FOPO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 28, 2000

• 0912

[English]

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

This morning we have with us, further to our study on aquaculture, Yves Bastien, who's the Commissioner for Aquaculture Development, and Dr. Myron Roth, who's the vice-president for production and regulatory affairs, Aqua Health Ltd. Welcome, gentlemen.

I know Mr. Bastien has been here before, so he knows the process. What we'd like to do is have short opening remarks and then we'll turn to questions.

Welcome, and the floor is yours.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Bastien (Commissioner for Aquaculture Development, Fisheries and Oceans Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Honourable members, thank you for inviting me to speak to you this morning. Given that my colleague, Liseanne Forand, Assistant Deputy-Minister for Policy at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, has already given you an eloquent and detailed description of the various initiatives currently under way at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans with respect to aquaculture, including the legal review I am conducting, I have decided to focus on another area in my presentation. I will, of course, be pleased to answer any questions at the end of my presentation on those various initiatives.

Since undertaking your study of aquaculture, you have been presented with an impressive amount of information on this rapidly emerging sector in Canada. Upon reading the testimony given today, one constant emerges. Most of the presentations and debates have dealt in one way or another with the environmental impact associated with the practice of aquaculture.

Therefore, I would like to use my opening presentation to deal with this subject, with the goal of placing these real or apprehended impacts in a broader context.

[English]

The first point I wish to make, which in my opinion is essential to any rational discussion on the subject, is that aquaculture is an industrial activity similar to many other industrial activities. Like them, aquaculture presents some risks to the environment. However, we do not prevent these industrial activities from operating because they present risk. Instead, we find ways to manage the risk.

Therefore, our real responsibility as resource managers is to develop a better understanding of the risk presented by aquaculture activities and to establish mechanisms that will allow us to manage them responsibly.

Just as we do for other industrial sectors, we have to assess the risk of environmental impacts before a project begins, identify and implement mitigating measures when necessary, undertake environmental monitoring during the operational phase of the project to identify and determine the extent of potential impacts, and propose new solutions to reduce or eliminate any identified impact.

I have a great deal of difficulty understanding the persistence of some who depict aquaculture, specifically salmon farming, as a highly polluting industry that must be stopped at all costs before it completely degrades our environment. Reality and the facts do not support this image.

For various reasons, it seems that aquaculture has become a symbol of a certain inability as a society to properly manage our environment. Aquaculture is being blamed for many of the problems currently affecting our aqua-technical systems. However, an objective assessment of aquaculture's environmental performance reveals that it is better than that of many other human and industrial activities openly tolerated in our society.

I want to be very clear. I am not saying that aquaculture has no environmental impact. I am saying that if we look at aquaculture in a wider perspective, the impacts are much less serious than they appear. I am also saying that there is no rational basis for the completely polarized debate that has overcome aquaculture development. The two levels of government working in collaboration with the industry have established and are continuing to establish all the mechanisms that are required to ensure adequate protection of the environment.

• 0915

It is also important to understand that the advantages associated with aquaculture development are not merely economic and social in nature, but environmental as well. The harvesting of wild fish and seafood resources using conventional means has levelled off around the globe, and in some cases is declining. For the years 1995 through 1998, Canadian landings fell below the typical level of one million tonnes. A number of Canadian fisheries are currently in crisis. Others are still in relatively good health but are unprotected against the vagaries of nature, particularly within the current context of global warming. Meanwhile, the demand for fish and seafood continues to grow in Canada and around the world, maintaining or even increasing the pressure on wild stocks. In the medium and long term, aquaculture represents the only realistic alternative for reducing this pressure on the wild stocks.

Human genius has made it possible to explore the universe for other forms of life and to push the limits of human longevity further every day. Yet at the same time, we continue to destroy enormous quantities of wild fishery resources in our hunt for food, when we could very easily be producing this food through the use of aquaculture technology.

I am not alone in holding this view. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations helped to sponsor an important conference in Bangkok in February called “Aquaculture in the Third Millennium”. I would like to read an extract from what has become the Bangkok Declaration, which emanated from that conference. It says:

We, the participants,...recognize that:

During the past three decades aquaculture has become the fastest growing food-producing sector and is an increasingly important contributor to national development, the global food supply and food security;

there is now a decreasing availability of natural fish and aquatic resources from inland and marine waters;

there has been a significant increase in commercial and industrial aquaculture, both in developed and developing countries, that has contributed to export income and trade;

the potential of aquaculture to contribute to food production has not been realised across all continents;

aquaculture complements other food production systems and integrated aquaculture can add value to the current use of on-farm resources;

aquaculture can be an entry point for improving livelihoods, planning natural resources use and contributing to environmental enhancement;

improving co-operation amongst stakeholders at national, regional and inter-regional levels will be a pivotal element in further development of aquaculture;

the potential of aquaculture to contribute to human development and social empowerment is not fully realised. The sector requires fresh, dynamic and responsible strategies to realise its goals.

I consider this an important declaration, because it comes from representatives of many countries from all around the world.

As you can see, the issues we're trying to resolve in Canada are similar to those everywhere around the world. What is most interesting is the realization by the world community of the important contribution that aquaculture can make in achieving the goals of food production, employment, and social development. This is why it is absolutely essential to bring the present irrational environmental debate to a close and to concentrate all our energies on developing an aquaculture industry that is both environmentally sound and economically viable.

As I have already noted, this debate is sterile because it is completely polarized and entirely counter-productive and because it prevents us from moving forward. It also undervalues our expertise and our ability to develop appropriate mechanisms and technologies.

To move forward, we must first change the way in which we deal with the environmental impacts of aquaculture. These impacts must be analysed in the context of a risk analysis and management approach, rather than in absolute terms. Zero tolerance is not a viable option.

• 0920

At this point I would like to offer an example from another sector to clarify my perspective. I will use an example from fishing, an activity with which you are very familiar, but I could have also selected examples from many other industrial activities.

Whenever the government authorizes a fishing quota or issues a fishing licence, it uses a risk analysis and management approach, both before making its decision and as the fishery proceeds. In fact, the risks of environmental impact associated with fishing are real and serious.

I am currently reading a book on the environmental impacts of fishing entitled The Effects of Fishing on Marine Ecosystems and Communities by Stephen J. Hall. Reading this book has made me aware of fishing's varied and ramified impacts on the ecosystem. For example, fishing removes phenomenal quantities of given species from the marine ecosystem. These species play very precise roles in the food chain, particularly in terms of the predator-prey relationship.

Precisely because fishing is directed at specific species, it does not eliminate proportional quantities from the different levels of the food pyramid. The result can be very significant imbalances in aquatic ecosystems. This situation is often described as “fishing down the food web”.

Disasters as serious as the collapse of the cod fishery on the east coast or the salmon fishery on the west coast can result in permanent changes in the balance and integrity of ecosystems. Whole species may disappear or be replaced while others explode in numbers.

In addition, because of the immensity of these ecosystems, the impacts often take many years to become apparent. Fishing also causes more direct impacts related to the passage of fishing gear over the ocean floor.

The cod crisis is a good example to illustrate the point that our decision about fishing is the product of a risk management approach and that we sometimes commit errors. Some may argue that this particular error was made in another era when our tolerance for risk was higher, but that the application of the precautionary approach protects us from making these errors today. I would respond that the allocation of quotas and fishing licences will always be a very risky operation, regardless of our level of risk tolerance.

I will again use cod to illustrate this point. Last year we issued a cod quota for one of Newfoundland's fishing areas. This year the data showed that the quota allocated last year was too high and that it would have to be reduced. I am convinced that last year's decision was made using a precautionary approach. Yet it did not protect us from making an error in managing this resource, which is currently in a precarious state.

I want to be clear, though, that I am not criticizing our approach. Our decisions on fishing are made in good faith, on the basis of the best available scientific information, and with entirely commendable objectives. I am simply asking that the impacts associated with aquaculture be approached in the same way as those associated with fishing, agriculture, forestry, or any other industrial activity. I am not asking for preferential treatment for aquaculture. I am simply asking for a level playing field for aquaculture or, in other words, fair treatment.

I will use another example, this time from aquaculture, to illustrate what I mean by fair treatment.

Section 36 of the Fisheries Act prohibits the deposit of deleterious substances in the aquatic environment. However, it also allows the minister to authorize certain depositions provided certain conditions are met. This has led to the development of specific regulations for specific industries. For example, the pulp and paper, mining, and potato farming industries are covered by specific regulations under section 36 of the Fisheries Act. These regulations specify the conditions—environmental standards—under which certain deposits of deleterious substances are authorized for each of these industrial activities.

As part of our legal review, we are currently analysing the possibility of developing similar regulations for saltwater salmon farming. These regulations would, for example, permit the definition of acceptable standards for deposits of certain substances used to treat fish disease, such as pesticides and antibiotics.

• 0925

Despite some initial reluctance, it appears that the idea is gradually gaining ground within the federal and provincial departments and within the industry. If a consensus on this idea finally develops among governments and industry partners, fair treatment of the aquaculture sector should be reflected, in my opinion, by the establishment of reasonable and achievable standards that will permit adequate protection of the environment without driving salmon producers into bankruptcy.

The challenge is not an easy one, but it is entirely feasible, as demonstrated by the existing regulation and the corresponding industries. Obviously, these standards could be gradually improved as knowledge of environmental impacts improves, industrial practices evolve, and new technologies are developed.

[Translation]

Before I yield the floor to Dr Myron Roth, I would like to speak to you briefly about a concept that I believe could greatly facilitate our task in dealing with conflicts among users: planned use of our coastal and inland zones.

Conflicts among users of the aquatic resource are often caused by lack of dialogue and unfamiliarity with the situation and needs of each user. The federal and provincial governments have publicly confirmed that the aquaculture sector is a legitimate user of aquatic environments. It is thus essential that each user have a clear understanding of the government's intentions with respect to the use of our marine and freshwater territories. In my view, the only way of achieving this is to develop plans for the use of the coastal and inland zones.

This is a very complex exercise that implies extensive consultation between the two levels of government and all of the partners or stakeholders. However, once achieved, it can greatly facilitate sustainable development and protection of the environment.

Such a planning could, for example, lead to aquaculture zoning that would establish aquaculture as a territory's principal role in some specific areas. Aquaculture zoning would be establish on the basis of biophysical potential combined with current and planned use of coastal and inland territories. Once established and agreed upon by local communities, this kind of zoning would improve relations between users, restore public confidence in environmental protection, and restore confidence to the aquaculture industry regarding its growth and long-term security.

[English]

In conclusion, I thank you very much for this opportunity to present my views on aquaculture. With your permission, I will now ask Dr. Myron Roth to give a short presentation on fish health. Following Dr. Roth's presentation, I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bastien.

Dr. Roth.

Dr. Myron Roth (Vice President, Production and Regulatory Affairs, Aqua Health Ltd.): Mr. Chair, honourable members, I would like to thank the Commissioner for Aquaculture Development for inviting me to accompany him to address your committee this morning.

I'd like to begin my remarks by stating that aquaculture has been very important to me and has been my occupation since I completed my undergraduate studies back in 1987. As someone who has been directly employed by a salmon farming company for over four years and has worked on salmon farms on both coasts of Canada and in Europe, I have been able to pursue and develop a career that I'm very proud of.

As a biologist, I believe that aquaculture represents the sustainable use of our aquatic resources that results in minimal risk to the environment. As a concerned citizen, like you, I expect aquacultural food products in Canada to be of the highest quality and safe for human consumption.

My area of expertise is in the pathology of fishes, management of fish disease, and in particular the use of chemotherapeutants, or drugs, pest-control products, and vaccines. I will therefore restrict my comments within this context, highlighting some key areas of concern regarding disease and the use of therapeutants in aquaculture, an area for which there has been a lot of debate.

In order for disease to occur in a fish farm, three factors are required: you need the pathogen, the host, and the appropriate environment. While stress plays a key role in the physiological disposition of the host's internal environment, other external factors are also involved, such as water temperature, site location, and distribution of wild fish that may come into close proximity of farms. Many disease-causing organisms can be found in wild populations of fish, and there are well-documented cases of significant mortality in what should otherwise be healthy and relatively stress-free fish.

Furthermore, disease outbreaks commonly occur in the absence of fish farming activity: for example, outbreaks of infectious hematopoietic necrosis, which is a viral disease in Alaskan salmon stocks where salmon farming is not practised, or sea lice outbreaks in wild Atlantic salmon stocks in New Brunswick during the 1940s, long before fish farming was established in that province. Thus, disease can and does occur in salmon as a natural process and infectious agents are commonly found in wild fish. That disease occurs in pen-reared salmon is therefore an extension of this natural process. However, in the farm situation, husbandry-related factors such as the proximity of animals to one another and handling, to name two, can result in added stress that may predispose fish to infection and result in disease or facilitate its spread within the farm population.

• 0930

When disease does occur, intervention is necessary to address the well-being of the affected animals, to prevent loss of stock, and to prevent the spread of disease. The number of drugs, pest control products, and anesthetics approved for use for fin-fish aquaculture in Canada is limited, numbering only eight for food fish such as salmon and trout. Of these, only four antimicrobials are licensed for use.

Of the four, three are prescription-only medicines, while the fourth, oxytetracycline, is listed in the compendium of medicating ingredient brochures and therefore available to farmers without a prescription. However, as a rule, nearly all oxytetracycline used on salmon farms, as I will discuss later, is prescribed by veterinarians and is limited to young fish.

Diseases such as infectious salmon anemia, ISA, caused by a virus, represents a somewhat different case, as such organisms are not affected by antimicrobials. Viral disease in Canadian aquaculture is not common but does occur, most notable being IHN on the west coast, a naturally occurring virus of Pacific salmon, and ISA on the east coast. Presently ISA is being controlled by improved husbandry practices, including strict adherence to disinfection protocols and hygiene, selective depopulation of infected cages, stocking and fallowing policies, monitoring, and the use of a new vaccine.

Vaccines have played a pivotal role in disease management. In Canada, the number of licensed salmon vaccines presently numbers over 25 products, greatly outnumbering the number of drugs and pesticides currently approved for use in aquaculture. Vaccination, along with other non-chemical fish health management control strategies, has become standard practice due to the lower costs to vaccinate fish and larger gains accrued from preventative fish health management strategies.

Approximately 90% of the antibiotics used in aquaculture are administered as medicated feed. In some instances, such as with high-value broodstock, antibiotics may be administered by injection. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans fish inspection directorate, now under the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, has previously estimated that 1.6% of all feed used in the New Brunswick salmon farming industry is medicated. Similarly, the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Food estimates that the total amount of salmon feed medicated annually has not exceeded 3% in the last five years in British Columbia. These figures represent the lowest medicated feed inclusion rates for food animal production in Canada.

It is very important to note that antibiotics are only administered for therapeutic purposes; they are not used as growth promoters. As such, feed is only medicated when required. For example, assuming that each day a mill produces a given amount of feed, if 3% of the total feed is medicated, this means that for every 100 days feed is milled, medication is added to the feed on only three of those 100 days prior to delivery to the farm.

Further, advances in fish health management, and in particular vaccine technology, have contributed to significant reductions in overall antibiotic usage. For example, in B.C., which accounts for more than 65% of the salmon farmed in Canada, there was a 23% decrease in the use of antibiotics purchased by feed mills from 1994 to 1995. Similarly, in Norway, where medicated feed practices mirror those in B.C. and New Brunswick, the volume of antibiotics used decreased 99% between 1987 and 1998, primarily due to advances in husbandry techniques and vaccine technology. During the same period, production increased from 47,000 metric tonnes to 407,000 metric tonnes, an increase of 859%.

To put total usage into perspective, expenditures on aquacultural pharmaceuticals, excluding vaccines, in relation to other animal or human pharmaceutical sales are insignificant, representing less than 011% of the estimated total drug expenditures in Canada. Of the total animal health antimicrobial market, expenditures in aquaculture account for less than 2%. This figure is similar to global data that estimate expenditures for aquaculture antimicrobials account for 5% of the total veterinary market.

So how much is used? in 1998, in British Columbia, where all veterinary prescriptions and feed milling orders are tracked, an estimated 383 grams of antibiotics were administered per metric tonne of salmon produced. Of this, oxytetracycline was the most common drug administered, equalling 90% of the total antimicrobials used. Furthermore, 80% of prescriptions were used for small fish and broodstock. In rare instances, however, veterinarians may prescribe therapeutants not specified for use in fish. This is referred to as off-label use and accounts for less than 0.5% of the total antibiotics prescribed.

• 0935

There are several reasons for the relatively small amount of antimicrobials used in aquaculture. These include, first, the current use practices, which include prudent use, the fact that treatments are restricted to therapeutic uses, and the fact that antibiotics are not used as growth promoters; second, the development of highly effective vaccines; third, on-farm best management practices, which include fallowing, year class separation, integrated pest management, and biosecurity protocols; and fourth, improved nutrition of feeding practices and selective breeding.

Drug residues in Canadian-farmed salmon and trout do not represent a health risk. There are several factors that contribute to this: the limited number of therapeutants available; usage is largely restricted toward young fish; a high degree of veterinary involvement; and almost all antibiotics used are mixed by feed mills with extensive quality control programs in place.

How do we know that salmon are safe from drug residues? From 1991 to 1996, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' fish inspection directorate randomly sampled 1,542 and 1,277 lots of farmed salmon in New Brunswick and British Columbia respectively. Residue levels detected above Health Canada's maximum residue limit were found in only 3.5% of the samples from New Brunswick and in less than 1% of the samples taken from British Columbia over the entire five-year period. In almost all cases where follow-up samples were obtained, residues were below the maximum residue limit and no further action was required.

Positive samples, which are residues above the maximum residue limit, were most prominent in the early 1990s. Since that time, despite increased sampling efforts to keep pace with increases in production, the occurrence of residues above the maximum residue limit has been nearly non-existent due to increased awareness and prudent use policies that are practised by salmon farmers.

One initiative worth mentioning is the healthy salmon program. Healthy salmon is a quality assurance program that deals exclusively with on-farm use of therapeutants, is based on HACCP principles, and features a third-party auditing scheme.

Time doesn't permit a thorough discussion of environmental issues, but I'd like to make a comment within the context of therapeutants. Therapeutants administered in feed result in a fraction of the drug compound leaching into the surrounding environment through fecal matter and, to a lesser extent, uneaten feed. However, the stability, half-life, and bioaccumulation of drug residues in the aquatic ecosystem and marine sediments have been extensively studied, and the data indicate that the environmental risk is minimal due to the low toxicity to non-target animals and biodegradability of the compounds used.

To be sure, salmon farms in Canada are subject to various types of environmental assessment. New Brunswick, for example, has been using and developing a performance-based third-party audit assessment format. B.C. has recently developed a similar format that is in the initial stages of implementation. As an added requirement, B.C. salmon farmers are also required to report all chemical usage on the farm to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. If antibiotics were accumulating below net pens, resulting in negative impacts, this would be detected during routine audits and appropriate action would be taken.

While I've only skimmed the surface of what is obviously a very complex subject, I hope I've been able to provide the committee with information that will be of value in the discussion of fish health issues, the use of therapeutants in aquaculture, and the future development of aquaculture in Canada.

It has been my pleasure to address the committee, and I thank you for your time and interest. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.

The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Roth.

We'll turn first to Mr. Cummins from the Canadian Alliance.

An hon. member: Hear, hear!

The Chair: We'll have to change some motions before we can give you.... Our motion says Reform, but we'll go with Canadian Alliance today, John.

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Go with whatever you like. You can call me anything you want, but don't call me late for supper.

The Chair: The floor is yours, John.

Mr. John Cummins: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning to you, Mr. Bastien and Dr. Roth.

Mr. Bastien, in your presentation this morning you commented that “it is absolutely essential to bring the present irrational environmental debate to a close”, the suggestion being that somehow anyone who questions what might be going on in the aquaculture industry may be doing so without any grounding in science, that their fears are in fact irrational. That's your word, “irrational”.

When you last appeared before the committee back in March, you suggested that as far as escapees went:

Once in a while there may be a nest there. But with regard to a situation where Atlantic salmon are established on the west coast, I have seen a lot of evidence saying to me this will not happen. I'm a specialist on Atlantic salmon, and I know they have not been successful in competing on the west coast.

• 0940

When you appeared before the Senate committee, you said that the Atlantic salmon that escaped in B.C. have been reproducing in salmon rivers in B.C.

Have you changed your tune in that year?

Mr. Yves Bastien: No, absolutely not. What I said in the past, in my first appearance, is that there is a major difference between Atlantic salmon doing a successful reproduction and producing young in a river and an established population. That's a difference. I also said in my presentation to the Senate committee that this is a concern, and I maintain that this is a concern. This is something that has to be addressed.

Mr. John Cummins: What's the department doing about it, Mr. Bastien?

Mr. Yves Bastien: There are both national and international initiatives regarding that aspect, because the solution to that is.... There are a lot of solutions, but in terms of sequence, the first solution is to develop a code of containment. I came back just recently from an international meeting in London of NASCO, and that meeting was quite successful in bringing together NASCO, which is a salmon conservation organization, and the salmon producers around the North Atlantic. There is a clear process going on. There's—

Mr. John Cummins: But what's the department doing, Mr. Bastien? What are you doing?

Mr. Yves Bastien: I was there, DFO was there, and we agreed on what has to be done. First, we need some criteria to develop a code of containment, and at the same time, we need a plan for each country to get there. And that's what is being done—that is, the development of a code of containment—

Mr. John Cummins: Well, when you were before the Senate, you said that the rivers are monitored very closely. That's what you said, suggesting that the rivers in B.C. are monitored very closely. Those are your words: “Those rivers are monitored very closely”. That's not true, is it? In fact—

Mr. Yves Bastien: There is a salmon watch program in B.C. to make sure there is a monitoring of what's happening. If there is a problem growing in one specific river, there are solutions. So it's a question of making sure we monitor the situation. There is quite a bit of interest in B.C. regarding that problem, so if there are some problems on specific rivers, they will pop up, for sure, and there are solutions to those problems. I would like—

Mr. John Cummins: But the fact is that monitoring—

The Chair: Please let Mr. Bastien finish first. Go ahead, Mr. Bastien.

Mr. Yves Bastien: I just want to make sure it's clearly understood that I'm not saying that right now wild Atlantic salmon populations are establishing in B.C. I'm just saying that if it does happen one day, there are some solutions to that problem.

Mr. John Cummins: Well, I would say, Mr. Bastien, that you don't know whether they're establishing in British Columbia, because the only monitoring that's going on is a 1-800 number, which is funded by the provincial government to the tune of about $25,000 to $30,000 a year. That's all you know. You don't know any more than that.

Now, in a letter to the Ottawa Citizen on January 17, 2000, you made some statements here. You said:

As federal Commissioner for Aquaculture Development, I am writing in an effort to add some perspective to the Jan. 9, 2000 front-page article headlined “Wild salmon face battle for survival—Introduction of genes from farmed fish threatens Atlantic species”.

You went on to note your surprise that this story failed to cite sources in the Canadian aquaculture industry such as yourself, scientists and others at Fisheries and Oceans, or other aquaculture industry representatives.

The fact of the matter is that you went on and referenced the fact that you had commissioned a report entitled Potential Genetic Interaction between Wild and Farm Salmon of the Same Species, by Dr. R.G. Peterson. You used that as support for your criticism, but you ignored the report of DFO scientists on Dr. Peterson's work, and you ignored the scientific review committee's commentary on Dr. Peterson. Why is that?

• 0945

Mr. Yves Bastien: I don't believe I have ignored it, because I've worked in close collaboration on that file and I was a member of the Montreal meeting on this aspect. The only reason I commissioned that report was to put on the table some other scientific information about this interaction. And now I'd like to make sure everybody around the table understands that we have moved from the west coast to the east coast, because we're talking about an east coast problem here, not a west coast problem.

Mr. John Cummins: Well, let me put the report of this scientific review committee, which is made up of DFO scientists, into perspective. Dr. Carl Walters, at the University of British Columbia, is a well respected fish biologist who's done work for the department, and the commentary that....

Let me first comment that Dr. Peterson is a retired cattle geneticist at the University of British Columbia. Dr. Walters, who's a fish biologist as opposed to a cattle geneticist, commented on Peterson's report, and he says it's nonsense. He said:

Wild salmon are genetically very diverse...while farmed fish are less diverse, selections from wild stocks....

He says:

salmon, unlike cattle, are highly adapted to local conditions that do not restrict genetic diversity.

And of course:

“Isolation of salmon stocks should be avoided,” writes Peterson. He says they have lost their genetic diversity.

So Walters doesn't think very highly of Peterson's report. He calls it nonsense.

The scientific review committee, commenting on Peterson's report, says:

There have been no studies documenting a beneficial effect of hybridization between an introduced and a local wild salmonid population.

Which is something that Peterson says should happen. And the scientific review committee went on to say:

There is no evidence to indicate that interbreeding between wild and domesticated salmon will be beneficial to the wild population [as Peterson suggested]. There is evidence to indicate that there has been a reduction of fitness in wild populations in the short term when wild and domesticated salmonids have interbred.

So basically the DFO scientists pooh-poohed your report, and you ignored that in your letter to the Ottawa Citizen. Why?

Mr. Yves Bastien: As I was trying to tell you, I did not ignore it. The report you're talking about is not a report on Dr. Peterson's report, it's the opposite. The content of Dr. Peterson's report is not supported only by himself; you have another geneticist on the east coast who is saying exactly the same thing in a report given to that scientific working group.

I don't want to enter into a debate on genetics, but the reality is that each case, when we're talking about interaction between wild and farmed salmon of the same species.... Again, I mentioned that we're no longer on the west coast, we are on the east coast, because there is no interbreeding on the west coast. On the east coast, this important aspect has to be clearly analysed. There is some scientific information on both sides of this debate. There is more than one geneticist who says that gene flow is positive in natural populations and that escapement, depending on the numbers.... It's always a question of numbers and the reality of the escapement: How do they reproduce themselves? Are they reproducing themselves and interbreeding with the local population in big numbers? If it's in small numbers, it can definitely be a positive thing for a population, and this can be demonstrated theoretically.

As the scientific review committee mentioned, there is very little evidence in the science for any side, so there is a clear need for research.

• 0950

But I'd like to mention that those researches are very long-term. In the meantime, we have to manage those risks. My perspective on it is that the risk, depending on each case—each case has to be analysed—is not really important globally. There may be some cases where the risks are higher, and we have to address those risks.

The Chair: You have less than a minute, John, for this one.

Mr. John Cummins: Your letter to the Ottawa Citizen left no doubt that you considered any criticism of the aquaculture industry unfounded. You said this morning that the debate is irrational—and that's in your own statement—and yet, Carl Walters at UBC describes the approach that Peterson uses as one way to destroy salmon stocks. He says that the big unknown is a relationship between the decline of wild salmon stocks on the east and west coasts and the growth in salmon farming. He goes on to ask why there is not a concerted effort to get the science done that's going to disprove it.

Mr. Yves Bastien: On those aspects, I'll just give you an example where, clearly, displacement has been successful. In my life, I have been a salmon biologist. I was responsible for enhancement of rivers on the east coast. There was a case where a river had a very small population left. It was not performing well. As a biologist, I took some population from far away and enhanced that river with a new population. I displaced what was then the current population. Many years later, that population is the best-performing population in the area. Why? Definitely there was interaction between the local population and the population we introduced into that river. The reason is that this specific case, in terms of genetics, was profitable to the population. This is now a best-performing population these days, 20 years later.

So in some cases, interactions between wild and cultured animals—and you have different levels of cultured animals—are positive. So this means that to say the view of Dr. Peterson is nonsense is as much nonsense as saying that, because it's never black and white. You have to analyse each case, case by case, in order to decide if there is a negative interaction. In some cases, there may be some positive interaction. I'm not saying there is never any negative interaction.

Mr. John Cummins: One quickie, Mr. Chairman...?

The Chair: If it's on the same line—

Mr. John Cummins: It is on the same line. That's why I want to go with it. It's not just me saying that Dr. Peterson's work.... Dr. Peterson is a cattle geneticist. The fish guys are telling me this. Dr. Eric Taylor, professor of zoology at UBC, said the most misleading part of Peterson's work is the suggestion that genetic interaction between wild and farmed fish might enhance wild fish. He said the real problem is the reverse: the genetic interaction between wild and farmed fish undermines the fitness of the wild stock, creating what he termed “an outbreeding depression”.

The Chair: What's the question, John?

Mr. John Cummins: The problem is that DFO seems to be promoting rather than objectively assessing aquaculture. He says there's no experimental work being done by DFO to assess the risk, and that's something that the scientific review committee says as well. I'm asking you, why is that?

The Chair: Mr. Bastien, first, is that correct? If it is, why?

Mr. Yves Bastien: Just tell me again. What are you asking me is correct...?

Mr. John Cummins: In the first instance, he says that the most misleading part of Peterson's work is the suggestion that somehow the genetic interaction between wild and farmed fish is a positive, that it might enhance wild fish. He says that's nonsense. He says the real problem is the reverse.

He then goes on to say that if you want to go beyond that, the problem is that the department is not fulfilling its constitutional mandate to protect wild stocks in that it is not doing the proper kind of risk assessment to establish the truth in this matter, to once and for all answer some of these very valid concerns that are raised, not just by irrational environmentalists, as you would describe them, but by some very competent scientists.

The Chair: I think the key question, Mr. Bastien, was this: is DFO objectively assessing the impact?

Mr. John Cummins: Precisely, Mr. Chairman.

• 0955

Mr. Yves Bastien: Well, there is definitely some effort in that. First, there are some environmental assessments before a project starts, both at the provincial and the federal levels. There are some research initiatives going on in Canada, and we are working on developing some programming in that order to make sure we have a better understanding of those environmental impacts.

But even if you put an incredible amount of money into analysing all environmental impacts, it will be forever impossible to understand completely what's happening. It's like any other industrial sector or human activity. I did mention an example in the fishing sector. I could mention many examples. If we wait to make all our governmental decisions until we have a full understanding of all that's happening in our ecosystem, we'll just stop doing everything.

Mr. John Cummins: We'll never have a full...but we're doing nothing—

The Chair: We have to move on, John, to the next questioner.

Just let me put it to you again, Mr. Bastien. In your view, do you believe DFO is objectively assessing the impact, and if so, how?

Mr. Yves Bastien: Well, there are some processes and we are improving those processes.

The Chair: We'll come back to you, John.

Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la- Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): Good morning, gentlemen. I will also start with a question based on Mr. Bastien's presentation. Since I know where Mr. Cummins comes from, I can understand that he is a bit uncomfortable with what you have said.

I would like to raise to points that I noted on pages 4 and 6. On page 4, you say that "This debate is sterile because it is completely polarized", but you also say that it "undervalues our expertise and our ability to develop appropriate mechanisms and technologies". What are these mechanisms and technologies we have at our disposal? Is there a list of these things that we can obtain?

I point that out in connection with what we find, for example, on page 6, where you say that in your legal review, you are analyzing the possibility of developing regulations on environmental standards for the level of waste and possible impacts. I compare that to what we heard in British Columbia, where the government has imposed a moratorium on new open-net sites. New open-net sites can be opened if closed nets are also set up. In British Columbia, the government has not only regulated open nets and closed nets, but also established standards for site development and standards under which some sites must be moved. I think that it is the Sierra Legal Defence Fund that tried to illustrate with maps what the result would be. It means that many sites would have to be moved.

I am rather a neophyte in the area of aquaculture. When I listen to experts, whether it is you or experts from the other side of the fence, I do not find arguments that reassure me or make a connection between the two sides. With respect to the tools that you have, you know what is coming. How can we reassure people? I agree with the saying that we must not throw the baby out with the bath water. So what can we do? What tools do we have at our disposal this morning?

Mr. Yves Bastien: There are plenty of tools. There are regulatory instruments. British Columbia and other provinces have already established mechanisms and will continue to do so in order to ensure better monitoring of environmental impacts and a better understanding of those impacts. The legal review I am conducting will enable us to propose new solutions that I think will increase the confidence of the general public, legislators and environmentalists with respect to environmental performance in this sector.

• 1000

Let us come back to the example of British Columbia. The government there is establishing a mechanism for changing aquaculture sites, since certain criteria have been defined for site selection. They are now able to identify the conditions required to minimize effects on the environment. This has come about as a result of data on the performance of farms being accumulated. They now know what water circulation rate is necessary around the cage or cages. That is an important aspect for avoiding certain toxic effects like the accumulation of sediments under the cage or in less favourable locations. That information is now available and there are mechanisms for selecting better sites.

The technology is evolving daily. Companies are working on prototypes to reduce other effects. That is why I say in a country like ours, which has great potential for aquaculture, we need to put an end to these irrational debates and get on with the task of developing mechanisms and technologies that can lead to what I call a perfectly sustainable industry. There are many tools that are now being implemented.

The legal review will help to improve the processes by helping to clarify provincial and federal responsibilities for environmental reviews and monitoring. When there is less confusion, it will be easier to target what must be done. The mechanisms are largely tied to regulations that exist, in many cases, both at the provincial and federal levels. The legal review will deal with these matters and make various proposals.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: It is recognized, then, that there have been environmental problems caused by aquaculture operations, since people are saying that changes are needed. Would you say that the reaction of British Columbia, as an order of government, is in reaction to damage that has actually taken place or to fears that it might happen? People there seem to be more concerned about environmental protection than people I run into in my part of the country, which is not a bad thing.

What I would like to know is whether everyone agrees that there has been damage caused to the environment. Is the solution proposed by British Columbian aimed at repairing that damage or at preventing damage that people fear could take place?

Mr. Yves Bastien: I would say that it is a bit of both. In the past, some operations or practices certainly had more impact than is the case today. But what leads to believe that it is also partly perception is that when we place these impacts in a more general context, we see that they are minimal compared with what we openly tolerate in our society in many...

I want to make myself clearly understood. It is not because others are acting wrongly that we must do the same. The proof of that is that we are working to establish mechanisms to improve the industry. However, it is important to point out that both were involved. As you said, some places were initially recognized as having good potential for raising salmon in British Columbia but are now considered less good because, among other things, there is insufficient water flow.

So we now recognize that there is room for improvement in these sites. That means that we admit that the choice of sites was not so good in the past. But there is also a strong perception that there are environmental impacts that are absolutely uncontrollable and very harmful, including the accumulation of sediments under the cages. In fact, that impact was relatively harmless, given that tides and natural mortality produce much more organic matter in suspension in the ocean and on the bottom. In the final analysis, that has not had a major impact at all.

• 1005

So it is a question of balance between perception and reality.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I have one last short question. Is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans experimenting with such an aquacultural site? Responsibility for improving operational technique seems to have been placed on the shoulders of the industry, but is DFO playing a role?

I know that British Columbia is helping to fund development of the closed net system, but is the federal government doing something or could it do something? I ask this question because I have the impression that the industry is left up to its own devices, that it has to meet the standards and that there are no incentives.

Mr. Yves Bastien: As you say, the federal government is carrying out research in British Columbia, including at the Nanaimo station. At their research site, located in a natural environment, they are working with a company that is developing a system known as

[English]

closed containment system.

[Translation]

So Fisheries and Oceans Canada is certainly involved in that and it contributes financially through other research and development assistance programs to other experiments elsewhere in Canada.

The research program could be bigger. We strongly hope to change that situation soon, but the program has existed for a number of years.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bastien.

Mr. Provenzano.

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

I have a whole raft of questions, through you, Mr. Chair, to—

The Chair: Well, let's hear them. We're going to have to tighten up the questions to Mr. Bastien.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: —Dr. Roth and to Mr. Bastien, if he cares to answer.

In your comments, Dr. Roth, about the relatively insignificant use of antibiotics as disease inhibitors in fish farming, you excluded vaccines. Are the data different for vaccines used in connection with the rearing of fish?

Dr. Myron Roth: Is that the question?

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Yes, that's the question.

Dr. Myron Roth: Actually, I didn't say that the use was insignificant. I just said that relatively speaking the amount was quite low where vaccines are concerned. Vaccines are used quite extensively. What I tried to say in my presentation was that it's because of vaccines that antibiotics are used as minimally as they are. In fact, in Canada I would say that all fish are vaccinated. All salmon smolts are vaccinated. Does that answer your question?

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I guess what I'm trying to understand is the interplay between the use of antibiotics and the use of vaccines in the rearing of fish. We have data on the use of antibiotics, which, in the scheme of things, is a very small percentage of the use of antibiotics in rearing fish, cattle, the whole arena of raising animals for food. You mentioned oxytetracycline as the antibiotic most commonly used.

Dr. Myron Roth: Yes.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: We're using vaccines as well. What's the interplay? What does that mean? You state here that the data, excluding vaccines, produces statistics that, relatively speaking, are low. But when we talk about vaccines, are we looking at data that is not consistent with what you're saying here? Is the use of vaccines in the same proportion or is it out of proportion?

Dr. Myron Roth: When I said “excluding vaccines”, I was talking about sales figures, because those numbers are hard to come by. Generally the way it works is that all fish—at least all salmon—that go to sea are vaccinated. The vaccines protect against a variety of diseases, but not all diseases, and there are situations where disease outbreaks could occur. When those incidents do happen, antibiotics are used.

• 1010

In relation to other food animal production—chickens, cattle, pigs—all animals are vaccinated, where possible. Right now—and I work for a vaccine manufacturer—if we had a vaccine that would protect against all disease, the farmers would buy it, but vaccines are very complicated and very difficult to make. We do have vaccines that protect against a variety of bugs and the farmers use those vaccines as quickly as they can get their hands on them.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Is there such a thing as vaccine residue? You tested for antibiotic residue and it was a figure of about 3.5% in all of the fish that were tested. I take it that you were testing for residue of oxytetracycline. Is there such a thing as vaccine residue? For the vaccines that you're using, is there any testing done to determine whether that vaccine is present in the fish at the time it goes to market?

Dr. Myron Roth: Vaccines are made from killed organisms, by and large, so technically speaking there are no chemical residues.

Now I suppose that if you look genetically you might find some genetic evidence that the bug was grown, killed, and then used to elicit an immune response. But I think it would be fair to answer your question and say that there are no vaccine residues per se.

There are some “excipients”, as we call them, that are used in vaccines. Those excipients are things like a small amount of chemical that's used to kill the bacterium. We then check to make sure that process is complete and then we either make sure that the level of that compound is very low or we try to remove it.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Doctor, you mentioned that antibiotics are not used to promote growth in the fish, that there is no use of antibiotics as growth promoters. Is there the use of any other chemical substance to promote growth in the fish farming industry?

Dr. Myron Roth: No.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: No?

Dr. Myron Roth: No.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Oxytetracycline is part of a group of drugs, I understand.

Dr. Myron Roth: Yes.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Is oxytetracycline used to treat diseases in humans?

Dr. Myron Roth: There might be some tetracyclines that are used.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I guess what I'm going to ask, Doctor, is this: are you satisfied, based on what I hope is some empirical data, that the use of oxytetracycline and the other antibiotics, whatever they may be, does not shorten the life of the use of that antibiotic in treating human disease conditions?

Dr. Myron Roth: I'm convinced that there's no evidence to suggest that any antimicrobial usage in aquaculture would limit the use of antimicrobials in human medicine.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: So humans have no need to fear that the lifespan of the antibiotic being used in the way it is in the fish farming industry will somehow affect the ability to treat human diseases because it has become a shorter life—

Dr. Myron Roth: The issue you're hitting on is the one of antimicrobial resistance. This is an issue that has been taken up by the industry lately. Basically what you would need to have for that is the situation where the antimicrobials used in aquaculture could develop an organism in fish that's also pathogenic to humans. It could become resistant and then affect humans, and then when you try to treat the people, you can't treat them any more. Generally speaking, though, you won't find those sorts of pathogens in farmed salmon.

Another thing that could happen, though, is that you could treat the animals with your antimicrobials and the bugs you're treating against could develop some resistance mechanism. That mechanism could actually jump from that bug to somewhere else and then jump into a bug that would infect a person. There's no evidence to suggest that this has occurred in aquaculture. The reason is that most of the pathogens that are of concern in human medicine don't occur in salmon. Now—

The Chair: Carmen, you're nearly out of time. Go ahead.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I have two more questions.

Dr. Myron Roth: It is something that is being looked at by the industry from a risk assessment point of view.

• 1015

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Okay. Thank you for those answers. I'm almost out of time, so I'll ask just two of the remaining questions I have.

Closed containment—and probably, Dr. Bastien, this is for you. We were out on the west coast and we talked to some scientists who said really there is no such thing as a closed containment system for fish farming. What are your comments in response to that?

Mr. Yves Bastien: Well, I would maintain that comment. On the market right now, there is no closed containment system available, because you always have a certain effluent with the systems that are available. Right now, the systems that I know of are just concentrating the effluent into one output. Up to now, there is no technology available to recuperate all those wastes and do something with them.

So I agree there is no real closed containment system available, and even if you were to go on land, you would have to find some way to get rid of the waste. So real closed containment systems are a complex concept.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: This is my last question for Dr. Roth.

You're a fish biologist, Dr. Roth.

Dr. Myron Roth: Yes.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: A veterinarian?

Dr. Myron Roth: No, I'm not a veterinarian.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: You belong to a group of professionals involved in this aspect of the fishing industry. You made some statements about safety on the use of antibiotics. Aside from whatever the government is doing, is your association of professionals collecting data that support the statements you're making here to the committee today?

Dr. Myron Roth: To speak on behalf of aquaculture veterinarians in Canada, they are developing codes of practice for prudent drug use, and these are the people who are largely involved with the prescribing of antimicrobials. There is a national association that deals with fish health and fish health therapeutant issues, and what they've recently done is develop a code of practice that specifically develops the on-farm use of therapeutants. That is a long checklist of things farmers have to do, and if they meet all the requirements, someone comes to the farm, does an audit of the farm, and gives them a certificate, which lasts for a year, that says they meet the requirements of the program.

That program was developed just over the last couple of years, and it's just come out of the pilot phase. Most of the farms in New Brunswick now are compliant within that program. I think that from a producer's perspective there are initiatives to try to make sure that when antimicrobials are used, they're used prudently. I think that veterinarian associations—and you might want to pose that question to them—are also trying to develop their own prudent-use guidelines for prescribing on farms.

The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Roth and Mr. Provenzano.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

Well, Mr. Bastien, when you give a presentation, you definitely give a presentation. You have successfully now ticked off about a few thousand environmental people who I know quite well, and you've probably ticked off everybody who went to the March 2 meeting in Simon Fraser regarding your comments on irrational environmental debate. I don't know how you can come to the committee and actually say that anybody who poses a question to the aquaculture industry would have an irrational environmental debate. Would you call David Suzuki, John Volpe, and Carl Waters irrational in their arguments towards aquaculture?

The Chair: Mr. Bastien.

Mr. Yves Bastien: Yes. That's really important. We are exactly on the subject here. I'm saying that we have to move forward and we have to sit at the same table, all those people who have legitimate concerns.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Bastien, my question is quite clear. Are you calling those people irrational?

Mr. Yves Bastien: No. I'm—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you. That's my question. No, that's fine. That's my question.

The Chair: Peter....

Mr. Yves Bastien: No, definitely not.

The Chair: We'll give you time, Mr. Bastien, if you want to answer. We'll give you time.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I have many questions.

The Chair: I know that, but you have to give the witness time to answer too.

Mr. Bastien.

• 1020

Mr. Yves Bastien: Since my arrival in this job and in the last 15 years in aquaculture, I have seen an incredible irrational debate. I'm not saying that the people who are expressing concerns over aquaculture are irrational, definitely not. I want the irrational debate to come to an end in order to move forward on addressing the real concerns, make the difference between the perception and the real concerns, the real problems, and sit down at the same table with all partners to say here is what we can do with that industry in Canada to develop an environmentally sound industry.

So these people are not irrational. The debate generally in the media has come to a point where aquaculture is being pointed to as responsible for all the problems, which is not a reality. So I'm not saying everybody is irrational; I'm just saying it's time to move away from polarized extreme positions, to move forward.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Bastien, when a fin-fish farm wants to set up an operation, is there an environmental study done prior to that operation going into effect in the salt water?

Mr. Yves Bastien: Yes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Then how could Scotia Rainbow in Arichat, Nova Scotia, set up their farms without one minute of an independent environmental assessment? How are they able to set up that farm without an assessment by the environment department federally or provincially, by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, federally or provincially? How are they able to set up without one minute of an environmental assessment?

Mr. Yves Bastien: I don't know the specific case, but I could check and report back to this committee. But there are some environmental assessment processes in place at both provincial and federal levels.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Bastien, in a letter I received from, at that time, Minister Michel Samson, who is now the MLA for the Richmond area in Cape Breton, when I asked him if there was an environmental assessment done, he said one wasn't required because the operation didn't trigger an assessment.

Now, I have another thing for you, sir. Roger Hammond, who is with the aquaculture industry in Nova Scotia, said in an op-ed piece to the paper that fin fish farmed are not doing anything that wild fish aren't doing. Is that a fair statement?

Mr. Yves Bastien: Could you repeat it, please?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: He said that fin fish farmed, that are in a caged system, are not doing anything different from what wild fish are doing. Is that a fair statement?

Mr. Yves Bastien: Well, depending on the site. At one point it's really a question of case by case to make sure you know what the conditions are, if there's a good flushing, and in some cases the impact will be minimal.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: My question is do fin fish farmed...? There are hundreds of fish, sometimes thousands of them, swimming around in a net being fed pellets, and their feces go to the bottom in a concentrated area. Is that similar to what wild fish do?

Mr. Yves Bastien: Well, to answer your question, I will just quote you something from last year's appearance of William Doubleday, a director general of Fisheries and Oceans, about that.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: My buddy, yes.

Mr. Yves Bastien: Well, it's important, because you're asking if farms with organic material are creating an impact on the environment.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: No, that's not my question. My question was, do fin fish farmed in a caged system act the same way as wild fish do out in the wild?

Mr. Yves Bastien: You mean in terms of physiology?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: What he said is that fin fish farmed are not doing anything different from what wild fish do. Wild fish swim hundreds of miles, sometimes thousands of miles.

Mr. Yves Bastien: Yes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Fin fish farmed go in a little circle.

Mr. Yves Bastien: Yes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: That's a big difference right there. Wild fish don't eat pellets. Fin fish do.

Mr. Yves Bastien: Yes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: So there's a big difference there. So how can he say, as a leading aquaculturalist in Nova Scotia, that they do the same things as wild fish do?

Mr. Yves Bastien: Well, he's just saying that physiology.... Those animals ingest organic materials and excrete some other organic materials, and in this sense there is no difference. The difference is in the number in the cage.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay. And you also said that if we put the aquaculture sites on land bases, we'd have to find out what to do with the wastes.

Mr. Yves Bastien: Yes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Well, wouldn't a simple solution be to treat them in a sewage system plant like anything else?

Mr. Yves Bastien: Well, you will have some impact on the land. What about the destruction of the very local physical habitat? You have fauna where you will install a land-based system. You will destroy a portion of the wildlife, and you will destroy it much more extremely than the marine environment. You will destroy trees. You will destroy all the fauna on the land. This is a real impact, and you cannot come back after you've done that. That's finished. You have destroyed a big portion of your land there. Then you will have to deal with all kinds of escapement in the watershed of any kind of product you're using. So it's the same overall situation.

• 1025

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Sir, Mr. Cummins asked you about spawning Atlantic salmon in the rivers and what your solution would be to prevent that. The fact is we asked the deputy minister of fisheries and oceans science. Mr. Volpe is doing the only research we know of on spawning salmon in rivers. DFO is not doing it. The question is, first of all, how do you know what salmon are doing when DFO admits they're not doing any studies on it? What's your solution to spawning salmon in the rivers? You didn't answer that question.

Mr. Yves Bastien: I just said that if there is a growing problem, there are some solutions to that. One of the solutions could be that if you have a river that has some salmon successfully reproducing, you can install a fence. There is a clear homing instinct for Atlantic salmon, and if they ever reproduce and go back to the ocean and come back, which is a lot of ifs—the chance for that to happen is minimal, but it could happen—then you could install a fence and get rid of that population in a short time.

The Chair: This will be your last question, Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Dr. Roth, I handed you a document we received from Alexandra Morton that came from a fish pathology laboratory in Ontario. Would you eat a fish that had that many concerns regarding it?

Dr. Myron Roth: Do you mean this fish in particular?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes.

Dr. Myron Roth: I don't know if everyone has this document in front of them.

The Chair: No, we don't.

An hon. member: They had it in Toronto.

The Chair: That's all right. There's one we have.

Dr. Myron Roth: What they've described here is that an Atlantic salmon was found in a river with some coho salmon, and they've taken some samples to determine whether or not the fish was infected with furunculosis. I have a veterinarian's report here on the pathology findings. Basically, what they have found is that when salmon spawn in rivers, the physiology of the salmon changes quite a bit, and they do succumb to fungal infections. This fish had a lesion on the side, and it was probably a fungal infection that had then been colonized by some sort of common ubiquitous environmental pathogen, two species of serratia. I'm not familiar with this bug. I've certainly never come across it in any of my dealings with farm fish. Then they've taken this bug and looked at the profile with regard to a whole list of antimicrobials.

I have two comments. I don't know if this is complete because it doesn't actually say anything about furunculosis or whether the fish was sick internally. It just says they took a swab on the outside of the fish and found bacteria, which doesn't surprise me at all. The profile is really kind of interesting in that it showed that the bug was resistant to most of these antimicrobials.

But, oddly enough, the two antimicrobials listed here, tetracycline and trimethoprin sulpha, are the ones that are used in aquaculture. The bug was sensitive to those. To be quite honest, the pattern doesn't make any sense to me. Why would the bug be sensitive to the drugs that are normally used in aquaculture but resistant to drugs that are not used in aquaculture? It does show resistance to one compound that is used in aquaculture, which could be an anomaly.

If I were to follow up on this, I would probably ask the pathologist what sorts of profiles he sees in a lot of these environmental organisms.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: This will be my very last question.

The Chair: That was your last. Sorry, Peter. There might be a chance later on.

During your questioning, though, I think it was agreed, Mr. Bastien, that you'd report back to the committee on Scotia Rainbow and whether environmental studies were done.

I have on my list Mr. Cummins and Mr. Keddy. Are there any others?

Before I go to Mr. Cummins, when we travelled in British Columbia, Mr. Bastien, we met with the minister of fisheries from B.C., and I had the feeling—I'm not sure about other committee members—that at least a process of dialogue was moving forward in which both extremes were coming together and that maybe progress would be made on a future policy. Are you involved in that process? I understand that since the premier has changed, fisheries has been lumped in with another department. Will it have any impact on that?

• 1030

Mr. Yves Bastien: Yes, we are involved in that initiative, because we believe that's exactly what we have to do now—move away from irrational debate and sit down at the same table. That's why we are part of this initiative. We have been supporting it. We have been very positive in putting pressure for that to happen. That's exactly what I'm saying when I talk about moving away from irrational debate and sitting down and seeing what we can do. Definitely, my organization is part of this very positive initiative. That's what I would like to see everywhere in the country, moving away from debating, and sitting down and deciding how we can do it in an economical and environmentally sound way. So, yes, that's definitely the way to go. We are strongly supportive of that initiative, and we're part of it.

What was your second point?

The Chair: Is that process in any kind of jeopardy given the fact that in B.C. fisheries is now tied in with another department? Previously, the minister's time was dedicated exclusively to fisheries, and now it's not. Is that going to affect that process from your perspective?

Mr. Yves Bastien: I don't think so. It's well underway. I think it's the wish of a lot of partners there, including the environmental groups, to be able to discuss how it's evolving and to be part of the discussion process. So I would be surprised that this would be changed or jeopardized by the arrival of a new minister. I would say that this will just continue and hopefully arrive at a very good result.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bastien.

Mr. Cummins, you have five minutes on this round, followed by Mr. Keddy.

Mr. John Cummins: In your presentation you talked about the precautionary approach, and you suggested that the decision to allow fishing for cod in Newfoundland last year was made using the precautionary approach. I'd question that.

I find the whole issue of precautionary approach interesting. The report of the scientific review committee with regard to submissions received concerning the proposed 1998 revisions to the NAC protocol on the introduction and transfer of salmonids states that fish health decisions are not based on a proper risk assessment methodology. In other words, the precautionary approach is not applied to fish health issues. Would you agree with that statement?

Dr. Myron Roth: You'd really have to clarify what you mean by fish health issues. Give me an example.

Mr. John Cummins: I presume that what they're talking about is the regulations. They say that Canadian regulations are not in line with international standards and that they should be brought in line with them. They talk about mandatory reporting of listed diseases, quality assurance, a quality control program, introduction of the concept of zoning and surveillance, and a risk analysis methodology in the manual of compliance, these kinds of things. Obviously, there is a concern about the management of disease in this fish farming business.

The Chair: Mr. Bastien or Dr. Roth.

Dr. Myron Roth: I'd like to mention just a couple of things. There's one piece of legislation, the fish health protection regulations, which is really quite stringent. In fact, a lot of countries in the world use what we call the blue book standard, and they call it the blue book standard because that's the colour of the book that contains the Canadian regulations.

• 1035

To my knowledge, there are no international standards per se for quality assurance, quality control, on farms, although there are some standards now coming into effect with respect to processing. Again, I think Canada has been ahead of the game, because, for example, Canada had a HACCP requirement for processed fish before the U.S. made it mandatory.

Mr. John Cummins: Just a comment, Mr. Chairman: the scientific review committee suggests revisions to the fish health protection standards, which would bring Canadian regulations in line with international standards, which seems to contradict Dr. Roth.

Anyway, in your presentation to the Senate committee, Dr. Roth, you said:

Currently, despite all the work which has been done on transgenic fish in Canada, there are no commercially produced transgenic fish.

Mr. Bastien, on the same issue, you suggested that:

...the aquaculture industry...is right now applying a voluntary moratorium on the use of genetically modified fish for the clear reason that right now there is a clear opposition from the general population.

You went on to say that it's also clear in Europe and so on.

But the fact of the matter, as I understand it from a recent article in The Boston Globe.... It says there's an American company operating in P.E.I. that has plans to have “Frankenfish”, as some refer to them, in sea pens by this summer. They say that A/F Protein officials hope to test their fish in ocean pens next summer and, if they win U.S. and Canadian regulatory approval, begin selling genetically altered salmon and trout by 2001.

Sefton Dixon, a Prince Edward Island salmon farmer who recently formed a company called Ovatech with five other fish farmers to distribute these genetically modified fish, says:

The growth rates and the cost of production of the genetically modified fish are in no way comparable to regular fish.

They comment further that the Canadian government has backed genetic engineering in fish as well.

What I'm saying here, I guess, is that you suggested in your testimony to the Senate that we're a long way from introducing genetically altered fish into the marketplace, but that seems to be contradicted by this story in The Boston Globe. Would you care to comment on that?

Dr. Myron Roth: I have just one quick comment. Yes, there are some commercial enterprises looking at the issue of transgenic salmon. What I was saying was that there were no farms commercially producing and marketing the salmon.

Also, I think if you follow these companies.... That company has been around for a very long time, actually, and they've been saying those things year after year. Like any other commercial enterprise, they're trying to build up a little bit of hype for their products. I think if you look at their literature you might find a similar sort of statement from probably three or four years ago, but still we have no products. So while the companies will try to do this sort of thing, I think there's going to be a lot more debate and discussion before they come to fruition.

The Chair: John.

Mr. John Cummins: What bothers me, Mr. Chairman, is the way some of these things seem to be happening. I have a DFO memo here from 1991. It's a memo to the regional director of the fisheries branch in B.C. from the chief of the aquaculture division. He comments and says:

In my view it is only a matter of time before we discover that Atlantics are gaining a foothold in B.C. (residency) or in Washington State. Even if agreement cannot be reached on this assumption, what should our position be in responding to enquiries?

Do we prepare public/user groups for the possibility, and strategically plant the seed now, or do we downplay the idea and deal with the situation if and when it occurs?

To me, Mr. Chairman, with the issue of genetically modified fish, as with the issue of escapees, there seems to be some kind of an effort here to inform the public that these things are happening but they're not anything to worry about, that there's no intention of bringing these things to the marketplace, and that the containment is something we don't have to worry about. Then, somehow or other, we find that maybe we're going to slide these into the ocean this summer.

• 1040

What's the department doing here? Is the department simply trying to calm the fears of the public about these things? Or is it actually moving ahead? Is it going to introduce genetically modified fish into the ocean off P.E.I. next summer or isn't it?

The Chair: Mr. Bastien or Dr. Roth.

Mr. Yves Bastien: I would like to make this comment about GMOs. As was stated, the industry is applying a voluntary moratorium. They are not planning to use it commercially. Personally I have strong concerns with the usage of that. We already have the legal mechanism in place to make sure there is a profound debate before any of those fish go into commercial usage.

I think it's impossible for us to stop research. Research is something that is completely different. Even if you have those fish in net pans first, they will have to follow some precise research protocols before going in the ocean. Even for research purposes they will have to meet the necessary requirement to make sure there is no escape.

Mr. John Cummins: But do you—

The Chair: Sorry, Mr. Cummins.

Mr. Bastien.

Mr. Yves Bastien: Right now the research is done in containment facilities. I have the same concerns you have about those fish. Personally I see less problem with the consumption of those fish, but regarding the potential interaction with wild animals I have some clear, strong concerns. Right now in the introduction and transfer policy that is applied all around Canada, those fish are considered an exotic species, so the mechanism to decide what is the policy regarding the movement of those fish and the utilization of those fish.... But research is something else, something other than using those fish on a commercial basis.

Mr. John Cummins: I have no problem with research. I just—

The Chair: We have to turn to Mr. Keddy, John.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a couple of short questions. I just want to change the direction of some of this debate a little and maybe get down to some specifics.

I apologize for arriving late. I didn't get an opportunity to hear everything you folks had to say, but there were three comments made that got my attention. One was about oxytetracycline. One was about farmed fish feces management. The other one was what John just mentioned about transgenics.

We know that in any agriculture situation or any farm situation you're going to use a certain amount of antibiotics. I think there's a lot of mistrust and distrust between the two user groups—traditional fishery and agriculturist—and probably some mistakes made in the past. But certainly the tetracycline family of drugs has been out there for a long time, for a lot of human consumption and a lot of animal consumption, whether that's farm use or hospital use. I just wanted to make that point because I think you said you weren't sure that oxytetracycline was used—well, you didn't really answer that question—for humans. I'm pretty sure it is, and it is certainly used in animals.

On feces management in Nova Scotia, I wasn't catching whether it was strictly east coast or strictly west coast that we were talking about, because there are two different sets of rules. The rules are provincially based. In Nova Scotia, you need six fathoms of water, seven fathoms of water, which is 30 to 35 or 36 feet of water, and they hope you have some tidal action so that you have flushing.

I've never been underneath a salmon pen in any kind of current, but I would, without being underneath one, defy anyone to go under one and find salmon feces on the bottom. I would expect that you guys have been there. I've just listened to the debate in Nova Scotia over putting some pens out in Saddle Island where there's a heavy tide. A strong current goes through there and it's within 400 metres of shore, and they were saying we're going to get salmon feces washed up on the beach.

Well, to begin with, first of all there's not a beach. There's a rocky shore. Second of all, it's not going to happen. I lose patience for the arguments and for your argument, really. We need to have this debate, and your comments take the rationality out of it. It's time that we got down to discussing issues that are important here and suggestions to put rules and regulations in place that can allow the industry to move forward.

• 1045

In farm pens manure management is going to be more difficult, and I would assume that they will compost it the same as you do on a pig farm or a hen farm.

You're talking about—

The Chair: Is there a question here, Mr. Keddy?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes.

The Chair: Let's hear it.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I want to hear what these guys have to say about manure management. They never answered that. To me it's a simple answer. If you have pens on land and you're going to clean those pens, you have feces in there, and you're probably going to compost those and put them back into topsoil. What else would you do with them?

The Chair: Mr. Bastien, I do believe Mr. Keddy has answered his own question, but go ahead.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I want to know.

Mr. Yves Bastien: I think you really have to make a distinction between a substance that is creating impact and a substance that is not creating impact. As I said in my speech, we are doing some analysing, and a recommendation of my legal review probably would be to look at all the substances that are coming out of a salmon farm one by one to see if they're deleterious or not. If it's not deleterious, there is no problem. If it's deleterious, we will propose some environmental standards for those substances to be respected. That's the process. The Ministry of the Environment at the federal level is willing to take the lead on that.

With regard to other industries, they have analysed what are the deleterious substances coming out of the mining industry or the potato farming industry, for example, and they have decided that there are some environmental standards to comply with.

The proposal I will probably put on the table is to go through this process and analyse all those substances, including the feces of fish. If after a comprehensive scientific analysis we find that they are deleterious to the environment, then there should be some regulation about them. Personally, I believe it's much better to have those substances composted in the wild, like the millions of tonnes of residues that come from the natural environment and are sedimenting on the bottom of the ocean and are re-utilized in the food pyramid. Those feces are natural. They are organic and they can be treated. If there's good flushing, there is no problem, in my view.

I'm proposing a process to go through all those substances that are coming out of the farms and to decide which are deleterious and which are not deleterious and then set some standards for the ones that are defined as deleterious.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Do I get another question?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Sekora.

Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.): Thank you.

We talked about farm fish and wild fish and that one may be diseased and one may not be diseased. Let's go fishing. Say I catch a wild fish. I know nothing about fish except that it has a mouth and a few other things—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: We know that already.

Mr. Lou Sekora: —some fins and some scales. How would I know that wild fish is not diseased?

Dr. Myron Roth: I would say that chances are the wild fish is diseased. You'll find that disease is much more prevalent in wild fish than it is in farm fish.

I'd like to qualify that statement, because I knew a lot of people would get upset at that comment.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Not a lot, just some.

Dr. Myron Roth: Anyway, I was reading some literature last night, and this has been studied exhaustively. In fact, I have a table here from a report of a study done on the west coast by a gentleman by the name of Calderwood and some others. They did this report for BC MAFF. They looked at a couple of farm chinook salmon sites, wild steelhead, and wild coho. Basically, they looked at 150 farm fish and about another 120 wild salmon, and they screened the fish for 16 bacterial pathogens. For almost every pathogen there's a much higher prevalence of the bacteria in the wild steelhead and the coho. For example, there's this one bacteria here—I won't give you its name, it's kind of long—and 10% of the farm chinook would have it. This is a common soil organism, yet 98% of the coho salmon were infected with the pathogen. Four of the 16 bugs were found in farm chinook, whereas nine of the 16 were found in wild fish.

• 1050

Mr. John Cummins: Wild salmon don't do drugs.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Dr. Myron Roth: I think if you actually did a survey, you'd find that the bugs are quite prevalent in wild fish. Any fish parasitologist would tell you, if you want to find a bug, just go look in the wild population. That's where they're at.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer, you have one quick one, Mr. Cummins has one quick one, and I have one.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Seeing that Mr. Bernier is not here, perhaps I can get two quick ones.

The Chair: No, one. Be quick.

Mr. Lou Sekora: Only half of one.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: My question is a quite simple one on the land-based system.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Get back to the feces.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm not quite sure why you would object to a land-based system when many people indicate that the future of the.... You're looking at the economics of it and not necessarily the practicality of it. We build subdivisions and factories on land, and they as well have an effect on the environment. Many people indicate that you can go land based in terms of aquaculture for the future. I would think that as commissioner of aquaculture that's what you would be promoting, the technology to advance aquaculture so that it can be land based and have a lessening effect on our waters.

You indicated—and correct me if I'm wrong; it was an amazing statement—that cultured salmon or cultured fish can actually be good for wild stocks. Is that what you said? Did you say yes?

Mr. Yves Bastien: I need—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: You said yes. Thank you. That's my question.

The Chair: In fairness to Mr. Bastien, he was referring to his work in a salmon river in an earlier life, were you not?

Mr. Yves Bastien: That's why I need precision on the question. Be more precise. What is the—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: In fin-fish farming we have had lots of escapes, and in a land-based system that wouldn't happen. There have been tons of escapes. Are you indicating that those escapes would actually be good for the wild stocks? Dr. Roth, did you say yes?

Dr. Myron Roth: Well, I—

The Chair: We'll first go to Dr. Roth and then to Mr. Bastien to close. Dr. Roth.

Dr. Myron Roth: I'll explain why I say yes. I think we tend to focus on the exceptions to the rule. If you look at world fisheries, without a doubt the reason fisheries stocks are depleted is because of fishing, full stop. Everyone will agree with that statement.

What aquaculture does is allow you to grow fish and to take the pressure off the wild stocks. If you want to get the big bang for your buck, you'll stop fishing and depleting the stocks. Right now, 25% of the world fisheries stocks are depleted and 50% of the world fisheries stocks are being fished at their biological limit. So what are you going to do? I think if you take the pressure off, it has to be—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: But, Dr. Roth, you know very well—

The Chair: Peter, I told Mr. Bastien he would also be given a chance on this one. Mr. Bastien.

Mr. Yves Bastien: Yes, I did say that in some cases cultured fish could have a positive effect on the wild population, and I maintain that.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you. That answers my question.

Let Mr. Keddy have one.

The Chair: It'll come back to him.

Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: I just have to comment on Dr. Roth's comment that fishing depletes fish stocks. That's true. It's also true, as Mr. Bastien pointed out in his presentation, that fishing removes phenomenal quantities of given species from the marine ecosystem. He goes on to say:

Precisely because fishing is directed at specific species, it does not eliminate proportional quantities from the different levels of the food pyramid.

I couldn't agree with him more.

The fact of the matter is that farm fish eat fish meal from fish that were caught in the ocean. Fish are targeted to produce food for fish farms, so fish farms also have an impact on the ocean resources. They target fish, Carmen, to make that meal.

We're talking about whether or not farm fishing deposits deleterious substances into the water. In fact, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in a search warrant claims that they:

...have grounds to believe that Stolt [fish farms] is in violation of Fisheries Act, that its fish farm resulted in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat and that they did unlawfully deposit or permit the deposit of a deleterious substance into waters frequented by fish.

Count 1

Between May 01, 1990 and September 30, 1998...did unlawfully carry on a work or undertaking, to wit: fish farming, that resulted in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, contrary to section 35(1) of the Fisheries Act, and did commit an offence contrary to section 40(1) of the Fisheries Act.

Count 2:

Between the dates of May 01, 1990 and September 30, 1998...did unlawfully deposit—

• 1055

The Chair: John, do we have to...? We're going to run out of time.

Mr. John Cummins: Yes, you do. It says:

...or permit the deposit of a deleterious substance, to wit: fish farm waste, into waters frequented by fish, to wit: ...contrary to section 36(3)...[and] section 40(2) of the Fisheries Act.

Well, the fisheries department seems to think that somehow fish farming can deposit deleterious substances, to the point where they're considering charges. They say—Fisheries scientists, DFO science:

The presence of aquatic life forms at the area described as the location of the fish farm under the Licence-Aquatic lands...indicats [that it was] fish habitat.

There were noticeable levels of hydrogen sulphide in the samples taken from the substrata where they believe the fish pens were located and “there were noticeable absences of aquatic life”.

The Chair: What's the question?

Mr. John Cummins: Well, the question is, if the department obviously is concerned enough about this that it is investigating Stolt for operating a fish farm.... It seems to me, from what you were saying, that fish farming doesn't really have an impact on the environment. You downplayed the idea of putting these pens on dry land, saying that it would destroy local habitat, and yet it seems very clear here, from the investigation of the department, that fish farming in this instance destroyed the habitat under these pens, at the very least. Whether there was an impact on passing fish is another question, I guess.

But do you not agree that there is a concern here, that it's a legitimate concern that needs to be investigated?

The Chair: Mr. Bastien.

Mr. Yves Bastien: I will not comment on this case because it's in the courts. I would like to say that I never said that there is no impact. I have clearly said in front of this group that there are some legitimate concerns that have to be addressed. In the legal review, I have explained to you clearly that I will propose some mechanisms in order to address clearly those concerns. And that's my answer.

The Chair: Mr. Matthews, a quick one.

Mr. Bill Matthews: I have a bit of a question and a bit of a comment, Mr. Chairman.

I notice some of the members have concerns about the farmed fish and the pens and the feces. I just wonder if the committee might consider putting in its mandate a study of the impact of seven million seals, hundreds of thousands within a square mile, and what they do. My good friend here asked the question, do they go to the bathroom, I wonder? So we might want to expand the mandate to the impact of seven million seals on the ocean and what they're doing to fish habitat.

Let's talk about something that's meaningful here, something that's destroying the fishing habitat and fish populations. Let's get serious about it and stop our nonsense this morning.

The Chair: We had a report on seals, and it is tabled before the department.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Nonsense.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy, I'll give you the last question.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll second Bill's motion.

I just wanted to ask if we have—

Mr. John Cummins: You'd better go over there and join him. Invite him over.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I haven't heard you articulate a clear position on the difference between genetic modification, which was Mr. Duncan's former question, and transgenics. Do you have a position on genetic modification for fish farming?

Mr. Yves Bastien: Yes, I have a clear position. I am not in favour of using, for commercial use, transgenics—genetically modified organisms—until there is enough certainty, both for human consumption and, most importantly, for interaction in the wild, that these are fully safe.

Mr. Gerald Keddy. Very good. The issue—

The Chair: We're going to have to adjourn. We do have to go in camera to deal with a couple of motions.

Thank you—

Mr. John Cummins: I still have a couple of questions.

The Chair: No, you've had lots of questions, Mr. Cummins.

• 1100

Thank you, Mr. Bastien and Dr. Roth. I think we had a very lively exchange and I think it provided a lot of good information. Thank you very much.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

• 1122

[Public proceedings resume]

The Chair: Gerald.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Back to my original statement, and after listening to what Yvan had to say, I would still argue that this committee made a decision to travel to the west coast and the east coast to study aquaculture. That decision was approved by all the members of this committee. I would argue that you can't come partway through the process, after you've done the west coast, and say, no, no, we're changing the policy here and we're not going to visit the east coast.

I understand how the system works. I'm well aware of that. I understand that John has the right, through his House leader, to hold up committee travel. We can do that. But I do not agree with the point.

If we want to add a day to do some aboriginal hearings at the same time because we're in the area, I would agree to that. I do not agree, Mr. Chairman, to not travelling at all. I think it's wrong.

I think we're covering information that's redundant. This decision has already been made and you can't come back. I think if you look up your original motion it was a decision to travel. Even when Yvan decided that we wouldn't travel, the decision had been made prior to that to travel to the west coast and to the east coast to do a study on aquaculture. That decision should have gone ahead.

The Chair: The problem, though, Mr. Keddy, is that you need the accompanying budget motion to go with it, and that's the purpose of the discussion here.

There is also another possibility. The motion that's on the table at the moment is April 3 to 13. There is also the possibility of moving it back to May 1 to whatever, when we come back after the break. The problem with April 3 to 13 in part is we're going to hear from...it's been agreed that Minister Dhaliwal would appear before the committee on April 11, which is while we travel.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: We'd bring him in.

The Chair: We will know where the minister stands relative to his position towards the committee on how he responds to our report on the Marshall decision. I understand they will be in a position to table that information with us at that particular time.

So that's another possibility, but I don't know where people stand on that.

Lou.

Mr. Lou Sekora: My problem, Mr. Chair, is very simple. We went to the west coast, we listened, as I said, to a bunch of Reformers—

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): It's Canadian Alliance.

Mr. Lou Sekora: I'm going to use that, sorry.

Now we're going to talk about going to the east coast. None of them are there, and they probably never will be in a lifetime. So now there's no appetite for it. Now we're going to play games.

• 1125

The Chair: That point's been made, Lou. I have your point.

Mr. Lou Sekora: I wanted to make it on the record, Mr. Chair.

Mr. John Cummins: Could you make it again, Lou?

Mr. Lou Sekora: That was a closed-door meeting. This is an open-door meeting, the way I like it.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. John Cummins: Could you do that again and make it clear on the record?

The Chair: Lou, is your point made?

Mr. Lou Sekora: No, not quite.

The Chair: Let's hear your point, Lou.

Mr. Lou Sekora: The fact is that I think from now on, Mr. Chair, if we're going to do any travel across Canada or anywhere else, we do the east coast first, and then we'll get all kinds of cooperation from the west coast—for many reasons.

The Chair: You've made your point.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Loud and clear.

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

Mr. Gerald Keddy: If we travelled in May, and the minister appears before the committee April 11.... We should have our fisheries agreements by then.

I guess my question is to John. Is that a better date? Really we're not going to gain anything. We're still not going to be able to meet with the minister, I suspect, but we would have one meeting with him.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Well, maybe by April 11 we'll have four agreements instead of the 35 you're talking about.

But I just want to put on the record...Lou, you mentioned that we met a whole ton of Reformers on the west coast. I wouldn't really call Dennis Streifel a Reformer by any chance.

Mr. John Cummins: Thank you for clarifying that.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I thought we met a wide range of people in that regard.

Mr. John Cummins: Lynn Hunter is hardly a Reformer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, and Alex Morton.

Basically I want to say that I think while we have the minister, moving the dates ahead a bit, towards the end of May, may be more acceptable.

The Chair: Can I try this? The motion currently is April 3 to 13. Would there be agreement to change that to April 30 to May 10?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes.

The Chair: Would that be better? It's after the break. We've got lots of time.

Mr. Bill Matthews: What's better about it if we don't have the budget?

The Chair: Well, we'll see. Let's get the agreement on the dates first.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: So moved.

The Chair: It is moved that the dates be...and then this is an amendment to the motion. The mover is....

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Mr. Chairman, can we agree, if we're going to go before, that we can play around with the dates?

The Chair: No, we're going to have to deal with the date first.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I think....

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Let's deal with the date.

The Chair: We have to deal with it that way procedurally.

It is moved by Mr. Keddy, seconded by Paul Steckle, that the dates be April 30 to May 10. All those in favour?

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: On the original motion....

Mr. Bill Matthews: I didn't get that. I was distracted.

The Chair: April 30 to May 10 are the dates to travel in the motion we're dealing with now.

Go ahead, John.

Mr. John Cummins: I'll just reiterate the comments I made earlier in the meeting. I shouldn't have to because that should be on the record, as I understand it, because we've gone public with this meeting. But I will reiterate that we will not give consent until MacKenzie and Thériault appear before the committee in an open hearing to discuss their mandate and until, at this point, the three agreements that have been signed are provided to the committee for review, and that any future agreements that are signed are also provided to the committee and made public in a timely fashion. That certainly hasn't happened, and I think it should be happening. There are probably 15 or 16 agreements, as I understand it, that are close to signing and haven't been. When these agreements are signed, they should be made public. The public, and especially this committee, should have some indication from the government of just what position the government is taking on these agreements they're signing. We should know what government policy is on it. We don't. We haven't a clue.

Until these matters are dealt with, we will not grant consent to travel.

The Chair: All right. We have your—

Mr. John Cummins: To do anything.

The Chair: —position on the record, John. That's clear. I understand you'll be informing your House leader of that.

Mr. John Cummins: I will inform my House leader that on the travel issue, and on the budget issue as well—I'm not going to give consent for anything until we put pressure on the government to deal with these issues.

• 1130

The Chair: I really don't want to get into a debate, but the fact of the matter is that as the Canadian Alliance Party, you do have the opportunity to use opposition day debates to go after the minister on this issue. You do have the opportunity to use Question Period. There are all kinds of other options available to you, John, rather than holding the committee hostage.

Anyway, I don't want to get into a debate. It would probably be unfair of me to do so.

Mr. John Cummins: You're quite right that there are other avenues, and we do pursue those when the occasion allows and permits, but I think the moral suasion, if you will, is much greater if the request is seen as an all-party request. I think that's the purpose of the committee, and I think it's the job of the committee to oversee these matters. That's why I'm demanding that the committee take a stand on them.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Can I have one more point, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Yes, and then we're going to deal with the motion as amended. I want to be sure everybody is clear that I'm going to deal with it that way.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I think it's really easy to take a stand on it, Mr. Cummins. I think it's quite simple. Make the motion that we ask the minister to appear at this committee, and make the motion that we ask MacKenzie and Thériault to appear at this committee. Make it a separate motion.

Mr. John Cummins: We did that the last time and it was defeated.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Let's try it again. Make the motion that we ask them to appear before the committee. We have the right to do that.

The Chair: Gerald, right now we're dealing with the motion to travel from April 30 to May 10. I'm going to deal with that motion.

Is there any further discussion on that point?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: No.

The Chair: All those in favour?

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. John Cummins: I'd like my opposition to that noted.

The Chair: It's noted.

On the next motion, which deals with the allocation of funds, it will read as such, and I will need a mover:

That the Chair seek funds of $175,989.00 for the travel of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans the week of April 30 to May 10, 2000 to continue their comprehensive study on Aquaculture, their statutory review of the Oceans Act and fisheries issues to Quebec, New Brunswick, Maine, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Labrador, and P.E.I.

Do I have a mover?

Mr. Lou Sekora: So moved.

The Chair: So moved by Lou. Any further discussion? Do you want a recorded vote?

Mr. John Cummins: Absolutely, or you could just note my opposition, whatever you like.

The Chair: All right.

(Motion agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Now we deal with Mr. Matthews' motion. I've got it here somewhere.

The motion that has been tabled before the committee reads that:

Mr. Matthews moved - That the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans cancel its planned trip to the East Coast of Canada and cease any further work on finalizing a report on the Aquaculture Industry.

Bill, do you want to explain that motion? The floor is yours.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Basically, a brief explanation is that the issue of MacKenzie and Thériault is in no way related to the study of this committee on aquaculture. It is my strong view that this committee is being stymied and blackmail tactics are being used to not finalize the aquaculture report after we visited the west coast and Washington state. I think we should not spend another cent—not another cent—in listening to witnesses or travel or in any other way related to finalizing the aquaculture report.

My worst fears were realized. I said from day one we should have gone east first. We didn't. It's too late to deal with that. So I think the best thing this committee can do is to cancel it, not do a report on aquaculture, and not listen to another witness. If you're going to fold up the committee, let's fold it up this way. Let's be up front about it. That's my view.

• 1135

The Chair: Thank you, Bill.

The floor is open. I have Mr. Sekora, Mr. Cummins, and then Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Lou Sekora: On the last motion, does it have to be unanimous if we travel or we don't travel?

The Chair: The motion to travel has passed the committee. It will go to the House leaders. We will also talk about it at the budget liaison committee. The difficulty, as I understand it, is that if one party refuses it at the House leader level, then it will not carry Parliament and we will not have parliamentary approval by the House of Commons as such.

The other option, though, because it has passed committee, is that we could ask for a debate in the House of Commons and debate it there. However, I can tell you, having tried to go through that process before, our own House leader will not give us time to debate the issue because it would take a day and a half.

Mr. Lou Sekora: Can I ask one more question? I like his motion, providing I know what is happening. If the Reform Party is—

Mr. John Cummins: Whoops!

Mr. Lou Sekora: I keep forgetting their name, because they change it every week.

If I could just ask one more question.... I'd certainly vote for this one if this one I'm asking about fails in the House. I'd rather we reconvene the meeting. I'd like to have Bill table it for a few days, until this motion is dealt with in the House. If we get a negative from the other side, then we can deal with this motion. I think right now they will use the excuse, well, you defeated yourself; we might have helped you. I think we need to give them another rope to hang themselves.

Mr. Bill Matthews: You'll get no help from that crowd. They're not to be trusted.

Mr. Lou Sekora: That's all right.

Mr. Bill Matthews: They're two-faced.

The Chair: Bill, what's your position on that? What are you doing?

Mr. Lou Sekora: What I'm really asking is give them a chance....

The Chair: While Lou and Bill talk that out, we'll go to Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: Are we talking about Bill jumping the aisle there and changing his colour? What are we talking about?

The Chair: No, we're talking about Bill's motion, which is basically that no further work be done on the aquaculture study, that we forget it and not table a report.

Mr. John Cummins: Well, I'll speak against the motion. I think the premise of the motion is false, and this has nothing to do with east coast-west coast. You can make it that if you want to. This has to do with the business of the committee.

An important piece of the business of this committee last fall was dealing appropriately with the Marshall decision. The committee wrote a report. I didn't agree with it entirely, but I think it was a good effort. I guess the committee went as far as it could. I was given the opportunity, and I took that opportunity, to write a minority report to clarify my position. I think this issue is ongoing, and I think the committee has a responsibility to demand that the government be open on these negotiations. I've seen where this thing has gone on the west coast, where these negotiations are conducted behind closed doors by civil servants or contract personnel who don't get the real picture.

I think we've got a serious problem in the offing here. Nobody knows what's happening in these negotiations except Mr. MacKenzie, Mr. Thériault, and the natives involved. They're all fully apprised of the matter. There have been three agreements now that have been signed. The native people will know what's in those agreements, yet none of the rest of us do. And that's simply no way to run a country.

So I will oppose Bill's motion because I think the premise is wrong. I say to the committee that if you don't like my opposition to your travel budget and if you don't like my opposition to the other budget matter that was voted on this morning, the ongoing operation budget, well, there's a way of dealing with that, and that is to take the matter to the House and let's get at 'er.

The Chair: I have on my list Mr. Bernier and Mr. Provenzano. I'm sorry, Mr. Assadourian, you're on.

• 1140

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I have a question for Mr. Cummings. When we go to the east coast and call the natives who signed the agreement with the government, would you object to calling them as witnesses to get their point of view? That's my first question to John.

My second question is to Bill.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Let's deal with the motion.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: This second point deals with the notice of motion. Would you consider adding to it the reason why, Bill, you are saying this? It's not complete when you read the sentence.

Mr. Bill Matthews: I thought it was on it when I said it.

When the motion was sent, was the reference to the other parties not there?

The Clerk of the Committee: That's not a motion. That was in your letter. The motion is that....

Mr. Bill Matthews: You didn't send us a copy of the letter. We should have had a copy of the letter.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Maybe you could add that line so we know what we're voting for.

Would you comment on that?

Mr. Bill Matthews: I'll make the letter public.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Paul Steckle): Are you talking about Mr. Matthews' motion?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Yes, this motion here now. It's not complete.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Paul Steckle): It's public now.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Mr. Chairman, my question was would he consider adding one or two lines there to explain why we're voting on this, why he produced this motion? As it is I will vote against it because there is no explanation of why he proposes to cancel.... There should be one or two lines—

The Acting Chair (Mr. Peter Steckle): That question would go to Mr. Matthews. Mr. Matthews would have to comment.

Do you want to comment on that?

Mr. Bill Matthews: Just that the letter I sent to the clerk highlighted the reason why, but I guess the clerk just took the motion out.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: So what do we do now? Do you want to add to it or do you want to keep it as is?

Mr. Bill Matthews: It's okay with me. I have no trouble—

The Acting Chair (Mr. Paul Steckle): Are you prepared to respond to the kinds of comments that were made in conjunction with the motion at this public meeting?

Mr. Bill Matthews: Yes.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Paul Steckle): Do you want to do that now, if that's what Mr. Assadourian is asking?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Yes, that's my question.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Yes, I can add to the motion. Is that what you're asking me?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Yes.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Paul Steckle): Not as part of the motion but to further clarify the reason for the motion in the first place.

Mr. Bill Matthews: The reason for the motion—and I've said it at least—

The Acting Chair (Mr. Paul Steckle): Everybody, listen.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: We're about to lose quorum.

Mr. Bill Matthews: I've said it at least twice this morning. The matter of the aquaculture study and report is in no way related to the issue of MacKenzie and Thériault and the Marshall decision. There was a conscious decision of this committee to travel to the west coast and the state of Washington and to travel to the east coast and I believe the state of Maine to do a study on aquaculture and subsequently make a report to the House of Commons with recommendations to the minister and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The Reform Party, now the Canadian Alliance Party, has continued to stall on this issue and in my view is using blackmail tactics with this committee. That's the reason for it. My view, Mr. Chairman, is that it's very clear here again this morning that Mr. Cummings has no intention whatsoever of approving the travel budget.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Not yet.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Well, not yet, but it might be in 2005 or 2006.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: We can bring it to the House and debate it there.

The Chair: Can we call the question? Do you want a recorded vote?

Mr. Bill Matthews: He'll want to speak now.

The Chair: Could you make a point in about 30 seconds, Yvan? We are going to start to run out of time.

Mr. Bernier and Mr. Provenzano. They were on the list when I left. So these two, and then we're going to call the question.

Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: To begin with, I would like to make sure I understand correctly. We have before us a notice of motion that was tabled only this morning. Since notice of 24 or 48 hours is required, are we going to vote on this motion at an up-coming meeting or today?

[English]

Mr. Bill Matthews: No, no, it was submitted last week.

The Chair: He gave it to us at the last meeting, Yvan.

Mr. Bill Matthews: I gave it at the last meeting and I submitted it to the clerk afterwards.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Perhaps the clerk could tell me what day that was.

[English]

The Clerk: Last Thursday.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Oh, I don't remember that.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Provenzano.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: No, I am going to...

[English]

The Chair: Okay, one more point, Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I am going to have to vote against the motion as it is written, since we must not throw the baby out with the bath water just because the water is dirty. I recognize that the situation is frustrating and that John Cummins had the right to raise his point. I myself raised similar arguments when Bill C-20 was under consideration. It seems to me that the fact that the members of the legislative committee were refused permission to travel to Quebec and elsewhere in Canada to listen to people while they were considering that bill was sufficient reason to slow down the work of the committee.

• 1145

If John has reason to believe that this is very important, I agree with the principle, but I am not sure that I am prepared to slow down our work for that reason. In my opinion, aquaculture and the Aboriginal issue are two problems that must be looked into as quickly as possible. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Provenzano, yours will be the last point before I call the question.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Just very briefly, Mr. Chair, to the committee members, I listened carefully to the reasons given by my colleague, Mr. Matthews, in support of the motion and, quite frankly, I agree completely with his comments. My inclination at the moment is to support the motion. But I'm dearly hoping that Mr. Matthews would agree to a deferral of the consideration of this motion to a future date, for the reason, Mr. Chair, that if this motion passes, we're going to be cancelling some very important work of the committee. Because I have such an interest in this matter, it pains me in particular to see the work terminated. Notwithstanding that, because of the reasons Mr. Matthews gave, I'd be inclined to support it. If it's forced to go today, I'm afraid that I find Mr. Matthews' comments too compelling. I'm hoping he defers.

The Chair: Mr. Matthews, the point has been raised that maybe you would defer the motion to a future date. The decision is yours.

Mr. Bill Matthews: I can be awful stubborn. Not quite as stubborn as Lawrence O'Brien, but almost. My adviser on stubbornness is not here this morning. That's Lawrence. I know what his decision would be. Do you want my final answer?

The Chair: Your final answer.

An hon. member: Do you want to call home?

Mr. Paul Steckle: Do you want to call a friend?

The Chair: Is that your final answer?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: He wants to use a lifeline.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Bill Matthews: We'll defer until Tuesday.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Very good.

The Chair: All right. The next scheduled meeting is not until the 11th.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Defer until the 11th, then, if that's the next meeting.

The Chair: Is it agreed that we defer?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Can you keep the quorum for one second.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: We have to give 48 hours' notice of motion. I don't have a notice of motion. I would like to ask for unanimous consent to table the motion today that we vote on asking the minister to come to this committee and asking MacKenzie and Thériault to appear before the committee. It's the same motion, as I understand it, that John has already made, but we make the motion again.

The Chair: Is there unanimous consent?

An hon. member: Yes.

The Chair: Just hold on.

Mr. Lou Sekora: The minister is coming on the 11th. MacKenzie and his group may not be able to come until their agreements are totally signed, and that's what I'm really concerned about.

The Chair: We've had this discussion before, Lou. If you don't want to give unanimous consent, then don't do it, and we won't deal with it.

Mr. Lou Sekora: No, it's all right. I just wanted to know.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: The minister is coming on the 11th. The motion would be that we ask MacKenzie and Thériault to appear before this committee to discuss the agreements they've already signed and the ongoing discussion with the 35 bands in the Maritimes.

The Chair: When?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: As soon as possible.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: After the trip.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Before the break.

The Chair: All right. Is there unanimous consent for the committee again to make a request to the minister that MacKenzie and Thériault appear before the committee before the break?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chair: Is there unanimous consent to do it?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I have a question.

The Chair: Ask a question.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: On the 11th the minister is coming to this committee. Is that right?

The Chair: Right.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Are the other two gentlemen coming at the same time?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It would be at a different time.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Would it be at a different time after the trip?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: No. It would be as soon as possible but before the break.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: It would be before April 15.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Just say yes, Sarkis.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: No, I'm not going to say yes until I'm sure.

An hon. member: Come on, Sarkis.

The Chair: Are you saying no?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I want to know precisely—

Mr. Paul Steckle: No, you can't do that.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Why?

Mr. Paul Steckle: Nobody can give you that word.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: That gives them time to fit it into their schedule.

The Chair: Are you refusing unanimous consent, Sarkis?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I haven't received an answer yet, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: It would be before the 15th.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I can't hear you, Mr. Chairman.

• 1150

The Chair: It would be before the break. We'd leave on the 14th.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Can you read the motion again?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: The minister is already coming on the 11th, so we won't include the minister in the motion.

The motion would be that this committee request MacKenzie and Thériault to appear before us before April 15.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Add “if it's possible”. You can't force these guys to come here.

Mr. Bill Matthews: What's the problem?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: We're just asking them.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: We're giving them nearly three weeks, Sarkis.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I don't want these people to be labelled that they're refusing to meet because their schedule is tight.

The Chair: First of all, there's one other little problem here. The only one who can really answer on the discussions is in fact the minister.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Well, we can make the motion and we can ask them to appear before us and they can say they can't.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: He's not forcing them; he's just asking them.

The Chair: I don't see unanimous consent that—

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Hold it. Do you want to read the motion again?

The Chair: Well, this is the last time.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It is that the committee request that MacKenzie and Thériault appear before us before our break in April, which is I believe April 15. That gives MacKenzie and Thériault two weeks to fit us into their schedule. We would be able to have hearings with them for a day. We're already hearing the minister, and we can proceed with the committee's business.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: You're saying that we request the minister and these two gentlemen to appear—

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: I don't see unanimous consent to the....

I'm not going to deal with this all day. Peter, you have another motion.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, asking for unanimous consent to move the financial aspect of our trip, that report, into the House for debate.

The Chair: Is there unanimous consent to table this committee...as a report?

An hon. member: The what?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The financial aspects of the report.

A voice: No, the travel.

The Chair: The travel as a report. It will be the third report of the committee. Is there unanimous consent?

Mr. John Cummins: I don't understand what his motion is and what he wants—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Remember we did it last time, John? I moved the motion. It was on the Order Paper, and then I debated it in the House and we got unanimous consent to travel.

Mr. John Cummins: No, I'm opposed to that.

The Chair: You don't need unanimous consent for that motion because it's part of our ongoing discussion. Are you moving the motion?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, seconded by Gerald Keddy.

The Chair: Seconded by Mr. Keddy.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.