FOPO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 29, 2001

• 0909

[English]

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

Today we have before the committee, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a review of chapter 30 of the Auditor General's report related to the effects of salmon farming in British Columbia and the management of wild salmon stocks.

• 0910

We have three people with us from the Auditor General's office this morning. I would suggest we take an hour and a half on this issue. We have a number of motions we have to deal with. In the last half hour we will deal with those motions.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Thompson. You can introduce the people with you.

Ron Thompson is the Assistant Auditor General, International Affairs. I understand you'd like to give a short presentation.

Mr. Ron Thompson (Assistant Auditor General, International Affairs, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Thank you very much.

I'd like to introduce my two colleagues. Gerry Chu is the director with our Vancouver office and is involved in the VFM we do out there. Mr. John Sokolowski, senior auditor, is with our Vancouver office as well. John worked throughout the audit that resulted in this chapter.

We really appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the opportunity to discuss the results of our Department of Fisheries and Oceans audit, presented, as you know, in our December 2000 report to Parliament. The title is “Chapter 30—Fisheries and Oceans—The Effects of Salmon Farming in British Columbia on the Management of Wild Salmon Stocks”.

I'm sure you're aware, probably much more than I, from your previous hearings and other work, of how important salmon farming is to Canada, the fourth largest producer, actually, of farmed salmon in the world.

British Columbia accounts for nearly 70% of Canada's production. Seventeen salmon farming companies in the province were operating 105 farms when our audit ended. Their production has grown steadily in the last decade. Although there has been a moratorium since 1995 on expanding the salmon farming industry, there are indications this moratorium may be lifted in the near future.

This was our third audit of the department's Pacific salmon management program since 1997. Our previous chapters had reported on habitat protection and the department's management of the Pacific salmon fisheries. In these earlier works, we had noted the continuing loss of salmon habitat and the decline of some wild salmon stocks.

The federal government and the province share responsibility for regulating aquaculture in British Columbia under a 1988 memorandum of understanding on aquaculture development. The province's responsibilities include managing and developing the salmon farming industry. Fisheries and Oceans, on the other hand, is responsible for regulating a number of areas, including conservation and protection of fish and their habitat. Under its 1995 federal aquaculture development strategy, the department must also ensure its aquaculture development activities are consistent with sustainable development.

Our audit looked at whether the department was meeting its legislative responsibilities to conserve and protect fish, specifically salmon stocks. I want to emphasize that we focused on the department's role as a regulator and not on the merits of the aquaculture industry itself.

We found that in regulating salmon farming in B.C., the department is not fully meeting its obligations under the Fisheries Act. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I'd like to briefly run over our observations.

When you look at it, Fisheries and Oceans is really in the business of managing risks. Salmon farming poses risks that include the potential impact of harmful substances on fish habitat and the effects of possible interaction between farmed Atlantic salmon and wild stocks. The department operates at present on the assumption that salmon farming represents a risk to wild salmon and fish habitat that is low overall. We're concerned the department is doing little to monitor and assess the actual and potential effects of salmon farming.

Specifically, we found Fisheries and Oceans is not adequately monitoring the effects of salmon farms on surrounding fish and fish habitat. This is particularly troubling given its responsibility for enforcing the Fisheries Act, specifically sections 35 and 36, which prohibit the harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat and the deposit of deleterious substances into the water.

• 0915

The department has not determined how it will apply and enforce the Fisheries Act to protect fish habitat from the effects of salmon farming. This is a concern, as regulations are being developed by the province that may conflict at the end of the day with federal legislation. We urge the department in our chapter to take immediate action to resolve this situation.

Going back to the 1997 study, the department has assumed that salmon farming poses a low risk on the basis of this 1997 provincial review of salmon aquaculture, a review that reflected existing production levels and practices at that time. However, the department has not assessed the potential risks should the industry expand. Nor does it have a formal plan for managing that risk and assessing the environmental impacts.

There are conflicting scientific views about the effects of salmon farming on wild salmon stocks and the environment. Moreover, there are very few studies that apply directly to the specific situation being faced in B.C.

To deal with the possible expansion of salmon farming, the department, in our view, will need good information about the potential effects on wild stocks. Good information comes from both good-quality research and effective monitoring.

The department is doing some research, but we identified gaps in information, for example on the risk that disease may be transferred from farmed salmon to wild stocks. We also identified gaps in monitoring the status of wild salmon stocks adjacent to existing and potential farm sites.

Further, in our view the department was not adequately monitoring the presence of escaped farm salmon. Our report questioned whether Atlantic salmon might adapt to local conditions, and actually become established in B.C. coastal streams.

Finally, salmon farming has the potential to increase the stress on wild salmon stocks over time, especially if the industry expands. To ensure that sustainable salmon fishing can co-exist with the farming industry, it is in our view urgent that the department remedy the shortcomings in consultation with the province. The shortcomings, of course, we identify in the chapter.

That's all fairly black, in a sense, or pretty negative. But you'll notice that in response to our chapter, and at the very end of our chapter, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans discussed in some detail a $75 million program for sustainable aquaculture. Now, hopefully this five-year program will address the various recommendations we make in chapter 30.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening statement. We would be pleased to answer questions from your committee at this time.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

In regard to your last point, I think committee members should be aware that Liseanne Forand, the ADM for policy with Fisheries and Oceans, had sent around a paper that was going to be used as her opening statement if she was at this committee today. It goes into some detail on the $75 million, and people might want to refer to that as well.

We'll commence the first round of questioning. Mr. Cummins.

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

I want to thank the witnesses for appearing this morning.

I want to draw attention to their point five. This was the notion that their audit looked at whether the department was meeting its legislative responsibilities to conserve and protect fish, specifically wild salmon stocks.

They emphasize that they focused on the department's role as a regulator, and not on the merits of the aquaculture industry. I think this is the way this study should be viewed. This study was not a critique of the aquaculture industry, but it was... I'll put this in the form of a question. It was not a critique then of the aquaculture industry, but was looking at the department's response to the effects, at least the possible effects, of these fish farms on wild stocks and wild salmon habitat. Does that pretty much summarize it?

Mr. Ron Thompson: That would pretty well summarize what we've been doing. We're looking at how well the department has been doing in its regulatory role.

• 0920

Mr. John Cummins: In paragraph 30.12 of your study you again made clear the responsibilities of the department. You note that the Minister of Fisheries is responsible for enforcing the provisions of both the Fisheries Act and the Oceans Act. You clearly label what the responsibilities are. In 30.18 you talk about the notion of the precautionary principle and how this approach should dominate fisheries decision-making. But then if I look at paragraph 30.21 you say that the department “has no formal plan for managing risks associated with an expanded industry should the moratorium be lifted.” And they're talking of course about the ongoing moratorium in British Columbia. Could you expand on that point for us?

Mr. Ron Thompson: I'd be pleased to, Mr. Cummins.

In terms of the study that was done in 1997 by the province, we didn't have any quarrel with the findings there and with the methodology that was used for it, but it was a static study in a sense. It assumed that existing production levels at that time would stay the same. Now, while they were there that was fine, but even since then, without any expansion in the number of salmon farms, production of existing farms has gone up by 65%.

What we've looked at too is that there was a view, a conventional view, implicit in that study that in fact escaped farm salmon couldn't survive or reproduce outside their pens. There's been some proof since then, quite a bit actually, as you can see from the chapter, that in fact they can survive outside pens and they can and do reproduce.

That then calls into question what would happen if the moratorium is lifted and there are more and more salmon farms established. How would the department in that situation assess whether or not paragraph 35 of the Fisheries Act is being complied with and paragraph 36 is being complied with? We don't think the department has done the science to put itself in a position of being able to determine whether those two sections of the Fisheries Act are being complied with. That's the basic message we're conveying in this chapter.

If salmon farming expands, can the Department of Fisheries and Oceans actually continue to do a regulatory job that deals with this? We don't think they've done enough science to allow them to be in a position to do that, and we're calling on them to do more science to be able to do just that.

Mr. John Cummins: Your comments on that 1997 study are interesting, because any time we meet with the representatives of the aquaculture industry that study is brought forward as being the be-all and the end-all.

You note in your comments this morning that the department is doing some research, but you identified gaps in information, for example, on the risk that disease may be transferred from farm salmon to wild stocks. We had testimony from the fellow who heads up aquaculture in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans a year or so ago, and he told us that it was the other way around, that disease was transmitted from wild stocks to penned salmon. I think it's fair to describe him as an advocate for the industry.

When I look at your study, in paragraph 30.24 you say that “Canada is taking an advocacy role in aquaculture and has national strategies to guide this work. ” Is that, in your view, an inappropriate objective for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, given its mandate?

Mr. Ron Thompson: That's an interesting question. I don't think it's necessarily inappropriate for the department to have under the one minister a commissioner for aquaculture on the one hand who's advocating aquaculture, and on the other hand a deputy minister of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, one of whose many jobs is to regulate the fisheries.

What worries us, though, is that there has been a lack of science on the part of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to be able to come up with what one would call appropriate administrative criteria for determining when there has been harmful alteration or destruction of habitat, and to develop reasonable criteria for when there's been a problem in terms of leaving deleterious substances in the water.

• 0925

If the department can put in place sufficient research capability, carry it out, and then put in place, based on that research, a policy framework and a regulatory framework to deal with these serious issues, then I don't think there's a particular problem in having the commissioner of the aquaculture reporting to the Minister of Fisheries and the Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans reporting to the same minister. There's a good check and balance there in that situation. But the missing link is adequate research to help determine whether sections 35 and 36 are being complied with or not.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: It's interesting that the missing link is adequate research. You talk somewhat about if the department had a plan. In paragraph 30.30 of your study you mention that

Fisheries and Oceans is not ensuring that salmon farms are monitored for effects on fish and fish habitat, with a view to enforcing the Fisheries Act.

Previous to that, in paragraph 30.29, you say

Fisheries and Oceans is still considering how the Fisheries Act is to be applied to salmon farming.

As a result of your studies, does it really appear that the department lacks a plan or an agenda to deal with the effect of these farms on the wild habitat? Does it not know how to fulfil its constitutional obligation to protect fisheries habitat?

Mr. Ron Thompson: Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Cummins, I think there is a plan. If you read our chapter in its entirety, including the department's response at the very end, I think you'll see that the department is well aware of the need to do more science, more research. They have indicated to us—and we'll certainly be monitoring this and following up on what they say they're going to be doing over the next five years—they know the issues that need to be addressed and they have a plan for the next five years to actually address them.

So I think overall, Mr. Cummins, they're certainly not out of control. I think they know the issues. They've come up with a plan to deal with them and more, and our job as auditors is to monitor that over future years to be sure it's done.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

We'll come to you, Mr. Cummins, in the second round.

Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): I would like to come back to Mr. Cummins' question. In your presentation, you say at point 9:

9. The Department has not determined how it will apply and enforce the Fisheries Act to protect fish habitat from the effects of salmon farming.

And you say at point 10:

10. The Department has assumed that salmon farming poses a low risk on the basis of a 1997 provincial review of salmon aquaculture [...]

Your answer to Mr. Cummins was actually somewhat contradictory. If the department assumes that there is a low risk, it is not investing enough in research on habitat protection.

[English]

Mr. Ron Thompson: Thank you for that question.

When we looked at the provincial study that was done in 1997, the determination was made that the risk was low. Three years have passed since then, as we point out in the study, and a good deal has changed, including no more farms, but a good deal more production from existing farms. As I mentioned a little earlier, other parts of the study being accepted at that time by the department have proven not necessarily to be accurate. I mentioned earlier the business of escaped salmon from the pens actually being able to survive and reproduce in streams and rivers.

From where we're sitting, I wouldn't conclude—and we don't conclude—that the risk is low from salmon farming. What we're saying is that the study this conclusion was based on is a bit dated now. It was fine at the time, but times have changed and there's a need to actually do some science to deal with the situation the industry is facing today.

The Chair: Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: You also say, at point 15, that in its response to you, the department mentioned that there was a $75 million program for sustainable aquaculture.

• 0930

Obviously, you have not assessed the program, but in your answer, you appeared hesitant to say that this could solve the problem. My question is the following: Do you feel the department is now sufficiently aware of the aquaculture situation in relation to the salmon problem?

[English]

Mr. Ron Thompson: I'm really glad you asked that question, because it has been troubling us too. I don't have a crystal ball; I don't know. But I know one thing—the devil is in the detail and in the doing. I think the department has told us they're going to do the right things to overcome the lack of science that they're now faced with.

We're going to monitor that as we follow up this chapter and earlier chapters, and without getting into something I shouldn't get into, I would be hopeful that this committee would follow up too to be sure that what the department is saying they're going to be doing over the next five years in fact they do and do well.

Departments have a lot of priorities and a lot of pressures on them from all sources. It has been my experience in the Office of the Auditor General over 24 years that things get done when there's political will to have them done. In that sense, I think this committee can play a large role in being sure that the right things are done to overcome the deficiencies that we've identified.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Roy.

Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—James Bay—Nunavik, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question is for Mr. Thompson. In your opening statement, you did not say much about the Atlantic as opposed to the Pacific. You said in your December 2000 report that Fisheries and Oceans was not giving enough thought to setting priorities with respect to research needs.

As you know, the Makivik Corporation has a research centre in Kuujjuaq. In the area of research, what connection have you found between the Atlantic and the Pacific, in terms of wild salmon in particular?

[English]

Mr. Ron Thompson: We haven't looked at aquaculture on the east coast at all as an audit issue, and so I really can't draw any connection between the two. I'm sorry.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: You talk about it in your December report on page 30-19. My riding is the largest of all ridings in all 10 provinces of Canada; it borders on Hudson Bay and Ungava Bay. The Inuit of Nunavik often ask me questions about Fisheries and Oceans, which in their opinion, does not always stick to its mandate. You say at paragraph 30.52 of your report:

The Department has participated in determining the origin of juvenile Atlantic salmon [...]

It is on page 30-18.

It is important, and you talk about it in both your opening statement and in your report. You mention the Atlantic and juvenile salmon. You say the department has done some research and a private company is even developing an Atlantic salmon source in Eastern Canada.

I would like to know what kind of research Fisheries and Oceans could do to improve the system for the Inuit of the northern regions. As you know, there is a great deal of salmon fishing up there, from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

I would also like you to talk about the agreements. On page 30-23, if I remember correctly, you refer to federal-provincial issues. Are there problems in the Atlantic region, Quebec or British Columbia? But first, I would like you to talk about the situation from the Atlantic to the Pacific, coast to coast.

[English]

Mr. Ron Thompson: I don't really have a view on that, but the Department of Fisheries and Oceans officials with whom I've spoken about this $75 million project that they're doing tell me that it is a project that doesn't just deal with the west; it deals with Canada, shore to shore, north to south. So if I might suggest, and I think it would make some sense, that question should be easily answered by the DFO officials whom I suspect you're going to be seeing in the fullness of time. It's a very good question, but I don't have an answer.

Incidentally, part of my other responsibilities in the office is to audit the Government of Nunavut, so I'm not unfamiliar with Iqaluit and the situation up there. So I'm interested too, but I'm afraid we'll have to look to the department for an answer to that.

• 9035

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: In closing, can you tell me about the federal-provincial agreements? On page 30-23, you refer to federal- provincial issues.

[English]

Mr. Ron Thompson: I presume there are federal-provincial agreements. Mr. Sokolowski might be able to help us on that, but certainly in terms of the coordination that we're looking at on the west coast, what worries us there is that the Province of British Columbia might be developing criteria for siting of new salmon farms on their own, and the DFO might come along a little later, once they've done the research, and say, well, actually they should be a little different based on our research. So there's a need to coordinate the Department of Fisheries and Oceans people here with the provincial people in British Columbia on just that issue.

Now, if that's an issue on the west coast, I can't imagine it not being a similar issue in other provinces.

If I may ask, does Mr. Sokolowksi have anything to add to that?

The Chair: Mr. Sokolowski.

Mr. John S. Sokolowski (Senior Auditor, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): I would just say that there are memoranda of understanding with other provinces. We looked specifically at the one with British Columbia only.

The Chair: Thank you.

Before I go back to the Canadian Alliance, I have a question.

Mr. St-Julien referred to paragraph 30.26. You state in there about the commissioner for aquaculture development and his review. Have you had access to his recommendations?

Mr. Ron Thompson: I haven't seen them. Let me defer to my colleagues on that.

Mr. Chu or Mr. Sokolowski?

Mr. Gerry Chu (Director, Audit Operations Branch, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): We understand that the commissioner has made a number of recommendations, and I think it's in the works now that they are going to send that to the minister and then to cabinet. I think it's going through that process now.

The Chair: Yes, but I'm referring to the point you state in here, that he has made recommendations for removing constraints, and on from there.

Why I ask that is because we're having a little difficulty getting hold of those recommendations as a fisheries committee, and we're trying to pinpoint what's happening here.

So you haven't actually seen the recommendations.

Mr. Gerry Chu: We haven't seen the recommendations ourselves, and I think it's a good point to pursue.

The Chair: All right. Thank you. We're going to get them one way or another one of these days.

Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.

Following up on what we were discussing before, you suggested that DFO had a plan. I guess I have some problems with that. If DFO has a plan, who initiated the plan, and who is going to implement it? The question then comes up, is it the aquaculture commissioner, who is an advocate for a particular sector, the aquaculture sector?

I think that's where DFO comes up short. It seems to me that there's an inherent contradiction when DFO becomes an advocate for anybody, whether it's aquaculture, commercial fishermen, sports fishermen, or whomever. DFO should be a neutral observer, in a sense, when it comes to these particular industries, and it should be an advocate for fish and fish habitat. But do you not see a contradiction here that is going to make it very difficult for people to trust what DFO is up to when this particular sector is managed by an individual who claims to be an advocate for that industry?

Mr. Ron Thompson: That's a good point, and it's something that one would have to watch, for sure.

From the little I know about this, and I'm just getting into the area, it seems to me that the advocacy is particularly through the Commissioner for Aquaculture as opposed to necessarily through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

As I understand it, the plan to do the science to come up with a solution to the recommendations that we're making is being carried out under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, so in a sense they're somewhat separate from the office that is actually the strong advocate. Nonetheless, one would want to be careful as we review the implementation of the plan that DFO said they're going to be doing, to guard against any tainting.

My sense is that they don't want it to be tainted. They're taking steps to be sure it isn't tainted, but it's one of those things that we're certainly going to watch as we do our follow-ups, and perhaps the committee might want to watch that as well.

• 0940

If I might suggest—and I don't mean to be pushy—when departmental officials come before you, I would encourage you to ask them that. How are they going to deal with that?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

There are a couple of minutes left in the Alliance time. Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, CA): Good morning.

We're aware that responsibility for much of the inland fishery has been divested to the provinces. For example, in Ontario it seems there's little DFO presence in the field for inspections, monitoring, all that kind of thing.

However, we heard last week from the deputy minister that as a justification for meeting their statutory obligations, they've added something in the order of 60 new fisheries officers to the prairie provinces. In terms of the context of your study, with the magnitude of change represented by the growth of the aquaculture sector, I was wondering if you had developed or seen any numbers with regard to additional personnel that have come onstream within DFO to tackle that task.

Mr. Ron Thompson: That's a good question, which I don't have an answer to, but I'll consult with my colleagues. If we don't have an answer at the table, we'll get back to you. It's also something, obviously, that you should be asking the department. But let me ask my colleagues what we know about that.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Sokolowski advises me that as we were doing our work in the Pacific region, he didn't notice any additional staff being assigned from DFO to that region. That's not to say that's static, but at this point there have been no further staffing actions out west.

The Chair: This is your last question, Mr. Duncan, in this round.

Mr. John Duncan: I think intuitively we know the answer to that question, but it would be nice to have an audit function that actually gave us something concrete.

These memorandums of understanding and so on with the provinces don't remove the statutory obligations. Is there any way for the federal authority to divest its statutory obligations to the provinces other than constitutionally? I'm sure you must have an opinion on this because you were talking directly to whether or not they're meeting their statutory obligations.

Mr. Ron Thompson: That's another interesting question. As an auditor I would say no. If there's a law of the land in place and responsibility is given under it, you can make memoranda of understanding and have somebody carry something out for you, but at the end of the day you're still responsible. I think that's the case here with DFO and section 35 and in particular section 36 of the Fisheries Act.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, for appearing.

I agree with Mr. Cummins. Nobody within DFO should be an advocate for any sector of the industry. It should provide a regulatory framework to ensure the protection of fish and fish habitat and of course the consumers who will be eating this product.

In your opinion, sir—this may be a set-up question—with all the concerns you've expressed that the department simply isn't doing its job efficiently enough and now that we've heard from the chair that $75 million is going into a further study, should the moratorium on the west coast stay in place until that study is completed?

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer, that is indeed a loaded question.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I warned him.

Mr. Ron Thompson: It wasn't one that we were not expecting, Mr. Chairman.

In the chapter we point out certain realities as we see them and that a certain amount of basic research needs to be done in order to answer some serious questions that people are raising.

• 0945

Can that work be done in time? Should the moratorium stay in place until that work is done? Really, that's a question the federal government and the province are going to have to deal with.

We simply are pointing out that there's a tremendous amount to do. The department has come forward with a plan to do it. It's going to take a little bit of time. Whether there's time to actually do the work or a substantial part of the work before lifting the moratorium, I just don't know. Again, I would encourage you to have a conversation with departmental officials, who are further into this than I am. I suppose it's always possible that some of the work that's being planned could be done and phased in and perhaps the moratorium lifted before five years are up. I just don't know that. That depends on how the science unfolds and how the specific projects are staffed and carried out in order to answer some of the questions we're raising.

Essentially, we're not arguing that. We're simply pointing out in the chapter the serious issues that need to be addressed and calling on the federal government to address them.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: We've heard from the minister and his officials many times that they approach the management of the fisheries based on the precautionary principles. That's why I asked the question. Using the precautionary principles, should they not proceed extremely slowly with any lifting of the moratorium? I know they'll say the B.C. government will make that decision, not necessarily them. Therein lies a bit of a conflict. So based on the precautionary principles, shouldn't the moratorium stay in place until the full study is completed?

Mr. Ron Thompson: I'm not sure I'd support that. Don't forget that the province is also doing work on this. The federal government is doing its five-year project costing $75 million. It covers a lot of issues that go beyond salmon farming, for example, and certainly covers the whole of the country. So that's a factor. Another factor is that the province itself is doing some work on this. Even if it were our job to offer advice like that, I'd be hesitant to say that the moratorium should stay in place for five years. I just don't know. It would depend on when the science that is needed is being carried out, who's doing it, and what the timeframe of that would be.

The Chair: Sorry, Peter. We'll catch you on the next round.

Mr. Farrah.

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The question of shared responsibility between the province and the federal government has come up more than once. You say in point 4 of your presentation:

The province's responsibilities include managing and developing the salmon farming industry. Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for regulating a number of areas, including conservation and protection of fish and their habitat.

In your report, at paragraph 30.86, you say:

In summary, we have concluded that Fisheries and Oceans is not fully meeting its legislative obligations under the Fisheries Act while participating in the regulation of salmon farming in B.C.

A federal-provincial agreement was signed in 1988, and 12 years later, a lack of coordination is discovered. There is something wrong with that. It does not make sense that 12 years later, there is not yet a certain amount of coordination for the welfare of the industry.

The question may already have been asked, but I would like you to say more about that. Should additional responsibilities be given to one or the other level of government to make sure that this coordination actually occurs? Given the way the responsibilities are currently shared by both levels of government, are we not likely to have the same problems in 5, 10 or 12 years? Perhaps the solution lies in a new responsibility-sharing arrangement in keeping with the Constitution. I would like your opinion on that.

[English]

Mr. Ron Thompson: Thank you very much for that question.

I don't think there's a need to change the allocation of who does what. I think there's a serious need, though, to equip the players in the regulation game with the tools they now don't have, if I could put it that way.

• 0950

I keep coming back, I guess, to this issue that we need more science. I think the department, when they're here discussing this with you, will agree. But I think we need more science, as we've mentioned in our chapter, for a number of reasons.

One, we need the science to allow the department to develop administrative criteria to determine what is harmful alteration, disruption, and destruction, and what isn't.

Two, we need science to help the department develop criteria for what are deleterious substances, and when they're a problem and when they're not. That's not in place just yet.

We need more research and more science to input into the provincial development on the west coast of siting criteria. They're out developing criteria now. We're inputting to that. It's not that they shouldn't develop siting criteria, it's just that they need some science to help them do it and we need to speak with one voice. So we need more science for that.

Four, we need more science because if the salmon farming industry expands, if the moratorium is lifted and it expands, there's going to be a call at some point for what we call a cumulative environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The question is, would DFO be ready to do that? The answer, we think, is no, not at this point. Again, they need science to help them get ready to do that.

Fifth, there are risks of interaction between farm salmon and fresh salmon. We point that out in the chapter. Exhibit 30.5 indicates in table format the kind of information that should be at hand to deal with this interaction and that just isn't here yet.

Six, looking way ahead—and nobody's doing this just now, but it is something that could come along, I suppose, at some point—there is the issue of transgenic salmon. Again, is the department doing sufficient science and research to put itself in the position of having something reasonable to say there?

At the end of the day, there's a need for research and science to do a number of things. If the science is done and shared properly, I don't think you need to change the players, sir.

The Chair: Mr. Farrah.

Mr. Georges Farrah: The problem is, you say, “Oh, no problem, we'll do this, this, and this”, but 12 years later we have the same situation. What do we have to do to be sure that we will do what you've just said?

I don't want to put the fault on one side or the other, but we had a problem, and 12 years later we have the same problem. You say, “Well, no problem with the jurisdiction, because each side could do this, this, and this”. That's fine, but 12 years later we have the same situation.

What do we have to do to stop this and to look forward?

Mr. Ron Thompson: I sense you're impatient, sir, and I don't disagree with that at all.

Mr. Georges Farrah: Well, it's a big issue in Quebec. That's why I asked you the question.

Mr. Ron Thompson: No, no, it's a very good question. I guess one could argue that 12 years ago the issues surrounding salmon farming weren't as visible and perhaps weren't as important, because it was a much smaller part of the salmon industry. It's now not small at all, so the situation has changed a little bit.

I think what we need, frankly, is to be sure that DFO does what they say they're planning to do. We have a responsibility, as a legislative audit office, to follow that up.

I guess I'm hopeful that your committee, Mr. Chairman, would also—if I could be so unkind—keep the department's feet to the fire to be sure that the science they say they realize they need to do actually is done and that the various regulations are put in place properly.

Mr. Georges Farrah: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

Before I turn to Mr. Keddy—and I'll not take this from your time, Gerald—this is your third report on salmon farming in B.C. What has the department's track record been like in terms of meeting the recommendations of your first two reports, from your perspective?

Mr. Ron Thompson: Could you give me just a moment to consult with my colleagues on that? We were focusing a little more on this chapter.

The Chair: I know in this report you're saying hopefully A, B, or C is going to happen. What's their track record like, to date?

• 0955

Mr. Ron Thompson: Let me answer that, Mr. Chairman. Again, a very good question.

We do a follow-up as a normal course. It should be two years after a chapter is issued. We did some follow-up on the 1997 chapter in our 1999 chapter. There was an indication the department had actually added some people and had done some things in the area we looked at in 1997.

We haven't done a follow-up for the 1999 chapter yet. I really can't answer the question. I'm sorry.

As we look ahead, in our audit planning for these three chapters we want to do a follow-up in the next couple of years—maybe the next 18 months or somewhere in there. We'll certainly have a much better view. We will have a view at that time on all of them.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Keddy.

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

I want to thank the officials for coming.

How does the department respond to the auditor's comments that in section 30.30 “Fisheries and Oceans is not ensuring that salmon farms are monitored for the effects of fish and fish habitat”? I'd like to expand on that a little bit, because it's mentioned in several areas.

We're almost putting the cart ahead of the horse. We have a $75 million program out there that maybe in five years' time will deliver some pure science. It seems to me we tend to take a confrontational view here most of the time, that somehow one side of the equation is good and the other side of the equation is bad. I don't think that's necessarily the way we should be looking at it at all.

I have some questions directly on fish habitat. I don't think there's a lot of science out there to prove fish habitat is being significantly affected. There may be other ways it is being affected with escapees. What would be the comparison of any deleterious effect of fish habitat by fish farms versus logging, siltation of rivers, industrial pollution, cities, and towns? Do you have any idea at all of a comparison?

Mr. Ron Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Keddy, I guess the problem we face as auditors is there aren't regulations under section 36 yet dealing with salmon farming. We don't have any yardstick to measure that, nor does the department. It's hard for us to say, without having this yardstick in place, whether there's a serious problem or whether there isn't.

There's certainly a lot of talk around, as you know, that there are problems. There are others who say there aren't. As we call for in the chapter, there's really a need to be able to put in place and develop a reasonable regulation under section 36 to deal specifically with salmon farming.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Certainly there's a difference in fish habitat on how it's affected, the possibility of spreading disease, and other issues. I think we have to start to divide some of these up, because the whole issue just becomes clouded. You talk about the general issue of fish habitat. Surely a fish farm covering a couple of hectares isn't intruding on a lot of fish habitat, whereas there may be other things about the fish farm that do affect the general environment and the yardstick is not there.

I have one more question. Some responsibility lies here with Environment Canada. Do we have any idea how much money Environment Canada is putting into this issue, and are they going to back it up with additional funds? The auditor is very clear that DFO is accountable. What is DFO doing to measure the environmental impact of salmon farming on wild salmon?

Mr. Ron Thompson: I don't know at this point, sir. Let me confer with my colleagues, but I'm not sure I can answer that question.

My colleague tells me DFO are doing some studies now on environmental effects. I think there is a need to ask them specifically what it is they're doing. Mr. Keddy, I'm afraid I don't think the answer I have is helping your question.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy, one final question.

• 1000

Mr. Gerald Keddy: This is along the line of the last question I asked. How is DFO coordinating their efforts with Environment Canada, for instance, in sections 30.32 and 30.33?

Mr. Ron Thompson: I'm not familiar with the exact routines they use and their coordination. They should be, and I presume are, talking regularly as Environment Canada does what it has been asked to do under section 36. I don't know the exact process they have, sir, for ensuring they're all singing from the same song sheet. I just don't know. That's a good question though.

The Chair: Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just one question for me. In point 14 of your presentation you talked about the effect where salmon farming has the potential to increase the stress on wild salmon stocks over time, especially if the industry expands. I'm wondering if you could elaborate on that for me, so I understand how salmon farming will increase, or may increase, the stress on wild salmon stocks.

Mr. Ron Thompson: Thank you. I would ask my colleagues, either Mr. Chu or Mr. Sokolowski, to take a stab at that. That's getting into a little more of a technical question. If we don't have an answer for you right at hand, sir, we'll get back to you within a week.

My colleague informs me we should be looking at paragraph 30.45 of the chapter. Let me just have a look at that for you.

May I just read part of that chapter, part of that paragraph? It's paragraph 30.45 and the heading is “Recent Evidence and Risks to be Considered in Environmental Assessment”.

30.45 The status of wild salmon has become a concern. Ocean productivity has been poor for certain stocks; some coho stocks are in serious trouble and closures of both coho and sockeye fisheries have occurred; and salmon habitat continues to be lost. In addition, the proposed species at risk legislation before the House of Commons at the time of the audit could result in the listing of endangered or threatened salmon stocks. This would require the Department to take action to impose protective measures and develop recovery plans for stocks at risk.

That gets a little bit at the issue you're raising, but not as directly as it might. May we get back to you, sir, with a reply in writing?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Thompson. We look forward to that.

Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews: I have one further point for clarification, Mr. Chairman.

Further on in point 14 you talk about how ensuring sustainable salmon fishing can coexist with the farming industry, and that it's urgent that the department remedy these shortcomings. Could you elaborate on the shortcomings that need to be remedied?

Mr. Ron Thompson: This was a bit of licence in terms of writing a short statement. The shortcomings were essentially the lack of research and the lack of science to allow the various regulations and the various criteria to be developed that I spoke of a little earlier, sir.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Matthews.

There's a little time left. I know Mr. St-Julien had one quick point. Then we'll go to the other side and back to Dominic.

Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Thompson, you said earlier more science was needed. What science do you mean? You have found certain weaknesses. I see, on page 30-17 of your report:

Research needs not fully identified nor priorities established.

That is at paragraph 30.49 on page 30-17.

In answer to a question from Liberal member of Parliament Georges Farrah, who represents his riding very well, you said more science was needed.

[English]

Mr. Ron Thompson: I'm sorry, sir, I didn't quite follow.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I want to know the basis for your statement that more science is needed, because that was the answer you gave to an earlier question from Liberal member of Parliament Georges Farrah. You said more science was needed, but at the same time, at paragraph 30.49 on page 30-17, you say:

Research needs not fully identified nor priorities established.

• 1005

[English]

Mr. Ron Thompson: I'm just trying to find out where that is in paragraph 49.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I was going by the French version.

[English]

Mr. Ron Thompson: Sorry. I've got it now.

We're making the comment that the department hasn't given adequate attention to prioritizing research requirements. That's part of the recommendation we're making, sir. There's an amount of research that needs to be done, for at least six reasons, as I mentioned a little earlier. But in doing it, it would be very helpful if the department were to decide what should be looked at first and what should be looked at sixth, if you will. That's the point we're making there. It's not that there's uncertainty as to where the research needs to be done. We would like to see the department say, all right, we have a plan to look at and carry out the research, and we're going to do it in the right order.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CA): Thank you.

I'm coming on a little late in this show and a lot of these points have been covered very thoroughly. I have a couple of questions. One comes out of the conservation and protection of wild stocks, the responsibility of the department. We've been talking about it at length this morning. The question I was going to ask is, could you give examples of where the act is not being enforced?

This comes back more to the matter of more science you've already articulated. I think Mr. Thompson very clearly and accurately listed some of the needs there in citing the deleterious substances, medications, and so on released into the environment, the very serious consideration of expansion and whether an extensive environmental review is needed, the matter of transgenic fish, an important one coming up on the east coast, escaping and interbreeding. But in relation to the question Mr. Keddy raised earlier about what other effects are being felt, particularly with wild stocks, I've had some disturbing reports come my way to do with siting, that care needs to be taken with regard to the wild stocks migrating, the young salmon fry migrating up through areas where the salmon farms are located, particularly on the west coast, with the narrow straits the fish are navigating, and particularly with the use of arc lights at night. The implication I've been hearing is that the arc lights attract salmon fry to come into the nets, and that many of the salmon fry are perhaps being consumed by the farmed salmon. I wonder if you've had any intimations of that come your way.

The Chair: Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Ron Thompson: I think we did. Mr. Chu has just highlighted paragraph 30.63 of our chapter, where we get at that a little bit. We make the point that

B.C.'s Salmon Aquaculture Review concluded that native salmon stocks closest to salmon farms are at higher risk than stocks inhabiting areas farther from large farms, although some escaped salmon are known to travel long distances.

I think the situation you're describing, sir, has been noted by us and is certainly known by the department, as far as I can see.

Mr. James Lunney: I would certainly say that's a significant concern, if in fact these young salmon fry are... I wonder whether they're actually being consumed by the farmed salmon. If there's evidence of that, it would certainly be a bargain for the salmon farmer in providing quality feed for his fish, but of course, the risks to the wild stocks would be very great. If there's a need for more study in that area, it would certainly be a high priority.

Going another way with the immediacy question, particularly in view of the siting, more sites coming along, with the potential risk to the stocks, what is the need to do an extensive environmental review before lifting the moratorium in British Columbia? You say that's a priority.

Mr. Ron Thompson: Mr. Chairman, in relation to doing that kind of broad review, I think that's either going to be triggered or not under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Personally, I would let the triggers that are built into that legislation operate, without trying to get in the middle of things.

The Chair: Mr. Lunney, anything further?

Mr. James Lunney: No. Thank you.

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

• 1010

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, gentlemen. Thank you for an interesting presentation. I read the report with considerable interest.

This is a question, perhaps, that reflects my previous life before the last election. I practised law, and I had some clients in the aquaculture business in Atlantic Canada. One of the huge problems they were facing was the time it took to have a new site approved. We had very great difficulty. I see Mr. Keddy and others... I know some in his province... The Navigable Waters Protection Act, coast guard—it was a big problem, some federal, some provincial. The bottom line is, you had business people with considerable investments, a timeframe dictated by the ice, the good weather, the need to not disrupt other commercial fishing activities. I know this was an issue of considerable concern on the east coast.

The circumstances in British Columbia are much different, obviously, and you've addressed that. Did the industry or the department address some of the problems industry people and salmon farmers have had in getting to a process where a site can be moved or approved?

Mr. Ron Thompson: I'll ask Mr. Sokolowski, and maybe Mr. Chu, to think about that, but my sense would be that it was unlikely to come up, because there's been a moratorium in place for a while. But I may be wrong on that.

The Chair: Mr. Sokolowski or Mr. Chu, go ahead.

Mr. John Sokolowski: I think we mentioned in the chapter, Mr. Chairman, that there are some sites being considered for relocation in B.C. There are up to 40 sites, of which they're looking at 11. We had concerns with the siting criteria. There was a lack of scientific support for those criteria, so it makes it difficult for them to find a proper location. That may be part of this slowing of the process, doing all the work to see that those are going to be proper sites.

The Chair: Mr. Thompson, did you have anything further to add?

Mr. Ron Thompson: We didn't really get any evidence, as we were doing the audit, from people trying to put in new sites that the process was terribly slow and cumbersome. We'll hear about that as we do follow-up work, I suspect. But that is something, sir, perhaps the provincial officials might be able to shed some light on for you as well.

The Chair: Mr. LeBlanc.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: That's fine, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Roy first, and then Mr. Stoffer.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Listening to you, I feel like we are living in a somewhat surreal world. My question goes back to what Mr. Keddy was asking earlier. You say there are significant risks of interaction between salmon farming and wild salmon. You say the department is not doing its job, is not adequately monitoring escaped wild salmon. In fact, you recommend to the department that it increase monitoring. You recommend to the department that it invest more in monitoring.

What I want to know, personally, is what is the basis for your statement that there may be some interaction, there may be some danger, there may be... Is there any research to show that there really is some danger? Is there any research to show that there is in fact some interaction, apart from the study you mentioned earlier, from British Columbia (I forget the name of the organization that did the study)? On what basis do you state that there is some interaction, and on what basis do you state that there is a danger to people?

[English]

Mr. Ron Thompson: Mr. Roy, there are a couple of references in our report that I called to the table just now. But there have been, as far as we can see, a great many people arguing that there's been a problem with escaped salmon, while others will stand up and say there isn't a problem. If you go back to a principle the department itself uses, which is this precautionary principle, when there's uncertainty like that, it needs to be addressed and a solution found as to whether there's a problem or not. They just don't want to take a chance. That's the basis for some of the recommendations we're making.

• 1015

In terms of escaped salmon, if we look at paragraph 30.50 as well as 30.52, we found, or the B.C. Salmon Aquaculture Review actually found, that Atlantic salmon ready to spawn had been observed in B.C. streams. So they got out and they've lived. We've also found, as noted in 30.52, the origin of juvenile Atlantic salmon in two locations on Vancouver Island.

Then, sir, the one that was more compelling to me than any was what we noted in paragraph 30.53, where we talked about the escapes in Canada. There were something in the order of 300,000 fish. Then in the United States there was one escape of 350,000, I think. Science has shown that they've ended up in 79 streams.

When these fish do get out of the pens, they can live, apparently, and they can reproduce. That was not thought to be possible a very short while ago. The effects of that, some knowledgeable people will argue, are quite serious on the salmon industry. Others will argue that the effects aren't all that serious.

I think we need an answer to that. That's where the science comes in. That's what we're trying to encourage, and that's what the department, as I understand it, is trying to do.

The Chair: Monsieur Roy, a short one.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: That does answer my question. Now I am going to make a statement. I find it scandalous that the department would let an industry go ahead without first doing the necessary research, without first ascertaining the potential impact. This is a statement.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

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

Some witnesses have appeared before us, and it's always difficult to get the right information, as you've just mentioned. Some people have said that fish farms are amplifiers or incubators of disease. That's what they have said. The industry has said no, that's not true. Did your evidence uncover any of that at all?

Mr. Ron Thompson: We didn't see that, sir.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

You mentioned the effects on wild salmon stocks. Did your department uncover any evidence at all in other species—herring, rockfish, or shellfish—of the effects that finfish farming may have on those other species? Did you do a study on that effect as well?

Mr. Ron Thompson: No, we didn't, sir. This chapter is of fairly limited scope in the sense that we wanted to restrict it to the salmon fishing industry. So we didn't look beyond that, I'm afraid, on this cut.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer's really trying to find a way to get at GM fish in Prince Edward Island. But go ahead, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: GE fish. That's my next question.

By the way, if you could say to the Auditor General thank you and congratulations for his work over the years for Canada, I'd appreciate that.

Is your department at all contemplating doing a study on the potential effects of GE or transgenics in the future?

Mr. Ron Thompson: That's a very good question for me because I'm just taking over responsibility for this portfolio that includes Fisheries and Oceans.

One of the things that we're now doing is what we call a strategic plan for audits over the next five years, maybe the next ten years. We're right in the middle of that. So we're looking at all kinds of issues we think might be important for members of Parliament to know about as a result of our audit work.

As I recall, we haven't looked at that just yet. We'll certainly put it on the table to look at, but it seems a little early maybe for us to get into that. But now is the right time in our office, and particularly as we plan the DFO audit work for the next five years or so, to consider it. And we will do that.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have a couple of quick questions, hopefully.

I'd like to make a comment first on Mr. Lunney's statement about the arc lights and a reference on that too. The reference is the fact that there's a lot of research that could be done for fairly little cost, for instance, to put this question to rest.

• 1020

On the east coast, we've had incidents in salmon farms where pollock get into the nets and grow to maturity. What we don't know is if those pollock are coming in there as small fish and simply not being eaten, or if they're coming in there as small fish, with small fish, and growing along with the rest of the salmon. But I suspect it's the fact that they're going in there as small fish.

The lights may attract them, but I don't think there's any proof that adult salmon eat them. Maybe there's no proof that they don't, as well. But to me, there's some research that could be done here for little cost that would, for instance, lay this one to rest.

I'm critical that the government hasn't done this. We still have the $75 million, but we don't know where the priorities lie. Is it in the big macro issues, or are we going to solve some of these smaller issues that get us closer to the real issue of whether or not we can continue to farm salmon? I think most of us believe we can, but how do we go about that?

The other issue is the studies that have been done so far on genetics. Did you guys look, at all, at the fact that for the last 50 years, at least, we've been introducing different genetic strains of fish into different rivers in the west coast and the east coast, and what effect that's had on the salmon?

Now that there are fewer salmon, that they're under pressure, and there all of these issues, it seems to me that we're spending a lot of time trying to find the aquaculture industry as the problem, and I'm not necessarily sure about that. They may be part of it, but I don't know if they're the problem.

Mr. Ron Thompson: I think the work the Department of Fisheries and Oceans say they're going to be doing will look at a much broader menu of issues than just salmon farming and the salmon industry, as I understand it.

That's something, if I might suggest, that we'll certainly ask them as we do our follow-up. It would probably be quite helpful if the committee could ask them too when they appear.

If they're not going for the soft pitches, if you will, if there are some, then one would think they might be encouraged to do that.

The Chair: Last question, Gerald.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have a question on the small fish. In the wild, small fish tend to avoid big fish. So even if there are lights attracting smaller fish, they wouldn't necessarily go in. This is a question that for a very few dollars, limited research dollars, we should be able to have an answer for today. I don't know why we don't.

The Chair: I expect that's one we'll have to ask the department, and we will. There is the statement Liseanne Forand prepared for the committee, which should be in your office. And we will have the assistant deputy minister on policy from DFO here at the earliest opportunity.

Are there any questions from the government side?

Mr. Cummins.

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

Mr. Thompson, in your report you concluded that Fisheries and Oceans is not meeting its legislative obligations under the Fisheries Act. Can you give examples of where the Fisheries Act is not being enforced by DFO?

Mr. Ron Thompson: At present I would think the issues where we say there's more research needed are six good ones.

Starting with section 35 and section 36, in terms of actually doing some meaningful work on harmful alteration, disruption, and destruction of habitat, the department doesn't have criteria for what is good and what is bad in that area. They should have criteria if they're going to enforce the act.

The same thing is true with the regulations for what's good and what's bad about deleterious substances, and right down the line.

I think that's where we're coming from, Mr. Cummins. I think what's past is past. But the way we would look at all of this is let's encourage the department to fix the problems that are there and get on with regulating.

Mr. John Cummins: In paragraph 30.36 you reference a private prosecution that was recently launched against a salmon farm operator, yet the crown counsel, the federal Department of Justice, stayed the charges on the grounds that licensing of the site, with knowledge of the effects, would reduce the chances of conviction.

In a sense, what the Department of Justice is saying is that DFO doesn't have its act together. Is that your interpretation of the event?

• 1025

Mr. Ron Thompson: I'm not sure I'd put it quite that way, Mr. Cummins.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins has a unique way of putting things.

Mr. Ron Thompson: I think I'd simply stick with the words we've used in the paragraph and just say that we're communicating a finding and leave it at that, if I may.

Mr. John Cummins: You have just reported on it, here it is, and we can interpret it as we wish.

In paragraph 30.41 you talk about a 1998 workshop at Fisheries and Oceans, where habitat scientists concluded that because site criteria designed to protect both vulnerable wild fish stocks and sensitive habitats are not scientifically based, they leave the department vulnerable if challenged legally. Could you comment on that?

Mr. Ron Thompson: I think the issue we're raising there goes back to the same old thing: you have to have sound criteria to decide where you can put one of these farms and where you can't. I think the implication there is that if they're not well-founded, and decisions are made as to where you can't put a salmon farm, the people making application might get quite upset about it and possibly take court action. But I'm guessing on that.

The Chair: This is your last question, Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: In paragraph 30.47 you say that proposals for new salmon farms could require assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Then at the end of the paragraph you say that in your opinion, potential cumulative environmental effects of multiple salmon farm proposals warrant public review before a decision is made to look to a moratorium. But in the next paragraph you say the department is currently unable to assess the cumulative environmental effects of salmon farm operations as required by the CEAA.

Do these new farms require this environmental assessment, and if so, why isn't the department able to assess them or access that information?

Mr. Ron Thompson: Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Cummins, that's the point we're making here. We don't think the department is equipped well enough at all to be able to participate in one of these assessments. We think they should be, because if the moratorium is lifted and a good number more salmon farms come along, one of these overall assessments could well be required, and the department shouldn't be caught flat-footed in not being able to participate in that kind of review.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

Are there any further questions? I believe, Mr. Stoffer, you have one. Go ahead and then we'll close.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: It's just a quick one, sir.

The actual jurisdictional responsibility for lifting the moratorium lies upon the province, is that correct?

Mr. Ron Thompson: Yes. We were debating that yesterday in the office before coming over here, but my understanding is that is correct. They're the ones who grant the licences, after consultation with DFO. But at the end of the day, they would be the ones who would lift it—I presume after consultation with DFO.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Is it conceivable then that if they have that consultation and DFO says you should exercise caution in this particular area because we have information that says this, the provincial government could ignore that advice and still proceed with the granting of the licence?

Mr. Ron Thompson: Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Stoffer, I don't know the answer to that question, but I'd sure like to. I would encourage you to ask that of the department, and we certainly will too.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

The initial response of the department is in the end of your report. I take it from some of your earlier testimony that you at least are hopeful the department is moving in the right direction. What reaction do you have to the response they've given you thus far, at least in writing—not by action but intent?

Mr. Ron Thompson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I've had one discussion personally with departmental officials on this, obviously in getting ready to come over here, and my sense is that they're very serious and they're going to carry this project out.

• 1030

It's going to look at the issues. It's going to address all of the recommendations we've made in this particular chapter, but it will go much broader than that as well, which is quite understandable. Some of the discussion today has indicated a need for that.

My sense is that they're serious about doing it, sir, and that they're going to put it in place.

The Chair: Thank you.

You have 30 seconds.

Mr. John Cummins: You mention at 30.52 that a graduate student at the University of Victoria is currently working on interactions in the field. He is looking for escaped Atlantics to see whether they have established colonies. Then in 30.72 you make it very clear that the fisheries should expand and improve the Atlantic salmon watch program.

My understanding is that the graduate student has completed his work and there's now next to no work being done. I think the provincial government was funding to the tune of about $25,000 a phone line. People would phone in if they caught the suspected fish. But that's the total of the research being done on these escapes at this time. Is that your understanding?

Mr. Ron Thompson: Mr. Cummins, I don't know that, sir. I can't answer that question, I'm afraid. It's come up a bit after the audit was done.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Chu, and Mr. Sokolowski. We do appreciate the information you have put forward before the committee today. We certainly appreciate all the work the Auditor General's office has done for fisheries over the last number of years. I know the committee has found the reports beneficial in terms not only of understanding the industry, but in the detail in which it's put forward. We certainly thank you for your presentation today.

Mr. Ron Thompson: Thank you.

The Chair: Members, we have a number of issues to address.

It was suggested to me by someone that maybe, as the Auditor General, Mr. Desautels, has retired, the committee should send a thank you letter for the service he has provided to us over the years. Do I have agreement to draft that?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: The second area that I want to touch on before we get into the motions that have been sent around—and this is just for future reference—is that as we discussed at both the steering and full committee, there is a review by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on the Atlantic policy review. There was a Pacific policy review.

My staff in Prince Edward Island attended the hearing in Charlottetown this week, and I don't mind admitting it was a shock to hear that the department was basically saying there hasn't been a study on the industry in 20 years. From my own point of view, I can say there have been a number of people on this committee who have studied the industry extensively. I don't know where the department is. Quite honestly, I'm a little peeved—not a little, a whole lot—by that statement by the department.

• 1035

This committee, under a previous chair, did an east coast report, a west coast report, a Nunavut report, and a central Canadian report, all on management of the fisheries. I just put it before you as information and ask you for suggestions on how we deal with it. I'm not at all pleased to hear that the department thinks there was no work done, because the members of Parliament did good work, with previous members who are not here and some who still are, so I'm asking for suggestions.

We certainly should haul before the committee the people who have made those statements and give them copies of our reports. It's open for discussion at the moment.

Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Fine, haul them, keelhaul them, or whatever you want to do, but we have to stop them from disseminating incorrect information as they proceed on their study.

I think you have to notify the minister immediately that these statements are being made by officials, and that the minister issue a directive to the people who are carrying out this study, to cease and desist immediately from stating that this is the first study in 20 years, that in fact there have been studies, and mention what you say. But it has to be stopped immediately, because if people are coming to hearings and hearing this, then all that good work done by the previous committee is for naught.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Not to defend them in any way, shape, or form, but did the comments mean that DFO has not done this study in 20 years?

The Chair: Not from my understanding.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay, but we'll get that clarification.

The Chair: We will check that.

Anyway, we will do what Mr. Wappel suggests. I will talk to the minister, and we will have to have them in at an early date.

Going to the motions before us, the first motion I'd like to deal with is the first report. You have it before you on the page starting with “The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has the honour to present...”.

Really, that is something that was not done due to the early close of Parliament. We have a statutory obligation to review the Oceans Act. It was not done on time, and to be technically correct, we need to report to the House and ask for an extension to October 1, 2001. As the committee knows, we are going to deal with that if we get on our east coast tour.

We need a motion for that.

It's moved by Mr. Stoffer. We don't need a seconder, do we?

Mr. John Cummins: Which one are you voting on?

The Chair: It's the first report. We're just asking for an extension to the timeframe to report on the Oceans Act. It's a statutory obligation.

I'm told by the clerk we need a little change to this. Where it says “Your Committee recommends that notwithstanding section 52(2)...”, technically there should be an amendment to say “Your Committee recommends that pursuant to section 52(2)...”.

Does somebody want to move that amendment?

The amendment is moved by Mr. Stoffer, and seconded by Mr. LeBlanc.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Motion as amended agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: There is a list of motions on a full sheet, and in the accompanying documents, budgets for the committee travel that we talked about earlier. The first one is that the travel budget for our east coast trip in the amount of $107,000.00 be approved.

Is there a mover? It's moved by Mr. Matthews.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Chairman, I have a small point of order.

During one of the last meetings, I mentioned that when we looked at the expenses for coffee, tea, juice, etc., we were told that this also included administrative and logistic expenses. I'm looking at this and I see that for four meetings in Norway and in Nova Scotia, we have anticipated $500 and $2,000 for coffee; this seems wrong to me. I see here that for the Magdalen Islands and Moncton, we have anticipated $400 per day for coffee.

• 1040

Someone should explain what this is about, perhaps include a note that mentions that it is not only for coffee and juice, but that there are photocopies and administrative fees included in this. Two thousand dollars for coffee and juice for four days in Norway... All we have to do is add that it is not only for coffee. It looks strange. For one place it is costing $500 a day, and it costs less in the Magdalen Islands. I know that transportation costs are higher in the Magdalen Islands.

[English]

The Chair: Well, we have coffee on the one that's here now. It's $800. You're saying $200 a day is too high?

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: For Nova Scotia and the Magdalen Islands and Moncton, it is $400 per day, but we need to add—as we were told the other day—other costs that are included in this amount: photocopies and room logistics. I think this looks bad, quite bad. At this cost, we may as well be drinking beer.

[English]

The Chair: Clerk, what can we put in there? Photocopying is covered under “Photocopies, faxes, courier services, $2,000”. It's a ballpark figure. In terms of budget, we do not have to spend it, but it's—

Mr. Tom Wappel: What is it for? It can't possibly be only for coffee, tea, and juice.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Et cetera.

Mr. Tom Wappel: What's the reality? What does this constitute?

The Chair: Mr. Clerk?

The Clerk of the Committee: That $200 is a worst-case figure. In fact, we may wind up at that and more in some places, because we are frankly so late organizing that we will have to be ready to go where we can get it. So we have planned for a worst case.

It has been that expensive. That's probably closer to a Toronto figure than a Halifax figure, but that serious a figure was put in the budget to cover that possibility.

Mr. Tom Wappel: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I didn't even notice this until Mr. St-Julien brought it up, but even in Toronto—and I'm from Toronto—if I bought each of you a large coffee at $1.50 three times during the course of the day, that doesn't work out to $500 a day. I'm not making light of it, but I just wonder, does this include a lunch for whoever is briefing us? What the heck is it?

The Chair: It's based on the experience of committees when they're on the road. It is not just coffee for the committee, but for witnesses and observers who are in the room.

If you've been at any conventions and you see those coffee urns, I forget what they cost—

An hon. member: They're $75 or $100.

The Chair: —but it's unbelievable what the hotels charge for them. That's the reality of the world, and that's what we're trying to deal with and not budget under that.

Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a proposal: Let us eliminate that box, these two boxes, and put this amount as the room rental costs.

[English]

The Chair: It's a budgetary figure. Hopefully it won't be spent, but it's a reality if you're going to buy coffee.

In fact, the finance committee at one time quit buying coffee, but they're back to buying it now because they realized the public wasn't going to put up with the finance committee being so much on the cheap.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: While you're at it, I would suggest buying bottled water. Put this amount with the room. Add it to another budget. These sums of money for only coffee, tea and juice will lead to criticism.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Murphy, you want in.

• 1045

Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): There's no coffee, Mr. Chair.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: That's true.

Look, I don't want to spend... Unless I hear a motion on it, I'm going to move on the full motion.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I move that they put coffee, tea, and juice in the meeting room allocation.

Mr. Georges Farrah: I second it.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: The full motion asks for approval of the travel budget for the east coast trip in the amount of $107,000.

You have the background information. Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I've got some discussion.

The Chair: You've got some discussion? Well, get with it.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: That's unless you guys want to continue to talk about coffee, because I know it's much more important than what we're actually supposed to do here.

The Chair: Let's hear it.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you.

Are we going to make only one stop in Nova Scotia, that being Halifax?

The Chair: That's right.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: So that means we're not going to visit any sites in Nova Scotia?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: We're going to visit sites in Newfoundland and sites in Charlottetown and sites in Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

The Chair: That is correct. We did, though, as a committee, prior to the election, visit sites in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes, but with due respect, Mr. Chair, that was a committee that was put together at the last minute. We knew the election was being called. A lot of us didn't have an opportunity to attend that, or chose not to for other reasons. Really, we didn't do the job with any area of Atlantic Canada. We basically left out Newfoundland, P.E.I., and Nova Scotia, with one or two site visits.

If we're going to the east coast, then I had assumed—wrongly, obviously—that we would redo the trip we had planned the first time. We'd visit all the sites. We'd go to the places where the fishermen are and where the interaction between aquaculture and the wild fishery is. We would actually go to the places affected by decisions like Georges Bank and the Sable offshore. We would also have some opportunity during those to have some discussions over Marshall.

Now, that was my understanding of what the east coast trip was. I had expected that we would just pick up where we had left off, because that was not able to be done.

The Chair: The original proposal that came before the committee actually had two or three days in the Halifax, Nova Scotia, area. That was changed at the last meeting to tighten it up so that it could be done in one week, and to go to Newfoundland as well.

I think if you look at the agenda sheet on the east coast trip you will see there's probably more opportunity for discussion in Halifax than anywhere else. We are dealing with the round table in aquaculture in the morning, the Canadian Coast Guard in the afternoon, and the Oceans Act in the evening. So it is a very full day, fuller than in the other areas. Some of the other areas are site visits.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have no argument with the fact that Halifax is very much a centre, as is Moncton. It's easy for people to get to. You can draw for that type of discussion. But I would think, if we're travelling as a committee, we should visit at least some of the sites in Nova Scotia. You've been to a couple, or at least one, in your previous visits, but it's a long way from covering the area.

I think it would be a mistake to visit Nova Scotia and leave out Shelburne County, in particular, where the fishery is located. I mean, at least 60% of the shellfish industry in Nova Scotia, the lobster industry, is located in LFA 34. We would be making a mistake if we left that area out of any discussions down there.

The Chair: Gerald, I'm not going to argue the point, but the last meeting basically gave the chair and the clerk the direction to do planning. The way it's proposed—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: You have to have approval from everybody's whips or House leaders to travel. I remember this happening before, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Yes, that's correct.

• 1050

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have no problem approving the trip, but I would like to impress upon every member of the committee that it's important to do the visit. I agree with the day in Halifax, but I think you need another half day or another day. I don't see how you can avoid it. The whole area is important, I agree.

The Chair: We have the proposal before us based on what the committee asked us to do. That's what is on the table, unless I hear amendments. Otherwise, the motion is on the floor.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'd like to make an amendment that we spend one more day in Nova Scotia, specifically, Mr. Chairman, in the Barrington area, which would allow all of southwestern Nova Scotia to attend that particular meeting.

The Chair: On what issue?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I have a question, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: On what issue, Gerald? Is it on site visits?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: We could do site visits, if you want, but that wouldn't be the issue. The issue would be—

The Chair: It's not what I want, it's what you want. You're proposing the amendment.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: My amendment would be that if we have time, we visit a land-based operation for aquaculture. The one that is there is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, on the east coast on halibut.

The Chair: So moved.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I have a question. Can Mr. Keddy ensure that the witnesses appearing before us will not get into other subjects—i.e., the Marshall case? By the time we get there, the spring fishery will be happening. A lot of people will want to discuss the aboriginal fishery, and we can get lost.

The Chair: We have an amendment on the floor.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We'll have to adjust the budget accordingly.

Mr. John Cummins: There is this ongoing moratorium, so I don't know...

The Chair: Moratorium on what?

Mr. John Cummins: There's a dispute going on over travel. You're aware of that.

The Chair: Yes, I am, John. The Alliance Party, I understand, has a dispute over travel as a result of not getting 50% of the time for questioning.

Mr. John Cummins: The dispute isn't with this committee. It's with some of the others.

The Chair: Anyway, we're not going to get into that. This committee accommodates.

Mr. John Cummins: We're not displeased with the way this committee operates. There are problems in other committees. You should know that—

Mr. Bill Matthews: If there's no trip, there's no point—

The Chair: The House will have to deal with that matter, Bill.

Could we have order, please.

We can deal with the amendment under a further motion down here, and that is that the chair be authorized to approve... We can deal with that.

Could we vote on the original motion as amended? Moved by Peter Stoffer—

Mr. John Cummins: How are you going to deal with the extra time? Are you going to tack it on on a Saturday or a Sunday?

The Chair: There had to be an extra day tacked on, as I understand it.

Mr. John Cummins: Would it have to be a Saturday?

The Chair: We'd have to meet as a steering committee on it, I think. Or we could leave a day earlier.

Mr. John Cummins: The whole agenda you have here isn't going to fit with that.

(Motion as amended agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: The second motion is that the travel budget for the trip to Norway and Scotland in the amount of $200,000 be approved. Is there any discussion?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Chairman, I'm certainly one of the players who thinks we should go to Norway and Scotland. The problem with that right now is hoof-and-mouth disease in Scotland. I think we're going to have to take a long and careful look at whether we should make that trip at the present time. I'm the last one to say we shouldn't go, because I really believe we need to go to look at the industry over there. But it's a risk. You have the same background, so you know from whence I come.

The Chair: I think you're probably correct.

Do you want to approve the motion so that it's dealt with and in the next one down change it to “in the fall, pending the hoof-and-mouth disease”?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Chair, I make an amendment that if we check into the prospect—

The Chair: Let's approve the budget first, and then we'll deal with the time.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Okay.

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: On the third motion down, Peter.

• 1055

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Would it be possible for the chair or the clerk to check with the Department of Foreign Affairs to see what recommendation they would make to the committee? If they say we shouldn't go, then that will add validity to what Mr. Keddy said. But if they say that other committees have gone and other people have travelled—

The Chair: Peter, I know that in Prince Edward Island a decision was made last night to stop school travel to—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay. But I think it would be prudent to check with Foreign Affairs and see what they—

An hon. member: I agree with that.

The Chair: The next motion is that the committee seek an order of reference from the House of Commons to travel to Norway and Scotland. Does somebody want to amend that to “in the fall, pending the hoof-and-mouth disease”?

Mr. John Cummins: I say just table it.

The Chair: Are you moving a tabling motion?

Mr. John Cummins: I move we table it. You can bring it back whenever you want.

The Chair: There's no debate on tabling, as I understand it. Of course, I go by Robert's Rules of Order.

[Translation]

Mr. Roy.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Mr. Chairman, with respect to amending the motion, I would say: "once we are assured that there is no danger regarding foot-and-mouth disease". Really, it would be difficult to set a date today, because we do not know the scope of the epidemic and we do not know when it may end. However, once we are assured that there is no danger, quite simply... Before the fall, we may well have the same problem if this continues because it is spreading everywhere.

[English]

The Chair: The tabling motion may apply. The motion to table is on the floor.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: On the east coast trip, the next motion before you is that the committee seek an order of reference from the House of Commons—basically, as is outlined there—to travel in May 2001. The dates are on the other paper.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The next motion is that the chair be authorized to approve and finalize the travel budgets and itineraries for the trips to the east coast—which will deal with Gerald's item—and to submit said budgets to the budget subcommittee. We can take “Norway and Scotland” out.

Mr. Tom Wappel: I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: We have a motion from Mr. LeBlanc. Would you please read your motion, Dominic, and then we'll put it on the floor.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I talked about this a week ago.

On the motion you have before you, at the top of the page there are two different dates: 22 March 2001 and le 26 mars 2001. I had actually given notice on the 22nd. I think we might want to change that. I don't know if that is of technical importance. The notice was given in English and French at the same time.

Mr. Chairman, at the suggestion of the clerk, we broke it into two paragraphs. I move that the chair write to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to express this committee's concern over the implementation of the reports of Dr. Art May and Mr. Sylvestre McLaughlin to the department and the minister's decision of October 1998 to re-create the gulf region and that the chair further request that the minister make available the appropriate officials of the department by May 1 to myself, the chair, and any other interested member to assist in preparing a report on the re-creation of the gulf region to this committee.

I don't have the parliamentary experience that other members do, but this is a big concern in my part of New Brunswick. It's a concern for inshore fishermen, some of whom have testified before this committee in recent weeks. My idea was simply that this committee lend its weight to a little bit of work I would like to do and report back. It can be a very simple process.

I've talked to you, Mr. Chairman, and to other members who may have an interest in meeting with officials of the department. It can be an informal meeting. I would like them to explain to me where they are on the re-creation of their own region, a decision that their department has taken. I have a sense that there are still some elements that need to be completed. I would like them to come back to this committee and circulate to our colleagues a brief report that might enlighten this committee and lead to some questioning on the trip, or the committee may decide at that point to look at that later on.

I just wanted this committee's support to look into this myself, along with any other member who would like to participate.

• 1100

The issue, Mr. Chairman, very briefly is one of service to clients of the department.

[Translation]

There is also the issue of official languages. The Official Languages Commissioner had serious concerns regarding French-language services offered by the Halifax office to departmental clients in the gulf region. And I do not believe that the Halifax office is able to provide services to francophones in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and other provinces.

[English]

So, Mr. Chairman, it was basically to ask the committee to lend their support. We would then come back to the committee with some comments, and the committee could decide what, if anything, it wished to do.

The Chair: Dominic, could we maybe handle it this way—we're going to get kicked out, as the room has to be available at eleven o'clock for the justice committee, I understand.

On the first motion, it's pretty difficult for us to write a letter to the minister without having first heard the concerns. I wonder if we could set that motion aside and deal with the second one, which is basically asking the minister to make appropriate officials of the department available to you, to me, or to any other members of this committee, so that we can get the background material and report back to the committee. Then, if necessary, we could come back with the original motion. Would that be possible?

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: That would be fine, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: So the first motion is off the table. The second motion is moved.

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: I have a comment to make. Mr. LeBlanc has just been given the French translation. Mr. LeBlanc has just been promoted: he is designated as committee chair. If you read the motion, there is a mistake.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. I should say that the minister will be before the committee at 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday on Marshall.

The meeting is adjourned.