FOPO Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 25, 2003

Á

1105

The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.))

Mr. Gordon Ennis (Manager, Secretariat, Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council)

Á

1110

Á

1115

Á

1120

Á

1125

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Á

1130

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Mr. John Cummins

Á

1135

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Mr. John Cummins

Á

1140

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Á

1145

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

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

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Á

1150

Mr. Georges Farrah

Mr. Gordon Ennis

The Chair

Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Mr. Andy Burton

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Á

1155

Mr. Andy Burton

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Mr. Andy Burton

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Mr. Andy Burton

Mr. Gordon Ennis

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP)

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Â

1200

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Gordon Ennis

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC)

Â

1205

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Mr. Loyola Hearn

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Ennis

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Ennis

The Chair

Â

1210

Mr. Gordon Ennis

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Ennis

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Ennis

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Ennis

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Ennis

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Ennis

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Â

1215

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Â

1220

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Gordon Ennis

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Â

1225

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Gordon Ennis

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Mr. John Cummins

Â

1230

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Gordon Ennis

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Â

1235

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Mr. John Cummins

Â

1240

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Â

1245

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Gordon Ennis

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Ennis

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Ennis

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

---

NUMBER 019

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 25, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.)): I'd like to call the meeting to order and indicate that pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is conducting a study on aquaculture in Canada.

    We are pleased to have today as a witness, via video conference, from the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, Mr. Gordon Ennis, who is the manager of the secretariat. Welcome, sir. Thank you for agreeing to appear on this interesting topic. What we'd like to do is give you an opportunity to make your presentation, hopefully in approximately 15 minutes. Thereafter we will have questions and answers from the various members of the committee and yourself.

    Mr. Gordon Ennis (Manager, Secretariat, Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council): It's a pleasure to be here.

    We have submitted to the standing committee a paper entitled “Presentation of the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries, February 20, 2003”. I would appreciate that being part of the record.

    The Honourable John Fraser would have liked very much to be here. His not appearing is not an indication of his lack of interest or desire to be here, but it is just impossible with his travel schedule. He got in late last night from Bosnia, and he's leaving again around noon for Ottawa.

    The Conservation Council was created in 1998 by Minister David Anderson. Its purpose was to provide advice to the governments of British Columbia and Canada on fisheries matters. Another purpose was to help educate the public on matters of fisheries concerns. The council is chaired by the Honourable John Fraser. It's got eight members appointed by Canada and one appointed by the Province of British Columbia. Council members represent a diverse variety of fields and interests. Members include Mark Angelo, Mary-Sue Atkinson, Frank Brown, the provincial appointee, Murray Chatwin, Merrill Fearon, Paul LeBlond, Jeffrey Marliave, Marcel Shepert, and Carl Walters. We have two ex-officio members, one being Dr. Dick Beamish from DFO, the other Arnie Narcisse from the B.C. Aboriginal Fisheries Commission. If you want to find out more about the council members, I guess you can ask me; their biographies are available on our website, which is www.fish.bc.ca.

    The council, as I've said, was created to assist governments to take a more comprehensive conservation approach to fisheries matters. Our mandate is to be strategic in nature. To that point, we have prepared a number of reports for government. Each year we produce an annual report, which gives an overview of fish stock and habitat matters. This past year our annual report reported on the fish stocks of southern B.C. It was the most comprehensive, in-one-spot compilation of all the information on fish stocks in the southern part of the province. That includes the Fraser River, the Okanagan River, the west coast of Vancouver Island, and the Strait of Georgia area.

    We've also issued a number of advisories over the years. We've issued one on stewardship, for instance. We've produced reports that were geographically specific. We've produced a report on gravel mining and its impact. We've also convened a conference on climate change and fish stocks.

Á  (1110)  

    With regard to salmon aquaculture, we've produced two advisories and a report. I'll talk about the Broughton Archipelago advisory first, but before I do that, I want to put things in context. In July the council issued a contract to two consulting firms, which banded together to look into the aquaculture debate. This was before anybody heard of the pink salmon collapse in the Broughton, before the fish spawned. The reason we undertook this was that there was a very acrimonious debate with regard to aquaculture and its impacts in a whole variety of areas, human health, birds, fish, a range of issues. We, of course, were interested, according to our mandate, in looking at interactions with wild salmon, so that's the approach we took in that contract. That resulted in a technical report by the authors of the study, and that led in turn, in January, to an advisory.

    Meanwhile--and this is why I wanted to give the scenario--there was a collapse of pink salmon spawners in the Broughton Archipelago. Numbers went from 3.6 million all the way down to 147,000. Knowing that, the council convened a public consultation in Campbell River, where we invited a diverse array of attendees. Members of first nations communities were there, the provincial government, the federal government, several representatives of the fish aquaculture industry, scientists, and folk from environmental non-government organizations. The council was in the process of gathering information on the collapse, wanted to understand it better, to be able to put it in perspective, and to examine potential reasons for the collapse. That led to our Broughton advisory, which was issued on November 25.

    I thought I would now give the background in more detail of the Broughton. A local fisherman noticed during the pink salmon juvenile out-migration a number of sea lice on those fish. He contacted a local biologist, Alexandra Morton, and she conducted a study of those pink salmon juveniles. She collected them by dip net along the shoreline and made observations on the number of sea lice on the fish. The average, I believe, is around 7 to 10 sea lice per fish. That's very unusual. When we were preparing our advisory, we contacted the U.S. Fisheries Service laboratory in Auke Bay, Alaska, which does extensive studies of pink salmon. They reported that they had never seen a sea louse on a juvenile pink salmon. I want to make it clear that we're talking about juveniles. Sea lice on adult pink salmon are not unusual, but they are very unusual on pink salmon juveniles. So we had a situation where the pink salmon juveniles had large numbers of lice on them. This was reported, and concern was expressed for the status of the stock. That was in 2002.

    When the fish returned this year, there was a dramatic drop in the number of spawners, as I said, from 3.6 million down to 147,000 fish. These spawners are in a variety of streams. One thing pink salmon do, and we've certainly seen it in the discussions subsequent to our report, is have large fluctuations in spawning numbers from year to year. So in order to put this decrease in numbers into perspective, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and we conducted a statistical analysis looking at the magnitude of the decrease compared to the root stock year. It was from one-100th to one-1000th of the expected number of fish based upon that historical pattern. That had only previously happened in one river at one time in 50 years of observations. In the Broughton this year that range of decrease occurred on five rivers, so it's very unusual. The decrease also occurred in rivers that had a modest number of spawners. It wasn't just decreases in rivers that had a large number of spawners.

    The sampling methodology was of great debate. I don't think anybody would say dip netting is a quantitative sample. Department of Fisheries and Oceans also undertook sampling, but they had some problem with their fishing vessel and had to get another one. Their samples were taken later. They sampled larger fish and got very few fish.

Á  (1115)  

    The thing that distinguishes the Broughton Archipelago in respect of development is that there are 27 fish farms. Some of them are fallow, but that is a large number of fish farms. There's a minimum of 500,000 Atlantic salmon per fish farm that's operating. Some of them, I believe, go up to 1.5 million Atlantic salmon. To go by knowledge in Europe and other studies, the farmed salmon pick up the sea lice from the natural environment, perhaps even from adult pink salmon. Sea lice are natural in the environment, but with the fish being so crowded on fish farms, we feel it acts like an incubator. The fish are under stress, their loading is high, so they have a greater propensity to have sea lice on them. And each female sea louse can produce, some reports say, 1.5 million eggs. So there is, indeed, a potential risk.

    At the time of our meeting in Campbell River we looked at other potential causes for the decreases. We looked at ocean temperature, fresh water regimes, oxygen levels, sedimentation, factors such as that. None of them was convincing. For one thing, the in-river situations you would not expect to be across the board, and yet the decreases in the Broughton rivers were across the board. So the Department of Fisheries and Oceans scientists concluded that it was something in the near-shore marine environment that caused the problem, and the information that existed showed very unusual numbers of sea lice. This is not absolute scientific proof, but it was compelling, especially combined with information garnered in Europe, where there has been fish farming for years. In Norway, Scotland, and Ireland sea lice on wild salmon have been reported extensively, and in Ireland it's been very controversial. So the observations, combined with the knowledge of what has happened elsewhere, led the council to conclude that sea lice were the most likely cause for the collapse. It's indirect evidence, but that was our conclusion.

    We concluded that because of this collapse of pink salmon, it was necessary to act in a precautionary manner. Now is not the time to simply collect more research and do more monitoring. We believe doing more research and monitoring is important, but more than that, at this time we believe action has to be taken to minimize the chance of the juvenile salmon that will be entering the river this spring having a sea lice attack or whatever. So we've proposed that there be safe passage of wild salmon. We gave two proposals, two levels of advice, on how to do this.

    Our lower-risk and preferred option was to fallow all the fish farms. That would have to begin, we said, six weeks prior to the juvenile out-migration. In other words, it would have to be completed by the end of February. We said it should start in January. That was because one of the ways of doing that fallowing would be for industry to speed up its marketing of the adult fish in those pens, which would take time, and we thought that would have the least impact on the industry.

Á  (1120)  

    Our other approach, our higher-risk option, which we did not prefer, consisted of a variety of approaches. We recommended strategic fallowing of farms that were thought to have the greatest potential for transferring sea lice to the juvenile pink salmon. We also recommended single bay management, so that the actions in a single bay were coordinated. Fish should be of similar sizes, treatments would be coordinated. There are two operators in the Broughton, and we felt that if you go to chemotherapeutant controls to kill the sea lice, rather than fallowing, it's important that it be coordinated so it's done at the same time.

    Another thing we recommended was the use of chemotherapeutants to kill lice, and what's different about our recommendation and some of the approaches we've read of the province and heard in discussions with the province is that we recommended preventive treatment. We wanted to have, basically, zero tolerance for sea lice, so we recommended treatment, period, that would commence about this time of year. The other approach that, at least up till now, government has been talking about is establishing a trigger level of the number of lice per farmed fish. If the number is above that level, you treat, if it's below that level, you don't treat. In other words, it's the treatment of a problem, rather than the preventive treatment the council recommended. One of the reasons for that is that it's all very well and easy to pick a trigger level of the number of lice per fish, but in fact, it's very difficult to establish scientifically beyond doubt what those numbers of lice per fish could be. You have to account for the variability of lice per fish, and it could involve quite a lot of sampling to get an accurate number of average lice per fish on a farm. Some of the fish will have higher numbers than the average, others lower. In fact, the sampling of the fish, we were concerned, could stress the fish and make them more susceptible to the lice. So we recommended preventive treatment as part of our low-risk option.

    As I've said, we've also--

Á  (1125)  

    The Chair: I'm sorry. We've gone on for 17 minutes now, and I think you're just concluding section A of your presentation. I do want to make sure we have ample time for questions, so I'm wondering if you could make an effort to summarize B and C. We're very interested in the Broughton Archipelago, but we're interested in the PFRCC's views on aquaculture in general, and also the latest advisory. So I would appreciate it if you could succinctly summarize B and C for us.

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: Thanks for letting me know of the time problems.

    With regard to sections B and C, we produced a technical report where we examined the potential impact in the interaction between farmed salmon and wild salmon. We looked at three areas, fish disease, escapes of farmed fish, and local water quality and habitat impacts. That report, by Dr. Julia Gardner and David Peterson, concluded that the highest risk would be that of sea lice infestations. Infestations of bacteria were thought to be lower in risk. Viruses were thought to be intermediate. One of the difficulties this study presented was looking at the debates and strengths of the arguments between the two sides. There are very few data by which to be conclusive, another reason we recommended more research, so we could have more valid findings in due course.

    For instance, Atlantic salmon do escape, that's known. Some of them do survive, some of them do spawn, and some of them do produce young. So there is a concern there about competition and establishment of a population and how that could affect wild Pacific salmon. About 30% of the farms in B.C. farm local Pacific salmon, cohoe and chinook. There, interestingly, we think the risk with escapes is higher, because you could have genetic dilution of the wild stocks from these farmed fish that are selected on very specific parameters. Unfortunately, at the moment, there's no way to monitor if there are escapes of farmed Pacific salmon and what they do. So that's an example of that issue. The effects on habitat and water quality we considered be very localized in nature, not that different from impacts of other industries, whereas the propensity to cause disease, to have fish escape and affect the genetics or competition is pretty distinct, we would say, to aquaculture.

    Based upon that report, as well as various considerations by council, we issued an advisory in mid-January, and that advisory had five recommendations. Recommendation one was that the precautionary principle should be applied with respect to fish farming. The second was that the aquaculture industry and government should undertake a wide range in research and monitoring programs, so that we can develop a better understanding of the interactions and better means and practices to minimize, if not eliminate, negative reactions. We recommended that the Government of Canada formulate and implement a comprehensive wild salmon policy and that the policy specifically state that wild salmon will be given priority in government decision-making. Fisheries and Oceans consulted on their wild salmon policy about three years ago, but it has yet to be finalized and released as a policy. We made a recommendation similar to our Broughton for single bay management of aquaculture. Our last recommendation, which we thought very important, dealt with the acrimony of the debate, and there we recommended that there be a multi-party salmon aquaculture forum established, not a government-led body, but one led by the stakeholders, to be used to establish a rapport between the parties so as to lead to trust, a willingness to look at solutions, rather than coming in with set positions to the table, and eventually recommendations to government, so we can move forward on the aquaculture issues.

    So that's a summary of sections B and C.

Á  (1130)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, sir.

    We alternate between the various members of Parliament, and the first person who is going to ask some questions is the official opposition critic for Fisheries and Oceans from the Canadian Alliance Party, Mr. Cummins, ten minutes.

    Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for being here this morning, Mr. Ennis.

    In the year 2000 the Auditor General of Canada issued a report on the effects of salmon farming in British Columbia, and she noted at the outset of her report that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans “is not fully meeting its obligations under the Fisheries Act to protect wild Pacific salmon stocks and habitat from the effects of fish farming.” In particular, she found that the department “is not fully carrying out its current regulatory responsibilities to enforce the Fisheries Act with respect to salmon farming operations” and that it “has not put in place a formal plan for managing risks and for assessing the potential cumulative environmental effects of proposals for new sites, should the decision be made to expand the industry.” Would you concur with those findings of the Auditor General? Has anything changed since the Auditor General's report, in your view?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: I know DFO has changed its thoroughness of examination of sites for new aquaculture. They have a group that applies the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to new aquaculture fish farm proposals, and that includes an examination of cumulative effects of fish farms. That examination is a difficult thing, though. It's intuitively obvious what a cumulative effect is, it's like the straw that broke the camel's back, but applying it in the real world is very tough. But I know they are attempting to do so.

    With regard to the application of the Fisheries Act, I'm not aware of any charges for offences by the fish farm industry.

    Mr. John Cummins: So you would agree that the Auditor General is correct?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: Well, they were correct at the time, but I think, with regard to some matters, the DFO has made progress, as with the impact assessment for new farms or resiting of farms.

    Mr. John Cummins: In his letter to the minister in November 2002 John Fraser noted, “The PFRCC considers the decreased numbers of pink salmon spawners to be a crisis. Accordingly, we advise that all measures necessary to assist smolt passage through the Broughton Archipelago without enduring sea lice infestations should be taken”. Later in the report you say, while scientific proof is not yet absolute, there is extremely suggestive circumstantial evidence that sea lice are associated with salmon farming: “the council believes that sea lice were associated with the decline observed in Broughton Archipelago” pink salmon. So on the one hand, you're saying there's not proof, but on the other hand, you're saying you're fairly well convinced that sea lice are the cause of this serious decline in the Broughton Archipelago. Is that correct?

Á  (1135)  

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: That's correct. With regard to scientific proof, it's an exceedingly difficult to prove the role of the sea lice. You would need to have information that the juvenile pink salmon, before they got into the area of influence of salmon farms, were free of lice. You would then have to document that as they entered that area, the number of lice increased. You would need to have some sort of marker--and we're talking about very small lice; they go through eight stages of juvenile growth and form changes--to show that those lice from the farms are the ones attached to the wild juvenile pink salmon, rather than lice that are there naturally in the environment. Then you'd have to demonstrate that in fact, the fish with the lice died and affected the return. That's an almost impossible thing to do scientifically, and it would be horrendously expensive. So indeed, there is no absolute scientific evidence, but there may never be.

    Mr. John Cummins: What you're saying, essentially, is that we're not dealing with a test tube here, but with the environment, and we're as certain as we can be that sea lice are the problem.

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: Yes.

    Mr. John Cummins: In the report it stated:

The PFRCC recommends that the time for action is now. While recognizing that some may argue that more study be done prior to implementing any measures to protect juvenile pink salmon passage, the PFRCC concludes that such a strategy may lead to irreparable harm to the Broughton Archipelago pink salmon stocks.

That's a pretty compelling statement. Some might describe it as alarmist. You recommend “that Canada and B.C. undertake urgent action to maximize the chance of safe passage of fish through the Broughton Archipelago during April 2003”, and then you list the two options. Your lower-risk option is that there be fallowing and that the fallowing begin in January, to be completed now. You're pretty definite on that as the preferred option, that anything less risks irreparable harm. Is that a correct analysis of the opinion of the council?

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: That's the lowest-risk option. Anything else does carry a risk that harm will be done.

    Mr. John Cummins: It's safe to say DFO has not followed the low-risk option.

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: That's correct.

    Mr. John Cummins: With the higher-risk option, the PFRCC recommends that “consistent with the intent of Canada's Oceans Act, all stakeholders, including government agencies, urgently and cooperatively develop and implement a sea lice control program specific to the Broughton Archipelago.” The implementation of this, again, should begin prior to January. The proposal that has been made by the Province is that a corridor be established through the Broughton Archipelago to allow smolts lice-free access to the open water. It seems there is an assumption that the smolts would be able to pick a lice-free route and would have no tendency to waver. It seems to me that the assumptions are rather extreme. I wonder if you could comment on that.

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: I agree with you. There's no basis for the concept of a lice-free corridor. The Broughton Archipelago is a very complex geographic setting, with numerous islands, sounds, bays, inlets, passages, and when it comes to knowing which route the salmon would take, there's just not the scientific information to pick a route. The salmon would probably go various routes. If you do that, and thus the reason you need to use chemotherapeutants on farms you don't fallow, it could well be that juvenile salmon passing through areas with active fish farms would intermingle with those fish that go on routes that are fallowed. Also, the ocean currents in the area--and I've only heard this second-hand, yesterday as a matter of fact--are very complex, and there's every reason to suspect that sea lice from one area can be moved to an area where there may be a lice-free corridor. The council never recommended a lice-free corridor as a concept.

Á  (1145)  

    Mr. John Cummins: In fact, you made that statement in other places. Is it also true, then, that partial fallowing and pesticides are not the PFRCC's preferred option? Its first choice is fallowing of all farms in the archipelago. That's really the only choice, is it not?

    Supplementary to that, is it not true that the farms the provincial government is saying it will fallow were already fallow, so there was nothing given there? Is it also not true that there are rivers leading into the archipelago that cannot gain access to this fallowed area?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: Regarding your first point, the answer is yes, but to qualify it, we recommended fallowing in the period leading up to the spring migration of juvenile salmon and during that period. We didn't recommend fallowing for the whole year.

    As to your second point, it's a complex matter. About 10 of the 11 farms that were identified were either fallowed or slated to be fallowed. However, some that were fallowed were slated to be stocked with juvenile smolts. But in essence, the number of farms that were to be fallowed around this route was affected by the fact that industry had already fallowed many of them.

    Mr. John Cummins: They fallowed them, did they not, because of an IHN outbreak?

    The Chair: Sorry, Mr. Cummins, your time is up. We'll get back to you in the second round perhaps.

    Monsieur Farrah.

[Translation]

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

    I too would like to extend a warm welcome to the witnesses.

    The Council is concerned about the risks associated with the possible future escape of pacific salmon from fish farms in British Columbia and the consequences for wild salmon stocks.

    Has it taken into consideration that impact of the Alaska fishery, where millions of farmed Pacific salmon are released to increase wild stocks with a view to sustaining the commercial fishery?

[English]

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: That's an interesting question. Our advisory simply related to the effects of farmed fish, and we made this clear. We did say hatcheries could be an issue. Other types of industry could be an issue as well. One of the distinctions, though, between hatcheries and farmed fish is that for the most part, hatchery fish are selected so they can survive in the wild and usually have wild characteristics relating to the rivers near where they're raised. What the Alaska situation is I don't know directly. Farm fish are selected not for their ocean survival in the wild environment, but for their husbandry. So I would say risks of genetic problems from farmed fish are greater than with hatchery fish, but I would agree, if that's your point, that the issue of hatchery fish should be looked at. It's interesting that in the council's work plan for this coming year we have a project examining the interaction of hatchery fish with wild fish.

Á  (1150)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Georges Farrah: I have one last question. Has the Council considered the impact its recommendations could have on coastal communities that depend on fish farms and how these effects could be mitigated?

[English]

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: Ours is a conservation council. One of the reasons we recommended that fallowing on the Broughton commence in January was that it would give the aquaculturists two months to market their stock, rather than their simply having to forego that economic opportunity. While our recommendation took into account the economic impacts, that's not our mandate, it's not something we research.

    The Chair: Mr. Burton.

    Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    This is a topic I'm extremely interested in. I'm really trying to understand the pros and cons, because there obviously are some major difficulties with it, and yet it is an industry that has some potential. So we have to try to get our heads around the best approach to make this work and not create problems down the road.

    You mentioned, Mr. Ennis, that some of these farms in the Broughton would be stocked with juvenile smolts at some point in time. Would they not have the same problem with the sea lice as the juvenile pinks coming out, and if so, how would they deal with that?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: The juvenile smolts come from fresh water. When the juvenile Atlantic salmon are put into the farms, they are free of lice, because sea lice do not exist in the fresh water environment. So they would be, in that respect, much the same as wild pink salmon. The Atlantic salmon in the farms don't migrate, so they don't go through areas where there is adult Atlantic salmon rearing, as the juvenile pink salmon do. So their propensity to pick up sea lice from farmed Atlantics is definitely less than that for a wild Pacific salmon that migrates through the Broughton. But they do pick up lice as they age, and the source of those lice could be wild fish, it could be farm fish, we don't know.

    Mr. Andy Burton: I'm having trouble understanding. Do the lice move to the areas where the adult fish are? Do they actually congregate where the adult fish are, so if there were only smolts around, they would not be there?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: I'm sorry, I'm probably not being very clear. The lice will go onto any salmon, juvenile or adult, and live off it. It's a form of disease, a parasite. They don't distinguish between juvenile fish and adult fish. In the wild it's adult fish that have the sea lice, and that's probably just a matter of random chance. As you get older, your likelihood of being attacked by sea lice increases, because you've been around longer, you've been in more areas.

Á  (1155)  

    Mr. Andy Burton: So do the sea lice actually migrate to the areas of the adult salmon aquaculture operations, or is it just the vagaries of wind and tide?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: The juvenile stages of sea lice are free-swimming plankton, and so they would move like any other plankton species, and that would be with currents. They wouldn't actively migrate.

    Mr. Andy Burton: So how do they actually end up in these areas where there are these huge concentrations, thus creating the problem for the migrating pinks coming out, if they're basically being moved by wind and tide?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: I think the issue with the fish farms is that the fish are in such high densities. The fish there have sea lice that drift onto them, but they're also most susceptible to sea lice because of the sea lice that have naturally attached themselves to the fish and reproduced, releasing more sea lice in the vicinity of the fish. So it's an incubator effect. It's not that solely they're accumulating sea lice just like an adult salmon does. It's a compounding effect.

    Mr. Andy Burton: Okay, thank you. That helps.

    I know there have been problems in Norway, and Ireland, and other places, Scotland, I assume, to a degree. Do we have this kind of problem with the Atlantic fish farms on the east coast? Are you aware of a similar problem, or is it not as epidemic?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: I'm not aware of the east coast situation. I haven't heard of big sea lice issues there. One thing the Pacific Ocean still has compared to the Atlantic, I would suggest, is a very rich, diverse fisheries resource, large numbers of salmon and several rivers, as evidenced in the Broughton, where there were 3.6 million spawners two years ago. I think that's an interaction unique to the west coast of Canada that perhaps puts them at higher risk.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Burton.

    We'll go to one of the vice-chairs of the committee, Mr. Stoffer.

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

    One of the graphs here says “adult pink salmon likely contribute sea lice to salmon farms”. In the written presentation about sea lice it says there's a growing body of compelling evidence suggesting there's a real possibility that sea lice go from farm salmon to wild salmon. So I'm a bit confused. Is it your evidence that it's adult pink salmon giving the lice to the farms, or is it the farms giving the lice to the wild salmon?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: Sea lice are natural organisms. Before there were any farmed fish, there were sea lice on adult salmon. The belief is, and I'm sure it's true, that the sea lice the farm fish obtain are wild sea lice. That would come from adult wild salmon, at least originally. We say in the report that sea lice from fish farms are believed to be the cause of the epidemic in the juvenile fish because of the number of fish, 500,000 to 1.5 million in very close proximity. There are 27 of those farms in the Broughton. Even if each fish in these fish farms has one or two sea lice, with each female sea louse producing one and a half million eggs, the math shows that there's a very high risk. It's an incubator effect.

  (1200)  

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: What do you exactly mean by chemotherapeutant?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: Industry has veterinarians, and they treat their fish to kill sea lice. The chemotherapeutant they use is a chemical; the most common one used now is called SLICE. There was another one called ivermectin used previously. SLICE is added to the food pellets the wild salmon ingest, so they get the food and this chemical that is effective in killing the sea louse at the same time. We've talked to salmon farmers, and very definitely, when they use chemotherapeutants, it's with regard to the marketability of the adult farmed salmon. They're not doing it to control the risk to wild salmon from sea lice. Their level of control is different from what is needed if you want to prevent damage to the natural environment.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Just recently the B.C. government lifted the moratorium on fish farms on the west coast. Is it the council's view that this was a wise decision, or would you have advised them not to have done that at this time?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: The council has never said aquaculture was inappropriate. We've never been opposed to aquaculture. We've always said aquaculture has to be done correctly. The moratorium itself is a peculiar beast, because the production of farmed fish doubled during the time of the moratorium. The greater densities may, in fact, have exacerbated some problems, as a result of doubling the production, but not doubling the number of sites with fish. I think what's important is not so much whether there's a moratorium, but whether things are done properly. A large part of that is what you do to investigate the appropriate siting of new sites. Clearly, I would say, in the Broughton you want to avoid areas along an active, intensely used juvenile salmon migration route, for instance.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: But in the advisory the council made recommendations to “governments”, so that's the provincial governments as well, and you say, “The precautionary principle should be applied in a much more rigorous way than is currently used”. Shouldn't that mean, prior to the lifting of the moratorium, everything you've just said about doing it properly and making sure the precautionary principle is applied ought to have taken hold before the lifting of the moratorium?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: The Province made it clear when they lifted it that there wasn't going to be expansion of fish farms until the environmental impacts were taken into account. The situation on the Broughton has nothing to do with the lifting of the moratorium. Those farms were in the Broughton before the moratorium was lifted. If I had my preference, I'd rather there be a lot more information and study. It's interesting that when the provincial government implemented the moratorium, they had conducted a very extensive salmon aquaculture review. The results of that review are virtually identical to the results of our review of aquaculture. Both studies concluded that there were so many unknowns, and those unknowns had to be answered.

    The Chair: That's it, Mr. Stoffer.

    Mr. Hearn, five minutes.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    Thank you for being here, Mr. Ennis--a good Newfoundland name, by the way.

    Are we aware of the percentage of smolt in the Broughton area affected compared to 10 years ago? Is the percentage increasing?

  (1205)  

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: We don't have information from 10 years ago. We don't have good sampling data. Alexandra Morton said about 70% to 80% of the pink salmon were infested with sea lice. Recently, though, the David Suzuki Foundation released a study they did looking at background levels of sea lice. I think they found five juvenile salmon with one sea louse each out of thousands of samples. Their conclusion was that the level of sea lice in the Broughton fish was more than 1,000 times the background level. That's based on current situations. They did a lot of studies up north, throughout the coastal area.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: You talk about fallowing farms. I'm not sure whether some of us completely understand what is meant by that. Could you just go through that and indicate the effort, the cost? Or is it just a regular thing that takes place?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: Some farms are fallowed now, for various reasons. One is for disease. It is like agricultural fallowing of the field, leaving it unused. What we mean there is emptying the sea farm of the fish and leaving it empty for a period of time. As I say, we're a conservation council. In one way that's a luxury. We don't have to balance economic issues, social issues, all those things. We're just talking about what's needed for conservation. That's our interest: wild salmon come first. We haven't looked at these impacts. We leave to others the economic impact it might have on the industry.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: I wonder if any study has really been done, not only in relation to direct dollars and cents expenditure, but in relation to the overall economic value and the long-term possibilities of the industry itself, in relation to the time and effort we put into farming fish, salmon in this case, and perhaps farming generally, compared to putting the same time and effort into enhancement and general care in preserving the wild stock. Has anybody ever done a comparison, to your knowledge?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: Not to my knowledge.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: That's about all, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Ennis, as you know, we are in the process of studying aquaculture, and I think it's fair to say it is our job, as politicians, to balance interests. So we understand what you're saying about your coming at it from a conservation point of view. I just want to be clear on your evidence. I believe what you said unequivocally was that the PFRCC is not opposed to aquaculture, it just has to be done properly. Is that correct?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: That's correct.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    In your presentation you said, on page 3:

The precautionary approach recognizes that the absence of full scientific certainty shall not be used to postpone decisions where there is a risk of serious or irreversible harm.

Our committee has been looking for definitions of precautionary approach, sustainable development, and things like that. I am wondering where that statement of the precautionary approach comes from?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: That's the statement the federal government is using on the Fisheries and Oceans website. I believe other federal government websites have used that language too. In this case, as opposed to some other definitions, they are linking the precautionary approach to the likelihood of irreversible or severe harm.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    When you were referring to point one of the council's recommendations of January 20, 2003, your evidence was that the precautionary principle should be applied. In the written material you said the precautionary principle should be applied “in a much more rigorous way”. Of course, there's a difference between applying it in a much more rigorous way and just applying it, meaning that it's not been applied. Am I making too much of the difference? Or is it true, in your view, that the precautionary principle has been applied, but not in the more rigorous way the council would like?

  (1210)  

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: That's an interesting question. If you talk to almost any manager anywhere, they'll say they are acting in a precautionary way. What's lacking is a very good definition of what the precautionary approach means, how you actually utilize it. What does it mean with regard to whether a development can occur or not? What does it mean with regard to the kinds of controls or measures you employ to avoid problems? I guess that's what we're getting at. If there are unknowns, and there are often unknowns, there are no standards for how you conduct a cumulative impact assessment study. We think there should be standards for how you do that, and that's embodied in the precautionary approach. That's just one example.

    The Chair: So I'm clear, number one says “the precautionary principle should be applied in a much more rigorous way”. That implies to me that it is being applied and that your council feels it should be applied in a more rigorous way. Is that the view of your council?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: Yes, it is.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    I take it you're aware that the minister announced a action plan for pink salmon on the Brougthon Archipelago?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: Yes.

    The Chair: Your first recommendation was a complete fallowing of all salmon farms, and he didn't follow that recommendation. Is that correct?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: That's correct.

    The Chair: He took plan B, I guess you would say, which is to try to fallow some. Is that right?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: No, I wouldn't say he took plan B, because plan B, for instance, uses precautionary treatment with chemotherapeutants to kill seal lice, basically zero tolerance. The department's plan proposed establishing a trigger level: you would only treat when there was a certain harmful level of disease, rather than treating to avoid a problem. That's a pretty important distinguishing factor.

    The Chair: In the draft news release the minister said, among other things, he would support a farm management approach, strategic fallowing to create a migratory corridor for pink salmon, in addition to improved fish health management protocols and standards. So he does support some kind of strategic fallowing, but I believe you already said, in response to a question from Mr. Cummins, you don't think there is such a thing as a migratory corridor, because the smolt will go this way and that. Is that right?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: That's right, and there's at least one farm we know of in the Broughton that appears to be associated with a high number of juvenile pink migrating salmon and isn't fallowed. I don't want to criticize the corridor, it might work, but there's just no evidence to show it will work. We were concentrating on finding where the highest level of interaction between juvenile pink salmon and farm fish is likely to take place.

    The Chair: Thank you, sir.

    Mr. Cummins.

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

    Mr. Ennis, I found your comments about the DFO's use of the precautionary principle with regard to salmon farms rather curious. You may be aware that last summer, in a futile and unfounded effort to protect late-run sockeye in the Fraser River, the department precluded the commercial industry from a large number of fishing opportunities and allowed for probably an over-spawning of 8 or 9 million sockeye into the Fraser system, at a cost to the B.C. economy of $200 million. That's the precautionary principle taken to the extreme, to the point where it actually has a negative effect. I would like one example, if you can give one, of the DFO practising the precautionary approach with reference to salmon feedlots in British Columbia.

  (1215)  

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: There's a regulation of the province, which DFO supports, to prevent waste and fish feces from creating problems on the bottom of the seabed. DFO could call that a precautionary measure, but when you actually look at the situation, in fact, they're allowing part of the bottom to be sterilized. The no-oxygen normal bottom organisms fish feed on would not be allowed to be there, they would die. In a much more rigorous way you'd indeed have a regulation on waste floating to the bottom, but it would be more precautionary. It would be higher measure of what you have to do to avoid a problem, rather than accepting a loss over a certain area.

    Mr. John Cummins: Thank you.

    To clear up a couple of matters that were raised in previous questioning, you refer to the use of SLICE as a chemotherapeutant. My understanding is that SLICE is not currently approved for use in Canada. Is that not correct?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: That's what I hear, although it's used by the aquaculturalists.

    Mr. John Cummins: It is, and there's a problem, is there not, with the use of these chemotherapeutants? There has been some study done in Scotland, as I am aware, that identifies the existence of larval pulses from salmon farms when these chemotherapeutants are used. Could you expand upon that? Is that an issue you have addressed at the PFRCC?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: I don't know a lot about that issue, but our preferred option was not using chemtherapeutants. Our preferred option is fallowing. Chemotherapeutants are not things we would like to see used, but as we saw it, even though it creates localized effects, it's better than doing nothing. We didn't recommend the use of SLICE, we recommended the use of a chemotherapeutant that would kill, not simply shed, sea lice. I think what you're talking about, sea lice in that area that were shed and not killed. Is that a correct assumption?

    Mr. John Cummins: Yes, sir.

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: I think the jury is out on that one. The paper, as I understand it--I haven't looked at it, but our scientific advisor, Dr. Brian Riddell, has--is not refereed, it's not a peer reviewed paper, so it doesn't have the same weight as other papers, but I think you need to use chemotherapeutants to kill the lice, not simply shed them.

  (1220)  

    Mr. John Cummins: My understanding is that it is a scientific paper from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. I can't discuss the issue of peer review at this point. I might have that paper with me. If I do, I'll look it up.

    On this issue of sea lice, in a recent PFRCC report, the Dovetail report, it is noted that “Pacific salmon may well be considerably more susceptible to sea lice infestations than the Atlantic salmon that have been the subject of other sea louse salmon aquaculture-related fisheries collapses, because Pacific salmon smolt, juveniles, making the transition from fresh to salt water enter the marine environment at an earlier age and smaller size.” You go on to say this places Pacific salmon at a higher risk from sea lice than the Atlantic salmon, and maybe research that has been done elsewhere is only a foreshadowing of what might come in British Columbia. Is that a fair assessment of your findings?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: We agree with that statement by Dovetail.

    Mr. John Cummins: That's a PFRCC statement, so I assume you're in agreement with it, in my interpretation of it.

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: Yes.

    The Chair: We will go to Mr. Stoffer, and then we'll come back to you, Mr. Cummins.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, sir.

    One final question I have for you is on the escapes. I notice that you don't make a recommendation regarding the escapes, except to have a study on it and some sort of committee. In point five you talk about creation of a salmon aquaculture forum. What would be your recommendation on the escapes themselves? I do remember that years ago the industry was saying Atlantic salmon can't reproduce in rivers, and now we know they can. I would like to know what your recommendation would be on the escapes. Should they go to land-based? Should it be a closed net system? What can we do to prevent the escape of farmed salmon?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: It's interesting. The industry first said they wouldn't escape, and then they said, if they did escape, they wouldn't survive at sea, they'd die, because they're not fit in that sense. Then they said they wouldn't spawn, and in fact, there is spawning. We don't know that they've colonized. There's no evidence to show that the juvenile salmon from Atlantics that have spawned in B.C. rivers have survived to adulthood and returned, so we don't know that colonization has been complete. That's one of the reasons we didn't put that at a high risk, but the amount of effort being spent by the government to investigate this is very modest; I think the budget is $50,000 this year. Only a fraction of the rivers are looked at. There is very little information. It's hard to make a conclusion one way or another. Another paper the Dovetail consultants relied upon was the documentation by Ron Ginetz that showed that in the distant past DFO tried to establish Atlantic salmon runs in the province, and despite their releasing large numbers of fish, they failed to thrive and take hold.

    Indeed, the best thing to do would be to prevent escapes. Clearly, if you went to land-based aquaculture, you'd be preventing escapes. You wouldn't necessarily be preventing things like sea lice and viruses, unless the water from those farms is treated--and the example we have now of a land-based fish farm doesn't treat the water--but you would solve the fish problem. I'm not an expert on how to design sea farms, but there are perhaps other technologies that could be used to limit the escape of salmon from net pens. My guess is that you can minimize it, but on occasion, because of a sea lion creating damage or an unusual oceanographic event, you're going to get escapes. The jury is out on what the real risk of that is. It's an issue with a very high public profile in B.C., but there is not much information out there with regard to what it might actually mean. One other thing is that it definitely appears that the number of occasions where there are escapes has dropped in recent years.

  (1225)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Hearn.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I'm wondering if you've seen an increase in sea lions, seals, etc. in or near your salmon rivers recently?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: There are sea lions. We have stellar sea lions and California sea lions, and the population is increasing. I'm sure they eat salmon, and there are examples where sea lions have caused damage to net pen operations.

    The Chair: Last round, Mr. Cummins.

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

    You mentioned, Mr. Ennis, that escapes have dropped, and I think that's correct if you are discussing catastrophic events, a rip or a tear in the pen, but it's still a matter of course that there are escapes when the salmon farmers are changing the web. That's just a cost of doing business to them, is it not?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: I'm not certain. There are lots of theories. People have said they've seen salmon farmers just chuck out of the net salmon that are deformed or in poor health. There is some talk that some of the juvenile salmon might even swim through the mesh of the net. And I suppose it's quite likely that small numbers are released when they change nets.

    Mr. John Cummins: It's not an issue you've studied.

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: It's an issue our consultants have looked into, but those kind of data were impossible to get. There's no reporting requirement we know of for those kinds of incidental, very small releases. We haven't seen any facts on that.

    Mr. John Cummins: To get back to the use of chemicals, at committee hearings we asked about the use of the chemical canthaxanthin. As you know, it's a chemical used to give colour to the flesh of the fish. We were assured that this chemical isn't used in Canada, but on investigation, we found that it was. It is a colourant that can harm the retina. The European Union has adopted new rules and is lowering by two-thirds the amount of that particular chemical that can be used in the fish farming industry. Are you aware of any regulations governing this use in Canada?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: Well, our issue is wild fish and the interaction, in this case, of farm fish with wild fish. That is a human health issue, and it's not something we've investigated.

    Mr. John Cummins: Alexandra Morton did what you might call the definitive study on the sea lice situation in the Broughton Archipelago. She has been criticized in some official circles, I think quite unfairly, for her methodology and so on. I wonder if you would care to comment on her scientific efforts.

  (1230)  

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: In an ideal world we would have had the Department of Fisheries and Oceans out there investigating the incidence of sea lice. I think she, as a private researcher, is to be lauded for the effort she's undertaken. As I said earlier, we don't believe her results are quantitative. She nevertheless captured hundreds and hundreds of fish and documented sea lice. The photographs we've given you are from her work. She was able to catch both healthy juveniles and juveniles with sea lice. I think she has greatly increased the understanding of the situation in the Broughton.

    Mr. John Cummins: The department conducted its own study on sea lice. They were advised early on from within the department that their methodology was problematic, yet they went ahead with that study regardless. From my understanding, Mr. Noakes was aware last summer of methodology problems with the DFO surveys and was aware that a DFO parasitologist had expressed what appeared to be grave reservations about the DFO surveys. Nevertheless, DFO went ahead with the study. They made no mention in their study of these concerns having been expressed. I'm sure you are aware of the DFO efforts. How would you characterize them?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: I would say the important thing is DFO's recent press release. They're conducting extensive studies, they're using different gear, gear that is unlikely to knock lice off the fish. I think they're taking the issue more seriously. My understanding of the earlier study is that it was opportunistic in a way. From the conversations I've had, a vessel, the Ricker, was doing routine sampling, and they diverted it to the Broughton. It did sample some fish, but the gear was likely to cause the lice to fall off the fish, the motile lice anyway. But it broke down, and it took them quite some time to get another charter vessel in there with better fish sampling gear. That occurred quite a bit later. I think that was the one that caught only seven juvenile pinks. They were quite a large size, and it was the outer part of the Broughton.

    So Alexandra Morton's work shows to me that sea lice are on the wild salmon. What the DFO work shows, I think, is that you need to look at ways to do the sampling. I think we could use both those studies to design something better.

    The Chair: Mr. Ennis, I know you will find this hard to believe, but seven and a half minutes have gone by already, and Mr. Stoffer has a question.

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

    One of the concerns we and others have is the siting of future or existing farms in Canada. In Maine, when we were there, a lot of people were very concerned about the siting of a farm near a fish-bearing stream. I'd like to get your opinion on this. Should farms not be located near fish-bearing streams, or is it okay? Because we hear conflicting evidence on farms so close to wild streams in that regard.

  (1235)  

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: In B.C. there's a guideline that the farms have to be a kilometre from the mouth of a significant salmon-bearing stream--that may have just been changed to a “salmon-bearing stream”, period. The reason is that the juvenile salmon, when they leave the streams, are very susceptible to mortality, and by having a fish farm in close vicinity to those juveniles, you indeed risk the transfer of disease to those fish. Also, if adult farm fish escape, they're closer to a river where they could spawn. I think there are a number of good reasons for being careful about the siting and trying to do it away from the river.

    Our main thrust, though, wasn't distance. We don't think they should be close, but you need to understand the way currents move, the way the juvenile populations move. Somthing as simple as going from the north shore to the south shore of a bay could greatly minimize the problems. Those data aren't normally collected when you consider where a fish farm should be sited. In our Broughton Archipelago study we've talked about that in the context of doing local area plans consistent with the thrust of the Canada Oceans Act, so you could site things better.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: In your opinion, is a kilometre good enough, or should it be farther away?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: A kilometre is just a distance taken out of the air. I don't know how good it is. The farther away, the better. It's just a guess, an informed guess, it's not backed up by scientific information.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: But is it your contention that the farther away, the better?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: Yes.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

    The Chair: Mr. Cummins.

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

    Mr. Ennis, I want to quote from a letter of October 29, 1992. It's from Agriculture Canada and signed by Mr. J. A. Shemanchuk, the chair of the expert committee on insect pests of animals. He's writing to a Dr. Armstrong in the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and I'll just read a couple of paragraphs:

By way of EM, Mr. Hugh Phillip informed me that you are experiencing a problem with sea lice and salmon cultures. He also informed me that you are applying for a minor use registration for pyrethrin.

At our last meeting of the Expert Committee on Insect Pests of Animals a similar problem was identified by members of the committee from the Atlantic Region. This topic received considerable discussion, and a concern was raised....

The Expert Committee on Insect Pests of Animals believes that sea lice...continue to be a potentially explosive problem. Control methods are not compatible with the shellfish industry and this could kill the aquaculture industry.

Do you agree with those sentiments expressed back in 1992, and have we made any advances in the control of sea lice in this country since that time?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: I haven't read that letter, but we have concluded that sea lice are the most significant issue in the interaction of farm fish and wild fish. At the moment there is no regulation for the control of sea lice to prevent harm to wild fish.

    Mr. John Cummins: On February 20 Minister Thibault put out a press release. He was announcing the pink salmon action plan, which was designed to protect the pink salmon resource in the Broughton Archipelago near the north end of Vancouver Island in British Columbia. The press release goes on to say:

The comprehensive pink salmon action plan by Fisheries and Oceans Canada is consistent with several recommendations presented by the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council in its January 2003 advisory.

The comprehensive plan consists of the following five key aspects.

Mr. Ennis, I'm sure you're familiar with Mr. Thibault's announcement, and I just want to read those five headings. Would you stop me if I read anything that suggests that this announcement or the actions of DFO will do anything to protect the salmon that will shortly be exiting the rivers in the neighbourhood of the Broughton Archipelago?

    The first point is “a freshwater monitoring program which will be conducted in addition to DFO's usual assessment of Pacific salmon stock abundance in the Broughton Archipelago”. The second point is “a marine monitoring program”. The third point is “a farm management approach which supports strategic fallowing to create a migratory corridor for pink salmon, in addition to improved fish health management protocols and standards”.

  (1240)  

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: That's not exactly our recommendation. It's similar to our high-risk recommendation, but there are differences.

    Mr. John Cummins: Yes.

    The fourth point is “a long-term research plan to set departmental priorities with respect to research related to sea lice management approaches in B.C.” The last point is “a public consultation and dialogue process....”

    So out of those five points the minister recommended there is one that may in some way reflect your high-risk option.

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: Well, we're very pleased to see that the department will be conducting monitoring and is considering long-term research. The monitoring of both fresh water and marine we think is good. The one control element is item 3 on farm management. When you get into the detail--I don't have it in front of me unfortunately-- combined with their backgrounder, they are definitely looking at a certain number of lice being acceptable; they establish a trigger level, and you only treat above that level. We would caution against that. We think that treatment should be precautionary and done, period.

    We've recommended strategic fallowing. The concept of a corridor isn't something that is necessarily valid. It'll be interesting to monitor to see what happens. We'd have also preferred that they examine each of the farm sites on the Broughton and look at information available to show the abundance of juvenile salmon at each site and consider potentially fallowing others.

    Public consultation is a long-term thing, but what DFO is proposing is not what the council has proposed. There have been government-led consultation groups on aquaculture in the past. The Province, for instance, had a salmon aquaculture committee made up of industry, environmental organizations, and others. That committee fell apart when the government announced its lifting of the moratorium; there was a lot of distressed rhetoric. In fact, we were proposing not the kind of advisory body that's been tried and failed, but something that is not government-led, something that makes recommendations to government instead, recognizing that government may or may not accept the recommendations, but trying to keep the thrust going.

    Mr. John Cummins: So we may have some studies done that may lead to some appropriate legislation at some point in the future, but as of right now there is nothing in the announcement by the minister that is going to assist the fish that will be shortly heading for the marine environment.

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: I didn't mean to say that. Their farm management measures are a step in the right direction. Fallowing of some farms around a migration route, while it's not what we recommended, is better than nothing. I think it's a step in the right direction. Also, there's the statement that they are going to treat farmed fish like wild fish. That's not what we recommended either, but it's a step in the right direction. I think both of those things are better than nothing.

    Mr. John Cummins: Somewhat better than nothing. As you've indicated quite accurately, nothing can predict the route of these smolts when they head to the sea. There's no scientific evidence that says a corridor will be of any effect. That's really the bottom line isn't it?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: That's the bottom line, but some fish farms will be fallowed that otherwise wouldn't be fallowed, and that's positive.

  (1245)  

    Mr. John Cummins: I agree.

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: We wanted them all fallowed, but....

    Mr. John Cummins: I've got one last question I'd like to get a little clarification on, and I think it's worthwhile. It relates to a question I asked Mr. Noakes some time ago. He and the department did make a public statement that there had been documented cases of heavy sea lice infestation on wild salmon in British Columbia before there were fish farms in B.C. He referred to a paper by Parker and Margolis about a new species of parasite. Well, this paper does not appear to contain such proof of major sea lice outbreaks and deals with the discovery of a completely different species of sea lice than is currently at issue. Are you aware of any documented case of heavy sea lice infestation in British Columbia before there were fish farms?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: For juvenile fish, no, for adult fish, yes.

    Mr. John Cummins: Could you develop the one on the adult fish?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: Adult pink salmon certainly, and other species, pick up sea lice. Where they pick them up I don't know. I suspect they pick them up as they're entering the near-shore environments. They often have sea lice, but they are big fish, and they are able to have quite a load of sea lice without an impact on their mortality. With juvenile fish, however, such is not the case. Ten sea lice on a juvenile fish would kill it for sure, though they won't kill an adult. So the implications of sea lice are different.

    Mr. John Cummins: The question is about heavy sea lice infestations. I've certainly seen plenty of sea lice on sockeye returning to fresh water, but of course, the sea lice die when they hit fresh water, so it's not a problem. The problem is when these suckers are heading to sea, isn't it?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: That's right.

    The Chair: Just to be clear, you've seen no studies on major infestation of juvenile fish prior to the introduction of sea farms?

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: That's correct.

    The Chair: All right. Thank you.

    Mr. Gordon Ennis: I'm not saying they don't exist, but I've not seen them.

    Mr. John Cummins: I could go on.

    The Chair: I'm sure you could, but I think we'll call it.

    Mr. Ennis, thank you very much for getting up early and giving us your testimony. It was very interesting, and it's amazing how much you retain without looking at any notes. Thank you very much.

    Colleagues, it's ten to one, and we have another liaison committee meeting, so we may as well call it a day. I'm going to circulate a letter with respect to Thursday's meeting with a suggestion. If we can go with it, fine, if not, we'll immediately jump right into consideration of the aquaculture report.

    Meeting adjourned.