FOPO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, April 5, 2001

• 0906

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): We will call the meeting to order. We have a quorum at least for hearing witnesses.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we're continuing our review on chapter 30 of the Auditor General's report. We have with us Liseanne Forand, who is the assistant deputy minister in policy. Committee members have had Liseanne's remarks for some time. I'm sure they have studied them.

I will turn the floor over to Ms. Forand to give us an introduction of her position. And maybe you could introduce your people as well, Liseanne.

Welcome, folks, and thank you for coming.

Ms. Liseanne Forand (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If you'll allow me, I'll introduce my colleagues before starting on my remarks so that you can identify people responsible for the various areas as we go through.

With me is Paul Cuillerier. He's director general in the habitat branch here in Ottawa. And with him is Iola Price, who is director responsible for fish health in the oceans and aquaculture section of our science sector. And also with me is Richard Wex, director general in the office of sustainable aquaculture, in my policy group here in Ottawa.

Mr. Chairman, last year at this time I provided evidence to your committee regarding the respective roles and responsibilities of the provinces and DFO in the aquaculture sector and ongoing aquaculture activities at DFO.

[Translation]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to return to your committee and provide an update on the DFO's commitment and approach to developing a sustainable aquaculture industry that has the confidence of Canadians. There has been significant progress on this file over the last year.

[English]

I'd like to take this opportunity to provide information to the committee on three fronts. First I'd like to provide a brief overview of DFO's aquaculture action plan, which has been developed over the last year. Secondly, I'd like to comment on the progress achieved and the status of each of the action plan elements. And finally, I'd like to describe for the committee how our current actions and investments are consistent with the observations and recommendations contained in the Auditor General's report.

DFO's strategic plan identified two objectives for aquaculture for the department: to increase public confidence in environmentally sustainable aquaculture development, and to increase the industry's global competitiveness.

[Translation]

To achieve these objectives, the Department has developed an action plan based on four themes: a healthy environment, healthy fish and quality products, the shared use of our aquatic resources and a competitive industry. Each of the elements of the DFO's Aquaculture Action Plan supports one or more of these themes.

[English]

The action plan itself consists of five core activities. We've provided, Mr. Chairman, committee members with a graphic representation of the aquaculture plan. You'll see the themes across the top and the elements of the plan down the left side.

The first element is the program for sustainable aquaculture, a $75 million investment over five years with $15 million annually on an ongoing basis. The second element is the creation of an enabling regulatory environment. The third element is the creation of an enabling policy environment. The fourth element is the development of a national aquatic animal health strategy and program. The fifth element is increased federal-provincial harmonization of various aquaculture activities, recognizing the shared jurisdictional nature of this sector.

• 0910

Together these activities and this action plan are aimed at achieving our strategic objectives of increasing public confidence and increasing the global competitiveness of the industry. I'll take them briefly, Mr. Chairman, one by one, starting with the program for sustainable aquaculture.

[Translation]

Last August, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced the Program for Sustainable Aquaculture, a 75-million-dollar investment over five years that focusses on three areas: science, research and development, human health, and thirdly, an improved management and regulatory framework.

[English]

The science and research and development component has two thrusts. First, $20 million over five years has been allocated for an aquaculture collaborative R and D program, ACRDP. It will be administered by DFO and will provide funds for research and development projects that are proposed and jointly funded by private industry.

A national steering committee created to set national priorities and allocate funding to the regions has been established consisting of DFO, provincial, industry, and environmental non-governmental organization representation. It met yesterday, Mr. Chairman, for the first time. We expect to be in a position to call for project proposals this spring.

This cost-shared program is designed to respond to needs identified by industry and to contribute to industry competitiveness. The program will allow DFO scientists to work closely with industry to develop such things as new production technologies and to investigate the use of fish species not widely used for aquaculture—for example, sturgeon, haddock, and halibut.

The second thrust to the science R and D component of the program consists of $13.5 million over five years aimed at increasing the department's capacity to address environmental and biological science concerns. This funding has been allocated to regional science groups and is being used to support priority areas of research. Such areas include near-field and far-field effects of fish farms on benthic habitat as well as an assessment of any cumulative impacts and the assimilative capacity in three coastal regions, including the Broughton Archipelago in British Columbia. Complementary work is underway on the east coast as well.

[Translation]

The second component of the Program for Sustainable Aquaculture comes under the heading of human health and is aimed at strengthening the Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program to ensure the safety and quality of fish and fish products, thereby increasing consumer and market confidence in aquaculture products.

[English]

In support of the Canadian shellfish sanitation program $20 million over five years has been allocated among DFO, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and Environment Canada. This funding will allow CFIA and Environment Canada to increase their capacity to monitor and classify shellfish-growing areas and allow DFO to better control access to harvesting areas through patrols and licensing. This increased support will allow for industry growth while maintaining high levels of consumer protection and access to the United States market, which is our most important market for fish products.

The third component of the program relates to improved management and regulatory frameworks. It has three sub-parts.

First of all, on marine safety, we're providing funding to enhance DFO's capacity under the navigation protection program within the Canadian Coast Guard to assess navigation issues related to aquaculture and to process applications for approvals under the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

The second component is habitat management. Funding is being provided to increase the capacity both in DFO and Environment Canada to assess the effects of aquaculture on fish, fish habitat, and migratory birds, and to enhance our ability to conduct environmental assessments under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and to monitor the performance of aquaculture operators to better ensure compliance with DFO's regulatory responsibilities.

The third element is policy and program coherence. We are investing in the establishment of the Office of Sustainable Aquaculture to provide increased integration and coherence to program and policy aquaculture activities across the department and serve as a point of contact for stakeholders.

[Translation]

In short, the Program for Sustainable Aquaculture is a significant investment that will increase knowledge for decision making through greater science and Research and Development; strengthen measures to protect human health through and enhanced shellfish program; and make the legislative, policy and program framework more responsive to the public and industry needs.

• 0915

[English]

The second element of our action plan is aimed at developing an enabling regulatory environment. It is aimed at refining processes and setting standards for decision-making for both government and industry so that the playing field and the rules of the game are clearly defined.

Short-term work currently underway includes the following activities: clarification of the CEAA process as it applies to aquaculture with the development of a national guide outlining information requirements to assess the environmental effects of marine aquaculture, both finfish and shellfish; development of a national guidance document on the application of section 35 of the Fisheries Act to aquaculture; a report on the application of section 36 of the Fisheries Act to aquaculture; the finalization of an introduction and transfer code for aquatic organisms; development of national guidelines for the application of fish management authorities to aquaculture; development of guidelines for Navigable Waters Protection Act site design and marking for aquaculture; and finally, a review of the duration of NWPA approvals.

If necessary, these efforts will feed into the development of comprehensive legislative and regulatory amendments. We have made excellent progress over the last few months on developing these guidelines and expect to be in a position to share drafts with industry and provinces over the weeks to come.

[Translation]

The third element of our action plan relates to creating an enabling policy environment to set some conditions for the sustainable development of this industry in Canada. As a first step, we will be developing a policy framework which has the objective of providing guidance to DFO and our employees in applying existing policies to, or developing new policies and programs for, the aquaculture sector.

[English]

The fourth component is the national aquatic animal health program. We're working collaboratively with industry and the provinces to scope out a strategy including three major elements: strengthened legislation, regulations, and programs for disease control and risk management; increased knowledge and infrastructure to improve fish health, diagnostic methods, and understanding of disease distribution; and programs to respond to exotic and endemic diseases of concern. A program based on the strategy would bring greater certainty to the management of diseases of concern and lessen their impact on farmed fish with potential collateral benefits for wild fish.

The final action plan element is continued constructive dialogue with provinces and territories through the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers, and in particular, the aquaculture task group, to harmonize processes such as site applications. The CCFAM aquaculture task group also provides advice on R and D priority-setting and is working with the industry on developing a Canadian code for sustainable aquaculture. We're making good progress on all aspects of this action plan.

I'd like to turn briefly to the Auditor General's report and respond briefly to its four main recommendations. In short, the Auditor General recommended that DFO further clarify the application of sections 35 and 36 of the Fisheries Act to aquaculture operations; strengthen its capacity to better monitor and enforce its regulatory responsibilities; identify areas of priority research to be able to make informed decisions in case of industry expansion; and increase resources dedicated to the Atlantic salmon watch program.

With respect to better defining the application of sections 35 and 36, the activities I mentioned earlier as part of the enabling regulatory environment aspect of our action plan clearly address this issue.

Regarding monitoring and enforcement of habitat, DFO has added three full-time equivalents to its existing resources in the Pacific region as part of the program. In addition to its own monitoring efforts, DFO is working closely with the provincial ministries of agriculture, food and fisheries, and environment, lands and parks, which are undertaking an intense assessment of fish farm effects on the benthic environment. These activities are consistent with the Auditor General's recommendation that we strengthen our monitoring capabilities and work with the Province of B.C. regarding salmon farming operations.

[Translation]

As I mentioned earlier, DFO has now obtained significant new resources in the areas of biological and environmental science and priorities for research have been established. These priorities are generally consistent with the observations identified in the AG's report.

[English]

With respect to the Auditor General's observations regarding the Atlantic salmon watch program, I am pleased to report that in fiscal year 2000-2001, Atlantic salmon watch activities intensified with additional effort in active surveillance. This was supported by increased funding from the province and a significant contribution by industry, as well as an allocation from the department. Expenditures by the province, industry, and DFO related to escaped Atlantic salmon reached about $250,000 in the last fiscal year. In addition to providing core support, British Columbia has allocated $220,000 through its interim measures fund to assist first nations in participating in the Atlantic salmon watch in the coming year.

• 0920

[Translation]

In closing, Mr. Chairman, we believe that the new investments dedicated to aquaculture allow the Department to create the conditions to better enable this promising industry to compete internationally. At the same time, we believe these new investments and the DFO Action Plan position the Department to better address the important issues of concern raised by the Auditor General and to establish a solid foundation for increased public confidence in the environmental sustainability of this sector.

[English]

That concludes my opening remarks. My colleagues and I look forward to questions and discussions with members of the committee.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Liseanne. No question, you certainly haven't been idle.

Turning to Mr. Cummins for his congratulations....

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Well, Mr. Chairman, they may not have been idle hands, but whether they were on task is another question.

The Auditor General, in summary at paragraph 30.86, said:

...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.

I can assure you that there is nothing in your presentation this morning that would convince me otherwise.

You passed around a sheet entitled “DFO's Aquaculture Action Plan”. At paragraph 30.39 of his report, the Auditor General said:

Fisheries and Oceans scientists drafted siting criteria in 1985 and redefined them in 1986.

He goes on to say

To date, these siting criteria have undergone some minor changes, but remain in draft form and have never been formally adopted by the Department.

Is that an example of your action?

Ms. Liseanne Forand: Since the Auditor General's report appeared, in fact since the Auditor General's team did their investigations in British Columbia, a significant amount of work and change has occurred, in particular with respect to Pacific salmon aquaculture, but also with respect to aquaculture all across the country.

In terms of the siting criteria themselves, they were drafted in 1986. They are still called draft primarily because they are in evolution as needs and requirements change and as knowledge increases. There is a very extensive series of requirements and things like setbacks that have to be respected that get taken into account for every site application that gets done.

In terms of harmonizing with the province, what we've tried to do is insert the requirements in our siting applications, which are agreed with the province and industry, in the management plan requirements that the province requires of industry when they apply for a new site. So regarding the siting criteria, I would have to say they do reflect the action we're taking in ensuring that aquaculture sites are set in areas that are environmentally safe and that reflect the needs of other users.

It may be of interest to the committee that over the 1990s, for example, while aquaculture has expanded to a certain extent in various regions of the country, in terms of the applications we've received, some 500 of them have been turned down. So these sorts of siting criteria and other requirements in fact do result in a triage between the best and other site applications.

Mr. John Cummins: That was a marvellously bureaucratic response, but very unconvincing.

In your opening remarks you said you had two objectives. One was to increase public confidence in environmentally sustainable aquaculture development; the second one was to increase the industry's global competitiveness. Neither of those objectives addresses the shortcomings pointed out by the Auditor General.

Certainly consultation is an important part of your business. I would expect that you spend considerable time consulting industry. Is that a fair assessment?

• 0925

Ms. Liseanne Forand: We do work, Mr. Chairman, with industry. I would not characterize our consultations as exclusive to industry.

When we talk about increasing public confidence in the aquaculture sector, look particularly at the components of our action plan in terms of an enabling regulatory environment and an enabling policy environment and ultimately the national aquatic animal health program: these are all designed to increase public confidence in the industry.

The work we're doing to establish guidelines for the application of sections 35 and 36 of the Fisheries Act goes to this concern expressed by the public in terms of the impact of aquaculture on the environment. We're addressing this through the work we're doing on the regulatory environment.

Mr. John Cummins: You say that your consultation has not been exclusively with industry, but in order to achieve your objective of increasing public confidence in the industry has your minister or the department ever consulted with groups and/or people such as Lynn Hunter of the Suzuki Foundation, David Lane of the T. Buck Suzuki Foundation, Alexandra Morton, or John Volpe of the University of Victoria? Have you ever consulted with people such as those?

Ms. Liseanne Forand: Mr. Chairman, as I believe this committee was advised last year, we did hold roundtable consultations on our future plans for aquaculture in the summer of 1999. This involved a broad selection of stakeholders: provinces, industry, and representatives from environmental groups. I do not believe the Suzuki Foundation participated in those round tables, but other representatives of environmental organizations did.

With respect to the names the committee member has mentioned, I'm not aware of what meetings have or have not taken place with those individuals in British Columbia.

Mr. John Cummins: Well, I'm told there haven't been—

The Chair: John, let the witness answer.

Ms. Liseanne Forand: On the question of Mr. Volpe, who I know is involved in scientific work, I'd like to ask my colleague, Iola Price, whether she's aware of any work we've done with him.

The Chair: Ms. Price.

Ms. Iola Price (Director, Aquaculture and Oceans Science Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you.

I know Mr. Volpe is in the process of completing a PhD at the University of Victoria. I'm not specifically aware whether the department has been working directly with him. It's my understanding that graduate students do their work. He has been involved in looking for, and has in fact found, Atlantic salmon in streams on Vancouver Island. He participated in a workshop held a week or two ago at the University of British Columbia. Mr. Volpe was there, and people who work for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food, in British Columbia, were all present.

So there was a meeting of minds, and meeting of people, to discuss issues relating to Atlantic salmon in British Columbia.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Price.

Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: In my conversations with them, these people don't describe any of their dealings with the department as consultations.

Dr. Volpe was doing very valuable work, doing your work in fact, without any support whatsoever from the department, any acknowledgement really of what I think is his extremely important work.

He did appear before this committee, as you'll recall, Mr. Chairman.

There's a document entitled “Impact of Freshwater and Marine Aquaculture on the Environment: Knowledge and Gaps, Preliminary Report”. It was prepared by EVS Environment Consultants and received by DFO in June of 2000. On page 44 it refers to the impacts of contaminants on wild fish caught around net cages. It found toxins and drug residues above levels safe for human consumption. It said in fact that residue levels exceeded acceptable levels for human consumption. DFO has due diligence responsibilities to inform the public. Are you aware of this document? Was it provided to the Auditor General?

Ms. Liseanne Forand: Mr. Chairman, I believe this document was prepared in the context of a private prosecution being investigated in British Columbia at the time. I'm not familiar with the details of the document. If it's the one I'm thinking of, I believe it was prepared in that context.

• 0930

I can't tell you for sure whether the Auditor General had completed his work by the time this document was produced. If he had not completed his work, I'm confident it was provided to the Auditor General, since access was provided to all the documents we had on areas of related interest.

I would mention, in terms of this document and the process from which it emerged, that for about a year or so—since last summer, possibly last June—we have been monitoring every single finfish farm in British Columbia, as the committee may be aware. An ongoing monitoring process is underway. It has been undertaken by DFO officials and by provincial officials, in terms of some of the work they're responsible for. As well, we require monitoring to be done by the lease holders themselves.

There's quite an extensive site-monitoring process underway now. It's true for British Columbia and for Atlantic fish farms as well.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Forand.

Monsieur Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane,BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Auditor General's report implied that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was by no means ready to deal with the creation of an aquaculture industry and such rapid expansion.

Considering the current state of affairs in agriculture, with people being afraid of any intervention made in agriculture, primarily because of foot-and-mouth disease and the other bovine disease, the public has a deep-rooted fear of any human intervention with respect to the environment, particularly when it comes to agriculture.

On page 6 of your brief, you said that, in order to create a favourable political environment:

As a first step, we will be developing a policy framework which has the objective of providing guidance to all DFO and our employees in applying existing policies to the aquaculture sector—

I would like to know how far the department has come in defining its policy framework and what are the existing policies that enable the department to provide monitoring. What progress has the department made in terms of the aquaculture industry and aquaculture?

Is the department prepared to deal with a situation like the one that could be playing out in agriculture? People panic about anything that is genetically modified. They also panic when there is human intervention, particularly when antibiotics are used. In the example I have, antibiotics used in salmon aquaculture wind up in the lobsters, and we just about lost a great deal of our lobster industry.

I would like to know what progress has been achieved by the department with respect to this issue. How far has the department come in defining its policy framework and which policies are currently being enforced by the department, and which policies does it intend to enforce in the future to monitor the aquaculture industry?

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Roy.

Ms. Forand.

[Translation]

Ms. Liseanne Forand: Mr. Chairman, in answer to this question, I would say that the Federal Aquaculture Development Strategy serves as a starting point for the policy framework underlying our actions, activities, programs and strategies. This strategy establishes the framework that overharches all DFO activities as well as those of the other departments in the aquaculture sector.

What we are trying to do now, with the components of our action plan, particularly those for the development of a favourable strategic environment and regulatory environment, is to reflect both the elements of the federal strategy and the regulatory obligations of the department per se. We are trying to reflect these elements in our aquaculture policy to ensure that both here at headquarters, in Ottawa, and in the regions, the people who are responsible for enforcing these regulations on a daily basis truly understand the relationship between our regulatory obligations and the policy framework in which we work.

When we talk about an operational policy framework for the department, we are really talking about translating our regulatory obligations and the federal strategy into a procedure for our employees, particularly in the regions.

As for the enforcement of DFO regulations, they are enforced at every level in the aquaculture sector. Whether we are dealing with the Navigable Waters Protection Act or site applications submitted by industry representatives through provincial governments, we must ensure full compliance with the Navigable Waters Protection Act and sections 35 and 36 of the Fisheries Act. We do this on a regular basis for site applications and for the subsequent monitoring and inspections.

• 0935

As for your question about disease, for example, you no doubt noted that our objective is to establish a national program on aquatic animal health for the precise purpose of dealing with this type of situation. In the absence of a new federal-provincial program, such as the one we have described, we still have an obligation, pursuant to the fish health regulations, to ensure that fish are in good health. We therefore use these regulations in this situation and in the case of food inspection, when we work in conjunction with Environment Canada, Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: I am going to ask you a very specific question because your answer was, of course, a general one. I would like to have some very specific details. Do you control, for example, the antibiotics used? Do you control the food that is given? This is the information I am trying to get at. Are you able to do this at the department? This is what I am trying to ask you. This must be done, but do you have the means that allow you to do this? That is another matter.

Ms. Liseanne Forand: In this sector, we have a shared responsibility with Health Canada, especially as regards antibiotics, and with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency as regards fish food and related inspections. I know that the use of antibiotics in the aquaculture industry is in sharp decline. As for the fish food used by aquaculturists, for example, I know that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is about to embark on a study focussing specifically on the composition of this food, the chemical products and other ingredients that may be found in it. The Agency already commissioned a study in the past, but it is updating it right now. The study pertains to both the East Coast and the West Coast. So it is those two agencies, Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that have the main role in this sector. We obviously have an interest in this issue but it is really these agencies that play the main role in this aspect of the aquaculture industry.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Forand.

Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

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

You talked about the absence of a federal-provincial agreement. Currently there is no agreement on aquaculture between Canada and Quebec.

Ms. Liseanne Forand: Mr. Chairman, we have memoranda of agreement with our provinces, including Quebec, with respect to the implementation of aquaculture. These memoranda of agreement were signed in the late 1980s. They are currently under review, but in addition, we are working, through the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers, to enhance harmonization with the provinces. So the answer is yes, we do have an aquaculture agreement with the province of Quebec.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Could we obtain a copy, in both French and English, of this agreement for the committee? While on the topic of this agreement, we talked about northern regions and favourable conditions for the province and so on and so forth. When we talk about agriculture, we always talk about the East or the South, but in the northern regions, we know that there is the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, of which the federal government is the trustee, and the Radisson Economic Development Corporation wants to set up aquaculture in the Radisson sector. We know that this creates jobs, but what is more, the dams located in the Robert- Bourassa hydro facility are ideal for aquaculture, given the new technologies, the reheated water, etc. Do you have any money for studies that could help these organizations find the money needed to create jobs?

Ms. Liseanne Forand: Under the program I referred to earlier, the Sustainable Aquaculture Program, we did not include money for economic development. In the context of our internal organization at DFO, we envision really working with economic development agencies, such as ACOA, the Canadian Development Agency for Quebec regions or British Columbia, the agency that looks after development of the West. We have provided for all of that, and, in the case of the country's northern regions, we envision working with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to promote the development of aquaculture or economic development.

• 0940

I can tell you that it is not quite the same situation, but if you take the example of the Aboriginal peoples, for example, and their interest in the opportunity of using aquaculture as an instrument of economic development, we are working both on the West Coast and on the East Coast and in Nunavut as well. If there are opportunities, we work with Nunavut and Quebec, within the framework of the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers, to identify this type of program and then we work with the agencies that are in charge of promoting economic development. This is truly an aspect of aquaculture that we see being quite promising. However, promoting economic development is not really part of our DFO mandate. We have said, however, that we were going to heighten the interest of aquaculture within our economic development agencies.

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Yes, and when you talk about economic development agencies, you also include FedNor, which is responsible for Northern Ontario. In your opinion, does your department have the same criteria for all these agencies? Sometimes people lose out. The Atlantic region has criteria for one thing, Ontario for something else, and the West for something else again. I would like to know if your department has the same criteria, if it applies them uniformly in all these agencies, if there is no funny business that means that we might find out later that since it was FedNor, they will get more in Northern Ontario. I would like to have a list of your criteria under all these agencies for aquaculture initiatives, including agencies in Quebec.

Ms. Liseanne Forand: Mr. Chairman, our criteria are the same for all the agencies. However—and I cannot speak for them—I know that the agencies themselves may have different strategies. But the support, the information and the approvals that we give use the same criteria for all the agencies.

In Quebec, for example, the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the regions of Quebec has useful and important programs in the aquaculture area, especially in the Gaspé and North Shore regions. They call that the maritime technopolis of Quebec. We are working with them, through the Maurice-Lamontagne Institute and the regional offices of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, to promote the programs they have accepted in this area.

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you.

First of all, you say that you do a sectoral notice, in fact, when the project arrives. So when the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the regions of Quebec has a project, it comes to you and says what it wants. Are your sectoral notices for given projects always the same in all the agencies, whether we are talking about the agency in Quebec, FedNor, ACOA or Western Economic Diversification Canada? Is there no favouritism if it is the same project?

Ms. Liseanne Forand: We respond to applications in the same way, yes. We look at the scientific side or relations with the fishery or we may have to give approvals under the Fisheries Act or under other statutes or regulations. We respond the same way to all applications.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: You know your file, Madam. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone, and thank you for being here.

My riding in British Columbia probably has about half the aquaculture business in fish and shellfish, so it's rather appropriate I'm here this morning.

I would like to personally thank Liseanne Forand for her interest in and responsiveness to the need to change the contract language with the Malcolm Island Shellfish Cooperative project. Your hands-on approach was greatly appreciated.

• 0945

One issue remains outstanding with that cooperative: in their attempt not to miss a whole season they obtained some rootstock, which made moral and common sense. There is still an impediment that needs to be removed, in my opinion, and that is that DFO is still at the point where they have threatened to lay charges. The track record suggests that DFO will let that hang and at the eleventh hour not proceed. This is not useful for investment or otherwise in a project that this week received $275,000 in new investment. So if there's one thing we could do for the project, it would be to confirm that those are not going to proceed. I would make that request to you—I know you can't answer me at this point.

In your presentation you talked about new production technologies. You used the expression “fish species” and gave as examples, I think, sturgeon, haddock, and something else. Does the term “fish species” include shellfish?

The Chair: Ms. Forand, on the first point you can't answer here, we know that, but can you take the question under advisement and get back to John personally on the second one?

Ms. Liseanne Forand: Of course, Mr. Chairman. I'll look into it and get back to the committee member on that subject.

With respect to species, yes, that should include fish and shellfish species.

Mr. John Duncan: Okay.

The next area I'd like to look at is where you're talking about the regulatory and management framework. This is an area that needs to be addressed. Specifically, you're talking about $6.75 million to enhance the ability to “assess navigation issues related to aquaculture and to process applications for approvals under the Navigable Waters Protection Act.” That's been a huge and growing impediment, and so major community initiatives have basically been dashed by what, from what I can determine, often boils down to the judgment or the agenda of a single bureaucrat. So I'm wondering what $6.7 million will do. There's no indication of what that money is actually for. So could you tell me how.... Are we just going to make the problem worse by...? That's my concern.

The Chair: Ms. Forand.

Ms. Liseanne Forand: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The funding that's been assigned to that element of the program is being used in a variety of ways. First, we are assigning funds that will be translated into new positions and people working in the area of NWPA approvals and habitat approvals in the regional offices. So part of that funding has been spread across the country to respond to the need for more resources to work in these areas.

At the same time, some of the funding is being used here in Ottawa and in consultation with the region to develop guidance documents for new and existing officers to use in the implementation of the regulations. So we're providing guidelines on application of the NWPA to aquaculture sites. We're working on guidelines on subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act and the habitat concerns. Those, of course, are also buttressed by the science that's being done in the area to add to our knowledge.

It is most important, I think, to respond to the concerns expressed by industry, the provinces, and others that perhaps we had officers making decisions out in the field that were based more on their own instincts than on guidance or science. We are buttressing both of those areas by providing them with the kinds of guidelines and assistance by which we can take a consistent approach all across the country, so that approach is based on the requirements of the regulations and the knowledge we have to this day.

The Chair: Mr. Duncan, you have a little more time. I know you have a couple more there.

Mr. John Duncan: I have more than a couple more, but I know there's another round too.

• 0950

It appears that when it comes to the navigable waters, one objector on the water, another user—and there are always going to be conflicts in use on these inland waters—is enough to tilt the balance. So I don't know how $6.75 million is going to change anything, unless we change the culture, the protocol, or something.

I'll move from there into another area, not addressed in your paper, that I believe needs to have some real focus. We had an exercise in British Columbia where, rather than new licensing, people were told they could apply for an expansion of their existing foreshore licences. The biggest producer of oysters on the coast spent a quarter of a million dollars putting his application together. He did all that was required of him. The province issues the licences, they do a full referral process, and the only objection came from DFO. This information may be a few weeks old, but I think it's still relevant. The only people on the coast who were successful in their applications were first nations applicants, because DFO took a different posture.

Once again, I believe we have done a great disservice to industry, and we have allowed a bureaucratic agenda belonging to one, or a handful, or a few, or two or three bureaucrats to topple the whole exercise. So I'd like to see that issue addressed in a responsive way, because it's killing the business. There's no confidence that if they do what's asked of them, they're going to be able to expand their business.

The Chair: Ms. Forand.

Ms. Liseanne Forand: Mr. Chairman, the activity the member is referring to has to do with the call from the Province of B.C. for shellfish farmers to expand their sites. They received 68 applications for expansion. Of those I believe one or two in the end did not go forward, for reasons related to the proponent. Those 68, or 66, applications were provided to us and we reviewed them under the NWPA, the Fisheries Act, and other areas of interest to DFO. From the latest information on that series of applications, 43 have been approved so far, 4 have been denied for reasons not entirely related to DFO. In some cases it was municipal land use issues, so the B.C. Crown Assets and Land Corporation was not in a position to give them a lease. There are 21 remaining to be approved. We've been working with the province on these, trying to streamline our process, so that we can do the reviews, hold any discussions necessary with the proponents, and approve those we can approve as quickly as possible.

To that end, in January we met with the province and the industry, and we decided that over the next six to eight weeks—that was February and March—we would put in place an interim process, to ensure that the remaining applications were reviewed as efficiently as possible. We recognized it was the time of the year people needed to have an answer, so that they could put their stock in the water, or else they were stuck, if you will, not able to move for another year. Through that process the province identified 13 applications as being high priorities. Nine of those have been or are about to be approved. The remaining four are still under discussion.

So we've tried to be very responsive to this situation in the last few months. We've put together some agreed processes with the province and the industry that are really making a difference in that area.

When we look at navigation or fisheries habitat interests, sometimes it's possible for the proponent to adjust his proposal by some distance or make it go in the other direction, to the east rather than to the west, or something like that. We've been very open to talking with the proponent, the province, and other interests involved, to make sure we try to find a way that will enable this proposal to go ahead in a manner that is consistent with our obligations under the NWPA, the Fisheries Act, and other legislation.

• 0955

The Chair: Thanks, Ms. Forand.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you all for coming to the committee this morning.

I have a brief question—if I'm not mistaken, it's a yes or no answer. The main mandate of DFO is the protection of fish and fish habitat for the benefit of Canada in having a quality food source and an economic gain from the resource. Is that not correct?

Ms. Liseanne Forand: We have a mandate, Mr. Chairman, that does include economic wealth from the ocean. So there is an economic perspective to that, as well as safe navigation.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: As you know, Mr. Chair, I've been very concerned about the fact that there is a perception of a conflict of interest within the DFO itself. It all comes from the commissioner of aquaculture in his speaking notes to a conference back in 1999, when he said, “By the year 2100 or 3000 the world will look back and see that this is a point where mankind went from fishing to aquaculture”. Then he says—and this is the part that is very offensive to coastal communities and fishermen with an historic attachment to commercial fishing—“We're starting out, however, with a rather ironic handicap, a strong fishing industry and a still abundant supply of marine resources”. He goes on to say, “When I referred earlier to it as a handicap, i.e., a large fishing industry and abundant marine resources, it could delay the development of aquaculture”.

You know these speaking notes. They're a few years old. Why would the commissioner of aquaculture be so offensive in his notes to commercial fishermen and their coastal communities?

A voice: She can't answer that.

Ms. Liseanne Forand: Mr. Chairman, I—

The Chair: We will at some point in time have Mr. Bastien before the committee, Peter—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Eventually, I know.

The Chair: —so I don't think you expect officials from the department to answer for him.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: No, but—

The Chair: But in terms of the perception of conflict, yes.

Ms. Liseanne Forand: Mr. Chairman, I was not going to presume on what the commissioner might have been thinking at the time. I do remember that speech—I was in the audience, actually.

From the perspective of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, I would put it in the context of our objectives under the Oceans Act. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has lead responsibility under the Oceans Act for activities taking place on and around the oceans, and in particular, the Oceans Act calls upon the minister to do that following three key principles: the precautionary approach, sustainable development, and integrated management. The way in which DFO is looking at aquaculture and fisheries and the relationship between the two is in respect to providing integrated management of the activities that take place on and around the water.

There are important economic interests in the harvest fishery for coastal communities, as the member points out, and there is important economic potential that aquaculture represents for some coastal communities. The important thing, from our perspective, is to find a way to involve people in the decisions as to the kinds of economic development they want to promote in their communities, and ensure that it's possible for them to take those decisions. From our perspective, we need also to make sure that we can sustain the regulatory requirements we have to sustain under the Fisheries Act, the NWPA, and other pieces of legislation when decisions are made to go ahead in the aquaculture area.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chairman, I don't disagree that an integrated management plan would be good. I've always said that aquaculture and commercial fishing can coexist, but when you get remarks from the commissioner of aquaculture like that, the perception is that you're pitting one industry against another.

On that, on April 4 of this year there was a letter from the conservation council in New Brunswick. Apparently there are a dozen new salmon aquaculture sites for southwestern New Brunswick being screened by DFO. They have written to both the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and DFO asking that they host a couple of public meetings regarding this information, to solicit feedback and information. The CEAA responded immediately, saying this is up to DFO to decide, and now DFO has refused. I just got this the other day. Is this a true statement or not?

Ms. Liseanne Forand: Mr. Chairman, it's a fact that under their new site management policy, the Province of New Brunswick has called for applications for new salmon sites. I believe they've received 16 applications for new sites. Those sites are being reviewed in a preliminary fashion by Fisheries and Oceans and by the Province of New Brunswick.

• 1000

The province has a federal-provincial committee, the Salmon Aquaculture Implementaion Advisory Committee—SAIAC—and Fisheries and Oceans Canada has provided information to that committee with respect to each one of those 16 sites. The province then has the responsibility to take the information DFO has provided to them. They have undertaken some consultations on their own behalf as well, as part of the site application—it's in their process. And then that information is provided to the minister of fisheries of New Brunswick for him to make a decision as to whether he'll approve a site lease in those areas.

To my knowledge, one of the 16 sites has been approved—I believe that was announced yesterday by the minister. Nine have been rejected outright. The six remaining are still under review. For the one that was approved and for the six that are still under review, if they were to be approved, they would require reviews by DFO for permits under NWPA, most probably, and possibly under the Fisheries Act as well. Either one of those situations would involve a full environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, with the requirement to publish in the NWPA in particular. So there would be the opportunity for further public comment on those at that stage.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Forand.

We'll hopefully get back to you in another round, Peter.

Mr. LeBlanc.

[Translation]

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

I would like to welcome Ms. Forand and her colleagues. I am pleased to see you again. I think you should be congratulated for the work you have undertaken in aquaculture. I know that it is an important priority for your minister. I became somewhat familiar with a few specific cases when I was working as a lawyer.

I would like to come back to a discussion we had last fall when I met you in that capacity.

[English]

It's to follow up a bit on a question Mr. Duncan had about some of the capacity to approve west coast sites. With the $6.75 million to increase your capacity under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, to evaluate applications, do you have a general sense on the timeline for Atlantic Canada? I suppose it differs with each province, but in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, I have some familiarity with particular sites. Do you have a sense of the timeline these applications can receive? With the nine sites that were rejected in New Brunswick, what sorts of reasons were those sites rejected for? I'm curious as to why they would be approved or declined.

Ms. Liseanne Forand: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the Maritimes in particular, we're providing some $230,000 a year for specifically the marine program in the Maritimes. That covers both the Maritimes and the gulf fisheries management regions for DFO as well. They've added six people to their complement to do work related to the Navigable Waters Protection Act and marine protection with respect to aquaculture. I and my staff are ensuring that those resources are 100% devoted to aquaculture. There are other resources in the marine program, but the funding has been provided through DFO in this instance for the purpose of supporting our regulatory responsibilities with respect to aquaculture. So these people and this money are being devoted 100% to that.

At the meeting in January I referred to, when we talked about making our processes more efficient for site application, in particular on a priority basis for the springtime, the Province of New Brunswick was also present, and as a result, we set in place similar processes as well for Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, working through our Maritimes office in Halifax. So the fact that these 16 applications were identified as priorities by the province meant that we did do some work, in the first instance, in February to review the sites on a preliminary basis and to provide the province with all the information we believed we needed to provide in order for them to make a decision on those sites.

The decision, however, finally to approve or to reject a site is made by the minister from New Brunswick. So the process is that we all get together in this federal-provincial committee and people put all their information on the table. Without knowing the details of individual applications, I can say from our participation in the committee that there were some problems with 15 of the 16 applications, on our side or on the provincial side.

• 1005

As the member is probably aware, being from New Brunswick, for the provincial government as well this issue has generated quite a bit of controversy—in the media, with fishing communities in the area, and other communities—that the minister had to deal with. From the provincial perspective and from our perspective, whether it was conflicts with the commercial fishery, questions of lobster habitat or juvenile lobster areas, all of this information has been brought to bear. Based on this information, the provincial government has approved one site to start with, and continues to work on six others.

Why were the nine rejected? It could be a variety of issues; it could be community conflicts, fisheries conflicts, habitat situations.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. LeBlanc.

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

I have one final concern. From the aquaculture, the salmon-growing industry in Atlantic Canada, with the transition to some of the new regulations and the new Oceans Act, some people in the industry have some concerns about the timeline. You alluded to it earlier. It relates to the need to respect the fact that when the ice is gone in x number of weeks, the salmon would have to be put into the water within a certain timeframe.

Do you have a sense from the industry people your colleagues in the regions are dealing with that the timeframe has been sped up a bit? Is there less frustration, because sometimes it would take a year—or two, or three—to get an application approved? Has there been a shrinkage in this timeline?

Ms. Liseanne Forand: Mr. Chairman, we've been working very much to this end. I'd have to say it's a bit of a learning process for us, for the industry, and for the provincial governments as well.

I'm hearing from provincial governments and industry representatives that the process is much more efficient now than it was. We had nowhere to go but up, there's no question of that. It was new for our staff. It was new for the industry.

There were situations, such as in B.C., where there had been no new site approvals for a number of years, so the industry people and the provincial people had never had to work, for example, with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act before, which had been passed in 1995. It was a learning process for all participants.

Working through this last nine months to a year on a number of applications that have come through, we've found some very concrete ways of ensuring our processes are as efficient as possible—dovetailing them as much as possible time-wise with the provincial process, so the province doesn't go through its whole process and then refer the applications to us, which means another sixty to ninety days or more from our side. We're trying to bring this together and I think we have made progress.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's always a pleasure to get to ask a question at committee. I appreciate it.

Thanks to the folks who have come today. You've added some interesting debate here.

There's a question that's not been asked yet here. Most of them have been asked, but I've got a problem with siting regulations, especially in regard to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. We're seeing in Nova Scotia a number of sites that have been granted but are not in use yet. Some of those have been grandfathered under the new regulations. They were granted prior to the environmental assessment, and they've never been utilized.

If you try to get a site granted today, there's a very expensive regulatory burden you have to work your way through. You can spend literally hundreds of thousands of dollars and never get your site approved. You also have to go through an assessment with prior.... The navigable waters everyone understands; that one's pretty basic and it's fairly easy to avoid. But there is the issue now—especially with a lot of new citizens who have not grown up around the ocean and don't understand the fishery, or the newer aquaculture industry—of a lot of fears, some of which may be legitimate, over antibiotics, fish waste, a number of issues.

I don't see the department doing enough on either one of these fronts. They're not doing enough to allay the fears of citizens who don't understand the aquaculture industry, and they're not doing enough to certify new sites that may not be as close to communities, especially coastal communities, offshore islands, for instance. Many of them have excellent sites but they're not being approved—some of them are shoal, and that does create a problem. Instead, we've seen sites granted basically in open ocean with no leeward protection from islands. There are going to be some serious problems with some of those sites.

• 1010

I have another question on salmon smolts and on the availability and licensing of brood stock. For instance, we don't have a regulatory regime to allow us to bring in river-specific brood stock. A couple of gene types are in use there now. We can't get more approved.

We could go a long way toward solving the escapee problem if we had a salmon farm at the mouth of the Saint John River or the Mersey River with river-specific stock, stock that had actually been adapted from that water. If they escape and breed in the wild, we're not introducing a new species. I wonder if this has ever even been looked at.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: That's Mr. Keddy, but that's okay.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy. You two are so close, eh.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I know, we're just like that.

A voice: The red Tories and the blue New Democrats.

The Chair: Ms. Forand.

Ms. Liseanne Forand: I will speak to the question of site allocation, Mr. Chairman.

We recognize a cost is involved for proponents applying for an aquaculture site. We're trying to reduce those costs through a number of mechanisms, first by providing specific and comprehensive guidance to proponents on the information required to have a site considered and ideally approved. There's been a lot of confusion about that, not enough clarity. So we're preparing some guidance documents for proponents to let them know what they need to do and provide. In addition, as proponents go through the process, they are developing standard models and formulas for obtaining this information, and we fully expect the costs of obtaining that information to go down as this happens.

Also, we're looking at something called a class-screening model for aquaculture applications whereby we would work through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to establish very precisely what's required, so aquaculture operators could apply on that basis. There is a requirement to provide that information. We want it to be done as fairly as possible.

With respect to older sites and sites that have been grandfathered, permits under the NWPA are provided for a five-year period at this stage. There's some concern about that period of time. It may be reviewed in future, but for now that's it. When you need a new permit, you'll need to get an approval again under NWPA, which does trigger the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Over time, all of these sites will be assessed and new regulations will be applied.

In terms of the advisability of promoting farms located in sites farther off, not so close to communities, there are a whole variety of ecological, biological, and physical characteristics that make a farm site good or not. The applicants are looking for the best sites they can find.

In terms of dealing with the community, we've had situations in areas where there was a commercial fishery with small towns nearby. The proponent worked with community officials, fishing officials, and representatives of the fishermen's association to allay any fears.

On our side, as part of our commitment to increasing public confidence, we're doing more science to have more solid information to provide people to allay the fears they might have concerning some of these farms.

I turn the brood stock question over to my colleague, Iola Price, who's more familiar with the issue than I.

Ms. Iola Price: Thank you.

Regarding brood stock, the Government of New Brunswick and the DFO have worked for many years to develop the Saint John River stock, which has become in fact the standard for use in eastern North America, at least in terms of Canada.

• 1015

Insofar as Nova Scotia is concerned, I'm not aware of the stance of the Government of Nova Scotia on the use of stocks, other than the Saint John strain. It's one preferred by the industry. I would leave it at that, but it's certainly something we can look into.

Are you asking if the province has regulations against the Saint John River stock, or if one should have these stocks?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: No, specifically related to aquaculture, I'm asking if DFO would encourage river-specific stock.

Obviously a lot of money, time, and effort have been spent on developing the Saint John stock. That's great for the Saint John River area. But a lot of the opposition to salmon farms we see in Nova Scotia is over the escapee issue. Quite frankly, for salmon farms on any surviving salmon river, and there are fewer and fewer of those every year on the east coast, rivers that can still maintain a breeding stock of salmon, whether it's the Mersey or the Margaree or the Miramichi, whichever river you want to pick, if DFO supported the breeding of river-specific salmon as brood stock that worked as well as the Saint John River salmon—and there was a salmon farm at the mouth of the Gold River—then escapees would no longer be a problem.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Keddy.

The Chair: Keddy. Well, look, you know what the problem is? Your preamble is getting as long as Stoffer's, so that's how I mistook you.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Listen, I was going to let these guys have a break, because it takes so long to get a question at this committee, I thought three or four minutes of rest would be good for them.

The Chair: Ms. Price.

Ms. Iola Price: Mr. Chairman, could we take this question under advisement and get back to the member?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'd appreciate that.

Ms. Iola Price: It may also be an issue related to the desire of the companies themselves to use certain specific brood stocks.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Oh, yes, definitely.

Ms. Iola Price: This may perhaps be something more related to the companies' own desires to use a stock that has been taken from the area and bred in captivity over a number of generations to develop a stock that is well adapted to life in a net cage.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Price. Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Cummins.

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

In his report the Auditor General suggested it was inappropriate for the department to be both regulator and promoter of the aquaculture industry. At paragraph 30.21 of his report he said: “As a regulator of the effects of salmon farming on wild salmon, the Department is in the business of risk management”. He goes on to comment on the problem on the west coast in particular, and he says “...it has no formal plan for managing risks associated with an expanded industry should the moratorium be lifted”.

This comment is relevant on the east coast. This past February the Moncton Times and Transcript reported an escape of 100,000 salmon from the Machias, Maine, sea farm during a winter storm. And Bill Taylor, the president of the Atlantic Salmon Federation, suggested it could spell the end of the few remaining wild salmon left in Maine. He said:

The release could also threaten the rest of salmon stocks in the bay. This is really our worst nightmare. It's a major disaster. Bay of Fundy salmon are in real trouble. In fact, they're threatened with extinction.

Taylor goes on to say that the federation is calling for a moratorium on new aquaculture sites in Maine and it is considering asking for a moratorium on all new sites in the Bay of Fundy, including New Brunswick.

My question is how can you respond as an impartial regulator to situations like this when, according to your own document this morning, you're in the promotion business?

The Chair: Ms. Forand.

Ms. Liseanne Forand: Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned in my opening statement this morning, we do have two objectives for aquaculture: increasing public confidence and increasing the industry's competitiveness. We take very seriously and fully respect our role as a regulatory agency for the Government of Canada. For example, our most specific activities with respect to the aquaculture industry have to do with the issuance of permits under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the assessment of the potential for habitat damage under the Fisheries Act subsection 35(2), as well as being, usually, the lead regulatory agency for an environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. So our responsibilities as a regulatory agency with respect to aquaculture are very clear.

• 1020

As to promoting, I would say that DFO does have a mandate in the fishing industry, in the oceans industries, in the aquaculture industries, to develop programs and policies in support of our economic interests with respect to oceans. We need to do that in a manner that is consistent with our regulatory obligations, and we feel confident that the plan we've announced, the action plan, and the program in particular, does that, by matching, for example, increased resources for marine programs and for habitat programs, to increase our ability to monitor, to increase our ability to do environmental assessments and studies. It's reflected as well through the investments we're making in the program in environmental and biological science. In addition, some funding was provided to Environment Canada with respect to their migratory birds program.

So we believe with the program we've announced—the $75 million over five years—which is ongoing, so it's not going to sunset after five years, these responsibilities will continue to be funded. DFO does take an approach that ensures our regulatory responsibilities are respected.

Mr. John Cummins: Well, I think that is, in one word, nonsense. The department has the primary responsibility of protecting fish and fish habitat. You never mentioned that.

The federal justice department stayed the private prosecution of Lynn Hunter of the David Suzuki Foundation against Stolt Sea Farm Inc., not because there wasn't evidence of environmental damage, but on the ground that licensing of the site with knowledge of the effects would reduce the chances of conviction. That's according to the AG's report. This is an example of what lawyers call, as I understand it, officially induced error. Essentially, the department knew what was going on, but chose to ignore it, thereby giving Stolt Sea Farm a strong argument for their defence. Do you think the public good is served by such actions? Do you think by the dropping of these charges public confidence that the department is doing its job to protect fish and fish habitat is increased?

The Chair: That's for Ms. Forand, but I do think, John, you're being a bit unfair. The witness did talk about habitat under subsection 35(2) and the regulatory authority, so I think you are being unfair.

Mr. John Cummins: If I could respond to that, without taking too much time, Mr. Chairman, their response to section 35 and so on is.... If you look at where they're coming from in their document here, they claim not to be out protecting fish and fish habitat, but it's “to increase public confidence in environmentally sustainable aquaculture development and to increase the industry's global competitiveness.” That has nothing to do with—

The Chair: John, I don't want to have a debate with you. I'm not disagreeing with what's in the paper, but the witness did respond by talking about the Navigable Waters Protection Act, subsection 35(2) and section 36.

Ms. Forand.

Ms. Liseanne Forand: Mr. Chairman, as to increasing public confidence and the results of the stayed prosecution in the case the member was referring to, it's our view that we are working to increase public confidence, in meeting the demands of the public themselves and what they would be most interested in. As a result of that initiative, we are monitoring every single site as to location, including any relocated sites, in British Columbia and doing the same on the east coast. With the increased resources we've provided to the habitat program and in conjunction with individual provinces and with the industry, we are monitoring the habitat effects of every single salmon site in British Columbia and in the Maritimes.

Mr. John Cummins: The department has prosecuted farmers for clearing ditches they constructed in places the department now claims are fish habitat and so on. But has the department ever prosecuted a salmon farming company for violation of the Fisheries Act?

The Chair: Ms. Forand.

Ms. Liseanne Forand: I'm not aware of any prosecutions that have taken place. With respect, I'll check with my colleague in a moment. I would just say that when we do approve a salmon site, if there are conditions we need the farmer to respect, we will put those conditions either in a letter of advice to the proponent, in a permit, if one is issued under subsection 35(2), or in the provincial lease. The monitoring we're doing will ensure that we will be aware at all times of whether the farmer is complying with the conditions that have been set in their lease, and if they are not complying with them, enforcement measures will be taken.

• 1025

I'll check with my colleague, Mr. Cuillerier, to see whether he has any further information on past prosecutions.

Mr. Paul Cuillerier (Director General, Habitat Management and Environmental Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I am not aware of any past prosecutions, but since this particular incident in B.C., as Liseanne has mentioned, all sites are being monitored. A sampling program is taking place on all sites, aimed at better understanding what the effects are of the acquaculture sites we have. There are about 120 or so in B.C.

Also, we talk about the enforcement area, but we do spend a lot of time working with the industry and provinces trying to avoid issues. If we do work more at the front end trying to avoid issues, with better siting, which I think is one of the more important things in aquaculture, hopefully we will have less of the enforcement in the future. I'm not aware of any enforcement actions direct from the department itself, but we're working with industry and provinces to avoid those actions.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins, you have one further question this round.

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

You comment on sites, but I'm not convinced that you're doing the job there.

This last question I have now is a difficult one. I'm not sure I understand chapter 11 of the NAFTA agreement, but it's a question that is out there. You may not be able to answer it today, and if you can't, perhaps you could supply the answer. Does chapter 11 of the NAFTA agreement, which permits corporations to sue governments if their environmental regulations or public policy directions are perceived to be an impediment to commerce, impede the drafting or enforcement of regulations concerning the aquaculture industry?

Ms. Liseanne Forand: I am not aware of any impact from chapter 11 on our regulatory framework for aquaculture. We've not been under any pressure to amend the regulations. We're under pressure to improve our processes, but not to amend the regulations. We'll look into that, Mr. Chairman, but my initial answer is that I'm not aware of any effects in that regard.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Before I turn to Mr. Roy and then Mr. St-Julien, on the monitoring business of sites, how do you do it? I've heard of some of this monitoring in my own area, in Prince Edward Island, and it's a visit about once every two years. Give me the specifics of how you're monitoring, so you can show that it is on-site monitoring.

Ms. Liseanne Forand: I'll turn this question, Mr. Chairman, over to my colleague Mr. Cuillerier.

Mr. Paul Cuillerier: I think there's a general agreement on what the parameters should for monitoring. We're looking at measuring the percentage of volatile solids. We're looking at silt-to-clay ratios. We're looking at production information we have on the particular sites. So there are a number of things we're monitoring on each of those sites, in addition to the sampling program we have ongoing in B.C.

What's important is that the monitoring program also is being worked at with industry in the province. We're making sure the information we gather at each of those sites will meet the needs of the province and will meet the needs of the federal government also, in regard to the responsibilities of each. So the monitoring itself is fairly extensive. I've just mentioned some of the parameters that have been agreed to by everyone concerned in the industry. When we do detect that there's an issue going on, we actually work with the province and the proponent of that particular site, and then we make some adjustments as necessary. So actually it's very extensive right now, and every site in B.C. is being monitored.

The Chair: So do you have a fisheries officer or someone actually go to the site? Do you give advance warning that you're coming, or what?

Mr. Paul Cuillerier: We work very extensively with the industry. There are usually warnings—I wouldn't call them that, as we advise people we'll be going on site. Sometimes we are aware of information provided to us by third parties, and then we will just investigate accordingly. There's a general agreement on what exactly is being done. We work with the province. We don't want any surprises from anyone, but of course we will meet our responsibilities of protecting fish and fish habitat and making sure the aquaculture sites are also in compliance.

• 1030

We've advised every site in B.C. that they need to be in compliance with the Fisheries Act. We have done that in writing. We're working with the industry and province. So I think it's working out very well.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

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

I hope that you are not telling them a month and a half or two months ahead of when you are going to visit their sites. But that is not the point of my question.

I would like to come back to your remarks dealing with research and development. It is on page 3. It seems to me that 13.5 million dollars over five years is very little for such an important industry in terms of research and development. The only two examples that you have given in your remarks are about applied research. There are no examples of basic research. You also mentioned at the very end some additional work that is underway on the East Coast.

I want to know if there is really any basic research in aquaculture. Is the department doing any? Are its institutes doing any? You know the Maurice-Lamontagne Institute and the other ones. I want to know what additional work is underway on the East Coast.

Every time the minister makes research and development contracts public, the amounts are often very small: $25,000, $30,000. Where are we going with that? Is there really any basic research being done in aquaculture? You have given us examples of applied research. What other areas are currently involved? And what additional work is underway on the East Coast? That is what I would like to know. Thank you.

Ms. Liseanne Forand: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I will start the answer and then ask my colleague, Ms. Price, to give you the details that she has right now. We should be able to give you the details of specific projects a little later.

You are asking if we do basic research, what type of research we are doing on the East Coast and whether this research is being done by Fisheries and Oceans institutes. I can say yes to all those questions. I cannot give you figures on that this morning, but we are trying to use our institutes as research centres and centres of excellence in certain areas relating to aquaculture. The Technopole maritime, which I mentioned earlier and which receives investments from Economic Development Canada involves the Maurice-Lamontagne Institute in the work done in this field.

The department is also involved in partnerships with universities and the funding councils, such as the Aquanet program, which is a cooperative effort of government, research institutes and universities to establish a basic research program in aquaculture. So there is work being done in that area.

In fact, yesterday or the day before, we met with representatives from the Atlantic Veterinary College in Prince Edward Island. These people are interested in making investment proposals for research in fish pathology.

You talked about $13.5 million. It is true that we could have used a lot more money if it had been available, but we have allocated that funding to our research institutes across Canada. For example, I can tell you the Laurentian region will receive, in addition to all the other programs, a further $300,000 a year in the scientific area to carry out research of interest to these institutes.

[English]

I would now ask Iola whether she has any other information on the kind of fundamental research DFO might be doing in this area.

The Chair: Madam Price.

[Translation]

Ms. Iola Price: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

I hope you will excuse me if I answer in English, because that is the language with which I am more familiar.

The department conducts a good deal of basic research in aquaculture. Any scientist will tell you they can always use much more money to conduct their research, but we have programs of research in aquaculture in British Columbia at the Institute of Ocean Sciences, Pacific Biological Station, and the West Vancouver Laboratory. We are also conducting research, as Madam Forand noted, at the Institut Maurice-Lamontagne in Quebec. We will be reinitiating aquaculture activities in central Canada. We will continue to conduct aquaculture research at Moncton's Gull Fisheries Centre and the St. Andrews Biological Station—both of which are in New Brunswick. We are conducting aquaculture research at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography in Nova Scotia, and also at the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries centre in St. John's, Newfoundland.

• 1035

We are also, as Madam Forand noted, extensively involved with universities through Aquanet and the Atlantic Veterinary College, working on programs related to disease in both finfish and shellfish. We also conduct basic research in nutrition, physiology, and how to better develop traditional species such as salmon and halibut, and new species such as sablefish.

It's important to know how to choose good brood stock. We're working on ways to use the new scientific techniques to choose the best and fittest new species for brood stock, and to improve the ways we manage existing species—looking at better ways to feed them.

We have programs on early life history. We're also working on aquaculture habitat interactions, which we discussed a good deal this morning. We're also doing work on harmful algal blooms, which do have impacts on aquaculture.

So that's quite a number of programs. In addition, $75 million in new money for aquaculture was announced as a program called ACRDP, and we mentioned that we had a meeting yesterday with our national steering committee. That money will be used for cooperative work with the aquaculture industry. There are opportunities for provinces and universities such as the Atlantic Veterinary College or Saint-Hyacinthe to partner with us in our research, which is fundamental to the sustainable development of the aquaculture industry.

We also conduct our own work, which you might call basic or applied. It's very difficult for me to draw the line between “basic” and “applied”, because both are intended to promote an environmentally and economically sustainable aquaculture industry in Canada.

All the money we put into the collaborative research program, plus an additional $1.5 million to enhance the funds we already spend, will strengthen DFO's existing work in basic biological sciences.

Mr. Cuillerier, were you looking to add something to that?

The Chair: Do you have a point?

Mr. Paul Cuillerier: Yes, I would like to add something, if I may.

[Translation]

There is a lot of research being done at the moment in the environmental sciences and habitat areas. We want to ensure that we have a good understanding of how aquaculture sites affect the physical, chemical and biological environments right around their footprint. There is a lot of work being done in that area. Over the last 10 years, a number of studies have been done right around sites, and there is an impact in the three areas that I just mentioned.

That said, since we have new funding to support the program, we have set some priorities. We want to study the cumulative effects, and the area of study around aquaculture sites is being expanded. We have learned a lot over the past year. Studies that have been requested over the past year will last for three or four years and give us a lot of information on those aspects.

There is also research underway into the interaction with mussels and the ecosystems. There again, these are longer-term studies. So over the past 10 years, many studies near sites have been carried out, in particular on the impact of the footprint of these sites. That is now possible with the funding available to us. Longer-term studies are being done of the cumulative effects of all the various aquaculture sites. I think that good progress is being made.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Roy, a very short one.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: That was my basic question, but there is another aspect. Does the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have pilot projects? Are you using only existing sites, or do you have research pilot projects yourself?

Mr. Paul Cuillerier: We are working with the provinces and with the industry. There is a lot of work being done right now on the West Coast. Do we have pilot projects? Yes. Follow-up was mentioned, and that is very important. The government and industry have a lot to learn, and we are working hand in hand to gain a better understanding of the effects of aquaculture. We are working closely with industry and the province.

• 1040

In the West, there are many sites where the three levels are working together. There are such initiatives in the East as well, but a lot more work has been done in the West in various areas over the last few years. There are many sites on the West Coast, but work is also being done on the East Coast.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you.

I sometimes have the impression that Mr. Cummins leads a monk existence. He does not know what is going on in Canada and in Quebec.

I appreciate your comments on monitoring of the habitat. Here is my question. I listened to your answers to the member's questions. You talked about the resource development service in the North. As you know, the area of Quebec is 1.5 million square kilometres. As a member of Parliament, I have a riding with an area of 802,000 square kilometres. There are 68 mayors and Cree and Inuit chiefs for 100,000 persons. You know that there is a research centre in Nunavik. I heard Mr. Cuillerier's answer to the effect that you have to be very near the site to be able to intervene.

What are the possibilities for co-operation in your department?

I see that there are a number of subjects: pollutants, habitat, fish, Canada geese, Arctic char habitat, beluga whales, polar bears, toxoplasmosis, seal mortality, trichinosis prevention, botulism, in fact all these diseases that come from fish or seals.

What co-operation do you have with the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, but especially with the Nunavik research centre, which has just been expanded because that is a big region and people are forced to travel? Long distances are involved in collecting specimens and sending them to the laboratory. I believe that they are sent to St.John's or somewhere.

Could you improve co-operation with the people of Nunavik, under the James Bay Agreement, since the federal government is a trustee along with the province?

Ms. Liseanne Forand: Mr. Chairman, I will ask my colleagues from the science side, Ms. Price and Mr. Cuillerier to tell you where we are at in our efforts to cooperate with the Nunavik research centre and other centres.

[English]

The Chair: Good folks, we've got about 15 minutes left. I know Mr. Stoffer has a question and Mr. Cummins has a question, so keep it as tight as you can.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Cuillerier: Unfortunately, Mr. St-Julien, I do not know if we have a partnership with the organization you mentioned. We will come back with an answer.

I also want to tell you that, under the habitat program, partnerships are very important. We are currently trying to review the entire habitat program and we are realizing that we will need to set up partnerships across the country in order to carry out our responsibilities. There are many organizations in Canada, at both the provincial and municipal levels, and also para-governmental groups. We will be working together and supporting each other. There will never be enough resources to monitor all areas of the country in the North, the East and the West.

We need a program that is much more proactive in the future. We want to work with the people involved and develop partnerships at a grassroots level to support this program. I will give you an answer about the organization you mentioned.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: As I was saying, we have a trustee relationship with the Inuit in Nunavik. On that point, you can contact Pita Aatami, from the Makivik Corporation, at (819) 964-2925.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Paul Cuillerier: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Just a statement of fact, I guess.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

Madam, you had spoken before about monitoring the site. I just had a private conversation with Mr. Wex, and he said that 13 new monitors have recently been hired through the program. When were they hired?

Ms. Liseanne Forand: We received funding for the program in about October of last year.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: How many monitors did you have beforehand?

Ms. Liseanne Forand: I couldn't tell you that with certainty. I don't know whether Mr. Wex knows the answer to that. We could find out for you. There were fewer than 13, I believe.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Fewer than 13 for the country?

Ms. Liseanne Forand: No, no—there are way more than that for the country, but they were not dedicated to aquaculture.

We have a habitat program all across the country. but as the member mentioned, the habitat officers look at a whole variety of things—ditches, bridges, all that sort of thing. These people are dedicated to aquaculture.

• 1045

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

In the Globe and Mail today, the British Columbia government announced mandatory labelling for aquaculture fish—finfish, I believe—and aquaculture products. I think that's a great move. I've asked the aquaculture industry many, many times to label its products, but it wasn't mandatory. There was no government regulation to make them do that.

Do you support the B.C.'s government's move to label finfish farms or aquaculture products, or are you against that?

Ms. Liseanne Forand: I wasn't aware that they had made such an announcement. I'll have to read the Globe when I get back to the office after this session.

A variety of labels are used for fish, harvested fish as well as aquaculture fish. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA, is probably the agency that works most closely with the aquaculture industry on this, since they're responsible for that area. I'd have to look more closely at the B.C. proposal and see what it entails. I don't think there's any concern, as long as it doesn't impose too heavy a regulatory burden on the industry. But I'm sure that can be worked out in partnership with the province and the industry.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The reason I asked is that Mr. Rideout has said many, many times that he's very proud of the aquaculture machine. Well, he should be; he works for them.

So why wouldn't you label its products in the supermarket? This is a farmed product, just like eggs and chickens—we know where they come from, so it's the same thing. Why don't they just say?

If they're not willing to do it on a voluntary basis, then you, as the promoters and protectors of the industry, should tell them to label the product. That way, when people go to the store, they know exactly what they're getting—a farmed fish product from New Brunswick, say.

That's my statement. And now my question: In aquaculture sites on the west or east coast, are there any guns or weapons that you know of?

Ms. Liseanne Forand: I personally can't claim to be familiar with the equipment held on salmon or shellfish farming sites, but I know that there have been incidents in the past of aquaculturalists shooting predators, so I'm assuming they must have guns on the sites.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Is there a department regulation that allows them to have weapons, or is it just sort of off the record, with no rules laid down whether they should have them or not?

Ms. Liseanne Forand: We don't regulate the equipment salmon farmers have on their sites. With respect to predator control, though, we do have programs—people who go out and work with the aquaculturalists. As much as possible, we're trying to prevent unwelcome predation on sites through other means.

This is particularly an issue in British Columbia. The Pacific region has been working with farmers, and in particular with the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association, to come up with plans and strategies to avoid predation and to limit the destruction of predators.

The Chair: Last question, Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay. But when a person gets a licence, one of the requirements is that you're not allowed to have any weapons on the site.

Mr. Price talked about the investments in science and research. I think that's very important. But of course I'm very concerned about transgenics, and the genetically modified organisms being worked on now in Souris, P.E.I., from Aqua Bounty Farms. They are now applying to the United States for a licence to raise those smolts or eggs there.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the aquaculture industry has told us they want nothing to do with GM or transgenic fish. Now they're saying they want nothing to do with GM or transgenic fish unless it can be proven safe for human consumption. They've modified their position, there's no question about it. We had asked Nell Halse and Anne McMullin before, and they said “Nothing to do with transgenics”. Now they seem to have reconsidered.

The Chair: So your question is?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Well, a lot of people are frightened. They've said they would rather eat a fish that God made than one man has altered. So what is the government doing to protect the wild stocks, commercial fishing, and the regular aquaculture industry from these transgenics entering the commercial market?

The Chair: Thank you, Peter.

Ms. Forand.

Ms. Liseanne Forand: Mr. Chairman, just a very brief follow-up answer to the previous question. The member had asked about the licensing requirements not to have guns. Those licences are issued by the provincial government, so you may want to ask them about the terms for leases and licences.

• 1050

With respect to transgenic fish, I'm sure this committee is aware, and I believe others have said before, that at this point there is only research on transgenic fish in Canada. It is all in land-based facilities. There are no transgenic fish anywhere in the water that could escape. There are none now. They would need to be licensed. At this point it is research.

As a science-based department, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans believes in research. We do like to see research being done. We believe it's a good thing to increase our knowledge in these areas. If that research can be done under safe circumstances, such as in this instance in Canada now, then we will benefit from the knowledge that research will develop. But at this point there are no so-called transgenic fish in any water-based facilities.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Forand.

Mr. Cummins.

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

Substantive allegations have come my way that suggest that the Stolt Sea Farm Group has captured and retained wild juvenile sablefish in contravention of the Fisheries Act. Have your officials investigated this matter?

Ms. Liseanne Forand: Mr. Chairman, Stolt Sea Farm did end up in a situation where they had some sablefish in captivity as a result of those sablefish having entered their pens. The department has provided them with scientific research permits to hold, maintain, and study those sablefish while they have them in their pens. I believe a three-year science program has been developed jointly between Stolt Sea Farm and the department on the basis of which these scientific permits were given to the company for those fish. All of the information they discover and develop through this process will be made available to the department as part of our research on the potential for farming sablefish.

Mr. John Cummins: What measures have been required of Stolt Sea Farm to ensure that their pens do not capture wild sablefish?

Ms. Liseanne Forand: All farmers take whatever measures they can to ensure that wild fish of any kind don't enter their pens. It's not a beneficial situation for a farmer to have other species of fish in with the fish they're trying to farm. So they do the best they can to prevent any kind of fish that is not being farmed from entering their pens.

Mr. John Cummins: But no requirements have been made to ensure that in fact this doesn't happen again, so it's probably an ongoing problem.

Ms. Liseanne Forand: Mr. Chairman, I would like to consult with the province in terms of the requirements with regard to the equipment and other measures farmers have to take to avoid the incidental capture of wild fish.

Mr. John Cummins: In paragraph 30.50 of his report the Auditor General talks about recent interaction between Atlantic and Pacific salmon on the west coast and suggests that it requires attention. I've been informed by a senior academic biologist in B.C. that he was told that DFO is unwilling to support any Atlantic salmon research in B.C. His comments were with regard to a proposal to NSERC. Do you have any information on that?

Ms. Liseanne Forand: I am aware, Mr. Chairman, of at least one proposal that has been made to the department for a study of the effect of escaped Atlantic and Pacific salmon, actually. This proposal would involve a partnership between DFO, academic institution scientists, and scientists from Canada and the U.S. The proposal is fairly well advanced. The proponent of the proposal has met with senior DFO science officials. There's no question that there's a tremendous interest in the matter of escapes from the farms, whether they are Atlantic or Pacific salmon.

We as a department, like others, have an interest in finding out as much as we can about the impact of those escapes and the possibility of hybridization and colonization by escapees. Because of our responsibility for fish stocks and fish resources and habitat, we have to ensure that any studies that are undertaken in that area do not put fish habitat and native stocks at greater risk. For example, by using a stream to add perhaps additional Atlantic salmon to see whether they would colonize or hybridize, it's a tricky thing to know how you can study that without actually promoting increased levels of Atlantic salmon or other kinds of enhanced salmon in particular streams. So we're looking very carefully at the research proposals that are coming forward in that area to see the extent to which we can find out as much as we need to know and want to know without putting existing resources and habitats in any danger.

• 1055

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

Mr. John Cummins: Your last comments are curious at best, and strange probably. You don't have to introduce these exotic species into the rivers in British Columbia. Mr. Volpe found them. They have been found. You don't have to introduce them. You can certainly observe them, because they escape and they have been established, something that DFO denied for years. That's the issue.

If you are doing some of this scientific research, it certainly isn't getting publicity. Even the scientists aren't aware of it. In fact, their view is that you don't intend to do it.

The only kinds of things I find are promotional. One of our committee members, Mr. Farrah, put a press release out about a month ago in which he announced that the department was funding a colloquium on sea farming in Carleton, Quebec, involving $10,000. It's a wonderful project, I'm sure. The Université du Québec à Rimouski was given $80,000 to develop the tools and the process to efficiently evaluate the production potential of different species of marine invertebrates in Quebec and Atlantic Canada.

I'm sure that these projects are worthwhile, but, again, they're not directed toward the main focus of DFO, which is the protection of fish and fish habitat. When are we going to see announcements that tell us the department is doing its job?

Ms. Liseanne Forand: Mr. Chair, with regard to the previous question on research, I would just say that some research proposals have come our way that didn't include adding Atlantic salmon. Those are the ones we've seen, and we are reviewing them very carefully.

With regard to the second question, funding is being provided under the new sustainable aquaculture program, as I mentioned before, including $2.5 million for science; $3.5 million for the research and development collaborative program; $1.5 million for the Canadian shellfish sanitation program, which ensures that seafood is safe to eat and that the rules in terms of shellfish harvesting and farming areas are respected; $1.5 million for ensuring that the Navigable Waters Protection Act is respected; and $1.25 million for ensuring that our habitat measures are respected. So I would say that the tremendous bulk of the funding that was provided and announced by the minister last August goes exactly to ensuring that the department is meeting its mandated responsibilities with regard to fish and fish habitat.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Forand.

Mr. John Cummins: That amount is just peanuts compared with the overall budget.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins, they are additional moneys, though.

Peter, you're saying that you have a short question. I've never heard you ask a short one, but let's hear it.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: On page 5 of your presentation you said “finalizing an Introductions and Transfers Code for Aquatic Organisms”. Does that mean aquatic transgenic organisms as well?

Ms. Liseanne Forand: To my knowledge it does not.

This is work we've done with the provinces and territories in the context of the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers. I'll ask Iola Price to answer that specifically.

Ms. Iola Price: The code to which the member refers is something that has been under development for sometime and that has now received the attention and the blessing of the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers. We do hope that code will be signed very soon. It's something that all provinces have bought into. It is a way of looking at proposed intentional introductions and transfers of all aquatic organisms to ensure that there is minimum environmental impact.

With regard to genetically modified fish, as Madame Forand mentioned before, there have been no proposals to put out transgenic fish in Canada. Should there be any such proposal, it would be evaluated under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act as well as reviewed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. So please rest assured that although there have been no proposals to remove or take any of those fish out of a contained research facility, should there be some there would be a thorough environmental impact assessment.

• 1100

Mr. Peter Stoffer: So the answer is no. Thank you.

The Chair: Just before we close, there were several undertakings: a copy of the memorandum of understanding with Quebec; the request from Mr. Duncan, which you can deal with him specifically on; the question that Mr. Keddy raised on brood stocks specific to rivers; chapter 11, and I think Mr. St-Julien and Mr. Cuillerier got that sorted out.

Mr. John Cummins: I had asked for that other document as well, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: What document was that? Did you get that? If you could give us that, John....

Thank you very much, Ms. Forand and the rest of the people.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chairman, because we're a small party and we only get five minutes, I have two forms here and I was wondering if at their convenience they would be able to answer the questions on these. I can leave them with you.

The Chair: You can draft the letter to that effect, Peter.

What's the document you asked for?

Mr. John Cummins: It was “The Impact of Freshwater and Marine Aquaculture on the Environment: Knowledge and Gaps”. It was a preliminary report prepared by EVS Environment Consultants and it was received by DFO in June of 2000.

The Chair: Okay. You've got that information. It will be on the record.

Thank you very much for coming. We appreciate the information you've put to us. You've had to give us two introductory remarks, Liseanne. We've read them and enjoyed them both—most of us have. Thank you very much.

Mr. John Cummins: Point of order.

The Chair: What's your point of order?

Mr. John Cummins: This is the last meeting, Mr. Chairman, for several weeks, and as you know, we had requested these fifteen or twenty 1760-61 treaties and the bands they cover. I'd also asked the minister for that legal opinion on Marshall under which the government is operating. I'd like to know when we can expect this and if the committee is going to take an aggressive position with the minister to ensure that these documents are received quickly.

The Chair: I think the minister indicated the other day, John, that the letter is being drafted. I will check with him this afternoon to see where they're at in terms of that response.

Mr. John Cummins: I'm not interested in a letter from the minister. I'm interested in his legal opinion.

The Chair: But his letter will respond to the legal opinion, I understand. I've made the request. They indicated to me the first of the week that there was a letter in translation. We'll have to see the letter and go from there.

Mr. John Cummins: When I asked him specifically yesterday, he claimed that he could not make that available because it involved other departments. I was prepared to read into the record examples where legal opinions had been provided on controversial issues by the government, including by the Prime Minister several years ago in another instance.

The Chair: Maybe, John, the best way to proceed is we'll see what the minister has in his letter. I'll talk to him today to see that we try to get that letter before the day is out and before you leave.

Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Chairman, with all respect, last September 26 and October 4 you undertook to at least get the treaties. That's a long time ago, and we still haven't seen them.

The Chair: We did write the letter. We've undertaken to try to get the treaties. It's in the minister's hands. I can't break arms and kneecap people if they don't provide us with the information.

Mr. John Cummins: Well, we had the opportunity to put some pressure on him yesterday, and we didn't.

The Chair: I will talk to the minister today, and if the minister doesn't provide what you consider a satisfactory answer, then at our next committee meeting we'll let you raise your point of order again.

One last point: the Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development has tentatively agreed to appear before the committee on April 24 from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., and Mr. Bastien is scheduled for April 26 at 9.

The meeting is adjourned.