FOPO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 29, 2001

• 0909

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order. We have a number of items to deal with today. We have to vote on estimates. We had a hearing on estimates. Our last hearing was on estimates.

We also have with us the two witnesses related to the issue Madam Tremblay brought forward: Mr. Soucy, whose letter we distributed to the committee, on the issue of shrimp; and, from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Mr. Prince and Mr. Ladouceur.

We will start with whomever wants to start first. Maybe we could have a very quick presentation by CFIA on their view. Then, Mr. Soucy, you may have some words to say. Then we'll get into a discussion.

Mr. Prince.

• 0910

Mr. Cameron Prince (Director, Fish, Seafood and Production Division, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I really appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today on the issue of shrimp vessels in Quebec. I thought I'd take a few minutes to provide a little background on CFIA's role with respect to fish processing and the fishing industry in Canada.

I want to emphasize, at the beginning of this, that the shrimp vessels in question, which Mr. Soucy will be talking about, are not under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, but we'll have an opportunity to discuss that further. I'll be pleased to answer any questions you might have in that regard.

The fishing industry is a very important part of the overall food industry in Canada. There are over 100,000 people involved in the fishing and fish processing industries in Canada. As you all know, about 87% of that is exported.

The federal fish inspection program has resided for many years in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. However, four years ago the Canadian Food Inspection Agency was created and the fish inspection program was transferred from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Our program is based upon the federal Fish Inspection Act, which was enacted in 1949. That act has a mandate for only interprovincial and export trade, so trade within a province is not covered by the federal Fish Inspection Act. We have a program that covers about 1,000 federally registered fish processing plants. Those are plants that export across provincial boundaries, and most of them export to other countries.

We also inspect fishing vessels, but this is generally on a problem-driven basis. The inspection of fishing vessels is generally restricted to those vessels that are harvesting product for export from Canada.

The cornerstone of our program is called the quality management program. It became mandatory in 1992 and is based on a principle called hazard analysis and critical control point. It's one of the most modern fish inspection programs in the world. We are well-respected internationally.

All federally registered fish processing plants must have a QMP. It's a form of self-evaluation and self-regulation, and part of that program is a critical control point, with respect to incoming fish. It is the responsibility of a federally registered fish processing plant to ensure that incoming fish are in hygienic condition, come from clean vessels, and are processed appropriately aboard vessels.

With respect to the shrimp processing vessels in question, I understand there are three of them. They're licensed under DFO, under the Fisheries Act, and are not registered with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. I understand that shrimp are cooked onboard these vessels. Mr. Soucy will be giving us some more information on that. They are sold within the province of Quebec, so the bottom line is they do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Those are my preliminary remarks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Soucy and then turn to questions.

Mr. Soucy, welcome.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Soucy (President, Les Crevettes de Sept-îles inc.): Good morning. I will read you the brief that I prepared for this meeting.

The attempts that businesses have made to make our government aware of the unsanitary conditions aboard shrimp boats 65 feet or less that cook shrimp on board, go back to February 1995. The most recent attempt was made in March 2001. You will find the correspondence on this topic appended.

To date, our provincial government has done nothing, on the grounds that this is a matter under federal jurisdiction.

• 0915

At present, the situation is as follows: shrimp caught by certain shrimp boats (about five or six of them) are cooked on board in conditions of disgusting contamination and lack of hygiene. The situation is perfect for possible listeria contamination.

The DFO does not issue federal licenses to processing plants that purchase shrimp cooked on board a vessel, precisely because of the risk of listeria contamination. Our plant cannot sell outside Quebec. If the DFO considers that there is a danger of contamination for Canadians, why is there not the same risk for Quebeckers?

We draw your attention to the fact that DFO has forbidden the cooking of crab on board crab boats, a few years ago, for the same obvious reasons, that is the risk of contamination, quota controls, and the elimination of the black market.

At this point I will digress. Fishermen who had started cooking crab had to come into the wharf, have their catch checked, reload—let us take a figure in order to better understand the results—the 1,000 pounds on board the boat and go back into Sept-îles bay or out to sea in order to cook the crab. Crab is a crustacean that yields approximately 60 to 65% after cooking. Therefore, 1,000 pounds of crab at the outset becomes 650 pounds of cooked crab at the most when you come back into the wharf. But when the fishermen came back to the wharf and had the crab they had cooked weighed, they had 1,000 pounds. That means that they had cheated on the quota.

When DFO discovered this strategy, they banned the cooking of crab on board the boats in order to eliminate the problem this was causing with monitoring of quotas and to eliminate the supply of certain small markets that were not declaring this income. Small retail markets were being supplied with these products.

Why not do the same for shrimp? The seafood products industry suffered badly during the last outbreak of contamination 15 years ago, which affected mussels. If memory serves me well, I believe three people died. Consumers have been returning to our products because they thought they could trust us. The same thing must not happen with shrimp.

Hygiene standards on the shrimp boats are so completely inadequate that we as shrimp producers hesitate before buying any. I stress that we are referring to cooked shrimp.

We attach a few photographs to this brief that clearly illustrate our comments. I took the pictures myself. I was asked if I had not fabricated the situation that you see in the photographs, if this was not a set-up. The answer is no. They were taken as is, with no warning. I took these pictures on different boats and I did so without the knowledge of the owners.

Photo no. 1, which you will see in the appendix, shows a storage area and some shrimp tubs. If you look closely, you will see that this storage area is directly under a place where seagulls perch and leave their droppings. This parking place for the shrimp tubs is not far away and bird droppings are found in the tubs. These tubs had been used for storage of dirty and raw shrimp. After the cooking, the shrimp was simply put back into the same tubs. Do you think that this practice is in line with safe storage and cooking methods? Do you think it conforms with hygiene measures required in different areas?

• 0920

Seagull droppings are not usually found on any list of ingredients for cooking shrimp. Here, on photo no. 2, the droppings are present and it seems to be the norm.

In photo no. 3, we see containers of salt left in the open air. In the plant, the inspectors fine us for that.

In photo no. 4, the seagull droppings are found right in the cooking water. We think this must be a secret to enhance the flavour.

Photo no. 5 shows that grease and rust from the steel boats winches are also part of the seasoning: another cooking secret.

In photo no. 6, we see wood and rusty iron, materials that are forbidden inside a certified plant.

In photo no. 7, we see tubs used for handling the cooked shrimp that have been left on the bridge, exposed to the elements. We sometimes count 700 or 800. They accumulate everything that falls from the sky, from snow or rain, and on occasion, bird droppings.

In photo no. 8, we see salt used for cooking. There are bags just about everywhere on the bridge. Rust, muck and grease come off the winches when they are activated. These products end up in the bags of salt and inevitably in the cooking water.

In photo no. 9, on the bridge near the mast which is the upper bridge, there is soot from the engine exhaust pipe. Here, we want to show that the space available for cooking and chilling the shrimp is about 10 feet by 15 feet. With a hundred tubs full of cooked shrimp, there is not much room left for handling the raw shrimp. The lack of space forces the crew to store cooked and raw shrimp together, which creates a risk of contamination.

The cooked shrimp cannot be stored in the hold because there is no room—the hold is full of ice and shrimps—, and because cooked shrimp absorbs all the odours found in a boat's hold. When you have 25,000 to 30,000 pounds of shrimp stored for five to six days in a hold with the usual kind of smells, the shrimp absorbs these odours, pleasant or unpleasant as they may be and the shrimp will taste the way they smell. So that is why they are not kept in the boat's hold.

In photo no. 10, we see the same salt-storing technique as on other boats. Even oil can covers are left lying around when the shrimp is being cooked.

To conclude, I will show you photo no. 11. This is the same boat that you see in photos 9 and 10. Sometimes it disguises itself as a bulk carrier and transports barrels of petroleum products in between fishing trips. By looking closely, you can see the fishing gear on its drum net which is in the background and green coloured, and we can its trawl door, which is part of its fishing gear, on the side of the boat.

As you can see, the situation is not simple. You can understand the urgency of intervening to protect public health by putting an immediate stop to the cooking of shrimp on board small shrimp boats that fish in the St. Lawrence River. In our opinion we can retain the confidence of the people who consume our products if we get back to basics: fishers should fish and producers should process.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Soucy.

I might say that Madame Tremblay brought forward some of those pictures one other day, and based on that, we decided to have today's hearing and to invite the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, jurisdiction or not, so that we could deal with the issue.

So we'll start questions with Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like first of all to thank the committee for allowing us to have this meeting this morning, and to thank Mr. Soucy, Mr. Prince and Mr. Ladouceur for having come to discuss this problem in order to allow us to understand it, and to try and find a quick solution. If a solution cannot be found here, we will go elsewhere and we will deal with it. We must find a way to correct this situation.

• 0925

I would like to start with a question to Mr. Prince. You said that this did not come under your jurisdiction, but rather that of the provinces, because the trade was within Quebec only.

We know where the shrimp boats fish and we see the boats on the river. What is your basis for saying that the shrimps cooked on board these boats is eaten exclusively in Quebec, particularly when we know that almost all of this product is sold on the black market? What is preventing them from selling to people from New Brunswick, Ontario, Japan or anywhere else? What guarantee do you have that shrimps are not transferred from the boats on which they are cooked to other boats?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Prince.

Mr. Cameron Prince: Thank you, Madame Tremblay. There are no guarantees, obviously. However, our controls are through the registered processing plants. We have no jurisdiction for product within the province. We have no evidence at this point that any of this product is destined for sale outside of Quebec. If there were evidence to that effect, then certainly we would investigate. We would lay charges or take whatever regulatory action would be appropriate. We have investigated, and at this point we have no evidence that this product is leaving Quebec.

I'll ask Rhéo Ladouceur to expand on that.

[Translation]

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur (Regional Director, Quebec Regional Office, Quebec Area, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Thank you.

According to the information we have at the moment, most of the shrimp are delivered to a plant in Sept-Îles, which redistributes it to the Montreal and Quebec City markets.

That is the information we have at the moment about the shrimp that are cooked in this way. If you have any other information, or if Mr. Soucy can give us any other information, we would be pleased to have our investigators look into this matter.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: But given that the shrimp are cooked on board the shrimp vessels under the conditions that have been described... There are five shrimp processing plants. At least, there are five individuals with licences for this in Quebec.

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: Yes, they are fishers.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes. There are three on the South Shore and two on the North Shore. Those are the five licences that exist in Quebec. Is that correct, Mr. Soucy?

Mr. Gilles Soucy: There are seven.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Seven licences? In that case, there are five on the South Shore and two on the North Shore with licences to process shrimp. These individuals work in processing plants.

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: They have licences to fish shrimp.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: No. I'm talking about processing.

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: There are no licences, except perhaps at the provincial level. Are you talking about plants?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes.

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: Yes, processing plants. Right.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: There are five on the South Shore and two on the North Shore.

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: Absolutely, yes. These plants are registered with the federal government.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes, and, you say they are entitled to process shrimp.

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: Yes, for export.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: But they don't process it for export only. They process it also for local and interprovincial consumption. We do not know where the shrimp is eaten, but it is definitely eaten, because it is very good.

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: Yes, absolutely.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: These individuals or these seven companies that can process shrimp must meet all sorts of operating conditions. They must operate under hygienic conditions. The workers must be dressed in a particular way, disinfect their hands and feet, and so on. We know where this starts, but we no longer know where it ends, but the objective is to ensure are safety, and that is a very good thing.

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: Yes.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Very well. We have now been told that the people processing shrimp on their shrimp vessels, under the conditions we saw in these pictures, are far from meeting the conditions required in processing plants.

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: Definitely.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: What could we do to see that all the processing is done in plants, and that this other practice cease? How should we go about achieving this?

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: Of course, if these shrimp vessels were to land their shrimp so that they could be processed in a registered plant, they would automatically come under our jurisdiction and we would not authorize them to process or cook the shrimp on board their vessels. I don't know whether you follow what I mean.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes.

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: If these boats were to deliver their products to registered plants, we would not allow them to cook the shrimp on board their boats. Shrimp are never cooked on board vessels in our registered plants. People are not allowed to cook shrimps on board their boats and then deliver them to registered plants.

• 0930

Since these boats did not deliver their product to federally registered plants, but rather to a plant in Sept-Îles with a provincial licence, they do not come under our jurisdiction and we cannot enforce our regulations about cooking on board boats.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: So you are telling me definitely that all shrimp vessels that land shrimp for the seven federally- controlled plants deliver uncooked shrimp.

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: What I can guarantee is that the boats that process shrimp for our registered plants deliver raw shrimp.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: That is correct. The shrimp are raw, they are not cooked.

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: That is correct. For our registered plants.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Right. Now, these shrimp vessels...

[English]

The Chair: Madame Tremblay, just so I'm clear, the question was along the lines that the boats are delivering cooked shrimp. You're saying there is no cooked shrimp being delivered to federal plants, that it's all raw shrimp.

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: What I'm saying is that all the boats that deliver shrimp to our registered plants are delivering uncooked shrimp.

The Chair: Fine. Thanks.

Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, Lib.): Registered by the federal government.

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: Yes.

The Chair: Go ahead. Finish your questioning.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: So we have clearly established one thing: the boats that go to your plants deliver raw shrimp, uncooked shrimp.

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: Yes, for processing in our plants.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: For processing. So there are eight processing plants, not seven. We know of seven: five on the South Shore and two on the North Shore. These seven plants are registered with the federal government.

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: Yes.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: And you are talking about an eighth processing plant.

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: Yes, a plant with a provincial licence.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Is that true? Can you confirm that for me, Mr. Soucy?

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: I cannot name the plant.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: No, but are there three on the North Shore?

Mr. Gilles Soucy: Look, I see this from the opposite point of view. At the moment, there are two plants with provincial licences in Sept-Îles. These plants cannot have a federal licence, because they handle the shrimp cooked on board the boats.

That means that the boats on which the shrimp are cooked want to land their product at places like Sept-Îles, where there is a plant to buy it. This plant cannot have a federal licence, because DFO refuses to give it one, because it uses shrimp cooked on board the boats.

For their part, the other plants do not take cooked shrimp, because their equipment is designed to process shrimp cooked at the plant and shelled by machines there. The existing equipment cannot shell shrimp cooked on board the boats, because the shells are too hard and the machine would not be cost-effective. There would be too many people required at the end of the production line.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Are there some boats cooking shrimp on board at the moment, but that also have some raw shrimp left that they unload at DFO plants?

Mr. Gilles Soucy: Yes. I can give you the breakdown. The fishers' quotas for each fishing industry vary between 500,000 and 700,000 pounds of shrimp. Some boats cook between 200,000 and 300,000 pounds, and deliver the rest of the quota raw to plants such as those in Matane, Rivière-au-Renard and Sainte-Anne-des-Monts.

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: I cannot comment on the quotas, because that is the responsibility of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. With respect to the inspection program of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, I can assure you that all the shrimp vessels that deliver shrimp to registered plants in our area deliver raw shrimp that are processed at the plant.

• 0935

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I want to make sure I have understood this correctly. Let us suppose that a shrimp vessel has 60,000 pounds of shrimp on board, that it cooks 20,000 pounds and sells it who knows where, and that it has 40,000 pounds of raw shrimp left. This 40,000 pounds of shrimp would then be delivered to your plants for processing. When the shrimp are cooked on board the boats, they become too hard and cannot be processed in the plants. It becomes impossible to shell them at the plants. The plants use a different process from the one used on the boards. The shrimp cooked in plants can be processed automatically on the assembly lines.

The boat pictured in the document is one of the boats that delivers the shrimp that you say are perfect. This boat docks at the wharf in Matane and delivers 40,000 pounds of shrimp there for processing. Then it goes to Sainte-Anne-des-Monts, Rivière-au- Renard and Sept-Îles. It sells its raw shrimp. That is the problem.

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: The shrimp that go to our registered plants are not cooked and they meet our sanitary and product quality requirements.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: From the photographs, your standards do not seem to be very high.

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: Those are not our standards, Ms. Tremblay. Those are shrimps cooked to be sold on the local market.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: No. When I see these boats and the way the raw shrimp are stored on them, and when I think they are delivered to your plants full of oil, dirt, rust and what have you, it seems to me that your standards are not very high.

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: The boats meet the requirements contained in the schedules. The shrimp are not stored on the deck, Ms. Tremblay. They are stored in the hold, and there are no photos of the holds. The holds of the boats meet the requirements of the Fish Inspection Regulations.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: What is the maximum number of days that shrimp vessels can spend at sea before delivering their product to the plant?

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: It depends on the size of the boat. I think these boats spend two or three days at sea, perhaps four.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Could they spend as long as 12 days at sea? Can you check on that? Does your Agency check what day they leave and what day they return?

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: We have a quality management program administered by the plant. It must check all the raw materials that come in and do an organic and sensory examination of the shrimp before processing them.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Is that it?

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: I have one question to Mr. Soucy before we turn to Sarkis.

“MFO” in your presentation means what, Mr. Soucy? You say the MFO does not issue federal licences. Is that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Soucy? It is.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Soucy: That is correct. The “MPO” refers to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. All right. I just wanted to be clear. I wasn't sure on that.

The other thing I had was just a point of clarification on Madam Tremblay's question. With regard to the pictures here that Mr. Soucy provided, are you saying there is no raw shrimp stored on deck, or on deck for any period of time—that it goes immediately to the holds of the ship, and therefore this does not apply?

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: For raw shrimp, that's right. Our regulations say it must be stored in the hold.

Maybe you can add something.

Mr. Cameron Prince: Yes. I just want to clarify something about the standards for fishing vessels. Schedule III of the fish inspection regulations covers the minimum requirements that are necessary for a fishing vessel to handle fish in a clean and sanitary manner. Although the pictures we've seen may indicate unsanitary conditions for the purpose of cooking shrimp, there's nothing in these photos that would give me great concern about the handling of raw shrimp because they're in clean plastic containers; they're well iced; they're immediately put into a hold that meets the requirements; they're kept away from oil lines and hydraulic lines, and so on.

• 0940

So this vessel, from looking at these pictures...it's hard to tell from pictures, but it seems to me that it meets the minimum requirements of schedule III of the fish inspection regulations. I would agree with Madam Tremblay that these are not appropriate conditions for the cooking of shrimp.

The Chair: Then whose responsibility is it to ensure that the cooking of shrimp is done under sanitary conditions on boats? What authority in this country is responsible for that?

Mr. Cameron Prince: We have in Canada 12 vessels that are registered as federal fish processing plants. These vessels operate off the coast of Labrador and Newfoundland. They are much larger vessels, and they are essentially floating processing plants. And those vessels are registered with us at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. We inspect them, and they are essentially the same as an on-land plant. But there are only 12 of those, so we have the jurisdiction when it's registered. To answer your question as to who has the jurisdiction, in this particular case it would be with the province of Quebec.

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much.

In the last paragraph of your presentation, Mr. Soucy, you talk about small shrimp boats. In the pictures that you presented here, all of them are small. Does your company receive the shrimp from companies with similar-sized boats or larger-sized boats?

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Soucy: At the moment, in the region where the shrimp are fished, that is on the Sept-Îles bank, the largest boats are about 82 feet long. The boats on which the shrimp are cooked are 65 feet long. I would say that the area where the work is done and the shrimp cooked is not larger than the space between the desks in this room.

The small size of the boat means that it is difficult to comply with the standards imposed by the Agency on other boats, such as factory ships, which are between 250 and 350 feet long. The work area on a 65-foot boat is very small. There is no problem in the case of raw shrimp. It is landed on the deck immediately. Then it is sorted. The shrimp are packed into shrimp bags. These are put down into the hold and stored on ice.

The situation is different in the case of shrimp that are cooked on deck under the conditions that you see. The shrimp are carried in tubs. If you look carefully at the photo, you will see that the plastic tubs are not clean. They are oily.

I will try to find photo no. 7. It shows the boat after it has arrived in Sept-Îles. The weather was bad, it was snowing. This was in April. If you take a careful look at the first tubs at the bottom of the photo, you will see a pale grey tub with a bottom that is not clean. Beside the tub you can also see the stainless steel shrimp cooker. That is not normally the way stainless steel should look.

[English]

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: But is this boat in picture 7 provincially licensed or federally licensed?

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Soucy: The shrimp fishing licenses are issued by DFO. The federal minister is responsible for issuing the licenses to the boats.

[English]

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Okay. How about cooking? Who issues the cooking permit?

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Soucy: That is the problem. No one issues a permit. There is no permit for cooking on board. There has never been. This practice was tolerated.

[English]

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Food inspection—

The Chair: Mr. Prince, do you want to mention something?

Mr. Cameron Prince: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Prince.

• 0945

Mr. Cameron Prince: To answer your question, if the cooked shrimp are sold only within a local area, there is no federal jurisdiction. If those shrimp were to be exported across a provincial boundary or exported out of the country, then we would have to issue a permit.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: If it's sold in a local area, whose jurisdiction will it be? Provincial?

Mr. Cameron Prince: The local jurisdiction, provincial.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Provincial. So, actually, your complaint about the safety or health hazards after shrimp are consumed by the public should go to the provincial government. It's not the federal government's concern. Do I understand? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Mr. Cameron Prince: That's correct.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Okay. The other point that was made earlier was that the federal government licenses 12 shrimp fishing boats, am I right?

Mr. Cameron Prince: Yes.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: How many of those do business with your company?

The Chair: The question is to Mr. Soucy?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Soucy: The 12 boats that are federally licensed to cook on board do their fishing in the Labrador zones at the extreme eastern end of Canada. These boats have ties to companies based in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia or even Labrador. These boats do not deliver to our region, the North Shore.

[English]

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Okay. Let me come back to my first point. Who provides the raw shrimp to your company? The small boats, or other boats, or your own boats? How does it work?

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Soucy: We handle raw shrimp and the cooked shrimp comes from these boats. At this time, there are three...

[English]

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: These boats?

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Soucy: Yes.

[English]

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: So the owners of these boats know they're delivering you shrimp in conditions that are hazardous to human consumption like this. And you buy from them?

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Soucy: Because of the present situation, I am now buying shrimp that is cooked on board. We put the shrimp through a type of brine bath so as to try and eliminate all potential contamination. We handle the shrimp and we devein it. After it is deveined, the shrimp is once again placed in the brine, because this method has been recognized as maintaining standards of hygiene. We try to reduce any possible risk. In the case of raw shrimp, it is cooked in the plant, which eliminates the hygiene problem.

[English]

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: This is my final question. If there's a process to clean or disinfect, if I can use that phrase, the cooked shrimp, what's the complaint for then? I don't understand. What's the complaint? Do you have some other thing to say? Because if you can clean the cooked shrimp and make it suitable for human consumption, then what's the complaint? I can't follow the...unless you have some other explanation for it?

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Soucy: I am not saying that my process is perfect. I cannot even tell you whether or not it is possible to completely eliminate the risks of contamination by simply putting the shrimp in brine. I cannot confirm that this process is effective.

I can tell you, however, that fishers, before or after unloading raw shrimp which represents the bulk of their load, can sell to anyone who appears before them. They can sell from 5 to 5,000 pounds to anyone, regardless of the method of transport the buyer will be using. Not all of the shrimp that is cooked on board at this time is purchased by those who hold provincial licenses, if I can put that way. For example, 5,000 pounds of shrimp can be sold to anyone who has a truck large enough to carry it. The shrimp is sold, and we don't know where the buyer is heading.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you.

The Chair: I think, Sarkis, the concern is contamination. Listeria contamination—that's the concern.

I remember one time we had, I forget what it was, salmonella or something in a mussel plant in P.E.I. If you get into that kind of stuff, you're in trouble. That's what Mr. Soucy's trying to avoid.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I have one final point. Maybe it's advisable to call in some of the boat owners to hear their side of the story rather than the company's side of the story.

The Chair: We'll see where we go.

Mr. Cummins.

• 0950

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It seems to me that the real issue here for the public is, are the shrimp they are buying in the store safe to eat? That's the underlying issue here.

The suggestion that Mr. Prince has made is that the federal government has no jurisdiction. But the federal government licenses that vessel to fish shrimp. There's no processing attachment to that licence. Is that not correct?

Mr. Cameron Prince: That's correct.

Mr. John Cummins: The federal government also has responsibilities for the conditions aboard the vessels.

In days gone by, on the west coast, I know we would have to have a salmon vessel, for example, inspected on an annual basis to ensure that the fish were going to be handled in a sanitary fashion. Although the annual inspections are no longer required, the department is required to assure and ascertain that the vessels are sanitary and that the fish are being handled as a food product. Is that not correct?

Mr. Cameron Prince: That's correct.

You made reference to inspections of vessels that took place in British Columbia and all across Canada. That was in the 1980s when we were trying to improve the overall quality of fish in Canada. It was determined at that time that the biggest problem with the quality of fish in Canada was occurring with abuses aboard vessels, so we had a real push to bring in a set of regulations for fish that were going to be exported ultimately. The vessels harvesting those had to have minimum requirements. I mentioned that they had to carry ice, they had to have clean holds, and they had to have provisions for cleaning the decks. If they were of a certain size, they would require toilets and handwashing facilities.

But we found over the years that, in general, the fishing fleet in Canada has been much improved. We've gotten away from things like wooden fish boxes, into plastic. We see a lot of stainless steel aboard fishing vessels now. We shifted our priorities. We don't have enough inspectors to look at every fishing vessel in Canada. So our policy now is to inspect fishing vessels on a problem-driven basis, and again, those vessels that are handling fish that ultimately will be exported from Canada.

Mr. John Cummins: But ultimately, for the vessels at sea, you don't know whether the fish are going to be exported or whether they're going to stay within the province.

Mr. Cameron Prince: Yes.

Mr. John Cummins: You really don't know.

I'm looking at these pictures of a vessel, and my contention would be that this vessel would not meet the sanitary requirements that have been in place, and as I understand them to be in place, for the handling of a food product.

Mr. Cameron Prince: It's very difficult to tell from pictures, but—

Mr. John Cummins: It is.

Mr. Cameron Prince: —on this vessel I see stainless steel; I see plastic totes. I agree that it's not appropriate for the cooking of shrimp, absolutely not.

Mr. John Cummins: But is it appropriate for the handling of a food product, cooked or uncooked?

Mr. Cameron Prince: It looks okay to me. That's about all I can say. There are no obvious violations of schedule III of the fish inspection regulations here, other than that there may be some cleaning required, but I don't see anything here that would cause me a lot of concern.

Fishing is not an entirely sanitary affair, as you well know. There are sea gulls present, as Mr. Soucy has pointed out; there are a number of opportunities for contamination. We are just trying to minimize that at the harvesting level.

In answer to your other question, as to how you determine where the product is going, 87% of the fish harvested in Canada is exported from Canada. So almost all of the fish harvested by fishing vessels in Canada ultimately find an export market.

We can only do what the federal Fish Inspection Act empowers us to do. It only empowers us to enforce regulations as applied to fish that are in interprovincial or export trade.

Mr. John Cummins: But as you understand, the issue is that until the vessel comes ashore, you don't know where it's going. Isn't there an obligation, then, that all vessels be treated the same?

• 0955

It's not as if, when they leave, they're ticketed and the product that's going to be harvested is for provincial use only. If you wanted to be aggressive, it seems to me you could be.

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: We know where most of these vessels go. If it lands its fish at a registered plant, we're sure it's going for the export market.

Mr. John Cummins: I understand that, but when it's fishing, you don't know whether it's going to come in to—

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: No, but these boats are landing fish or shrimp for a person in Sept-Îles, a provincial permit plant. We know that.

Mr. John Cummins: All right.

It seems to me that they're falling through a crack here simply because, I would say, DFO is not accepting responsibility for the condition of the vessel if they're handling a food product on it, or you're not, because you're taking the out by saying, well, it's going to a plant that is selling within the province.

It's the same as this issue that was in the Ottawa Citizen on the weekend, where fish that were considered gourmet were not tested in the same way as fish that may be eaten on a regular basis.

So for fish products, the question then becomes, how can the public be certain that the product they're buying is going to be safe for human consumption? Isn't that really the issue, and isn't that your mandate?

The Chair: Mr. Prince.

Mr. Cameron Prince: Certainly you're asking a lot of questions in one there.

Mr. John Cummins: Yes, I am. I appreciate that.

Mr. Cameron Prince: First of all, I would defend the federal fish inspection program as recognized as one of the best in the world. But we can't rest on our laurels; there's no question about that.

In this particular case, with these shrimp, we know these vessels are fishing for local sale. If we had any idea, any evidence—and if Madame Tremblay or if Mr. Soucy can provide us with some evidence—that these are finding their way into export markets, we would definitely be taking immediate action on this.

But we cannot go where we're not authorized to go. In this particular situation, we don't have the power to do that. If it becomes an issue of export and interprovincial trade, we will take very firm and immediate action.

With respect to—

Mr. John Cummins: Could I interrupt for a minute?

The Chair: This is your last question, John.

Mr. John Cummins: Is your mandate, though, not to protect the public interest here? When there's the possibility that the public interest may be harmed, is there not some sort of obligation, or do you not feel some obligation to say to the minister that perhaps we should expand our mandate, whether it's to look after gourmet fish or to ensure that the fish product that's being handled in these particular vessels is handled in a manner in which the public can have confidence that the seafood products they're buying are safe? Is there an obligation there?

The Chair: Mr. Prince, I think the article that John is referring to is similar to an article in today's Ottawa Citizen, where Dr. Norman Barwin is saying that people should avoid eating swordfish, tuna, and shark until the government does further testing related to mercury levels.

Do you want to respond on that specifically as well, so that we have both on the record reasonably clear?

Mr. Cameron Prince: Okay. So we'll come back to the point on how we would respond to this particular situation with these shrimp vessels.

The Chair: Yes. Deal with the shrimp vessels first, but John is tying the two together, and I want us to understand both.

Mr. Cameron Prince: Okay. With respect to the shrimp vessels, I do not want to leave the committee with the impression that we would just turn a blind eye to this situation. That is not the case. We work very closely with our provincial colleagues in fish inspection. The Province of Quebec has a very strong fish inspection program.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Ladouceur.

[Translation]

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: Of course, we have recently contacted the MAPAQ representatives about this situation. They have given us assurances that samples of the product were taken, that is to say, the shrimp that we are discussing. They undertake sampling and inspections of the products when they come in to the dock, and they have been doing that for some years now. They have assured us that the product meets their requirements.

• 1000

Recently, I once again contacted Mr. Pierre Léger from MAPAQ and he confirmed this information. It is interesting to note that we are at this time negotiating a federal/provincial agreement for product inspection. In the agreement, it will be clearly stated that the responsibility for shrimp belongs to MAPAQ. This agreement will probably be signed in the fall.

[English]

The Chair: We'll turn to Mr. Stoffer first, and then we'll go back to you, Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Soucy, for your presentation.

I'd like to get this clear. The quota for the shrimp these boats are catching is authorized by DFO. Mr. Soucy, where are those shrimp being caught?

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Soucy: These shrimp are usually caught in three zones in Quebec: the estuary, the Sept-Îles bank, and Anticosti.

[English]

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

Mr. Prince, DFO authorizes the quota for those shrimp in a Quebec zone. Those shrimp are on these boats. They're still DFO's responsibility. It doesn't matter where they go. Those shrimp are caught, they're on the boats, and they're DFO's responsibility. Who authorizes these boats to cook those shrimp? They must have a licence to cook the shrimp. I assume they would. Do they just do it on their own?

Mr. Cameron Prince: It depends on where—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: They're in Quebec. They're in the waters, they just caught the shrimp, and they start cooking. Who gives them the permit to cook the shrimp?

Mr. Cameron Prince: Nobody.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Nobody.

Mr. Cameron Prince: That's right.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: That's mistake number one somewhere. Someone must give a licence to cook this stuff.

Mr. Cameron Prince: As I explained earlier, if a vessel wants to harvest shrimp, cook them on board, and export them, they have to come to us.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Prior to where it goes, they catch the shrimp and they start cooking. Who gives them the authority to cook the shrimp?

Mr. Cameron Prince: Nobody.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Is it a federal responsibility or a provincial one?

Mr. Cameron Prince: It depends on where the product is going.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Basically, if I had a licence, I could go out there and catch shrimp and cook it.

Mr. Cameron Prince: Yes, you could.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I need a licence for the quota and a licence for the vessel, but I don't need a licence to cook it.

Mr. Cameron Prince: You need a licence if you're going to export it.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: But I can cook it without any licence.

Mr. Cameron Prince: Yes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: There's a major flaw there.

You mentioned the 12 federal ships that are under your jurisdiction. How many of those have food inspectors on board?

Mr. Cameron Prince: I have to step back for a second to answer your question. I mentioned the quality management program. We do not have an inspector in every fish plant in Canada. We have only 200 inspectors, and we have 1,000 plants. So we have a system where we go and audit the quality management program of the plant, and those vessels are exactly the same as a land plant. Obviously, there are logistical problems with having an inspector on board. We have inspectors check those vessels on a regular basis. As a matter of fact, this fall we'll be putting an inspector on board one of these fishing vessels for a period of one month.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Would you contemplate at all putting an inspector on board one of the boats that Mr. Soucy has mentioned?

Mr. Cameron Prince: As I said earlier, if it were clear this was within our jurisdiction, i.e., these shrimp were going to be exported from the province of Quebec, yes, we would go and investigate. I'm not sure we'd put a person on board, but we would inspect the vessel and we would investigate.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chairman, my concluding statement for you is that there's a huge crack here—

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

The Chair: We'll hear from Mr. Stoffer, and then we'll let you in on a point of clarification.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chairman, there's a huge crack in the system somewhere when they will go on board a ship that is exporting shrimp to other markets but they will not go aboard a ship that is selling shrimp within its own province of Quebec. Somebody somewhere has to take responsibility for the health of those cooked shrimp. So what I'm asking, Mr. Chairman, is whether it is possible for us to write a letter to DFO or to the minister of fisheries in Quebec to ask who has the jurisdiction for the health of those shrimp.

• 1005

Mr. Soucy, have you contacted the provincial ministry on this issue? What has the minister of fisheries in Quebec said?

The Chair: Before Mr. Soucy answers, Mr. Matthews has a point of clarification he wants to raise.

Mr. Bill Matthews: I'm somewhat taken aback here this morning. As I said to my colleague Mr. Stoffer, it's not the health of the shrimp I'm worried about. I'm worried about the health of the people who are going to eat the damn shrimp.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: That's the concern I have.

Mr. Bill Matthews: That's the problem here. We're talking about shrimp not being handled properly under sanitary conditions, and what I'm hearing here this morning is if it's going to stay in the province of Quebec, that's okay, but if it's going to be exported, then we have to take due diligence with it.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Matthews, that's the point I'm getting to.

Mr. Bill Matthews: There's something radically wrong here that somebody must be able to sort out.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I agree.

The Chair: Mr. Soucy, do you have anything you want to add? I think Mr. Stoffer's question was along the lines of whether you had a response from the ministry in Quebec.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Wappel indicated that the minister said it's a federal responsibility. Yet the CFIA folks are saying it's a provincial responsibility. As Mr. Matthews said, somebody has to take responsibility for the health of the fish and for the health of our citizens. Who is it?

The Chair: Mr. Soucy, do you want to respond? Go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Soucy: Our dealings with the provincial government began in 1995. We have been reporting the health and contamination risks on board the boats since that time.

The provincial government has always said that since the operation takes place at sea, the problem comes under federal jurisdiction. It didn't matter under what conditions the shrimp was cooked, even if it was mixed with bird excrements or slime, it was a federal matter. The federal government had jurisdiction over the sea. The ball was always in the federal government's court.

[English]

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I would agree. Thank you.

The Chair: I have on the list in this order according to established rules: Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Cummins, Mr. Fournier, Mr. Farrah, and Mr. Wappel.

An hon. member: I'll let my colleague ask questions.

The Chair: Mr. Farrah, he has turned it over to you.

[Translation]

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

[English]

The Chair: Then it will be Mr. Cummins and you.

Mr. Farrah.

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Farrah: I believe that this issue is quite confusing. Beyond jurisdictional matters, even if the shrimp ends up in plants that come under provincial jurisdiction, I am still worried because if the shrimp were to become contaminated, this would have an effect on the entire industry. You know that food safety is very important. Even if we say that it might be the provincial government's responsibility, the matter must be examined. How can we find a rational, effective solution that will best serve the consumers and the industry? If, because it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, we pay no attention to the possibility of contamination, the international reputation of the shrimp produced in Canada could be tainted. Some will say that in Canada, the shrimp is contaminated.

I think it all boils down to responsibility. I understand that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency cannot become involved in the regulatory framework. I would like to ask you, even though you do not represent Fisheries and Oceans—we will call their representatives to appear if we have to—whether or not the department can prohibit the cooking of shrimp on these boats.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Prince or Mr. Ladouceur.

[Translation]

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: That is a two-part question.

First of all, the MAPAQ is involved in this matter. The MAPAQ has carried out a sampling and inspection of the shrimp that was unloaded from these boats. They also inspected the plant where the shrimp was delivered and distributed.

I am not here to defend the MAPAQ, but I can assure you that the provincial inspection system is adequate.

Secondly, could Fisheries and Oceans prohibit cooking on board the boats?

• 1010

I cannot speak for Fisheries and Oceans. They certainly could do it in relation to quotas, but not for health safety reasons, because health safety and hygiene come under the Fish Inspection Act while they are responsible for the Fisheries Act. They could become involved if it relates to quotas and, if need be, the impact that it would have on the quotas. It could impact the quotas because when you cook shrimp, it weighs less.

Mr. Georges Farrah: It is like what was said earlier about crab. It applies in terms of the quotas.

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: I am convinced that this could affect the fishing quotas, but I will let Fisheries and Oceans answer that question.

Mr. Georges Farrah: That's fine.

The Chair: Mr. Soucy.

Mr. Gilles Soucy: Fisheries and Oceans Canada already takes 11% off the weight of cooked shrimp. Eleven percent is subtracted from the weight to protect the quota. Perhaps the Fisheries and Oceans representatives should be asked what the rationale was for putting an end to the cooking of crab. They no longer allow cooking of crab. What I find hard to understand in all of this is that 50 to 60% of the total quantity of cooked shrimp can be unloaded without going to provincial plants. This shrimp is unloaded and sold freely on the docks.

A voice: On the side.

Mr. Gilles Soucy: It is unloaded into trucks and who knows where these trucks are going. If you know the geography of Quebec, you know that Fermont is located approximately 200 kilometres north of Sept-îles. The fishing area opens April 1 in Quebec, and there are shrimps in Fermont by April 1, when there are none in Sept- îles. So, there is a distribution network and truckers, which we refer to as peddlers, that are well organized to supply these markets. When that happens, you completely lose control of the quality of the product; you cannot control the inspection of the transporter. In the spring, shrimp is cooked in fairly impressive quantities on board these ships. They are being cooked 24 hours a day; they are being fished 24 hours a day. There is a constant mix of raw and cooked products on the small decks of these boats.

[English]

The Chair: Last question, Mr. Farrah.

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Farrah: The last one? Ms. Tremblay had a half hour.

In such a case, if it can be demonstrated that the shrimp was sold on the black market and that the shrimp was not sent to a plant, even if the plant does have a provincial licence, this could be a situation where Fisheries and Oceans could intervene, because the product was not delivered to a plant with an authorized licence.

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: I do not really understand your question. Fishing quotas and the fish in the water, obviously, come under the jurisdiction of Fisheries and Oceans. Once the fish is taken from the water and you are dealing with sanitary conditions, then it comes under provincial jurisdiction, or federal jurisdiction if it is being exported. If it is being shipped for provincial trade, then it is under provincial jurisdiction. In other words, whole cooked shrimp which are delivered to grocery stores in the province come under provincial jurisdiction.

Mr. Georges Farrah: Let's take the opposite situation. If I am a fisher and I have a licence to fish shrimp, when I come in to port, can I sell to anybody?

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: This is a free country, I think, and you cannot stop trade. As a fisher, you can sell a fish to whomever you wish.

Mr. Georges Farrah: No. In Quebec, you must have a purchasing licence in order to purchase fish.

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: It is the province which issues that. It is the MAPAQ which issues these permits.

Mr. Georges Farrah: Therefore, this means that if these people sell fish to somebody without a purchasing licence, it is under provincial jurisdiction.

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: Precisely.

[English]

The Chair: What was the answer?

Mr. Georges Farrah: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): I think we've batted this issue around, and if we have a major problem.... I heard Mr. Farrah talking about the need to address what's good for consumers, what's good for industry. There will be lots of finger pointing, and there will be any number of blame-letting exercises. So I've crafted a motion that I think addresses the issue as this committee should address it. I'd like to make that motion at this time, Mr. Chairman.

• 1015

The Chair: Okay. This will be notice of the motion, then.

Mr. John Duncan: Notice of a motion? Okay.

The Chair: It would have to be, because we need the.... Let's hear the motion first.

Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I have no objection to the motion, but perhaps the mover of the motion could wait until all questions are asked.

The Chair: Okay. We have three on the questioning list. Are you okay to wait until then, John?

Mr. Tom Wappel: It may very well be that some answers may be elicited that would change the motion.

The Chair: All right. I have three on my list. Is that okay with you, John?

Mr. John Duncan: That's fine.

The Chair: Mr. Fournier first, and then I have two others.

Mr. Fournier.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I too, would like to thank my colleague Suzanne Tremblay, who has done an excellent job, and who represents my party on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, as it was her idea to ask for this meeting. I would also like to thank all of those who accepted. I would like to thank Mr. Prince, Mr. Ladouceur and Mr. Soucy for having travelled here.

My first question is for Mr. Soucy, and if Mr. Prince and Mr. Ladouceur would like to supplement it... According to the questions that have been asked and the answers that have been given, it is quite clear that you have not been able to reassure us, to guarantee us that the shrimp are not being sold out outside of Quebec. But what is still worse and what really dumfounds me is that you seem to say that if it sold in Ontario, you can and you will act. If you have complaints, give them to us, please tell us. What is dangerous for Ontario, is fine for Quebec. That's what this means in lay terms. If I were to go to my riding tomorrow morning and tell them this, that is how people would understand it. You can take action if it is being sold in Ontario. They are not good enough for Ontario, but they are good enough for Quebec. When you're dealing with people's health, obviously there is much more involved.

So, my question for Mr. Soucy is the following. We have been working on this issue since 1995. It is now the year 2001. In a moment, I will have other much more interesting questions for Mr. Ladouceur and Mr. Prince. You seem to be saying, that according to your contacts at the provincial government, vessels at sea come under federal jurisdiction. Do we agree on this?

Mr. Gilles Soucy: Precisely.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: My other question is for Mr. Prince and Mr. Ladouceur. This has been going on since 1995. Have you seen these boats yourselves? Are there inspectors that are able to tell you how many they have seen, how often they have seen them and when they saw them for the last time? If they have seen boats in this state, why is it that they did not take pictures and draw your attention to this in order to allow you to act? Public health is at stake. If tomorrow morning we were to show the public this... Obviously, I will ask you what we should be doing. I like shrimp and my wife loves shrimp, as does the rest of my family. But I must admit that since reading the report, we no longer buy shrimp.

Now, what I am to do? You say that we live in a free country and that we have the right to do whatever we want. My freedom ends where someone else's begins. I do not have the right to poison the world. Thus, I expect that you have a mandate, as an inspection agency. Otherwise, we will have to broaden your mandate if you are unable to... I do not mean to insult you, but I get the impression that you are on the defensive rather than trying to understand the situation. This is the situation which is quite serious. You explained that there is no danger, that everything is cooked.

Could you tell me how often you have seen boats, have you seen them yourself, do you have any intention to see them or are there inspectors who will see them? That is my question.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Prince or Mr. Ladouceur.

Mr. Cameron Prince: I'll start off by answering in general terms. I think Mr. Ladouceur can respond more directly about these particular vessels.

On the concern you have that we are protecting people outside Quebec and not protecting people in Quebec, I understand what you're saying, but at the same time, I would have to emphasize the fact that we in the federal government, in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, can only operate under the law we have. The law we have is the federal Fish Inspection Act. We cannot determine the standards for fish inspections that occur within a province. On a national basis, an export basis, with import of fish products we have jurisdiction, but we cannot move into provincial jurisdiction. Across Canada there are a number of provincial fish inspection acts and regulations, and those are applied by the provincial governments. That's the case in British Columbia, in Newfoundland, and in Quebec. We have a very strong program as it applies, as I've said many times, to export or interprovincial trade. That's really the only framework we can operate in.

• 1020

[Translation]

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: The only thing that I could add, is that there are agreements with the province, with the MAPAQ, under which we undertake joint inspections. This happened recently in the case shellfish. There was a fairly serious shellfish exporting incident on the North Shore and we worked together with the MAPAQ. We also worked with the MAPAQ on this issue. We know that the MAPAQ has taken shrimp samples and undertaken shrimp inspections. They assure us that the products meet their requirements, and the MAPAQ requirements are equivalent to the federal requirements, if not more strict.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Mr. Chairman...

[English]

The Chair: Just a quick one, Mr. Fournier.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I did not get an answer to my question on the boat inspectors, but I would like to touch on the issue of shellfish because I have gotten calls from my constituents on this subject.

You did not take any chances with shellfish. You banned harvesting of shellfish all along the coast, because you believed that there could be dangerous areas. What are you doing with the boats? I called Fisheries and Oceans and asked them why there was a poster put up... [Editor's note: Inaudible]... for example. Every year, there was a shellfish harvest, but now they can no longer do so because people are afraid that it might be dangerous.

As regards the boat inspections, would you agree with us that there is a problem and that we need to deal with it? Will there be inspections in the near future, tomorrow morning perhaps? This could pose a health threat for people. Is this being taken seriously? Are you taking this seriously? Will you be sending inspectors and taking pictures, if need be, and going on site to see if what Mr. Soucy mentions in his report is true? If this is true, we cannot tolerate this. There will have to be a change in the laws, in the regulations, we will have to broaden your mandate. This committee will have to make sure that something is done. This cannot be tolerated. Do you agree?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Fournier, I think it has been said several times that the CFIA does not have the jurisdiction to go on that boat and inspect it. Is that correct?

[Translation]

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: Yes, if he is not delivering the product for export. In this case, he is delivering the product for export.

[English]

The Chair: And if the CFIA were to move into provincial jurisdiction, your party might be among the first to complain.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, are they not responsible for the quality of that trip prior to its landing on the shore? Who's responsible before it hits the shore?

The Chair: Can anyone answer that question?

A voice: Nobody.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: You can't say nobody. Someone has to be responsible before it hits the shore.

Mr. Cameron Prince: The fisherman is responsible.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: No, no, sir, please.

The Chair: Maybe John's motion will deal with it.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): Before you move on, Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. If you can license the 12 boats on the offshore, because they're on the high seas, to me the same rule must apply. It doesn't matter. Once you leave a port, you're into the jurisdiction of the federal government, because it's beyond the high-water tide mark. If you do it with the 12 boats, you must do it across the board on all boats, as you're doing the same kind of thing on the high seas. That's the issue.

The Chair: Mr. Prince.

Mr. Cameron Prince: I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of the Fish Inspection Act is that.... Let's take the example where a fisherman is fishing for local sale only, he has no intention of exporting the product, and we come along as federal fish inspectors and say, we're going to inspect your boat and we're going to require you to spend $100,000 to bring it up to a certain standard. If there is absolutely no evidence that the product is going to be sold outside the province or exported, we have no jurisdiction, and we would have no right to take any action on that vessel. Unfortunately, that's the case. There's nothing I can do about that.

• 1025

An hon. member: On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: No. I'm not taking your point of order. You guys are slipping questions in on points of order.

Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gentleman, I sympathize with your dilemma, because you are constrained by the jurisdiction of the act under which you operate. I want to ask you a question and I want to narrow the focus. I don't want to talk about anything else but these shrimp we're talking about—no other fish of any kind, no other molluscs, nothing.

The question is, to the best of your knowledge are these shrimp boats licensed by DFO?

Mr. Cameron Prince: Yes.

Mr. Tom Wappel: And is it not true that licences carry various conditions?

Mr. Cameron Prince: Yes.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Is it therefore not possible to have a condition on these licences that there be no cooking of shrimp, period?

Mr. Cameron Prince: There could be. That would be for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans—

Mr. Tom Wappel: For the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to decide. And I'm asking if, in your opinion, it has the jurisdiction to make such a condition that you may have a licence to fish for shrimp but under no circumstances are you allowed to cook those shrimp on that boat?

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: Yes. They did that under the quota practice, to check the quotas.

Mr. Tom Wappel: All right. So there is a way of DFO solving this problem, at least initially, by simply indicating on the licence that none of these boats can cook any shrimp, period. Then we don't have to worry about where it's going.

If the Province of Quebec believes this is beyond the mandate of the federal government, then it can challenge it. If the courts find that the Province of Quebec is correct, then Monsieur Soucy can use that in his discussions with the Province of Quebec. If the courts hold that the condition is a valid exercise of federal power, then it's DFO and there's no cooking on the shrimp boat. What's the problem? Would you agree with that?

Mr. Cameron Prince: We would agree.

The Chair: The witnesses, as I understand with a shake of their head, agree.

As a point of clarification, is that what was done in terms of crab? Mr. Soucy mentions in his brief—and either Mr. Soucy or CFIA can answer—that it's forbidden to cook crab on board crab boats for similar reasons. Is that what was done under DFO licensing?

Mr. Cameron Prince: Yes, that's what was done.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any further questions? Mr. Farrah and Mr. Stoffer, one minute each.

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Farrah: What we must also tell you is that the fisher has a responsibility. What I find scandalous is that fishers—and they are only hurting themselves in any case—would treat a product in that way. It also means that fishers could possibly handle a raw product in the same way.

This question is for you. The only way to ensure that a product has been properly handled is to determine that once it arrives at the plant, when it is inspected. We cannot put an inspector on each boat to ensure that the fisher is doing his job properly with respect to the quality of the product.

Mr. Rhéo Ladouceur: That is right. In Quebec, there are 1,700 boats registered to fish. Of course, we do inspect the boats that are the subjects of a complaint. We check the handling on board the boats delivering products to registered plants if we receive complaints from these plants.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ladouceur.

Mr. Stoffer, last question, and quick.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I have a suggestion, gentlemen, and I say this with all due respect. I would advise your superiors to address this issue very seriously, because if one of those Quebec shrimp boats was discovered to have listeria within the shrimp, it will shut down the entire industry, including the 12 boats you're concerned about.

For the parliamentary secretary, my advice is to contact Mr. Dhaliwal and tell him we have a big problem here in terms of jurisdiction about who's responsible for the cooking of those shrimp on board. If Mr. Wappel is correct, then you should, sir, with all respect, go to Mr. Dhaliwal and tell him to put a condition on that licence to stop the cooking of shrimp on board.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: That's for the committee to decide.

The Chair: Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: I should thank Tom Wappel for asking for the questions to proceed, because everything I've heard basically endorses the motion.

• 1030

The motion I'd like to make is that DFO be asked by this committee to investigate the issue of on-board processing of shrimp with a view to regulatory or other action to forbid on-board cooking of shrimp for other than CFIA-registered on board processing, as they have previously done for crab.

The Chair: We can do it one of two ways.

We can, with unanimous consent, deal with it as a motion today, and if we agree to it we'll put it in a letter to the minister. Or we can deal with it as a notice of motion in 48 hours. Is there unanimous consent?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: To do what?

The Chair: To deal with this as a motion now.

The motion is on the floor.

Madam Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I second the motion. I am prepared to second the motion because I believe it will allow us to truly respond to the wishes of the shrimpers. What they want, and what the processing plants want, is to be sure that only one product will be delivered to the plant: raw, not cooked, shrimp. This will also allow us to ensure the quality of the product, to protect everyone's health, regardless of where the shrimp is eaten. There will be greater certainty, which will allow us to better protect the quotas.

What I understood from what Mr. Farrah said earlier and from what you, Mr. Ladouceur, did not seem to grasp, is that a shrimper can arrive at the wharf in Baie Comeau, where 60,000 pounds of shrimp can be loaded onto a truck and taken to Fermont where it is then processed in a garage. And these 60,000 pounds are not included in the quota.

We see that the minister has taken more care this year, because we do not know exactly what will happen with the quotas. Moreover, if shrimp has flooded the black market, that will put an end to the black market, as was the case for crab. Therefore, this will take care of the problem explained by Mr. Soucy. Is that not the case, Mr. Soucy?

Mr. Gilles Soucy: That is correct.

[English]

The Chair: Is there any further discussion? Basically, what the motion is asking us to do is to investigate the issue of on-board processing, and if there is found to be a problem to treat it in a similar fashion as crab has been dealt with as a condition of licensing.

Is there any further discussion?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: We will draft a letter from this committee to the minister saying same.

Thank you, gentlemen, Mr. Soucy, Mr. Prince, and Mr. Ladouceur, for coming forward and involving yourselves in this discussion.

Committee members, we have to deal with the estimates. You have three motions before you. We dealt with the discussion the other day in estimates, and we now have to deal with the motions.

FISHERIES AND OCEANS

Vote 1—Operating expenditures ...... $968,452,000

The Chair: Shall vote 1, less the amount of $242,113,000 voted in interim supply, be carried?

It is moved by Mr. O'Brien. Is there any discussion?

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: Can I request a recorded vote on this?

The Chair: Could we have order?

If DFO is going to have the ability to do their job, they are going to have to get some money.

Will you call the list, Mr. Clerk?

An hon. member: On what?

The Chair: On motion 1, moved by Mr. O'Brien, that vote 1, less the amount of $242,113,000 voted in interim supply, carry.

• 1035

(Vote 1 agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

Vote 5—Capital expenditures ...... $158,092,000

The Chair: Shall vote 5, less the amount of $39,523,000 voted in interim supply, carry?

(Vote 5 agreed to)

Vote 10—Grants and contributions ...... $80,620,000

The Chair: Shall vote 10, less the amount of $47,028,391.67 voted in interim supply, carry?

(Vote 10 agreed to)

The Chair: Shall the chair report the estimates to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: That's it, I guess, for today's meeting.

Mr. John Duncan: Just for clarification, there was no recorded vote on the final one, correct?

The Chair: No. It was just carried.

Mr. John Duncan: That's fine.

The Chair: Carried by all.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Unanimously.

The Chair: Just carried without a recorded vote.

On Thursday we have an item we have to deal with. There will be a letter, which will be translated by Wednesday. If you remember, we said that Dominic and I would prepare a letter for the committee to look at, relative to the gulf region. That letter will be prepared and we will discuss it. I think everyone has been given a little overview on aquaculture, have they not?

Mr. Alan Nixon (Committee Researcher): No, it hasn't come out yet. Translation hasn't been completed.

The Chair: Okay. Is it going to be done before Thursday?

Mr. Alan Nixon: I'm hoping the translation will be back tomorrow, and it should be—

The Chair: We'll try to get that to people. It's an overview, an outline, of where Alan thinks we could proceed on an interim report on aquaculture. I think we should try to do something before we close.

We'll try to deal with both those issues on Thursday morning.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chairman, just as a point of interest for the rest of the crowd here, tomorrow at 3:30 p.m. in the environment committee they're having a two-and-a-half-hour discussion on aquaculture, if anybody wants to attend to watch that. I'll be there.

The Chair: Thank you for the information, Peter.

Madam Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Are there any developments relating to the trip to Norway and Scotland?

[English]

The Chair: No.

Did you send this out to committee members?

The Clerk of the Committee: No, because I hadn't heard back, plus the French wasn't done yet.

The Chair: There was a problem. I talked to John Duncan, I believe, and I think you had problems with trying to do Norway in August, right?

Mr. John Duncan: The first two weeks—

The Chair: Anyway, we have put it to the budget liaison committee. It was suggested that this didn't go out to committee. Maybe we could deal with this on Thursday as well.

• 1040

Andrew gave me a suggestion here that if it could be worked out that we travel either during the summer or in early fall, the chair be authorized to approve and finalize the itinerary for the trip to Norway and Scotland, and that the committee seek an order of reference from the House of Commons to travel to Norway and Scotland for not less than 10 days nor more than 12 days, departing no earlier than August 6 and returning not later than August 17—maybe we can change that somewhat—and that said committee be composed of no more than 10 members—

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Don't even think about it. That's crazy.

The Chair: Anyway, that's—

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It is better to travel to Norway during the summer.

[English]

It's much better to go to Norway during the summer than the fall.

The Chair: Anyway, the other suggestion—

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: It's not....

[Translation]

We should not proceed according to our business, but rather according to the countries we will be visiting. It is much easier to organize absences with the whips during the break than—

[English]

The Chair: The other suggestion was that we go the first two weeks of September.

An hon. member: Exactly.

The Chair: In any event, we will discuss this on Thursday.

The meeting is adjourned.