PACC Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES COMPTES PUBLICS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 12, 1998

• 1535

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My apologies for being a few minutes late.

Orders of the day are pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), consideration of chapter 28 of the December 1997 report of the Auditor General of Canada, “Fisheries and Oceans Canada—Pacific Salmon: Sustainability of the Resource Base”.

We have witnesses today from the Office of the Auditor General: Mr. Denis Desautels, the Auditor General of Canada; Mr. John McCullough, principal of audit operations; and Mr. Geoffrey Robins, director of audit operations.

From Fisheries and Oceans Canada, we have Mr. Wayne Wouters, the deputy minister; Ms. Cheryl Fraser, assistant deputy minister of policy; Mr. Scott Parsons, assistant deputy minister of science; and Ms. Donna Petrachenko, regional director general, Pacific region.

Before we get into the opening statement, the clerk has just distributed a report of the steering subcommittee regarding some issues. If we can get through this within a few minutes, we'll adopt this and then move into a regular meeting. If we have to debate the report, I would suggest we leave it perhaps until the end of the meeting, but it would be nice if we could get it out of the way at this time.

The Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts met on February 3 and 10, 1998, and agreed to recommend the following:

One, that the members of the committee meet with the members of a delegation from the public accounts committee of the Parliament of Sri Lanka on February 25 at 3.30 p.m. for approximately one hour for a brief presentation and an exchange of information before proceeding with the briefing by the auditor general that day;

Two, that the members and staff of the committee attend a reception and dinner co-hosted by the chair of the committee and the auditor general in honour of the visit of the delegation from the public accounts committee of the Parliament of Sri Lanka to be held on February 23, 1998, and that the cost to the committee be charged to the committee's hospitality budget; and

Three, that the members of the committee meet with the members of a delegation from the Parliament of Vietnam on February 18, 1998, at 3.30 p.m. for approximately one hour, before proceeding with the briefing scheduled for that day.

That has been moved by Mr. Harb. Is there any debate, or shall I move to the vote?

Did you have some questions, Mr. Laurin?

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Chairman, isn't there some inconsistency here, given that a reception is being offered for the representatives of Sri Lanka while nothing is planned for the Vietnamese representatives?

[English]

The Chairman: I'll ask Mr. Fournier to respond to that.

[Translation]

The Committee Clerk: That is a good question, but the request to meet the Vietnamese delegation was received only yesterday. That is organized by the Parliamentary Centre. This is not organized by the House of Commons. It is not a meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. This is a delegation of parliamentarians from all committees who asked to spend one hour with the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. They will also meet a number of other committees.

Mr. René Laurin: Thank you.

[English]

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: As I remember, we had a meeting scheduled for Tuesday, February 24, at 4.30 p.m. I understand the Minister of Finance would like to talk to us around that time, so I think perhaps we should cancel the meeting on February 24; that's budget afternoon.

We didn't have anything scheduled for that particular day at this point in time, so if all the members and the auditor general wish to take note, there will be no meeting on Tuesday, February 24.

Mr. Desautels, do you have an opening statement?

• 1540

Mr. Denis Desautels (Auditor General of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity for me and my colleagues to present the results of our audit of the management of the Pacific salmon resource base by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Our examination of the sustainability of Pacific salmon is to be reported actually in two phases. The first phase of the audit is to examine the conservation and protection of salmon habitat with emphasis on the DFO's Pacific region habitat-management activities. In 1996-97, this area accounted for $10.3 million of the region's total fisheries management budget of approximately $88 million, which represented about 11.6%.

The second phase of this examination will look at salmon fisheries management, including fishing plants and the allocation of resources to major users. The results of that second phase will be reported in 1999.

Let me start by saying I'm concerned that not enough attention is being paid to ensuring sufficient healthy freshwater habitats that are so fundamental to the survival of salmon species and stocks. Salmon must be able to return, as we know, to the rivers and streams where they were born in order to breed and grow and then continue their life cycle by returning to their ocean environment.

There are many threats to this life cycle. Some are uncontrollable, such as climate change and marine survival, but other threats to habitat, such as urbanization, agriculture, mining and forestry, as well as fishing effort, can be managed and controlled by governments and the public.

The return of salmon among many of the major stocks of sockeye, pink, and chum have continued to be strong. However, this is not the case with chinook and coho, which are returning to spawn in diminishing numbers. In the case of some coho stocks, their numbers are alarmingly low.

[Translation]

It is the numerous smaller stocks of all species, but particularly coho, that we believe are vital to protect genetic diversity and ensure the sustainability of the species as a whole.

In our chapter we point out that information on the status of salmon stocks exists for only 4,900 (or 60%) of the over 8,100 stocks identified in B.C. and the Yukon. Of the 4,900, over 700 are said to be at risk.

The Department has chosen to direct the major part of its efforts towards the larger, commercial stocks at the expense of the smaller ones. But it is the protection of these smaller stocks and the genetic diversity that they represent that can act as insurance against the growing threats to the sustainability of the species. The Committee may wish, therefore, to encourage the Department to devote increased management attention to smaller stocks in order to protect genetic diversity.

The Department implemented the Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat in 1986. Along with the habitat provisions of the Fisheries Act, the Policy gives DFO a strong mandate that supports sustainability and genetic diversity.

However, despite the Policy's goal of «net gain» of production habitat, habitat continues to be lost. The Department estimates that loss of habitat probably accounts for 20 to 30% of the disappearance of small stocks of salmon in B.C. The full extent of habitat loss is difficult to determine because information is in various formats and locations and often is not readily accessible. The Committee may wish to enquire how the Department plans to obtain and use better information on stocks and habitat.

Also, Parliament is not getting the full picture, as there is no requirement for the Department to report to it on the overall status of salmon habitat.

Under the Habitat Policy, projects that will result in habitat destruction or alteration are referred to the Department for approval. DFO uses this referral process as its primary means of conserving habitat.

• 1545

[English]

We have two main concerns with this process.

First, the department needs to give more attention to upfront integrated resource and land-use planning initiatives.

Second, greater attention needs to be given to post-project monitoring and follow-up, not only to determine compliance with approved terms and conditions, but also to assess the effects of habitat management decisions and performance toward the achievement of no net loss of habitat.

While the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for marine and inland fisheries, provincial legislation controls land and water use, which affects salmon freshwater habitat. Thus, the support and cooperation of the B.C. government, along with municipal governments, other stakeholders, and the public is essential to the conservation and restoration of habitat.

The federal and provincial governments have been working together in numerous areas of fisheries management under the 1985 general fisheries agreement. The 1997 Canada-B.C. agreement on the management of Pacific salmon fishery issues provides a basis to build on this cooperative effort.

I would like to stress the need for future agreements with other levels of government to include an accountability framework that will allow performance and results to be measured to ensure that DFO's mandated responsibilities are being met. Such a framework was absent from the 1985 agreement.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to acknowledge the cooperative and constructive way the staff of my office and those of the department worked during this assignment.

We know there are many demands on the department in the Pacific region, and we recognize that DFO is devoting a lot of effort, both on its own and with outside partners, to the goal of conserving salmon habitat. However, our audit does point out that more needs to be done to curb the loss of salmon stocks in habitat in order to help ensure the future sustainability of the salmon resource that is so important to the people of B.C. and Canada.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening statement. My colleagues and I would be quite pleased to answer all your questions.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Desautels.

Mr. Wouters, you have a report that you brought to us today. Because we like to have your reports a week in advance and also have them limited to five minutes—as you can see, there are many members around here and they all have many questions—I wonder if you can summarize your report within the next five minutes so that we can get into the question and answer period.

Mr. Wayne Wouters (Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be brief.

Thank you for giving us an opportunity to respond to chapter 28 of the auditor general's report.

On behalf of the department, I can say that we welcome this report because it underlines the importance of salmon habitat and the pressing need to protect it. Conservation, which includes protecting fish habitat, is a top priority for both the minister and the department. DFO has emphasized conservation in its approach to managing the fishery and fish habitat.

Our goal has been, and continues to be, to ensure the sustainable use of our fisheries resources and to find ways to better protect habitat. We continue to work with others, including the B.C. government, to address the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead and to improve all our approaches.

We also welcome the report because it acknowledges the immense pressure on fish habitat in B.C., as well the tremendous challenges we face in protecting it amid rapid urbanization and a largely resource-based economy.

The loss of salmon habitat is one of our major concerns, in particular its contribution to the decline of some coho stocks. Much of the damage to fish habitat occurred during the first hundred years of settlement. The report notes that we have made significant progress toward rectifying that damage and protecting fish habitat during the last two decades. In general, the report found that we are successfully preserving habitat from large industrial developments. However, numerous small development projects present a challenge in preventing habitat loss.

We launched a new $15-million initiative last year for salmon habitat restoration enhancement over and above what we were already spending. DFO is also devoting an even greater effort to the restoration of historically damaged habitat.

The report recommends that we review the effectiveness of our habitat policy and habitat management program. We are currently undertaking a strategic review of the program in B.C. to determine how best to achieve the department's mandate. Work is under way to see how we can better coordinate our habitat initiatives with the provincial government through the Canada-B.C. memorandum of understanding.

• 1550

These reviews will provide us with an indication of the effectiveness of the project assessment referral process. The results of these reviews will provide direction for a more effective, better coordinated habitat management program.

As the report points out, DFO relies on the support of a number of public and private groups to deliver its mandate. We value partnerships because we recognize that we cannot protect fish habitat by ourselves and because we know that partnerships help foster awareness and a strong stewardship ethic. We agree with the report's recommendation that we encourage more involvement from these groups and we intend to continue to develop and strengthen our partnership with them.

Conserving, protecting, and restoring fish habitat in B.C. is a complex job that demands the cooperation of all levels of government, industry, first nations, and the community at large.

The new $15 million habitat restoration and salmon enhancement program makes community partnerships a priority. By building and strengthening partnerships now, we can help ensure that this work continues into the future.

The provincial government of course is a major partner in habitat protection. The report notes that provincial government support is essential. We completely agree, because many of the regulatory decisions that can have negative impacts on salmon habitat are provincial decisions.

As the report recommends, we will seek closer cooperation with the province in such areas as habitat restoration, land use planning, and development review. Stronger federal-provincial ties will help to improve efficiency and reduce duplication.

One of the key objectives of the Canada-B.C. agreement is to improve habitat protection. This agreement will also help us improve how we manage and share information.

The report cites the success of our public involvement program, particularly the salmon enhancement program, and says the momentum established by SEP and the Green Plan needs to continue. Again, we agree, and we intend to build on these successes to inform and involve the public in planning, stewardship, and habitat restoration.

Public involvement has long been one of DFO's major goals. For example, our salmon enhancement program has promoted community involvement for more than twenty years. Our community advisers work closely with about 10,000 volunteers to rebuild salmon stocks through hatcheries and stream protection. The report says the program is:

...making both a direct contribution to habitat management and an indirect one by sensitizing citizens to the importance of salmon and salmon habitat.

The report also cites DFO's stream keepers program, which trains and supports citizens in monitoring, protecting and restoring local streams and watersheds. We also partner with first nations and community groups to enhance salmon habitat.

DFO has promoted the development of watershed stewardship groups throughout the province. Many of these groups have become self-sustaining and will serve as advocates for fish habitat when their communities face development decisions.

Partnerships are essential in our habitat restoration work. These projects bring together the provincial government, B.C. Hydro, forest companies, fishers, first nations, and landowners. The Pacific region is in the forefront when it comes to educating and empowering local groups and stakeholders about new approaches to habitat protection.

DFO has published often with other agencies and other interest groups the stewardship series of guidelines. We also work with teachers and school districts to teach children about salmon and their habitat and how to protect them with hands-on experience by raising salmon in classrooms and releasing them to local streams.

We have forged an innovative partnership with the Pacific Salmon Foundation. We contribute some of the revenue from the salmon conservation stamp to the foundation and it funds community-based projects to conserve, restore, and enhance salmon and their habitat.

The report recommends that we devote more resources to compliance, monitoring, and follow-up to assess the effects of our habitat management decisions, and here we are also responding.

DFO views enforcement as a crucial component of an effective habitat management program. Over the past two years the Pacific region has implemented a coordinated effective program to enforce the habitat provisions of the Fisheries Act. We have taken steps to improve coordination among our enforcement officers and professional staff. We're also working with the province to integrate the efforts of both governments, and we are examining ways to get better results from the time and money spent on enforcement and to use communications to deter violations.

• 1555

In conclusion, DFO feels the report contained many worthwhile recommendations. The department is already moving to implement them, and DFO is committed to ensuring that we have a robust and diverse salmon resource for the future.

We're now pleased, also, to answer any questions you may have.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Wouters.

Mr. Philip Mayfield, eight minutes, please.

Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to begin by thanking the members of the auditor general's department, and indeed the auditor general, for the report they've brought, and the members of the department for coming to be with us here today.

The report the department brings is most encouraging, but I come from a part of the country where we have not seen the department's activities in quite such a positive attitude. What I find most encouraging is the desire of your department to cooperate with all the stakeholders for the enhancement of the salmon. But I want to talk to you about some of the problems we have had.

So often these audits and studies are done in the lower mainland, at the southern end of the Fraser River, whereas I want to talk about some of the smaller stocks and some of the problems we have in maintaining those stocks.

I come from Cariboo—Chilcotin. Williams Lake is my hometown, and about an hour's drive east of there are both Likely, at the end of Quesnel Lake, and Horsefly. You may be familiar with these names; I'm not sure. There are some spawning channels at Horsefly that have been developed for the enhancement of the sockeye salmon. Last summer those channels were not open to the fish. I received a report from local residents saying, in their own words, that these fish were virtually climbing up the dry banks of that stream to lay their eggs, because the channels were not opened. And this was a large run.

I'm disappointed to say that the response I got was that probably there were more fish than were needed. But this is very discouraging for people who take a lot of pride in the fish. They look at these fish as an important part of our environment.

I am concerned. As we talk about enhancing the salmon, enhancing the environment that these fish live in, I find the department itself is not particularly cooperative with the stakeholders who have an interest in the fish, and in fact are holding people back from doing what should be done. Am I talking about something that makes sense to you, or am I talking about something that is really just an exception?

Mr. Wayne Wouters: I'll let my regional director general speak to the specific issue you raise, which is the Horsefly River habitat project, but again, you raise some very good points. It is absolutely critical, if we are to promote habitat in B.C. and in fact across the country, that we do work very closely and cooperatively with all the stakeholders. That is absolutely essential.

Under the Fisheries Act, as you may know, we have overall responsibility for habitat for those fisheries that are commercially viable. There are many stocks that go beyond that, and therefore we have to work with clients, stakeholders, and the province to help promote habitat in those areas as well. I fully agree, and I hope we will continue to make progress in this area.

I know there are some situations where perhaps we're not as cooperative as we should be, but it's absolutely critical, in my view as a new deputy, that we move down that path and be cooperative to promote habitat enhancement in B.C.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Let me just press on then. In the auditor general's report, he talks about incomplete information and the inaccessibility of this information to members within DFO itself, and there is no accountability, or at least there are no reports to Parliament.

Is part of the difficulty the department has now that it is set up like a series of individual fiefdoms that are not particularly in communication with each other? I want to tell you this: the antagonism that exists between your department and the people I am concerned about in my part of the country who are worried about the fish is real and it's extreme, and I'm sorry about that.

• 1600

Mr. Wayne Wouters: Again, I appreciate your comments about our relations, because as I say, I think that's something we need to make some progress on.

In terms of the overall information base, of course it again comes down to what we have overall management responsibilities for under the Fisheries Act, which is for those fish stocks. We promote the habitat of those fish stocks where there is a substantial fishery. Therefore we are not able to gather all the information for those areas where we don't have direct responsibility. This is why—

Mr. Philip Mayfield: If I could, sir, I'd like...my difficulty is that I have eight minutes.

I would like to ask you this in the most positive way. What can I take back to my constituents about how they may approach your department? How can they find out how they can cooperate in preserving fish habitat and working for salmon enhancement? How can they cooperate with fisheries and hatcheries for the minor stocks, as exists at the old Likely hatchery and fish channels? I'm really interested in knowing how people can take part in the cooperation you're extending in your report to this committee, sir.

Mr. Wayne Wouters: Mr. Chairman, to answer the honourable member, let me suggest to you that we do have a fisheries office in Kamloops, and if you or any of your constituents have specific concerns, I would ask that they come in to that office and raise those concerns with my staff. Through that, I will get a report and ensure that we do move on some of those issues that are of concern, because—

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Would you include the Prince George office in that too, sir?

Mr. Wayne Wouters: Definitely.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I wonder why.

The Chairman: You have two more minutes, Mr. Mayfield.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

In the report it's mentioned that all the recommendations have been accepted. What concerns me about that statement, or my version of that statement, is that without real specificity in responding to the auditor general's concerns, I'm concerned that this may be less than full acceptance of what the auditor general is requesting. I'm wondering if it would be possible for you when meeting these concerns of the auditor general...if there is a report would you be willing to supply it to this committee?

Mr. Wayne Wouters: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated in my opening remarks, we as a department are undertaking a strategic review of our whole effort in this area. We are also working with the Government of B.C. through the Canada-B.C. MOU, essentially to determine what they're doing in this area on protection and enforcement and what we're doing and how we can better coordinate our efforts.

Mr. Chairman, once we complete our review I'd be prepared to come back to this committee and summarize the results of that and what we think would be the next steps or recommendations to proceed.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mayfield.

Mr. Laurin, am I correct in saying you're going to split your time with Mr. Desrochers? If so, you have four minutes, please.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, as my colleague has no questions and I have only one, the rest of my time can be given to the Reform representatives, who are particularly interested in the situation in Western Canada.

Since the adoption of the Habitat Policy in 1986, the Department has never produced any reports on the effectiveness of that policy as a way of conserving or protecting the habitat.

Would the Department be prepared to produce at regular intervals such reports which would also contain a performance appraisal of each of the measures implemented to conserve and protect the salmon habitat? Would the Department be prepared to table such reports?

• 1605

[English]

Mr. Wayne Wouters: In response to the honourable member, as we have just seen, the auditor general has reviewed our overall policy and has basically come up with some recommendations. I see that very much as a report that has been produced on our activities, and this is what we are now proceeding to respond to. In answer to the honourable member's question, I think the auditor general's report is a very good one, a comprehensive one, and given that we have that report, I would basically like to move forward and respond to the various recommendations that are outlined in it.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Am I to conclude, sir, that you are not inclined to submit such a report and that unless the Auditor General, perhaps in five years—because he audits the departments about every five years—raises some points about the performance of your activities, the department will not prepare a report? In other words, you will continue to implement measures without asking whether or not they are effective, whether the policies produce a good performance and whether the objectives are met? I must conclude that you have no such concern, unless the Auditor General raises it.

[English]

Mr. Wayne Wouters: If I could just clarify my previous comments, I think the auditor general has produced a good report. We have to respond, and one of the ways we are going to respond to that is to undertake a strategic review of our initiatives in this area. Once that review is completed, as I indicated, we would be prepared to come back to this committee and outline the results of that review and what we think we need to do to improve our overall policy in this area. So in response, yes we are prepared to do that review.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: More specifically, I would like to know whether you would be prepared to produce regular reports showing Parliament to what extent your objectives were met, without the Auditor General telling you to do so.

[English]

Mr. Wayne Wouters: Mr. Chairman, we do have an annual report to Parliament each year on enforcement. We could expand that report to include essentially our whole policy on habitat and what we're doing in that area.

So in answer to the honourable member, yes we can do that by basically expanding the report to Parliament on enforcement.

Mr. René Laurin: Merci.

The Chairman: You're going to pass, Mr. Desrochers?

Mr. Grose, I understand you're splitting your time with Mr. Myers, so you have four minutes.

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Wouters, I'm troubled. I didn't get this information from you until today. What I like to do the night before the meeting is to sit down with any submissions from the department and compare them with what the auditor general says. Sometimes they don't scan very well. I haven't had this chance and I feel like I'm a fish out of water.

I don't know an awful lot about salmon, but I know a lot more than I did the day before yesterday. What bothers me is that you seem to write a very cheerful report here from scanning it, and the auditor general says that accountability is lacking. I think that's all I want to say about it and I leave the fish part of it to the people who know more about it than I do, but I'd like an answer to that. He mentions accountability reporting and says cooperation should be reviewed. You say cooperation is just fine and everything is working fine. I am a little troubled.

Mr. Wayne Wouters: First, in response to the honourable member, I would apologize to the committee for not getting my comments to you earlier. We'll endeavour to do that more quickly in the future.

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): We hope we don't see you in the future.

Mr. Wayne Wouters: There you go.

• 1610

In response to the question of whether we are perhaps seen to be a bit too optimistic, I think we are. I know we have a long way to go in terms of our partnerships and working with the various stakeholders, but I think we are making progress.

We have reached an agreement with the Government of B.C. to establish the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council. That council will have the responsibility of reviewing the status of the stocks, like the FRCC in Atlantic Canada. As well, it will have the responsibility of assessing the overall state of habitat in British Columbia. That's a major step forward. It has not been done in B.C. in the past, and it is one very major initiative where we are cooperating with the Government of British Columbia.

Also, the Canada-B.C. MOU by itself is a major step forward in how we manage the fishery, and particularly habitat, in British Columbia. It is a very cooperative approach that we are working on with B.C.

We're also trying to do the same with the various stakeholders. We've recently announced the restoration salmon enhancement program, and through that program partnership is clearly a major objective. So I think we are making progress and we will continue to make progress in this area.

Mr. Ivan Grose: I have one more short question. Would it be possible, if we could slot you in, for you to come back in 30 or 40 days with a more comprehensive report and maybe some better tracking on just when you intend to do some of these things that the auditor general recommends?

Mr. Wayne Wouters: Mr. Chairman, what we could do, to answer the honourable member's question, is provide a timeframe in which many of these initiatives are moving forward. I would like to undertake the strategic review, which will take us a bit more time than 30 to 40 days, before we come back. So if we could have your cooperation to undertake that review, we probably will take the summer and early fall. I would say around October we will have completed our review, and we'd like to come back at that time.

The Chairman: If I can just interject, I think the committee will therefore make a decision, or if not, perhaps we would ask the auditor general to append a review when he's tabling his report next year on the other issue, if the committee doesn't revisit, because we know the auditor general is completing a second part of the issue. We may ask Mr. Desautels to summarize the progress on this issue when he tables his other report, or the committee may decide, as Mr. Grose would like, to bring back. We'll discuss that at a later point, but you raised a good point, Mr. Grose.

Mr. Myers.

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Thank you. I have three specific questions to the deputy minister.

In 28.43 of the auditor general's report, your response is that you agree to provide clarification with respect to sustainability and genetic diversity practices. Has that been achieved? Have you already provided that clarification? That was your response to 28.43.

Mr. Wayne Wouters: I will let my ADM Science answer that question.

Mr. Scott Parsons (Assistant Deputy Minister, Science, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The issue of genetic diversity is a complex one, not just with respect to fish, but of course with respect to all species. The auditor general has recommended that more explicit operational objectives be developed, and this is certainly a recommendation we agree with. But I would note that the auditor general, as the chair referred to, is going on to a second phase of this review, in which we're going to look more at the sustainability issues from the entire management of the fishery perspective.

The question of protecting genetic diversity is very much intertwined with the manner in which you manage the salmon fishery, because, as is noted in the auditor general's report, there are something like 9,000 stocks of salmon in British Columbia, and a number of these are threatened. Some of these are weaker stocks, and there is the question: if some of these weaker stocks are lost, what are the long-term implications with respect to the preservation of biodiversity, genetic diversity?

• 1615

We are collaborating with a number of groups on this issue. Next week in Vancouver there is a workshop organized by the World Fisheries Trust, which is looking at the issue of genetic diversity in fisheries, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is participating in that. As well, we are working with aboriginal groups in British Columbia who are concerned about the loss, for example, of some coho stocks on the upper reaches of the Fraser River; in fact, there have been meetings and discussions as recently as this morning on that issue.

Canada, of course, is a party to the convention on biodiversity and is very committed to moving forward on this issue, but I think moving forward on the operational objectives will perhaps depend on the nature of the discussions we have with respect to phase II of this, in terms of practical implications, in terms of fisheries management, or how we can manage the fisheries better to protect genetic diversity.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Thank you.

My second question is on paragraph 28.49, with respect to planning initiatives for development projects with a potential impact on habitat. I wonder why you encourage it, as opposed to require it.

It says staff are “encouraged”, rather than instructed.

Mr. Scott Parsons: I think the auditor general's report does suggest that perhaps insufficient emphasis has been given to planning. It refers to the referral process and the fact that perhaps the major instrument we're using with respect to habitat management is the referral process. Certainly the referral process is a crucial element of this, but I think it's also correct to say that in fact we are engaged in British Columbia in particular in a large number of planning initiatives at watershed levels; for example, the Fraser River Basin Council, watershed bodies on the Fraser River, and many other such groups throughout British Columbia. DFO is a very active participant in those planning processes, and we do regard that as an integral part of our approach to an integrated habitat management.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, do I have time for my third question?

The Chairman: Yes, we'll give you time, Mr. Myers.

Mr. Lynn Myers: My third question is on paragraph 28.85, with respect to reviewing the performance of existing cooperative arrangements.

I understand your internal review and pending results of that, but I wonder what would determine success in terms of cooperation with the province. What benchmarks or what ideas do you have with respect to determining success in this area?

Mr. Wayne Wouters: Mr. Chairman, I think the key for that will be, again, we will want to undertake a review to determine what are the overall factors with which we measure success. But in the end, I think the major objective will be to ensure we have more of the stakeholders involved through the stewardship programs we have, through the various partnership arrangements we've developed, to allow us to make further progress, not only in those areas we directly control but in other areas where perhaps under our legislation we are not able to have as direct a control.

The other real area will be to ensure that we have, as I outlined before, the PFRCC in place, and that through that particular organization, which is made up of those knowledgeable in this area, we'll be able to undertake the proper assessment of habitat throughout the province, which will allow both levels of government, federal and provincial, to respond to the recommendations we see.

So those are the areas we'll want to focus on as part of our overall review.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Myers.

Mrs. Wayne.

• 1620

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

As you know, we also have a problem back east in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. Because of what has happened with the fish farms and the problems they've been having there recently and the fact that they've been under great scrutiny, I'm wondering if you could just inform me as to what has really happened with our salmon fish farms back east. Have you looked at that?

Mr. Wayne Wouters: I'll let my ADM of science speak to that. It's basically the scientific aspect of the disease.

Mr. Scott Parsons: As the honourable member has pointed out, in the last while there's been a very serious problem in the Bay of Fundy around the area of New Brunswick. This industry, which has grown enormously over the last decade or so and has become a very prominent feature of the New Brunswick economy, a very valuable contributor, has been threatened by the outbreak of a disease that is not unique to Canada. It has occurred elsewhere in the world. Norway in particular has had experience with it.

The matter didn't come to the attention of federal authorities for some time because it appears that farmers were hesitant to come forward and volunteer this information, perhaps because of perceived market impact. In any event, once the problem did become apparent, the collaborative efforts of the province, ourselves, and other private sector groups were in earnest to identify what the nature of the problem was, what was killing the salmon, and then to consider what appropriate measures needed to be taken.

In the end there were discussions between the province and the federal government, and the province decided it had to order the killing of a certain quantity of these salmon in order to prevent the spread of the disease. It was concentrated in particular areas and it was spreading. There was a very real danger that if they didn't take that action it could be somewhat catastrophic.

They also learned from the Norwegian experience with respect to this. The Norwegians concluded from their experience that it was necessary to do what New Brunswick has recently done and leave certain areas fallow for a period of time, as in agriculture, in order to ensure that you did get to the root of the problem.

The province of New Brunswick, as I understand it, is also—

The Chairman: Excuse me. Perhaps we can tighten up the answers a little bit. As Mr. Mayfield pointed out, they have a limited amount of time for questions, and the same applies to Mrs. Wayne.

Mr. Scott Parsons: I'll make one final point. The province of New Brunswick is also conducting a review of site location, how closely the firms are situated together, which is an important issue. We are working with them on this review.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Thank you. I just have one other question.

It is a very serious situation, and I just wondered if the auditor general was aware of what has been happening there. It has had a very negative impact on the economy. When you saw the tonnes and tonnes of salmon that had to be killed because of this in the past few months, it really was a very sad situation.

My other question is this. Have you found out the number one reason for the declining stocks, whether it be in the Pacific Ocean or back east? I want to know if you've looked at it. What role does pollution play, with the sewage going into certain areas? I've seen it in Vancouver and I see it back east. What role does that play in affecting the fish stock?

Mr. Scott Parsons: The question of what has caused the collapse of certain fish stocks is one that has bedevilled scientists and others involved. On the east coast, with respect to the collapse of the cod stocks, there have been two independent reports over the last couple of years that have pointed to a combination of factors as contributing to the collapse of these stocks. One, of course, is overfishing.

Overfishing is a major factor, but there are also other contributing factors, such as changes in the marine environment, for example. Scientific reports as recent as two weeks ago indicate that in the case of the cod stocks off Newfoundland, and to some extent further south, the very severe oceanographic conditions over a number of years may have resulted in the natural mortality rate—the fish that die of natural causes—increasing, and other factors.

• 1625

With respect to sewage, there is a detrimental effect in the sense that it can reduce the oxygen availability in certain areas. That might have more applicability in the case of salmon, where the salmon are going into streams, and depending on the particular areas where they are concentrated. But in terms of the broader perspective, sewage is not a major factor in terms of leading to major declines of fish stocks.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I would ask if Mr. Robins has anything to add to that, because you are a biologist as well, Mr. Robins.

Mr. Geoffrey Robins (Director, Audit Operations, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): No, nothing really, Mr. Chairman, except to note, as Mr. Parsons has indicated, that it's a complex subject. There are many factors that contribute to the decline of salmon stocks.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: When I sat on the Federation of Municipalities infrastructure program and we started it, it was tied into environmental issues. One of them was the sewage, and it was a person from B.C., from Vancouver, who spoke. It was a councillor there. I was mayor back east. We both spoke about this issue, because the research done by the Federation of Municipalities showed it had a negative impact on the salmon stocks. That was why we felt infrastructure money should be poured into water and sewage treatment.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Wayne.

Mr. Grewal, four minutes. We're on four minutes a round.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be giving one minute to Mr. Philip Mayfield at the end, so you can cut me when my one minute is left.

Mr. Chairman, the salmon fishery on the Pacific coast is a major contributor to the regional and national economy to the tune of $250 million annually. We take it very seriously.

I would appreciate it if, when the minister submits the performance report, after some time, he would also include the business plan to protect the salmon habitat, if they have any report.

My question relates to the coordination of various elements involved in the protection or rehabilitation of Pacific salmon habitat. I think among the various components, the U.S. government also plays a significant role, because fish don't know the international boundary. If they are not doing enough, are we motivating the American government to pay some attention?

Also, on page 12 of the minister's report he didn't include municipal governments. Are municipal governments playing any role?

My question is, what is the plan to enhance the cooperation and coordination of various elements, particularly American and municipal governments? With regard to the blame, which has shifted from the federal government to the provincial government on habitat, and the provincial government is shifting that blame to the federal government, how are they handling it? What is the long-term plan to work on that?

Mr. Wayne Wouters: On the first question, clearly municipalities are very much part of our overall process to engage all stakeholders. Through all the partnership arrangements we definitely have to involve them, and we do through the various watershed management plans we are involved in, and of course they are very much part of that overall process.

We also work with our counterparts in the U.S. to try to promote habitat in a number of different venues. Clearly one area where I think overall we would like to make some progress is in the Pacific Salmon Treaty with the United States. We all know the difficulty we've had on that file.

So both with the United States and with the municipalities, clearly there is a need, if we are to make progress in this area, to work very closely with both those governments.

As far as who is responsible for habitat, it's definitely the case that the province, through many of the decisions the province makes, whether it's in the area of forestry, mining, agriculture or other areas, has a direct impact on habitat. Therefore, those decisions are crucial, very important for habitat protection. That's why we, through the Canada-B.C. MOU, agreed to work closely with them: to determine how best we, the two levels of government, together can make some progress in this area.

• 1630

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Grewal. Those are your three minutes.

Mr. Mayfield, you have one minute for a quick question.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased to see the recommendation in the auditor general's report for giving some emphasis to the minor stocks and not putting all of the money and resources in the major stocks, the large commercial stocks.

In your agreement to this, how significant do you see this as a change of policy? Let me tell you that I contribute to a group of people at Likely who contribute to the feeding of the fish they spawn in the spawning channels there, which were donated by DFO. My contribution is more than that of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in that particular project. So I'm wondering how significant to you is this recommendation of the auditor general that the emphasis to minor stocks be increased.

Mr. Wayne Wouters: Mr. Chairman, I think clearly there's a need to provide a greater emphasis in the whole area of minor stocks. I think we recognize that as a department. In fact, $15 million of the new programming will go to many local projects to try to promote the habitat of, as you say, the minor stocks.

So it's something that, as a department, we know we need to make more progress on, but we've allocated funding to that. Through that additional funding and effort we hope to not only protect the habitat of the major stocks, but also to make some real progress in this area.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mayfield.

Mr. Mahoney, four minutes, please.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Thank you. I guess my first question would be to the auditor general.

It seems to me, Mr. Desautels, that the bottom line of this is an analysis of the protection and what is being done to protect the fishery, as opposed to simply looking at the habitats, which would be one component of it.

I wonder if you have a comment on whether perhaps the audit of both issues—first, an audit of the protection of the habitat, and second, an audit of whatever is being done with regard to limits and all of those things—would not have been more appropriate. They seem to be interchanged. The bottom line is the protection of the salmon.

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, I'll ask Mr. McCullough to help me out on this.

In our best judgment, we felt we could separate the two issues and deal first with habitat. We think it's something that's manageable on its own as an issue. Some of the points we bring forward can be basically managed or dealt with as habitat issues even before you deal with the overall fishery management issues.

I think the evidence, from what I gather, is quite clear in the sense that people generally seem to agree that some stocks are under stress or threatened. People generally agree that habitat is a factor in that stress or threat, but as for the exact extent, we don't know.

What we are asking for—I think that's a legitimate point—is that there should be a better way of measuring how well we're doing on the habitat front.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'm sorry to interrupt, but I wonder if we might request that, in the spring of 1999, when you've done the audit on the other side, we would consider these together. I really think they're very much related when I look, for example, at your pie chart on page 28-13. There are a lot of issues there that would relate both to the quality of life and the life cycle of the fish, as well as the damage that's occurring through various developments, water diversion programs, or whatever.

• 1635

Mr. Chair, I wonder if we could request that both reports be brought back together at that time. This might solve my problem.

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, we can respond quite positively to Mr. Mahoney's request. When we do the second part of this work we can revisit the issues we raised in the first part and try to wrap up all of the issues in a more integrated fashion.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'm sorry to run, but in four minutes I have a bunch of issues to put out—

The Chairman: If I might just interject—and I'm not taking away from your time, Mr. Mahoney—perhaps you can ensure that this point gets into the report we table so that it becomes part of the formal report of the committee.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Okay.

There were a number of references made to the east coast problems and the declining fish stocks. I made a comment that was likely off the record, since my mike wasn't on. You didn't mention the problem with the seal population on the east coast. I have a couple of questions related to that.

First, are the predators a serious problem in the west coast fishery, as I'm convinced they are, eating 3,000 pounds of fish per year per seal? With 5,000 seals it doesn't take a rocket scientist or even an auditor general to tell me there's a problem in declining fish stock in that area.

Secondly, does that problem correlate to the west coast as well as it does to the east coast?

Let me ask two or three other questions that perhaps the ministry officials could respond to.

I'd like to know what role the province has in protecting habitat and how much they are (a) responsible for and (b) actually doing? Are we having difficulty in getting the B.C. government to live up to their responsibility in this area? Out of this pie chart, what would perhaps be your top two or three concerns that would lead toward damaging a habitat for these fish?

Mr. Wayne Wouters: I'll turn to my ADM Science on the seal question and my regional director general on the role of the province.

Mr. Scott Parsons: On the seal issue, as the honourable member has mentioned, obviously in Atlantic Canada there's a lot of debate and a lot of discussion about the role of seals in the decline of fish stocks. Perhaps more significant is the extent to which seals might be impeding the recovery of the cod stocks at the moment.

That latter question is the one that scientists are looking at very actively. A scientific report last fall indicated that seals may be impeding the recovery through the consumption of young fish. They do eat a lot of fish. There was an estimate of the consumption of fish by seals published a year or two ago that indicated they consume 7 million tonnes of fish on the Atlantic coast. That's not necessarily the commercially exploited species. That includes a lot of capelin and arctic cod, which are not species that are under consumption. They do also consume quantities of Atlantic cod.

On the west coast, you don't have a population of predators of the magnitude that you have on the east coast, for example, in terms of the harp seals, which in 1994 numbered close to 5 million. You do have seal populations—harbour seals, for example. There are problems in local areas. For example, this past year we did a limited cull in the Puntledge River system because the seals were considered to be negatively impacting on the local stock of salmon there.

Ms. Donna Petrachenko (Regional Director General, Pacific Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): In response to the honourable member's question concerning the role of the province in fish habitat, as the deputy minister indicated, we're working cooperatively under the Canada-B.C. agreement. One of the main reasons for that agreement is that there is jurisdiction that comes together.

If you refer to one of the life cycle charts in the auditor general's report, for example, the key areas where the province of British Columbia has jurisdiction and makes decisions relates to one that's called low-flow construction in temperature. The historical development over time in terms of dams on a number of rivers has been significant. The province has recognized this most recently by passing just last fall a new Fish Protection Act, which is going to look at a different way to control these regimes.

In other areas that are focusing on a loss of habitat, decisions are made, whether it's the recently constructed highway on the island of Vancouver that goes over a number of important salmon creeks and rivers.... We work with them in hopes that in the design of those projects they minimize disruption.

• 1640

As happens, if our proactive work on the planning front doesn't work, we end up having to use enforcement, and last year we did in fact make 119 charges, some of which were against the province of British Columbia. So we are trying to improve things.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Thank you.

On page 28-27, paragraph 28.94 basically says—let me paraphrase—that while the Fisheries Act and habitat policy provide the legislative base for the management of the fisheries, it's not being fully achieved. That's the comment from the auditor general.

My question would be, to Mr. Wouters or whoever on your staff, (a) would you agree with that, and (b) if you do, would it be because of either a lack of resources, a lack of commitment on the part of the department, or perhaps a lack of cooperation from other partners?

Mr. Wayne Wouters: Again, Mr. Chairman, as I outlined earlier in some of my comments, under the Fisheries Act we have responsibility to manage the habitat for those areas where in fact there is a fishery. So in areas where there is not a fishery, we do not have authority under the act to have overall jurisdictional responsibility for that habitat. This is, I think, where perhaps there could be some gaps, and as I also indicated earlier, this is why we are working very hard through the partnership-stewardship guideline to try to ensure that our no net loss policy is fully implemented for all habitat across B.C.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'm sorry, the question was, do you agree with the statement that it's not being fully achieved, and if you do, is there a concrete reason? Are we not giving you the tools—we being Parliament—to achieve the goals? We have put in place the regulations in the act. Is there something more we need to do, or are the tools there and it is simply a problem in other areas?

Mr. Wayne Wouters: Mr. Chairman, when it comes to the protection of habitat, again I think we have to look beyond what we can do as the federal government. Are we achieving our objectives as a federal government? I think there is more we can do, and we've allocated more funding to do that.

But I think in order to protect habitat in B.C. it's absolutely critical that you have the full involvement and cooperation of all stakeholders. So when I say “Are we achieving our objectives?”, we could probably do more in the federal government, and as a result of the auditor general's report we have taken some steps and we will take more to try to do that.

Over and above that, you'd need the cooperation of the province of British Columbia, the mining industry, the forestry industry, the agriculture sector, communities where you see huge urbanization in that part of the country—all of those factors have to come together to protect habitat. We're part of the puzzle, and in order to be successful we need all parts.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mahoney.

When I look at the auditor general's opening statement today, under point 11 he talks about how:

The Department has chosen to direct the major part of its efforts toward the larger, commercial stocks at the expense of smaller ones.

Yet we understand that species diversification is extremely important for maintaining the long-term viability of these stocks. Why are you focused on one side and not doing the whole job?

Ms. Donna Petrachenko: We have concentrated our efforts on the major stocks in terms of the Fraser and the Skeena, because one, they're very large and we have to ensure that they're managed properly, but they're also indicators of the other stocks and the health of those other stocks. Our scientific information is based on the information we gather from the commercial fishery, from the sport fishery. Based on those, the scientists can model what we anticipate for the other stocks.

• 1645

So yes, we pay more attention to the management of the major stocks and have concerns, but at the same time we do use that information to increase our knowledge of the smaller stocks.

The Chairman: When I read the auditor general's report and your comments, you agree to virtually every recommendation by the auditor general. Not only that, I listened to your testimony today that you will do this and you will do that and you will do something else, but I don't see anything having been accomplished, in the past tense. Unfortunately this is not just true of the Department of Fisheries, but also of the other departments that have been before this committee. It's always future tense and they will do something.

This is a timely comment, because today we had the Strong commission table a report regarding executive salaries in the civil service. They're recommending at-risk pay and that senior executives have to meet benchmarks. This may be news to you, because it was only tabled this morning, but the point I'm trying to make—and I'm going to get the auditor general to comment as well—is why do we have to wait until he comments before you say you will do something? If you come before this committee and tell us something is going to be accomplished.... For example, your strategic plan isn't going to be ready until this fall, so what have you been operating on for the last number of years, Mr. Wouters?

Mr. Wayne Wouters: Mr. Chairman, in response to your question, you have to look at a number of factors. As I outlined in my opening comments, the whole area of habitat and habitat destruction took place over the first 100 years, and we have only tried to rectify that problem in the last 20 years. I think we are making progress.

We're saying yes, there's more we can do, but I'm not saying we haven't done a lot already to try to reverse that trend. I think we have. The record speaks for itself. But at the same time, the auditor general has made some very important recommendations that we need to follow up on. So I do apologize if we are looking at how best we can improve, but in looking forward, our objective is to say, “Where is it that we haven't been doing certain things in the past and what can we do?”

But I do think that in the department and in the government there has been quite significant progress in dealing with the problem. For the first 100 years we saw a major destruction in the overall habitat in that province.

The Chairman: There's more concern about the overall management of the department than the habitat, Mr. Wouters.

Mr. Desautels, do you have any comment on the overall management of the Department of Fisheries? In fact, are they accomplishing their mandate?

Mr. Denis Desautels: Well, Mr. Chairman, that is a loaded question in the sense that it's a huge department, as you know, with activities from coast to coast. As you know, we reported not that long ago on the east coast fishery issues and raised some major problems there. We're now looking at some similar issues on the west coast. In both cases we found significant problems, but to put things in perspective, the state of the fishery in the east coast, from the work we've done so far, seems to be a much more acute problem.

In the case of the work we've just done, which we're talking about today, I can't speak for DFO in terms of why they have not done something or whether or not they have. The one thing I can tell the committee, though, is that on this particular one we seem to be on the same wavelength as departmental officials in terms of our assessment of the issues. This is not always the case. We've had much stronger arguments and difficulties with the recent chapters on the east coast. On this one, there seems to be a common view of what needs to be done. Based on that, I'm generally optimistic that we will see action. In fact, on behalf of the committee, we will be following this up and including this in our 1999 report.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Desautels.

One of the things that concerns me also is I understand that in 1986 the DFO had a policy of net gain on habitat, and at this point in time, 12 years later, we're still trying to arrest the decline in habitat. Here we have the objectives and the policy out of sync with the accomplishments of the department. In 12 years, even though the policy has been to develop net gain, we're still trying to minimize net loss. When will we start to see net gain?

• 1650

Ms. Donna Petrachenko: If I could respond to that question, how we look at net gain in British Columbia is not to look at the entire province of British Columbia, but we are making major steps locally in individual projects to achieve net gain. For example, we just released chinook salmon in the Alouette River, whereas up until last year it was impossible for salmon to return to that river. So through the dedicated efforts of our staff in the region, working with volunteers, we've been able to rehabilitate that. That's just one example where we do have net gain.

The Chairman: I appreciate that you have net gain, but obviously you have a greater net loss, and the objective of the department is a net gain.

My question was, when can we anticipate that you will reach net gain and loss will not be minimized but arrested and stopped?

Ms. Donna Petrachenko: The objective in the policy is to attain—you're correct—an overall net gain. That's the intent. As the deputy indicated, we can't do that by ourselves. When the mining industry adopts certain codes of practice, when the forestry industry adopts certain codes of practice, all of the various industries—and how we change our lives in terms of our stewardship responsibilities, in what we all individually do—help contribute to that overall policy. An individual government department, federally, locally, can't do it all by itself, and that's what the policy recognizes.

The Chairman: It seems to me that they're out of sync. We have a minister who can report to Parliament and we have ministers in B.C. who can report to their legislature, and if they're having problems with other industries and other departments, surely some kind of combined effort is achievable.

Talking about the interrelationship and the cooperation, again, from my reading of the report it seems you're trying, through this net gain policy, to arrest the decline; you're trying to resuscitate or rebuild areas where the habitat has been lost. There seems to be no real emphasis on protection of what we have through zoning regulations to ensure minimum setbacks so that the trees and the banks are not eroded. Why aren't you concentrating efforts in prevention as well as cure?

Ms. Donna Petrachenko: In response to this aspect, we totally concur with the auditor general's comment that we should be putting more effort into planning. Just in the last number of months we have agreed, with the province of British Columbia, to jointly undertake a new approach to their land and resource management plan in the central coast where we will integrate our approach with theirs on fresh water, and as well with the marine environment. That will be the first time Canada has done this. So we are moving in that direction.

The staff is putting more of their efforts there, and we will have a decision in October on how much more we need to do.

The Chairman: As I said, I'm disappointed that it's in the future again.

My question is, is there an accountability framework built into this agreement that has benchmarks, measurements, and penalties for either side if they do not fulfil their obligations?

Ms. Donna Petrachenko: The Canada-BC agreement that was signed last year, in 1997, has in it five different components. The ministers met—

The Chairman: But does it have an accountability framework built in?

Ms. Donna Petrachenko: Yes, it does, and one of the key things is the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, which will be up and running in April of this year. We are out consulting on its structure now. It will report to the public and make public reports on their views on the status of habitat and how we're doing.

The Chairman: But a report to the public saying you did or you didn't achieve your objectives is not the type of accountability I was looking for. I said, are there penalties for the co-signatories to the agreement if they do not fulfil their obligations? Is there some accountability being built into these framework agreements?

Mr. Wayne Wouters: Mr. Chairman, the answer to your question is yes. The first step, in order to do that, is through this council. The council will basically assess the state of habitat play. In some areas we do not even have a good assessment of that, and the council, which is a joint federal-provincial initiative, will essentially outline the state of play in habitat. Also through the council we will be able to receive recommendations as to how to proceed. That could include milestones and basically what mitigating measures can be put in place.

• 1655

We see that as a huge step forward, and the province of B.C. agrees that it is a major step in terms of addressing this whole issue of habitat protection in British Columbia.

The Chairman: I want to look at paragraph 28.70, regarding the aboriginal fisheries strategy. It says here:

For example, in 1995-96, 75 agreements were signed at a total cost of $15.6 million. Of these agreements, 23 had habitat projects listed at a total cost of $0.8 million.

Yet as far as I can understand, it seems to be that the bulk of the money was to be devoted to habitat conservation and protection. Out of $15.6 million, why does only $800,000 end up doing any good and the rest seems to be for reports and data collection?

Ms. Donna Petrachenko: The balance of the funding of the $15.7 million is used with the first nations on a number of projects related to fisheries. So it's everything, including enforcement of their own fisheries activity; training; working with their youth to educate them so they can participate more in management and control of the fisheries. In terms of direct expenditures on a specific habitat project, that's the small amount, but all of that work does contribute indirectly to habitat.

The Chairman: As a final point, the auditor general remarks:

Final reports include an accounting of works and expenditures but there was no accounting of results achieved.

So here we are throwing money at the wall, hoping some of it sticks, with no real measurement to find out how much did stick. It goes back to my whole concept of accountability; there doesn't seem to be very much.

Why wouldn't we have some reporting back or measurement to find out if an expenditure of $15.6 million did some good?

Mr. Wayne Wouters: Mr. Chairman, in response to the auditor general's report, I think the question of accountability guidelines, what do we think we need to measure, is something we will undertake as part of the strategic review. It's also something that we want to undertake as part of the Canada-B.C. MOU.

Again, as I've outlined, some of these areas in terms of accountability are the accountability of the federal government. We have overall responsibility for habitat, but as I've emphasized throughout our presentation, in order to do that others must be accountable. So when we look at the whole question of accountability—who is it, how do we make progress, and how do we measure accountability for all partners—we are looking to help manage this whole issue. Yes, accountability is partly back with us, but it's also back with all the other stakeholders, including the province. That's why we worked on the Canada-B.C. MOU, and that's why we need to proceed with our own strategic review in response to the auditor general and his report.

The Chairman: We're certainly looking to ensure that these accountability frameworks and reporting back and the analysis and benchmarks are very much a part of spending money, because we want to know that there is something after the major expenditure, that there is some return.

Again, getting back to the management of the department, there seems to be a serious paper and data information problem, where I understand a great deal of information is being collected, but the department has a serious problem of assimilating it in order to make it mean something to the department. Why do we have such an internal management problem that doesn't allow the data to be used in a constructive way?

Mr. Wayne Wouters: Mr. Chairman, I've been four months in this job. When it comes to the department and how we do our business, I think in many ways we do business in a very professional manner.

I do think there are some changes required. In terms of data requirements in this business, it's often very difficult to access data in many different parts of our business, the status of the stocks or habitat and what we're talking about today. But overall, in terms of the data collection and the use of that, I think we do a reasonably good job, but I do agree that we need to look as a department at how we manage our affairs, and we are doing that.

• 1700

The Chairman: I'm looking at paragraph 28.49, where the auditor general found that the department had de-emphasized the need for staff to become involved in planning initiatives for development projects.

As you can see, I put a great deal of emphasis on holding senior management accountable for the spending of their departments and to ensure that the money is spent effectively and wisely. Why would we back off on the planning initiatives if planning seems to be one of the things we're short on at the moment?

Ms. Donna Petrachenko: In answering your question as to what senior management direction is given within the region, when we received this report, we looked at the results and we agreed with them. We have now redirected our efforts in a number of areas. I mentioned the central coast LRMP, watershed-based planning approaches. That's happening right now, and one of my responsibilities is to make sure it happens.

The Chairman: Changing to the performance report of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, unfortunately, you fall into the same category as all the others. I worked through Parliament to bring these performance reports forward. I find next to nothing—remember you're not alone here—about benchmarks and accomplishments, as in this is what you tried to achieve, this is how far you have achieved it, this is what you intend to achieve in the next year, these are your goals in the years down the road, and this is how far you have come. Do you have a commitment to improve the quality of the performance reporting in subsequent years?

Mr. Wayne Wouters: The answer to that is yes, Mr. Chairman, we will look at the report. I know it's outside the area of this committee, but we will look at that report and prepare to come back to you at any point as to how we can improve our overall reporting on that.

The Chairman: One final question. Once again, it's somewhat off topic, but it's something that's within the realm of this committee. It's the year 2000 project, which involves computers that will all fall apart if we're not up to speed, and not only with the auditor general. This is near and dear to his heart, and he has reported on it. Where is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans when it comes to being able to handle the computer problem on January 1, 2000?

Mr. Wayne Wouters: We put together a team, in fact, about a year ago. Essentially, the team is in our corporate services sector. At the same time, each ADM is accountable to ensure that they are dealing with the problem in their own systems.

We have some fairly major systems, for example, like the coast guard. The terms of management of the coast guard, and ships on both coasts, depend very much on those computer systems. So it's an absolute priority for us to deal with this problem so that by 2000, we've clearly licked those major programs we have.

As I said, there's a centrally coordinated focus within corporate services, but each ADM is accountable for their area, whether that's science, policy, fish management, or the coast guard.

The Chairman: Each ADM reports to you, the DM. We have Mr. Guindon over at Treasury Board, who is trying to coordinate the whole affair. It's not a case of holding somebody accountable in January 2000 if it doesn't work. Are you taking it upon yourself to make sure that the job is done and will be done?

Mr. Wayne Wouters: Yes. I get monthly reports, as a matter of fact, on this very issue through my ADM of corporate services. We also review this whole issue monthly at my management committee meetings, which have all the ADMs and the regional director generals there. So it's an issue that I'm focusing on very much, but also my total management team is focusing on it.

The Chairman: At this point in time, does it look like you will achieve success before January 1, 2000?

Mr. Wayne Wouters: We have some challenges, like every other department, Mr. Chairman. We intend to basically meet that commitment, but it's a major challenge for us as a department to do so.

The Chairman: It seems we've come to the end of the question period, so I'll ask Mr. Desautels for some closing remarks.

Mr. Denis Desautels: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very brief, as usual.

Let me just say that we are quite pleased that the department has committed to taking action on just about all recommendations in our report.

• 1705

In particular, we're going to be watching quite closely and with a lot of interest the planned strategic review that the deputy minister described to us today. I think that's a very important action piece. We'll also be watching how the cooperative agreements with B.C. take shape in the next few weeks.

One of the points you brought up, with which I agree totally, is the need to improve the reporting on performance. In particular, I think there is a need to do a much better reporting on habitat within the performance report. We think that's doable and we feel it could be done relatively quickly.

So in summary, there seems to be a positive reaction to our recommendations. There are some important initiatives being taken in the department, and we'll take all that into account when we do our 1999 audit on the management of the fishery. We'll try to wrap up the habitat issues within this next audit on the management of the fishery.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Desautels.

The committee will take Mr. Grose's and Mr. Mahoney's points of requiring further information into consideration, and if the committee can't deal with it as a committee, then perhaps we'll write you a letter asking you to include a report on the information that they require when you're tabling your report next year.

Is that fine with you, Mr. Grose?

Mr. Ivan Grose: Yes, thank you.

The Chairman: Okay. There will be no further business.

The next meeting will be on Tuesday, February 17, when we will have Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the IRB, the Immigration Refugee Board, back for a second time.

The meeting stands adjourned.