect of selective fishing on their ability to catch fish, whether or not it will be a viable fishery. Certainly the department is after a viable fishery, so at least the people participating can get a good income.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to clarify, there's no danger that my friend from the NDP, Mr. Stoffer, and I are going to be on the same page on this issue. Yesterday I think he was talking about this being a natural disaster. He seems to have flipped the page now and he's blaming DFO management. I've said all along it's a DFO management issue.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Give me a chance to reply.

The Chair: You'll get your chance. Go ahead, Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: On page 20-10, you have some graphs where you show the number of fish caught. You just go from 1991 and show a decline from 1991 to 1998. I don't take any argument with or any exception to your graph, but what does the graph look like prior to 1991?

Mr. Geoffrey Robins: I think prior to 1991 catches were pretty good. As we've indicated elsewhere, the commercial fishery was in a pretty healthy state.

Mr. John Cummins: Thank you.

Mr. Geoffrey Robins: Excuse me, may I just take this opportunity to apologize? I think I addressed you wrongly as Mr. Gilmour earlier. My apologies.

Mr. John Cummins: That's not a problem.

The Chair: Be careful of Mr. Stoffer. He would have been upset.

Go ahead, John, sorry.

Mr. John Cummins: It's significant, and I'm glad you noted that. The problem was a management change in 1992. That was when this AFS program was introduced and the government started devolving some of its responsibilities.

Perhaps we could talk for a minute about this data collection. You note in paragraph 20.57 that the AFS assumed a major role in data collection, and they were the source of 30% of the new data input. You go on to say, in paragraph 20.59, that DFO has concerns about the quality of the data provided under some of these agreements. In paragraph 20.60 you say that fewer than 15% of the bands that were required to collect data actually reported it.

• 1015

That's a huge deficiency. It costs the Canadian taxpayers about $3 million a year to operate these AFS programs, yet the major contribution the AFS programs could be making is data collection, and we're not getting the bang for our buck. Would you agree with that?

Mr. Geoffrey Robins: Yes, I think it's a point we certainly raised in the chapter. We certainly feel that where they sit, adjacent to spawning areas and what have you, they could make an important contribution to data collection. But as you've indicated, they are certainly not coming through as we expected. In the chapter, we've indicated some major deficiencies. The department, in responding, has indicated it will be trying to improve that program.

Mr. John Cummins: Did you look at the impact enforcement would have on this data collection? Part of the problem in the Fraser River, prior to about 1995, was the counting station. The only counting station on the river was at Mission, and activities that went on beyond Mission were mere speculation. Of course, with the introduction of the AFS in 1992, the set-net fishery exploded in the area above Mission, and a lot of illegal activity has been acknowledged by enforcement reports every year since, and especially in 1995.

Did you look at the lack of adequate enforcement on the Fraser River and the impact that would have on the number of fish that would show up at the counter at Mission, as opposed to what showed up under the spawning grounds?

Mr. Geoffrey Robins: We didn't look at that issue specifically, but we did look at the more generic issue of catch and catch reporting, as we've indicated in the chapter. I think it's a more widespread problem and doesn't just apply to the aboriginal fishery. The department has to get better catch data from all fisheries.

I agree with you it is perhaps an enforcement problem. But if you look at the way things are going, the department is hoping there will be a great deal of support and cooperation amongst the stakeholders themselves in generating that sort of information in the future. I think that's where they hope to go.

Certainly your point is well taken. As we've indicated here, they're very slow to get the catch information on the aboriginal fisheries. The latest data we have, for example, is 1996 or 1997, but it isn't the only place. There is a great deal to be done in the other fisheries too about improving catch.

Mr. John Cummins: You mention self-reporting in paragraph 20.51, I believe, with the phone-ins by commercial fishermen. I think that program's been in place for probably two or three years, yet it was not implemented in a very effective manner. Fishermen simply received notification in the mail that they were to comply with this. They had to pick up the books for the recording and there was very little public education done by the department to make sure it was effective.

I'm surprised at the high level of compliance, given the shoddy way the program was introduced. Did you make any inquiries about that at all, or did you just look at the gross numbers?

Mr. Geoffrey Robins: We just looked at the numbers and the response. I think your point's well taken, and hopefully the department will be looking at the whole area as a result of its new policy.

Mr. John Cummins: Contrary to my questions, I think you've done a great report here. I just want to acknowledge that.

Mr. Geoffrey Robins: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to thank the gentlemen for coming. I find your report quite interesting, and your east coast shellfish comments last year were very useful. You raised some flags for us that I thought were important. I would say the same about the Pacific salmon issue.

You've done audits in the east and you've done audits in the west, and things don't seem to be getting a lot different. I'm just wondering if it's your role, or do you ever do audits on the departmental personnel? Do you do audits on the number of people and productivity? Do you ever give consideration to the structure of departments and whether they should be realigned, reassigned, or decentralized? I don't know if I'm wading outside of your jurisdiction here, but these are questions that we as a committee have raised over the last couple of years. We made some strong recommendations about them in one of our reports, and I'm just wondering what your observations are.

• 1020

We've heard substantial talk here again this morning about consultations with stakeholders, but it never seems to make a difference. I'm wondering if the real problem is the geographic gap between the east coast and Ottawa and the west coast and Ottawa. Is that the real problem? I'm just wondering if you could make some comments on that.

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, I do share many of Mr. Matthews' concerns. As he indicated, we have conducted a number of audits of DFO in the last few years, and we have been coming up with some significant deficiencies, whether that be on the east coast or the west coast. One has to wonder why. Is there a common thread or a common cause with regard to the difficulties we've been raising? I'm asking myself that very question.

We have other audits planned in the next year or two, which will shed further light on this, I hope. But I would like at some point to come back either to the committee or to the House with an analysis of what might be some of the common causes of the problems we've been discovering. What we do see is that the department goes too much from crisis to crisis. It's more in a crisis management mode as opposed to a mode in which it's planning things and sticking to a plan that has been developed with proper consultation and so on.

So we're asking ourselves some of the same questions. Are there other fundamental or structural issues that contribute to what we've been reporting in individual chapters? I hope to be able to provide members with a little more insight into that within the next year or so.

The Chair: Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I'd like to focus for a moment on two paragraphs in chapter 20 which could serve as a blueprint for a fisheries strategy for both the west and east coats. In paragraph 20.80, you observe that the department has committed itself to reducing capacity in the seine, gillnet and troll fisheries, but you also noted that it has not set specific targets for fleet reduction. This may be somewhat technical, but given the audit tools available to you, even though you may not have had the time to do so this time around, I think it's important that we decide on the best approach once and for all. When we talk with the fishers, we see that there are different schools of thought. What is the gear of choice? Which type of gear will enable us to devise the optimal strategy from an ecological standpoint? We need to have the tools with which to make decisions.

I'm comparing this to what is happening in the east coast fishery, where the problems have yet to be resolved, if ever you come back and do a study on the management of groundfish such as cod, especially when this fishery is set to reopen. Questions are being raised as to whether it is preferable to use trawl lines, gillnets or mobile gear. Considering that there is very little quota to go around, the situation has resulted in endless arguments between proponents of the two schools of thought.

That's why I'm wondering if there aren't any management tools of some kind that could be used to address the problems raised in paragraph 20.80 before we actually proceed to establish an independent allocation board, as proposed in paragraph 20.86. We would then have clear guidelines that we could issue to the people who will be independently allocating quota. Otherwise, how will they go about this task?

I'd like the Auditor General to comment on this point.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Desautels or Mr. Robins.

• 1025

Mr. Geoffrey Robins: Mr. Chairman, I think, as we expressed earlier, the point is well taken. They certainly do need to look at all of the various elements before they come to any final decision on the size and structure of the fleet. I think that's very true. I think those sorts of decisions should be taken in consultation with the fishers themselves. All we can go on at this point is that there's every indication the department intends to do that. It's an issue you may wish to take up with the department to see what their plans are in moving in that direction.

Certainly, these are all issues that need to be taken into account in addition to the actual number of licences that are being retired. As you mentioned, selective fishing and the types of gear—all these things must be taken into account before any final decisions are made with regard to what the commercial fleet will look like in the future.

The Chair: Mr. Provenzano.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Just hold on. I'll allow him a very short question, but it is to be brief.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: When you conducted this year's audit, were you able to determine what the department was basing itself on when it proposed to establish an allocation board? Was it basing itself on the discussion paper released by the department in December 1998 and entitled An Allocation Framework for Pacific Salmon 1999-20005?

Will the elements of this new policy help us to resolve part of the problem or are we still at the improvisation stage?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Robins.

Mr. Geoffrey Robins: Mr. Chairman, I think certainly the allocation issue has to be resolved before we can make real progress in the other area. There is a document, as you indicated, that was released in August 1999, which is the allocation framework for Pacific salmon. But they will be introducing other policy documents that will also refer to allocation by next spring, I think.

But the intricacies of these things are to be worked out. They're in the future. We've looked at the past. I think they're questions rightfully to be raised with the department.

The Chair: Mr. Provenzano.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The information, Mr. Desautels, you use to make your analysis and your critical recommendations emanates from many sources. Some of that information is undoubtedly based on unadulterated science, and some of it would be information that's managed in some way, so to speak. You and DFO use that information in different ways and in some cases in the same way.

It occurs to me that some of the information that's critical to you and DFO emanates from sources where the personal integrity of the reporter is essential to the veracity and the ultimate use of the information. I'm just wondering whether any analysis has ever been done by your department to categorize those sources of information where personal integrity to one degree or another is involved in the ultimate production of the information you and DFO will use. It seems to me that might be a worthwhile exercise. If we know the extent of that category and perhaps that points out a weakness somewhere in our system, maybe we can't rely so much on personal integrity.

My impression is that there's a lot of that kind of thing involved in our reporting systems, and maybe your recommendations in that regard need to be provided.

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, I will attempt to answer that question. I think it's very fundamental. When we carry out an audit of this nature, which lasts a number of months, we have access to all kinds of information. We have access to departmental information, and we also go outside the department and seek input from other stakeholders or informed sources. We have to be very careful that the information we use is credible. We therefore take steps to ensure this is the case. Whenever we quote information in our reports, although it's not information that we have verified each time, we will not use it unless we feel it is reasonably credible information. I hope we have been successful at doing that.

• 1030

You also raise another important issue that we talked about in our chapter, and that's the integrity, if you wish, and the completeness as well of the information that DFO uses to make its decisions. To go back to the last chapter that we did on the shellfish fishery in the east, I believe we did say before this committee that the department needed to strengthen its scientific capacity so that it did in fact have at hand information that is just as credible, if not more so, as anybody else's information.

I think one of the risks the department runs if it doesn't have very reliable information is that it gets bombarded by information from other sources, and at the end of the day people don't know whose information is the better information. I therefore think it's important for the department to give itself the right tools to make sure the information it uses is beyond challenge. I guess it's never totally beyond challenge, but it has to be as good as it can get. I think that will enable us to make decisions that are more sound, but also to be able to be less vulnerable to other people who come with their own sets of figures to pursue their own agenda.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Mr. Chair, I guess I could get even more basic with my question.

Every system has its cheaters. I guess what I'm asking you, as the Auditor General, is what analysis you have made in those areas in which people can cheat, especially in the area of fundamental reporting and the information that is generated from that. What have you done as an Auditor General to identify those areas in which people can cheat and to make recommendations as to what the government is doing about that ability, that weakness in the system, to allow the cheating?

Mr. Geoffrey Robins: Mr. Chairman, I would just make two points. First of all, there is a transparent process now with respect to the evaluation of scientific information in the department. In that respect, the situation has improved greatly over the last few years. In assessing scientific data that's available from the department, they bring in outside experts. These are usually from academia or elsewhere. They're recognized experts in their field, and they do have an opportunity to review the departmental data and make observations that perhaps changes ultimately can be made to those documents.

It's an open process. Stakeholders are encouraged to attend as well, although I understand it's difficult for time, etc., in terms of being available. But I think one thing the department has done is to try to make the process as open as possible so that we can bring in reliable scientific information from other sources and evaluate it so that at least we're happy we're getting the best possible interpretation of data, if you like, that's available at that point in time.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: It's your base data that I'm worried about.

Mr. Geoffrey Robins: I think the other point perhaps with the Pacific salmon is the monitoring data and catch data. Together they are, I suppose, a difficult area. Certainly I think they need to make some improvements, but I don't know how you can do that other than by having somebody leaning over your shoulder every minute.

If they are going to manage, we can use the term “micro-manage”, if you like, but I use that very carefully. The fish stocks are dwindling, and you have to be very careful about how you manage them if you're not to lose them. They're going to need some very accurate data, and the point you raise is a very important one. That data has to be good. They have to rely on not only good scientific data, but good data from the stakeholders themselves. As we've said, perhaps a better relationship with stakeholders—the conviction that stakeholders feel the department is acting in their interests—would help that whole process become more effective.

• 1035

The Chair: I take it you're saying the monitoring and catch data leave a lot to be desired?

Mr. Stoffer, and then a final question from Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before my dance partner Mr. Cummins and I get into it here, I just wanted to say that yesterday the department was leaning toward a natural occurrence in terms of the lack of salmon that came up the river, in terms of what you mentioned here of the declining ocean survival. Our point is quite clear that the government of the day, through its DFO, has a responsibility to look after those people who are concerned with this resource, like it did with the Red River flood of Winnipeg and the Saguenay floods, as well as the prairie farmers. That's our point of view, but I certainly don't ever want to excuse the DFO for blaming it all on one thing.

We know the Reform Party's view on global warming. They don't believe it exists, but I believe it does, which leads me to my question.

Mr. John Cummins: I believe in greenhouse gases.

The Chair: Order.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I knew that would get a rise out of him.

I'll get to my question for you, gentlemen.

You talked about the science in terms of the oceans and everything, but did you do any of your consultations with scientists from the environment department and with those from other countries—for example, Washington or wherever—to determine the effects on the ocean survival? Does the DFO or does the government have enough resources in order to do proper research in what is so desperately needed in terms of the global warming effect on our oceans?

Mr. Geoffrey Robins: Mr. Chairman, on the first point, we perhaps do not consult individuals as much, but we certainly do look at papers that are published in reputable journals with respect to those subjects. We do therefore look at what is being said beyond the Canadian borders. We have talked to a fair number of scientists as well outside the DFO, either in the context of seminars or of workshops that we've been invited to, so I think we do get a fairly good picture of what's going on.

As for understanding what's happening and how global warming is going to impact on that, I think we've tried to keep up to date on that. We've tried to get a feeling for what scientists in this country and elsewhere feel about whether there are impacts on what's happening to the oceans. In the process of gathering evidence for the audit, you find other things that are related. For example, we found the impacts of some of the so-called global warming on prey species, on plankton, and everything else, indicate something is indeed happening. Then, because of the food chains, the reliability of small fish on plankton and large fish on small fish, there does seem to be some obvious impact of global warming that ultimately will show up at the top of the food chain, i.e. with the salmon.

So just to answer your question, we do look around as broadly as we can, and we make sure what we're saying is supported by evidence not only in Canada but from other sources.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Gilmour, we have a couple of other items that we have to deal with. That will take 10 to 15 minutes, so if you could, be rapid.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Okay, it's just a very quick one, and then Mr. Duncan will do a quick follow-up.

Paragraph 20.60 says:

At the time of our audit the Science Branch had received catch data for 1997 from fewer than 15 percent of the bands that were required to collect it.

Now, that follows on what Mr. Provenzano was saying, when you have stakeholders reporting on themselves and less than 15% are complying. When you say there were holes in the information, were they mainly from the aboriginal sector or were they right across the board?

Mr. Geoffrey Robins: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I think there are problems across the board in terms of obtaining good catch data.

Secondly, from the AFS point of view, it's a problem probably with respect to DFO not laying down the ground rules, developing the guidelines and the standards appropriately, and following up to see that they get the information. But as we've indicated, there are other elements encroaching there. They're involved in treaty talks, and sometimes they're reluctant to tell the department what they're actually catching. It's a complex situation with respect to the aboriginal fisheries strategy.

The Chair: Mr. Duncan.

• 1040

Mr. John Duncan: When this committee was in Prince Edward Island a couple of weeks ago we heard from one of the bands in terms of reporting catches. The reported catch was, I think, 50,000 pounds. The locals, not that were involved in the commercial fishery, were very.... They thought the number was probably double that.

When we asked the local chief about whether third-party auditable standards would be something they would be open to in terms of reporting returns, the response was, well, that would mean we didn't trust them.

It occurs to me that unless there's an insistence from DFO that the data is auditable and that there's a similar level of confidence in the data from all sources, then the data as set is actually totally compromised and useless.

Is that the kind of recommendation that we would anticipate might follow from the Auditor General in a future study, or was there anything that came out in this study that would indicate that this was a flaw in the system?

Mr. Geoffrey Robins: Yes, I think you'll find in the chapter that we've been very critical of the whole system from the point of view of the standards that have been established for this work—following up, gathering the information, auditing—to ensure that you have the best result.

I think there is an awful lot to be done here, as we've said in the chapter. Indeed, the department seems to have accepted the fact that it needs to do a lot of work in this area to not only ensure that it gets good results but also, as you say, to be seen to be getting good results so that it can manage more effectively.

We have raised that issue with the department. As you know, after every audit we do a follow-up, usually within the two years after the audit. This is one of the things we'd want to look at very carefully to see that they've now established a program, along the lines you're suggesting, to ensure that the information that's being generated by the program is good information.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Cummins, 30 seconds.

Mr. John Cummins: I look forward to the follow-up on data collection and wonder whether you have any intentions of doing some type of audit on the enforcement capabilities of the department.

Mr. Denis Desautels: We didn't go as far in this audit as the area of enforcement, although we do talk a lot about catch monitoring. We didn't see that as being as big a problem in the Pacific as we'd seen it in Atlantic Canada, but it's not something we would necessarily rule out.

I think in future audits we could pursue that, and perhaps as part of the follow-up we'll do on this one we'll go deeper into the whole area of enforcement as well as simple catch monitoring.

The Chair: Just in closing, I think a number of very valid points have been raised here today on the consultation process and the measuring and the data shortcomings, etc. If you go through your document, you'll find the department basically does agree that there needs to be action in those areas, but I think all of us who have been on this committee for some while recognize that coastal communities have a very serious problem, and that time is of the essence.

I don't know whether some committee members want to make a point on this, but you did indicate that you're going to do an audit, or look into doing an investigation, on whether or not there's a fundamental structural problem. I don't want to speak for the committee, but certainly from my own point of view, I think that should be done with due haste. We've been looking at this ever since I've been on this committee, and others have been here longer than I have. We always come back to the same problems of poor consultation and not the right measures.

• 1045

Yes, there may be agreement from the department, but the time for action and getting this done in a comprehensive way is, as Mr. Matthews says, yesterday.

I don't know whether the committee wants to agree on that point, but we certainly thank you for your information today, and we'd encourage you to maybe look at that structural situation and see if there is a problem there, because it has to be dealt with. Coastal communities on both coasts are in trouble—all three, for that matter.

Does anybody want to raise any point on that?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I disagree with that, and if you—

The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for coming. We do have a couple of other items to deal with. We really do appreciate your information and your forthrightness in putting it to us. Thank you.

We discussed some time ago, committee members, the—

An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]

The Chair: No, this is open. It won't matter, I don't think, if it's not in camera.

We discussed travelling as a committee to look at aquaculture, the aboriginal fisheries strategy, and tying in the Oceans Act. I have a motion here; we can get somebody to move it, and then we'll discuss it.

Documents have been sent around the table outlining the costs of that travel and where we would go. I would point out that where it says “Victoria” on the list, that doesn't necessarily mean Victoria. It means that's the starting point, and it would be meetings in the area. Members and the clerk and I have to sit down and fine-tune that as to what locations, what communities, we'd go to.

The basic motion is that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans request an order of reference to travel from February 13 to February 23, 2000 to British Columbia and the State of Washington to commence their comprehensive study on aquaculture and their statutory obligation to undertake a review of the Oceans Act and their study on the aboriginal fisheries strategy, and that the said committee be composed of two Reform members, one Bloc Québécois member, one NDP member, one PC member, and five Liberal members, and the necessary staff to accompany the committee.

Also, in terms of costs and discussions, we're proposing that we wouldn't have the full component of the staff in the small communities. We'd have to operate with one translator in the small communities, but in the larger ones—Vancouver, etc.—which have the facilities to do full-scale translation, we could work that.

John.

Mr. John Duncan: I may be mistaken, but I think when you were reading the motion, you omitted the fact that this is looking at aquaculture.

The Chair: No, I said it.

Mr. John Duncan: Did you say it?

The Chair: Unless I tripped over my words, but aquaculture is certainly in it.

Mr. John Duncan: Okay.

The Chair: Does somebody want to move that motion?

Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I have a question first. In terms of the total cost estimate on the flights, I was thinking that if the committee moves the motion in the positive and if the dates are confirmed, then the clerk of the committee can contact the airline and get excursion fares at a lot less than that.

The Chair: Yes, that's what we were saying. So the cost could probably be cut down considerably on that basis.

Mr. John Cummins: And for us, we're home, so you don't need to include us in that travel. We'll be home anyway.

The Chair: I figured you'd be vacationing in P.E.I. or something, but okay.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. John Cummins: We could do that too. I get tired of listening to your constituents complaining, though—not about you, but about the Liberal government.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Oh, that's good to know. I was worried it might be me.

Does somebody want to move that motion?

Mr. Bill Matthews: I have a question first.

The Chair: Go ahead, Bill.

Mr. Bill Matthews: The House will be sitting then, won't it?

The Chair: Yes, it will.

Mr. Bill Matthews: We're looking at a ten-day jaunt. You have to keep the committee together for that length of time. You saw what happened in the last one, when people started to drift off about Wednesday night to Thursday. I'm just thinking ten days....

The Chair: Well, the idea behind that, Bill, is to travel that far to try to do it in as reasonable a way as possible, and do it pretty intensively. We've been promising for a long time to look at the AFS and haven't done it. We'd better follow through on that commitment. And then it gets into the aquaculture the subcommittee is looking at. It's a start on it.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Oh, I'm just raising the concern.

The Chair: And we only need five members as well from our side.

• 1050

We'll take the motion and then discuss it. Is somebody willing to move that motion?

It's moved by John Cummins.

Lawrence.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): I don't see the AFS anywhere in those hearings.

The Chair: It's in the motion and in the overall document.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: So where is it going to fit into the draft?

The Chair: Mr. O'Brien, that's a draft of where we go on that one. It's mainly saying aquaculture, but on the main travel estimate we name aquaculture, the aboriginal fishing strategy, and the Oceans Act.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: So the aboriginal fishing strategy will be discussed on the west coast trip?

The Chair: Yes. It's in the motion as well.

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, you have had a standing offer for two years now to Labrador.

The Chair: Yes, we're getting to it.

Mr. John Cummins: Is that in Newfoundland or Quebec?

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: It's Labrador. Understand my emphasis.

The Chair: We need a second motion. You have before you the travel budget. Did this one go around?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chair: Could I have somebody move that the travel budget be approved?

It's moved by Carmen.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: It's on the condition that the clerk, or whoever, look at the excursion fares on this.

The Chair: We agreed to that. That will be done.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

The Chair: The clerk and I and some others need to sit down and look at sites.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: As a point on the excursion fares, if you do excursion fares and somebody has to break loose to come back for some reason....

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I could work on that.

The Chair: That can be looked at.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: You must be talking about Canadian Airlines. They may not be around then.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Okay, there's just one other point. On the report we're working on, on the Marshall decision and the management of the Atlantic fisheries, the east coast fisheries, we'll be talking about that report tomorrow, but the clerk will need some lead time. When we present that report, does the committee want a press conference after the report is tabled?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Yes.

The Chair: All right, then the clerk will arrange that.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: When are we going to do that?

A voice: Is that the dissenting opinion ones too?

The Chair: If there are dissenting opinions, that's their option.

A voice: There are always dissenting opinions.

The Chair: Not in this committee.

A voice: Some positive ones.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'd like to give advance notice, the 48-hour notice we agreed to.

With the west coast concern by the Auditor General with the fact that yesterday, under freedom of information, briefing notes were released to the current minister, more than half of which were whited out by the department.... Why the department would white out half the briefing notes to the new minister is beyond me, but I would like to give 48 hours' notice that we call in the minister next week, if possible, to discuss not only the concerns of the west coast but of the east coast as well, especially those briefing documents, and what they're doing in terms of the east coast as well on the Marshall decision.

Mr. John Cummins: How about the north coast too?

The Chair: Do you have it in writing?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: No. I'll give it to you in 48 hours.

Mr. Bill Matthews: On 48 hours' notice we'll leak the report, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: No, we're not talking about the report.

Basically, Peter, you're proposing that we make a request that the minister appear before the committee some time next week. We have to finish our report first.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Next week, yes.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, for what purposes?

Mr. John Cummins: To explain why he's still breathing.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: To explain why John Cummins becomes John Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: You want a reason? One is to discuss what the Auditor General said, and the second is, why were half of his briefing notes whited out?

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: What's the point?

The Chair: He wouldn't. That's access to information.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: But the point is, why? He's the new Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Shouldn't every piece of document be given to the new minister? Why would his own department white out information?

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: How do you know that?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: We got the documents, 434 pages of briefing notes, half of it whited out.

The Chair: Peter, why don't you ask the access to information commissioner? I'm sure it's the access to information people or the department on their behalf who whited them out. They weren't that way when they went to the minister.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Let's bring them in and ask them.

The Chair: Anyway, give us the motion in writing tomorrow and we'll deal with it.

• 1055

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.