FOPO Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, May 7, 2002

0900

The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.))

0905

Mr. Andy Thomson (Research Biologist, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

0910

0915

0920

The Chair

Mr. Andy Thomson

0925

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Morgan (Acting Regional Aquaculture Coordinator, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

The Chair

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

Mr. Andrew Morgan

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Andy Thomson

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Cummins

0930

Mr. Andy Thomson

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Andy Thomson

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Andy Thomson

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Andy Thomson

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Andy Thomson

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Andy Thomson

0935

Mr. Cummins

Mr. Andy Thomson

Mr. Cummins

Mr. Andy Thomson

Mr. Cummins

Mr. Andy Thomson

Mr. Cummins

Mr. Andy Thomson

The Acting Chair (Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or--Cape Breton, Lib.))

Mr. Andy Thomson

The Acting Chair (Mr. Rodger Cuzner)

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ)

0940

Mr. Andy Thomson

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance))

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Andy Thomson

0945

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Andy Thomson

Mr. Andrew Morgan

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Andrew Morgan

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Andy Thomson

Mr. Cuzner

Mr. Andrew Morgan

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins)

Mr. Lunney

Mr. Andrew Morgan

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Andy Thomson

Mr. Lunney

0950

Mr. Andy Thomson

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Andy Thomson

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Andy Thomson

The Acting Chair (Mr. Rodger Cuzner)

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Andrew Morgan

Mr. John Cummins

0955

Mr. Andrew Morgan

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Andrew Morgan

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Andy Thomson

Mr. Cummins

1000

Mr. Andy Thomson

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Andy Thomson

Mr. Cummins

Mr. Andy Thomson

Mr. Cummins

Mr. Andy Thomson

The Acting Chair (Mr. Rodger Cuzner)

Mr. Cummins

Mr. Andrew Morgan

Mr. Cummins

The Acting Chair (Mr. Rodger Cuzner)

Mr. Cummins

1005

Mr. Andrew Morgan

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Andrew Morgan

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Andrew Morgan

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Andrew Morgan

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Andrew Morgan

Mr. Cummins

Mr. Andrew Morgan

1010

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Andrew Morgan

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Morgan

Mr. Cummins

1015

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Andrew Morgan

Mr. Cummins

The Chair

1025

Mr. Bill Vernon (Representative, B.C. Salmon Farmers Association)

1030

The Chair

Mr. Ward Griffioen (Representative, B.C. Salmon Farmers Association)

1035

The Chair

Mr. David Groves (Represenative, B.C. Salmon Farmers Association)

Mr. David Groves

1040

1045

The Chair

1050

Mr. David Groves

The Chair

Mr. Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Ward Griffioen

1055

Mr. Cummins

Mr. Bill Vernon

Mr. Ward Griffioen

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Cummins

1100

Mr. Ward Griffioen

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Bill Vernon

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Bill Vernon

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Bill Vernon

The Chair

Mr. David Groves

1105

Mr. Cummins

Mr. David Groves

The Chair

Mr. Bill Vernon

The Chair

Mr. John Vernon

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Bill Vernon

1110

Mr. Ward Griffioen

Mr. David Groves

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. David Groves

1115

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Ward Griffioen

The Chair

Mr. Bill Vernon

The Chair

1120

Mr. David Groves

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. David Groves

1125

The Chair

Mr. Bill Vernon

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Bill Vernon

Mr. James Lunney

1130

Mr. Bill Vernon

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Ward Griffioen

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. David Groves

Mr. James Lunney

1135

Mr. Bill Vernon

Mr. Ward Griffioen

The Chair

Mr. Bill Vernon

Mr. David Groves

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. David Groves

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Bill Vernon

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. David Groves

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. David Groves

1140

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Bill Vernon

The Chair

Mr. David Groves

The Chair

Mr. Ward Griffioen

The Chair

Mr. David Lane (Environmental Director, United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union; and Research Director, T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation)

1155

The Chair

Mr. David Lane

The Chair

Mr. David Lane

1200

The Chair

Mr. Otto Langer (Marine Program Director, David Suzuki Foundation)

1205

1210

1215

1220

The Chair

Ms. Suzanne Connell (Georgia Strait Alliance)

1225

1230

1235

The Chair

Ms. Lynn Hunter (Fisheries and Aquaculture Specialist, David Suzuki Foundation)

The Chair

1255

Mr. James Lunney

Ms. Suzanne Connell

Mr. James Lunney

Ms. Suzanne Connell

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. David Lane

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. David Lane

1300

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Otto Langer

Ms. Lynn Hunter

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

The Chair

Mr. David Lane

Mr. Otto Langer

The Chair

Ms. Suzanne Connell

1305

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Ms. Suzanne Connell

Ms. Lynn Hunter

The Chair

Ms. Lynn Hunter

The Chair

Mr. Otto Langer

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

1310

Mr. David Lane

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. David Lane

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. David Lane

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Ms. Suzanne Connell

The Chair

Mr. David Lane

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. David Lane

Ms. Lynn Hunter

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Otto Langer

1315

The Chair

Mr. David Lane

The Chair

Mr. David Lane

The Chair

Mr. David Lane

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. David Lane

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. David Lane

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. David Lane

1320

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Otto Langer

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Otto Langer

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Otto Langer

1325

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Otto Langer

Mr. John Cummins

Ms. Lynn Hunter

1330

Mr. John Cummins

Ms. Lynn Hunter

The Chair

Mr. Otto Langer

Mr. John Cummins

Ms. Lynn Hunter

Mr. Otto Langer

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

1335

Ms. Lynn Hunter

The Chair

Mr. Cummins

Mr. David Lane

Mr. Cummins

1340

Ms. Lynn Hunter

The Chair

Ms. Lynn Hunter

The Chair

Ms. Lynn Hunter

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Otto Langer

Mr. David Lane

The Chair

Mr. David Lane

1345

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. David Lane

The Chair

Mr. David Lane

The Chair

Mr. Otto Langer

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Cummins

1350

Mr. Otto Langer

Mr. David Lane

The Chair

Mr. Otto Langer

1355

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

1405

Mr. Darrell Campbell (Fisheries Manager, Fish Farm Working Group)

1410

Mr. Sidney Sam (Senior Member, Fish Farm Working Group)

1415

1420

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Darrell Campbell

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Darrell Campbell

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Sidney Sam

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Darrell Campbell

1425

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Darrell Campbell

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Darrell Campbell

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Darrell Campbell

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Darrell Campbell

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Darrell Campbell

Mr. James Lunney

1430

The Chair

Mr. Sidney Sam

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Darrell Campbell

1435

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Darrell Campbell

The Chair

Mr. Cummins

1440

Mr. Darrell Campbell

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Darrell Campbell

Mr. John Cummins

1445

The Chair

Mr. Darrell Campbell

The Chair

Mr. Darrell Campbell

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Darrell Campbell

The Chair

Mr. Sidney Sam

The Chair

1500

Chief Bill Cranmer ('Namgis First Nation; Chairperson, Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council)

The Chair

Chief Bill Cranmer

1505

The Chair

Chief Bill Cranmer

The Chair

Mr. Brian Whadams (Representative, Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council)

The Chair

Mr. Brian Whadams

The Chair

1510

The Chair

Ms. Connie McIvor (Representative, Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council)

1515

The Chair

Chief Bill Cranmer

The Chair

Chief Robert Joseph (Gwawaenuk First Nation; Representative, Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council)

1520

1525

1530

The Chair

Chief Willie Moon (Tsawataineuk First Nation; Executive Member, Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council)

The Chair

Mr. Brian Whadams

The Chair

Chief Robert Joseph

1535

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Chief Robert Joseph

1540

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. Brian Whadams

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Brian Whadams

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Brian Whadams

Mr. Cummins

1545

Mr. Brian Whadams

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Brian Whadams

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Brian Whadams

Chief Robert Joseph

Mr. Brian Whadams

The Chair

Mr. Brian Whadams

1550

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Brian Whadams

Chief Robert Joseph

1555

Chief Bill Cranmer

Chief Robert Joseph

Chief Willie Moon

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Brian Whadams

1600

The Chair

Chief Bill Cranmer

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Brian Whadams

1605

The Chair

Chief Robert Joseph

The Chair

Ms. Connie McIvor

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Brian Whadams

The Chair

Mr. Brian Whadams

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Chief Bill Cranmer

The Chair

1615

Mr. Arnie Narcisse (Chairman, B.C. Aboriginal Fisheries Commission)

1620

1625

1630

Chief Simon Lucas (Coastal Co-Chair, B.C. Aboriginal Fisheries Commission)

1635

1640

The Chair

Mr. Arnie Narcisse

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Arnie Narcisse

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Arnie Narcisse

Ms. Diane Urban (Aquaculture File Manager, B.C. Aboriginal Fisheries Commission)

Mr. Arnie Narcisse

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Arnie Narcisse

Mr. Cummins

1645

Mr. Arnie Narcisse

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Arnie Narcisse

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Arnie Narcisse

Ms. Diane Urban

1650

The Chair

Mr. Arnie Narcisse

The Chair

Ms. Diane Urban

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

Ms. Diane Urban

Mr. Arnie Narcisse

Mr. Lunney

1655

Ms. Diane Urban

Mr. James Lunney

Chief Simon Lucas

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Arnie Narcisse

The Chair

Mr. Arnie Narcisse

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Cummins

Mr. Arnie Narcisse

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Arnie Narcisse

Mr. John Cummins

1700

Mr. Arnie Narcisse

The Chair

Mr. Arnie Narcisse

Ms. Diane Urban

1705

Mr. Arnie Narcisse

The Chair

Chief Simon Lucas

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Onclin (Research and Development Coordinator, Pacific National Aquaculture)

1710

1715

1720

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Onclin

The Chair

1725

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Onclin

The Chair

Dr. Brad Hicks (Executive Vice-President, Taplow Feeds)

1730

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Brad Hicks

The Chair

1735

Mr. John Cummins

Dr. Brad Hicks

Mr. John Cummins

Dr. Brad Hicks

Mr. John Cummins

Dr. Brad Hicks

1740

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Dr. Brad Hicks

Mr. John Cummins

Dr. Brad Hicks

Mr. John Cummins

Dr. Brad Hicks

1745

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Dr. Brad Hicks

The Chair

Dr. Brad Hicks

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Onclin

1750

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Dr. Brad Hicks

1755

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Onclin

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Dr. Brad Hicks

The Chair

Dr. Brad Hicks

1800

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Onclin

1805

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

1810

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Onclin

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

1815

Dr. Brad Hicks

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Kevin Onclin

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

1820

Dr. Brad Hicks

1825

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Onclin

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Onclin

1830

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Onclin

The Chair

Dr. Brad Hicks

The Chair

Dr. Brad Hicks

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Cummins

1835

Mr. Kevin Onclin

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Kevin Onclin

The Chair

1840

Dr. Sergio Paone (Representative, Friends of Clayoquot Sound)

1845

1850

Mr. John Cummins

Dr. Sergio Paone

1855

The Chair

Dr. Sergio Paone

The Chair

Ms. Theresa Rothenbush (Marine Campaigner, Raincoast Conservation Society)

1900

The Chair

Ms. Theresa Rothenbush

1905

1910

1915

Mr. John Cummins

Ms. Theresa Rothenbush

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Ms. Theresa Rothenbush

The Chair

1920

Ms. Theresa Rothenbush

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Dr. Sergio Paone

1925

Mr. John Cummins

Dr. Sergio Paone

Mr. John Cummins

Dr. Sergio Paone

1930

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Ms. Theresa Rothenbush

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Ms. Theresa Rothenbush

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

1935

Ms. Theresa Rothenbush

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Ms. Theresa Rothenbush

The Chair

Ms. Theresa Rothenbush

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Dr. Sergio Paone

1940

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Dr. Sergio Paone

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Sergio Paone

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Sergio Paone

1945

The Chair

Ms. Theresa Rothenbush

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

NUMBER 050

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, May 7, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0900)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): Can we please come to order.

This morning we will be starting a full day of hearings on aquaculture in Canada, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2).

The committee, as most people are aware, did travel to the west coast at one time a couple of years ago, but we were never able to complete a report. We have now travelled to the east coast and are on the west coast again. There have been a lot of developments in the aquaculture industry in the last few years.

Our first witness this morning will be from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Andrew Morgan, who's the regional aquaculture coordinator. We also have Andy Thomson, who's a research biologist, and Jim Naylor, who's a navigable water protection officer.

The floor is yours, gentlemen. Perhaps one of you has an opening statement, and then we'll turn to questions. Who wants to start?

Mr. Thomson.

¿ (0905)

Mr. Andy Thomson (Research Biologist, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): My name is Andrew Thomson, and I'm a research biologist for Fisheries and Oceans. For the last 11 years I've run the Atlantic salmon watch program, which monitors the biology, abundance, and distribution of Atlantic salmon in the north Pacific Ocean. There's a presentation in front of you I'll walk you through.

The Atlantic salmon watch program was initiated in 1991 as a study of Atlantic salmon in Quadra Island rivers. In 1992 it was expanded throughout the province, and in 1995 we added a 1-800 line to allow easy reporting of Atlantic salmon catches.

In the year 2000 we received additional funding from Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the B.C. government to allow us to do otolith microstructural analysis research, from which we can tell wild-produced Atlantic salmon from those that have escaped from fish farms, and also to conduct active surveys. Prior to 2000 we relied on surveys conducted by Fisheries and Oceans and the province to look for Atlantic salmon. In 2000 we were able to send our own crews out to look specifically for Atlantic salmon.

In 2001 we added a subprogram known as the first nations Atlantic salmon watch program, in which we trained and deployed first nations members throughout coastal B.C. to look for Atlantic salmon.

Here's just a bit of the biology of the Atlantic salmon. The natural range of Atlantic salmon runs from the east coast of North America, from Connecticut through Greenland, to Iceland and all through northern Europe. This very large range for one species leads to a large variety of life history patterns. You get fish that don't go to sea at all; fish that spend one, two, or three years in fresh water before going to sea; and fish that only spend a year in salt water, or two, three, or four years in salt water.

The most common misconception about Atlantic salmon and their biology on this coast is that they continually re-spawn and that they never die after spawning. Re-spawning in the natural Atlantic salmon population is a function of stream-dependent genetics. One river in Newfoundland has the highest incidence of re-spawning at 33%, and there are many, many rivers that have 0% re-spawning, so it's not an automatic. Atlantic salmon don't re-spawn automatically.

As Atlantic salmon is the premier game fish in Europe, attempts were made to introduce it through the western world and actually throughout the entire world--Australia, India, all through South America, Japan, and 31 of the 50 states in the U.S., including Washington state up until 1991. In B.C. we attempted to introduce Atlantic salmon into 52 different systems from 1901 to 1931 using 7.2 million eggs and fry. None of these attempts to establish Atlantic salmon has produced a sustainable anadromous population anywhere in the world. The only sustainable populations produced through all these attempts are two landlocked populations in New Zealand.

Currently, the production of Atlantic salmon in B.C. stands at over 30,000 metric tonnes total weight. That's the primary source, obviously, of Atlantic salmon in B.C. Of course, there are also Atlantic salmon being produced in Washington state.

Part of my initial job is to monitor for B.C. marine escapes. We receive escape data from the farm companies themselves, also from the provincial government's inspections branch. We've averaged approximately 40,000 Atlantic salmon escaping per year over the last ten years, in seven to ten incidents. Three incidents of note that did not occur in British Columbia occurred in Washington state. There are only eight sites in Washington state; however, they have reported more escaped Atlantic salmon than all the B.C. industry combined.

In 1996, 101,000 Atlantic salmon escaped from the San Juan Islands. In 1997, 370,000 fish escaped in one day from a site in Rich Passage. That same site lost 115,000 fish two years later. These are obviously very significant events and they play a part in our catch monitoring down the road.

I monitor the B.C. marine catch of Atlantic salmon through three primary sources. I receive catch data directly from the fishermen, catch data that's reported through Fisheries and Oceans databases--either sales slips or from the fisheries operations system--and from the processors. Most of the processors will save their fish for my particular program. So I have three times the chance to make sure I get the count correct.

The majority of the catch has occurred in area 12, which is a DFO statistical area near Port McNeill and Port Hardy. There's a large congregation of fish farms in that area and also a very large congregation of net fisheries.

The highest recorded catch for any year in the last 11 was 7,800 fish in 2000. The bulk of these fish were caught in two particular cleanup incidents. We had large net fisheries occurring after two escapes. One escape of 4,500 fish occurred a day before a pink salmon fishery that caught 1,800 of those fish, and one escape of 32,000 fish occurred while another pink salmon fishery was going on two weeks later, and that accounted for 2,500 fish in one weekend.

As fish don't know borders, and no one else is monitoring at the time--I monitor the Washington and Alaskan catch--Washington State is currently in the process of setting up an Atlantic salmon watch program modeled after my own, and we work very closely together.

The average catch in Washington state is less than 100 fish. In fact, in the last two years they haven't caught a single Atlantic salmon. But I want you to know that in 1997, the year they lost 370,000 fish, they caught 2,400. The vast majority of Atlantic salmon that escape from fish farms are never seen again, whether in rivers or in commercial fisheries.

I monitor the Alaska marine catch of Atlantic salmon through cooperation with Alaska's Department of Fish and Game. All Atlantic salmon caught in Alaska are shipped to me for dissection, and we share data on a continual basis.

Atlantic salmon catches in Alaska average about 50 fish per year, most of them occurring in the southeast Alaska or panhandle area net fisheries.

There were two catches of note. In 1993 one fish was caught in the Shumagin Islands,halfway through the Aleutian chain, and in 1997 another fish was caught by a National Marine Fisheries Service troller in the Bering Sea. These fish are obviously migrating somewhere, but it points to the fact that there is no natural migratory pulse for these fish. They do not have a natural migratory pattern within B.C. waters.

Captured Atlantic salmon are returned to the Pacific biological station, where I perform dissections on them. I measure weights, lengths, stomach contents, sexual maturity. One of the interesting things I've learned is that Atlantic salmon that escape from a fish farm do not adapt to natural feeding.

¿ (0910)

You have three pie charts in front of you. The first is B.C. marine caught Atlantic salmon, the second is Alaska marine caught Atlantic salmon, and the third is a comparison study of B.C. Pacific caught salmon, wild Pacific salmon. Only 5% of B.C. marine caught Atlantic salmon have any prey items in their stomach. There is a small percentage that have fish food, indicating they escaped very recently from a farm, and a very small percent, 1%, have other, usually rocks or pieces of bark, anything that looks like a fish pellet. The vast majority have empty stomachs.

In Alaska, about 7% of the fish have prey items in their stomachs. This is what you would expect, given that they would have to ingest a certain amount of food to make it that distance, about a three-week journey, from northern Vancouver Island, where most of the fish farms are, to Alaskan waters. For comparison's sake, B.C. Pacific salmon exhibited 75% to 80% prey items in their stomachs. That's from a survey I did in 1991.

Another measure of their feeding success is the relative amount of body cavity fat. If you take a fish from a fish farm in a processing line, its entire internal organs will be encased in a thick wall of white fat. This is obviously due to the optimum feeding conditions on a fish farm site. What I noticed in my research was that this level of fat decreased. You quite often saw a fish with very little fat in it. To me this is an indication that they were obviously not feeding as successfully as in a farm, and they were using up their fat reserves.

My research has borne this out. The bar graph in front of you shows that the B.C. marine Atlantic salmon, which are the white bar, on average have a much higher level of fat content than the Alaskan marine Atlantic salmon. To reach Alaska, they are using up those fat reserves to get up there. I hope to use this as an indicator for how long a fish has been out of a fish farm.

Obviously of particular interest is the monitoring of freshwater sources for Atlantic salmon. I look at freshwater sightings and catch of Atlantic salmon, whether it be from anglers, hatchery technicians doing brood stocking, or--and this is where most of my results come from--stream surveys that are dedicated to the Atlantic salmon watch program or to other escapement goals, whether it be provincial steelhead escapement or Fisheries and Oceans Pacific salmon escapement surveys.

The peak year for freshwater catch and sightings was 1996. That was the year of escape of 101,000 fish in the San Juan Islands. Those fish swam at a directed pace through the Strait of Juan de Fuca into the west coast Vancouver Island rivers at that time.

In 1999, our second-highest year, we saw just over 150 fish in fresh water, and 130 of those fish were surveyed in a one-day survey in the Salmon River north of Campbell River. So the vast majority of those fish counted are coming out of one survey.

From 1991 to date, Atlantic salmon adults have been sighted in 80 rivers throughout British Columbia. In an average year, about 10 to 15 rivers have Atlantic salmon in them.

Given the changing levels of survey effort that I have to contend with and the changing levels of interest from anglers to report Atlantic salmon, I needed a consistent data source. I used Fisheries and Oceans Canada WCVI river surveys. This is an escapement river survey conducted by Fisheries and Oceans that swims every Chinook-bearing river on the west coast of Vancouver Island from August through to November, weather dependent.

You can see the total counts and corrected counts. For example, if someone were to swim a river and count 10 fish one week and swim the same river in the same spot and count 10 fish again, that would be 20 fish in total count, but 10 fish in corrected counts, trying to remove the possibility of recounts.

Again, 1996 was the peak year. That was the year of Atlantic salmon escaping from the San Juan islands. It was decreasing up until 2001. In 2001 we saw significant counts in the Bedwell-Ursus system, which saw 65 fish in one day, and the Moyeha system, 23 fish in one day.

¿ (0915)

In 1997 the first juvenile Atlantic salmon were discovered in British Columbia. They were actually captured in a lake, Georgie Lake, north of Port Hardy, which has a lake-pen rearing site. These fish appeared to be and were assumed to be at the time the products of an escape at that lake-pen rearing site.

In 1998 a steelhead assessment crew working for the Department of the Environment and Sustainable Development captured Atlantic salmon juveniles from the Tsitika River. Subsequently counted at 24 fish in the Tsitika River in 1998, 12 of these fish were captured and were proved to be the first feral individuals, the first wild-produced juvenile Atlantic salmon, anywhere outside their endemic range.

In 1991, 130 juvenile Atlantic salmon were counted in three rivers on Vancouver Island: the Amor de Cosmos River, the Adam River, and the Tsitika River. Because of the first testing of the Tsitika River in 1998, these populations were also assumed to be feral fish.

In 2000, with increased river surveys, we counted eight juvenile Atlantic salmon that appear to be feral, and in 2001 we counted zero.

The following slide shows the public perception of Atlantic salmon, to indicate the purpose of my program--that is, to conduct biological assessment and to inject those facts into what is obviously a heated debate in British Columbia. I would like to have a factual basis from which the B.C. public will be able to debate the aquaculture industry and the issue of Atlantic salmon.

In 2001, through funding provided by the interim measures fund of the B.C. provincial government, I was able to set up the first nations Atlantic salmon watch program, in conjunction with the B.C. Department of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, the B.C. Department of Environment, the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association, and 17 coastal first nations groups. Fifty members were trained in four modules: first aid, swift-water safety, fisheries identification, and a specially developed snorkel survey program. Part of the training was continued on pairing them with surveys. In my view, there was no point in training them if we didn't deploy them and have them use that training.

Under contract to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 103 surveys were carried out in 49 river systems, covering 230 kilometres of river. In all of those surveys, over 350,000 salmonids were counted, two of which were Atlantic salmon--one adult in the Eve River and one adult in the Tsitika River.

I post all my results for all my years on my website to allow the public free access to the information. I believe it's inherent in the program that we allow the public to see all the data available.

If you have any further questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

¿ (0920)

The Chair: Thank you, Andy.

Before I turn to John, I have two questions.

What's the impact of these escaped Atlantic salmon and wild salmon on other species?

Mr. Andy Thomson: With any exotic species, you have the possibility of three types of impact. You have genetic, introduction of foreign disease, or competition, whether for food or habitat.

In terms of genetic interactions, tests were conducted in the early 1990s at the west Vancouver lab by Dr. Bob Devlin. They showed that there is very little success, if any at all, in genetic hybridization between Pacific salmon and Atlantic salmon. Successful hybrids were not produced--i.e., they were not viable fish afterwards.

Disease interaction is not an area of my expertise, but my understanding is that through our fish introductions protocol, we do not allow the introduction of Atlantic salmon individuals into B.C. We only allow the introduction of eggs, and those must go from one quarantine facility to another and they are sterilized along the way. As a result of these procedures, we have not seen an exotic type of disease introduced in the British Columbia waters.

So you have the final level of possible interaction from an exotic species, and that's competition. I've shown in a marine environment that Atlantic salmon do not compete successfully for food. The question is, do they compete in a freshwater environment for habitat or food?

Some studies are ongoing at the University of Victoria and UBC to look at the micro-interaction from fish to fish and what can occur. However, I should point out there is a certain numbers game here. You're looking at one Atlantic salmon in a river that has 50,000 to 60,000 Pacific salmon, so the level of interaction is going to be minimized.

I should also point out, while I have the chance, that in addition to river surveys conducted for me, I also remove Atlantic salmon when encountered. I will send crews in to remove those. I am reducing the possibility of the introduction becoming established.

¿ (0925)

The Chair: Thank you.

My second question is to Mr. Morgan. I've been out to the west coast several times, and the big question is always the escaped salmon. This creates a perception of a lot of things--everything from disease to the feeling that the industry's not looking after its shop, etc. Why can't the industry get its act together and prevent escaped salmon?

Mr. Andrew Morgan (Acting Regional Aquaculture Coordinator, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Escapes are on a downward trend and are currently at 0.3% of production, which is a fairly small amount. The provincial government, which I understand is submitting a brief to you, hopefully will outline some of the measures and regulations they've passed to ensure there's more regular net testing and better net-strength standards--i.e., predator netting--so it's a bit more prescriptive in its approach to escape production.

The Chair: I'm sure that will come up from other questioners.

Before I go to Mr. Cummins, I do have to apologize; I have to leave for half an hour. We're going to have musical chairs here in terms of chairmen. Rodger will take over while John questions, and then John will take over. But it is transcribed, so all the committee members who are not here will certainly be able to review the hearings and the answers and questions.

Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins (Delta--South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Did you say escapees were 0.3% of production?

Mr. Andrew Morgan: Yes.

Mr. John Cummins: What's the figure on production?

Mr. Andrew Morgan: It's about 350,000 pieces.

Mr. John Cummins: Is that the total production or the escapees?

Mr. Andrew Morgan: It's total production.

Mr. John Cummins: That's 350,000 Atlantic salmon in what...?

Mr. Andrew Morgan: Actually, roughly 80% of that would be Atlantic salmon.

Mr. John Cummins: Is that the total production in British Columbia in a year?

Mr. Andrew Morgan: Yes.

Mr. John Cummins: Okay.

Mr. Thomson, what is your budget and who employs you?

Mr. Andy Thomson: I'm employed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. My budget is twofold. I receive funding from the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. For fiscal year 2002, the allotment is $110,000. I also receive funding and in-kind support from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, although I don't know my 2002 allotment. My 2001 allotment was approximately $45,000, in addition to support provided for administrative support, office space, lab space, vehicles, and such.

Mr. John Cummins: We were told that Mr. Noakes was going to be here this morning, so I had prepared for him, and I was interested primarily in policy questions. We should know not to expect the obvious from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or proper answers to questions, either, but let's try today to see if it's any different from yesterday.

The Auditor General's report stated in paragraph 30.68 that “no streams have been surveyed on the mainland across from Broughton Archipelago, where the majority of farms operate”. Is this still the case?

¿ (0930)

Mr. Andy Thomson: No, it is not.

Mr. John Cummins: So what's been the increase in activity there?

Mr. Andy Thomson: In 2000 there were two sets of surveys in that particular area carried out. One set was paid for by Stolt Sea Farms following an escape. Approximately 18 rivers in that area were surveyed by a private contractor. Following those surveys, contractors under my authority did a double check of 10 rivers in that area.

This past year, 2001, through the first nations Atlantic salmon watch program, on the mainland side, my estimation would be about 10 to 15 rivers in that area were surveyed.

Mr. John Cummins: Out of how many?

Mr. Andy Thomson: Depending on what level of river you classify, they are almost countless.

When we are doing snorkel surveys we have to look at the major rivers. One of the difficulties in this area is that a number of the rivers are glacially fed, which causes them to be very milk-white and difficult to survey.

Mr. John Cummins: So it's difficult to survey the, as you say, countless rivers. And out of these countless rivers, were 18 surveyed in the year 2000 and 10 last year?

Mr. Andy Thomson: Yes, we essentially pick the major rivers available.

Mr. John Cummins: The Auditor General also noted that the commercial fishing industry is the primary source of information on the number of Atlantic salmon in the marine environment and notes that the commercial fishery has been reduced since 1996. In fact, last year I think there was only one 12-hour seine fishery on the south coast.

Your source of information on the number of escaped Atlantic salmon has been much diminished, hasn't it?

Mr. Andy Thomson: Certainly the declines in the amount of fishing effort reduce your ability to capture Atlantic salmon. One of the ways to work with data around this fact is to do a catch-per-unit effort--i.e., how many Atlantic salmon are being caught per vessel-day? Graphs of this show peaks during mop-up fisheries, such as the ones we saw in 2000, and 1993, but do not show a general increase in the abundance of Atlantic salmon in the area.

Mr. John Cummins: Is there a farmed chinook monitoring program?

Mr. Andy Thomson: I do monitor the escapes of chinook salmon. The difficulty comes from monitoring the recapture of them. This year, under funding from the aquaculture collaborative research development program, the genetics lab at the Pacific biological station will be surveying the chinook salmon populations caught off the west coast of Vancouver Island for the presence of escaped chinook salmon.

Mr. John Cummins: Are they marked at all?

Mr. Andy Thomson: No, the belief is--and this study will either prove it or disprove it--that they can be identified genetically because enough time has passed from their implanting into the farm that they are genetically distinct.

Mr. John Cummins: Aren't these escaped chinooks certainly a major risk to chinook stocks on the west coast? They can interbreed and colonize.

Mr. Andy Thomson: It has been my opinion that a greater possibility of damage exists from escaping Pacific salmon than from escaping Atlantic salmon.

Mr. John Cummins: Yet nothing is done, at this point.

Mr. Andy Thomson: No. It becomes very difficult, obviously, to monitor for chinook salmon within the population, that are escapes versus wild populations, or hatching populations.

¿ (0935)

Mr. John Cummins: It's true, isn't it, that in New Brunswick and parts of Maine escaped Atlantics are the dominant species in some rivers, that in fact the escaped have taken over from the resident population. In some of the rivers, 80% to 90% of the spawners are thus escaped farm fish. Correct?

Mr. Andy Thomson: Yes.

Mr. John Cummins: When you give the example in your documents of escapes and you say they haven't established except in two enclosed areas in New Zealand, how sustained was the effort to establish colonies of Atlantics in those places, and in others?

Mr. Andy Thomson: Certainly in British Columbia we tried from 1901 to 1931; in Washington state, I believe the first introduction attempt there was 1930 to 1981, several times. In New Zealand they continue to try in some areas. Tasmania was attempted for a period of about 60 years.

So some of those were very significant attempts, and attempts that, with Pacific salmon, have proved successful.

Mr. John Cummins: Isn't it the case, though, that in British Columbia now, where fish farming has been in existence for over 20 years, it represents, because of the escapes not only from British Columbia but also from Washington state, a sustained effort, albeit not a desired effort but a sustained effort, at establishing colonies of Atlantics? And isn't it the case that in fact, as you suggest, there has been feral fish found?

Doesn't that say to you that maybe it's possible, with the ongoing net-cage operations and the very real possibility of continued escapes, that sooner or later it's going to catch?

Mr. Andy Thomson: Oh, speaking as a biologist, everything is a possibility, and I think it's obvious that certainly that possibility exists. One of the outside factors, however, is that they do not operate within a vacuum. As I mentioned earlier, I do send crews in to remove those Atlantic salmon when encountered in significant populations. We attempt to take those fish out of the system.

Mr. John Cummins: But you're not covering anywhere close to.... I mean, the number of rivers you're counting is minuscule compared with what's available.

Mr. Andy Thomson: The number of rivers I actively survey is minuscule, yes. However, my program has the ability to respond to other counts from anglers or hatchery workers or volunteers who are spread throughout the province. That's where most of the counts for Atlantic salmon up until the year 2000 came from. It was from people who were already in the field.

Mr. John Cummins: Yes, you would get a report of an escape, but there's nothing you can do about it. I mean, that doesn't mean to say you're going to be able to do your little swim patrol on the river, does it? They're there.

Mr. Andy Thomson: True enough.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or--Cape Breton, Lib.)): If you can just finish that, we'll move on.

Mr. Andy Thomson: Sure.

Following an escape.... For example, in 2001 in the Clayoquot Sound area I did have further surveys conducted in the rivers surrounding those areas, to do counts. We didn't see significant counts. Had we seen significant counts, I would have sent crews in to remove those fish.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Rodger Cuzner): Thank you, Mr. Cummins.

Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

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

As Mr. Cummins was saying earlier, you have done surveys in only 10 to 15 rivers or streams. As to the question he put to you, there are obviously a great number of rivers on the Pacific Coast. The question that concerns me is the following. Given that you have only done surveys in 10 to 15 rivers, can you consider your results to be valid as to the establishment in the rivers of Atlantic salmon escaped from fish farms? That is my first question.

When we look at your tables and your watch program, we see that in fact there is a very low probability for Atlantic fish farm salmon to survive and compete successfully with native Pacific salmon living in the rivers here. This is what you are saying. When we look among other things at the graphs showing the stomach contents of fish farm salmon compared with Pacific salmon, we see that the fish farm salmon are not really competitive. That is my second question.

Would it be correct to believe that certain rivers have already been invaded by Atlantic salmon, as has been the case in the East? Can it be said that this fish is eliminating the native species of certain rivers?

¿ (0940)

[English]

Mr. Andy Thomson: I first would like to correct something I said when responding to Mr. Cummins' question. He asked how many rivers on the mainland near the Broughton Archipelago were surveyed...and that is 10 to 15. However, there were surveys conducted by Fisheries and Oceans Canada in over 100 rivers on the west coast, and surveys conducted by my program in 49 rivers throughout the province, so certainly more than 10 to 15 rivers are directly surveyed.

In addition to that, as I mentioned earlier, we had the opportunity to enter a number of different systems through a public information program, and working with field workers who are already out there, I certainly think we cover a lot more than 10 to 15 rivers.

Are they establishing, or do they have the possibility of establishing, somewhere in a river where we have no surveys? Certainly that is a possibility; however, I should point out there are 22,000 river systems within British Columbia. It is virtually impossible to survey all of those systems. In fact, we, as Fisheries and Oceans Canada, don't survey all those systems for Pacific salmon abundance. We rely on using key rivers as index streams, as an ability to predict the survival of Pacific salmon and/or of Atlantic salmon.

In terms of whether they can compete, well, my stomach content data for the marine environment speaks for itself, I believe. I don't think they compete well in the marine environment at all.

Are they taking over or are they invading any river system? We've never seen Atlantic salmon in numbers that were more abundant than Pacific salmon or anywhere near the magnitude of Pacific salmon within a river system. I believe the highest we've ever recorded on any one day was that Atlantic salmon constituted 0.7% of the fish in the river that day.

They are an extraordinarily rare fish in British Columbia compared with the Pacific salmon abundance. Naturally in the wild, even if we were on the Atlantic Ocean, Atlantic salmon abundance has never reached the levels of Pacific salmon abundance. You never see runs of 20,000 or 50,000 Atlantic salmon, or a million Atlantic salmon.

An example would be the Kakweiken River in 2000, a river in the Broughton Archipelago that was near an escape. They counted eight Atlantic salmon in that river that year; however, they also counted 1.5 million pink salmon. So they are extraordinarily rare compared with our Pacific salmon.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance)): Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Thanks.

First, just for clarification, a cleanup or a mop-up operation refers to what?

Mr. Andy Thomson: My catches of Atlantic salmon occur in essentially two ways. You have commercial fishermen who have conducted a background catch, who are catching Atlantic salmon that may have escaped a week before, or two or three weeks before. I call them mop-up fisheries because they occur directly after an escape.

As an example, a transport vessel lost 4,500 fish in 2000. The next day, subsequently, there was a pink salmon fishery in that area and the gillnet vessels that were targeting pink salmon in that area mopped up or caught 1,800 of those fish in that first opening, which was a two-day opening.

Similarly, two weeks later in the same year, the escapement of 32,000 fish was mopped up or caught. Approximately 2,600 fish were caught in one weekend by 72 seine vessels and 17 gillnetters in a very small area. These provide the peaks of my catch grabs.

¿ (0945)

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: In DFO's public document on aquaculture, Keeping Fish Healthy—Facts about Disease, it is stated, “There is no evidence to indicate that disease outbreaks at salmon farms have resulted in any increase in diseases in wild salmon.”

Do you agree with that statement? What types of evidence do you reference in deciding whether you support or refute the statement?

Mr. Andy Thomson: I'm honestly not an expert in diseases of salmon, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment.

Mr. Andrew Morgan: If I may, Don Noakes is ill, unfortunately, and not able to attend today, but this is more his area of expertise.

I happened to be up in the Broughton area last week, where fish health expert Dorothee Kieser, from the fish pathology program at the Pacific Biological Station, gave a presentation. The conclusion about susceptibility to the IHN virus was that Atlantic salmon rank up top, followed by sockeye--most of whose runs carry IHN with them--chum, and chinook. The lowest levels possible were in shiner, perch, coho, pink, and herring.

A whole variety of different studies were done. Perhaps I could forward them to you, or put you in touch with the fish health folks. These various studies determined that chinook can carry the IHN virus past a farm. They might not exhibit symptoms. It can be picked up by, or run through, a farm. But it doesn't necessarily run through the wild populations, or you don't see evidence of it.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: We're not seeing evidence of that? And we have documentation to support that?

Mr. Andrew Morgan: Yes. And it's consistent with the National Marine Fisheries Service of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, within the Department of Commerce. It came out with a report recently on the net and salmon farming industry in the Pacific northwest. It really confirms a lot of what was stated in the Government of British Columbia's environmental assessment review from 1997 in terms very little or no risk. That's where they would list issues of transfer of disease.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Would any of the witnesses would be comfortable speaking about the sea lice situation?

Mr. Andy Thomson: It depends on how technical the question gets.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I understand there was a major meeting back in March. What evolved from it? Are Atlantic salmon having any impact on sea lice, or not really?

Mr. Andrew Morgan: I wasn't at that meeting specifically, but I understand that sea lice last year were within the normal range of what we get on the coast.

In terms of the issue of transferability, Dr. Dick Beamish at the Pacific Biological Station has done a study on the occurrence of sea lice in the Broughton Archipelago. I can forward it you.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Cummins): Mr. Lunney.

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

Just coming back to the chinooks, are they about 20% of a salmon farm?

Mr. Andy Thomson: It was 25%, I think, in the last year.

Mr. James Lunney: I thought I heard 80%.

Mr. Andrew Morgan: As for the magnitude—I'm looking back at my folks from industry—I would guess in the order of 15%.

Mr. James Lunney: So 15% or 20%.

Is there evidence we're having as many escapes? How is the situation with escapes with chinooks, compared to Atlantic salmon?

Mr. Andy Thomson: Certainly, for Atlantic salmon, we average about seven to 10 escape instances a year. For chinook salmon, in the last five years, I would say we would average one to two, if that high.

Mr. James Lunney: I guess it's logical to assume that you would have the same type of situation if you were to examine stomach contents, that in fact you wouldn't be seeing a lot of wild prey.

¿ (0950)

Mr. Andy Thomson: That would be an assumption I wouldn't jump to. No one has done a study of escaping chinook salmon and their stomach contents.

Mr. James Lunney: You don't routinely; of course, it would be hard to tell when you catch them, I suppose.

Mr. Andy Thomson: It would be difficult to tell, yes.

Mr. James Lunney: Let's go back to the juveniles, which you called the “feral” salmon, and the sightings. That's an issue people are certainly very agitated—shall we say “excited”—about. Do I understand correctly that 1998 was the year of the first sightings, though very few were confirmed?

Mr. Andy Thomson: Those were the first sightings of individuals that appeared to be feral, yes. We did capture juvenile Atlantic salmon prior to 1998, but they were in situations where they appeared to be escapees from nearby aquaculture facilities.

Mr. James Lunney: Right.

Could you review the numbers? I understand that you said none were found in 2001, but can you just go over those numbers for us?

Mr. Andy Thomson: In 1998 there were 24 individuals in the Tsitika River enumerated, counted, of which I believe 12 were captured. In 1999 there were individuals counted in Amor de Cosmos Creek, in the Tsitika River again, and in the Adams-Eve system. I believe the total number that year was 130 individuals for all three of those creeks. In the year 2000 we saw eight individuals in the Tsitika River that we presumed to be feral, and in 2001 we counted zero individuals we presumed to be feral.

Mr. James Lunney: Again, was that a fairly extensive survey?

Mr. Andy Thomson: There were increasing levels of survey. The year 2000 saw the most surveys ever conducted, and in 2001 we increased the level of survey again.

Mr. James Lunney: Can you tell us a little more about this body fat analysis you're doing with the escapees as a measure and indication of how long ago the fish escaped?

Mr. Andy Thomson: It's a fairly simplistic scale that is essentially based on visual characteristics. In level 4, which is what we find in a survey of farm fish, you cannot see any internal organs because they're encased in fat. In level 3 you can begin to see them, in level 2 you can see thin strips of fat, and in level 1 you can see small dots of fat. In a wild fish population of chinook or coho salmon you would typically find level 1 or 2, small dots or strips of fat, depending on how successful their feeding was.

In the Atlantic salmon populations in B.C. we see a wide range. You see fish that are level 4, fish that have obviously escaped very recently from the farm and have not started using up those fat reserves. Yet you see down to level 1, where they've obviously been out for a while using up those fat reserves.

In the Alaskan fish you see far fewer level 4s, because of course they're using those fat reserves to get to Alaska, and far fewer level 3s. You see more level 1s and 2s.

Mr. James Lunney: Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Rodger Cuzner): We can go back to Mr. Cummins.

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

A minute ago, Mr. Morgan, you were commenting on the transfer of disease from farmed fish to wild stocks. What exactly was your comment again? I believe you said that in your view it wasn't highly likely.

Mr. Andrew Morgan: The conclusion that both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the U.S. and our fish health experts in the provincial and federal governments have come to is that is not likely but not impossible.

Mr. John Cummins: In a Department of Fisheries and Oceans document prepared by EVS consultations back in December of 2000, they suggest that the transfer of disease from farm to wild stock may occur through a number of different mechanisms: one, from the interaction of escaped farmed fish with wild stocks; two, from the transmission of pathogens present in fish farms through the water column or from sediments to local wild stocks; and three, from interactions involving avian predators in coastal areas.

It goes on to say that it's generally understood that manifestation of disease in fish farms is closely related to the concentration of infective agents as well as fish density in confined conditions. They attribute that to McVicar, 1998. But the suggestion here is that there are a number of possible ways for disease to transfer, and that the farms can act as generators, if you will, of disease. Although disease may be evident in a population, it may not “blossom”, if I can use that word, until the fish are in a confined space. We know that from wild stocks, as well. When wild stocks congregate in warm water or whatever, disease can occur.

So doesn't it follow that disease can be a problem, and, from this information, that it's likely transfers can occur in a variety of ways?

¿ (0955)

Mr. Andrew Morgan: I agree, disease can be transferred in a variety of ways, including horizontal transmission from an infected fish that's swimming by a non-infected fish, but I can only reiterate what the folks in science have told me, which is that it's a low risk.

Mr. John Cummins: Well, the document I was quoting from is Aquaculture: Knowledge and Gaps, and I think what they're suggesting is that there may be a gap in definitive knowledge on that. One may have certain assumptions, but there's a lack of definitive knowledge—in other words, a lack of science. Wouldn't you think that's probably a more accurate description than to say it doesn't happen?

Mr. Andrew Morgan: Even before that study was written, there was some science, fairly preliminary, as is the science that's being conducted currently. They are studying the issue, though.

I think it's worth noting, though, that IHN is a cyclical disease. It happened out here, and there were outbreaks well before salmon farming was on the coast, and I imagine there will continue to be as long as salmon farming exists as well.

It's the same with sea lice. There were outbreaks of sea lice before salmon farming was on the coast, and I'm sure there'll continue to be outbreaks of it on the coast.

Mr. John Cummins: The Auditor General talked in his report about inadequate monitoring of the presence of Atlantic salmon. He said the level of monitoring by the department for the presence of escaped farm salmon was low. He went on to say—in paragraph 30.66—about the Atlantic salmon watch program: “The ASWP involves sampling only when opportunities arise, and it is likely to underestimate by an unknown factor the number of Atlantic salmon in the wild.”

He goes on to say: “The primary sources of information on the presence of Atlantic salmon in freshwater systems are fishermen and biologists, who observe only a small percentage of stream areas potentially occupied by Atlantic salmon. The frequency of observation in each region generally reflects the level of effort, which has been greatest along the west coast of Vancouver Island.”

So he more or less dismisses your dismissal of escapes as, again, being probably an issue here; he says we really don't know. Is it the reality that when you talk about numbers of escapees, there's a possibility that the numbers, coast-wide, could differ greatly from what you may think?

Mr. Andy Thomson: Since the writing of the Auditor General's report, both the provincial and federal governments have contributed significantly to increasing the level of active monitoring for Atlantic salmon and increasing the number of surveys that can be conducted. Certainly, I believe I most likely miss some fish, but I don't think I miss any large populations of fish, no.

Mr. John Cummins Then you would deny what he says, that “ASWP involves sampling only when opportunities arise”?

Mr. Andy Thomson: Yes.

Mr. John Cummins: You say that's not correct, that somehow or another you have a better handle on it than he suggests.

À (1000)

Mr. Andy Thomson: I now send crews out on a regular basis to sample for Atlantic salmon. I would not consider that “when opportunities arise”.

Mr. John Cummins: To ask what percentage of streams you cover is really meaningless, because the number is almost infinitesimal, isn't it? There's a huge number of streams where the potential arises, and in the few that you do monitor, they have been discovered. In some of them the fish have been feral, and the fact is, the ongoing escapes lead to the possibility that populations in fact, over time, could establish. There's an ongoing population of escapees who have the potential of establishing. Isn't that a fact?

Mr. Andy Thomson: Yes, the possibility of establishment does exist. However, I do reduce it with the removal of fish, and even given establishment, there would have to be a known impact on Pacific salmonid.

Mr. John Cummins: What research has DFO done to establish long-term probability of escaped Atlantic salmon colonizing wild salmon streams?

Mr. Andy Thomson: The research is a function of my particular program, the Atlantic salmon watch program, in which we are monitoring the rivers for Atlantic salmon and looking at the biological condition of those fish upon their return to determine whether or not they are successful in feeding.

My research into the otolith microstructural analysis looks at how best to determine the feral individuals or ones that may have survived in the wild for a year and return to a stream, from those that are just more escapees.

Mr. John Cummins: Is there published research on this?

Mr. Andy Thomson: Yes, I publish an annual report.

Mr. John Cummins: An annual report is different from a scientific research, though, is it not? A scientific paper would have controls that your annual report wouldn't have.

Mr. Andy Thomson: I'm also an author on two primary publications, peer reviewed as well, that summarize results of my annual reports.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Rodger Cuzner): Final questions, Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: What research has DFO conducted on the impact of sea lice pesticides on local shellfish?

Mr. Andrew Morgan: I'm sorry, I can't speak to that. I can have Don Noakes follow up with you.

Mr. John Cummins: What research has DFO done to establish the impact of sea lice and salmon disease transferred to wild salmon stock, juvenile and adult?

Mr. Andrew Morgan: There's a paper by Dr. Dick Beamish on the matter in regard to the outbreak last summer.

Mr. John Cummins: What level of seabed pollution would lead the charges under the Fisheries Act?

Mr. Andrew Morgan: That is in the process of being determined.

Mr. John Cummins: In the process of being determined? We've been operating these farms over 20 years, and you're saying that's in the process of being determined?

Mr. Andrew Morgan: As a result of the monitoring programs that have gone on recently, DFO is speaking with both the province and relevant folks from the industry to bring farms into compliance with the Fisheries Act.

Mr. John Cummins: Are you telling us that the Fisheries Act has been violated?

Mr. Andrew Morgan: No, I'm not; it hasn't been, to the best of my knowledge. This is a process where we have to begin the discussions to bring industry into an awareness of what is in the Fisheries Act and what level of impact our biologists and professionals are comfortable with, and re-engage in those discussions, and we're talking to those farms that are found to be over, to ensure that they reduce their impact.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Rodger Cuzner): Maybe a final question, Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to tell us. Are there violations of the Fisheries Act with regard to seabed pollution? That's my question. You're talking about discussions being underway with the province, with the operators, and so on. There's either a pollution problem or there isn't. My information is that at least 15 existing farms have created an anoxic dead zone on the seabed. What reaction has there been from the department to that?

À (1005)

Mr. Andrew Morgan: The department is engaged in discussions with industry in order to ensure that those sites are remediated appropriately. Letters have been sent to some folks--industry members in that list of 15 obviously are the top ones--to inform them that they are likely not in compliance with the federal Fisheries Act, and that we would like to talk with them about how to remediate.

Mr. John Cummins: They're not in compliance with the Fisheries Act. Well, if I'm not in compliance with the Fisheries Act as a licensed fisherman, I get a ticket and I'm fined. You're telling me that there may be instances here where there's a pollution problem, and yet no fines have been laid. In fact, there was an instance where private prosecution was laid and the department didn't proceed. Why is that?

Mr. Andrew Morgan: There's a compliance continuum. I think it starts off with discussions and soft enforcement measures, and it moves up to fines and all the relevant penalties allowed under the act. I think it's best to start off with a soft compliance approach to begin with, and then move along the compliance continuum if the soft compliance measures don't prove to be effective.

Mr. John Cummins: Is there a beginning and an end? I mean, we're talking about over 20 years of existence. The problem I have is that you can talk about compliance and soft compliance, but where does it lead? Are there particular guidelines or regulations that would give the operators a real sense of what's allowed and what isn't?

Mr. Andrew Morgan: Yes, we're working towards that with the province and industry.

Mr. John Cummins: So you're working towards that. After 25 years, over 20 years, you still haven't got there?

Mr. Andrew Morgan: I would argue that our level of activity has recently increased substantially, as a result of the private prosecution in addition to the issues around the provincial government's salmon aquaculture policy framework and addressing issues identified in the environmental assessment review.

Mr. John Cummins: What you're telling us is that the situation here is similar to the siting situation. Back in 1985, 1986, there were siting provisions created by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and yet they have never been brought forward and put into law. Is that correct?

Mr. Andrew Morgan: That's correct. We rely on the professional judgment of our habitat biologist in the absence of anything in regulations.

Mr. John Cummins: I guess my problem here is that the department has an obligation to make the law clear. The operators have a right to know what they can do and what they can't do, and the people who are concerned about the environment have a right to know what the operator can and can't do. Then if it's found that the regulations that are in place are improper, there's a process to have them changed. But when there are no real rules and no regulations, you invite the kind of conflict we see now, don't you?

Mr. Andrew Morgan: That's a fair point. As a result of the work that has been done by the Office of Sustainable Aquaculture, we now have a policy framework. We have some operational guidelines that are helping codify what has been, up until this point, professional judgment.

À (1010)

Mr. John Cummins: But as commercial fishermen on the west coast, we have a body of specific fishing regulations, and they tell us, combined with the Fisheries Act, what it is possible to do and what it isn't possible to do. It's very clear in the law what we can do and what we can get away with.

My problem with you is that the department, the minister, the government, has not put in place a body of regulations similar to the Pacific fishing regulations that provide the kind of guidance the industry needs if it's going to be able to respond to its critics, or the kind of regulations that the critics in fact want to see in place. Isn't that really what the problem is?

Mr. Andrew Morgan: An open, fair, transparent process—

Mr. John Cummins: Absolutely.

Mr. Andrew Morgan: —I agree, would.... We're getting there, but we're not getting there fast enough.

Mr. John Cummins: You're getting there, but you're a long way from it, aren't you?

Mr. Andrew Morgan: I'd argue that by having the discussion we're both sensitizing industry and the province to the department's needs, and I think there is a greater sensitivity within the industry to what DFO will be looking for in the future.

The Chair: I don't want to cut off the line of questioning, John, but we are going to get short on time.

I think certainly what you're hearing from the committee, and we've heard it from the committee before, is that the appointment of the aquaculture commissioner was a good start, but the whole of the industry has to see where the Government of Canada is at on this issue. So I guess we're saying get at it and get it done.

Mr. John Cummins: Well, the problem with the aquaculture commissioner and the problem that the department has, Mr. Chairman, is that the aquaculture commissioner himself has made it clear that he's an advocate for the industry. And that really is not the position; you can't be both an advocate and a regulator. That's the difficulty we're having here.

The department is not trusted by people who have concerns about the industry. The Auditor General in his report made it very clear that he had some serious concerns about the department's attitude. The same can be said for Mr. Fraser, when he made a presentation to the Leggat inquiry. He said:

I suggest that the major impediment to understanding the impacts of Atlantic salmon in British Columbia are not the fish farmers, environmentalists or politicians, but key administrators in DFO....

What he probably was saying is that it's the lack of clear direction from DFO, and that's really what we saw yesterday, isn't it?

The Chair: I think that point's been made.

Is there any last point the witnesses want to make before we close and turn to the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association?

Mr. Andrew Morgan: Perhaps I could just respond briefly to the honourable Mr. Cummins' point.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Andrew Morgan: In terms of being an advocate—and I guess you'll be speaking to the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association next, so it would be interesting to put the question to them as well—I don't think DFO is particularly seen as advocating development of this industry. My function within the department is obviously to enable, and I would argue that this means fair, clear, transparent application of the rules, and the development of rules where necessary. We're working towards that. I don't think there is a role for advocacy as a regulator.

Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Chair, I have to respond to that and correct it.

The Chair: Well, you're not going to say you're going to correct it; you may have a different opinion, and that's fine.

Mr. John Cummins: No, I'd like to inform the witness of DFO's opinion on this. I'm quoting from DFO's aquaculture policy framework book, which was put out by the Office of Sustainable Aquaculture in January 2002.

On page 10 it says that DFO is changing the way it does business. In recent years DFO has moved from being a department focused largely on the management of the wild fishery.

On page 11 it says that achieving DFO's vision of aquaculture development will require a continued re-evaluation of departmental values within DFO's existing mandate and a firm commitment by DFO employees to enabling aquacultural development.

Further down, on page 11, it says that achieving DFO's stated strategic objectives for aquaculture development will pave the way for reaching our ultimate vision for aquaculture development in Canada.

The DFO is very much proactive in the development of aquaculture, and that's fine, but I think it's industry's job to be proactive for aquaculture and the DFO's job to provide the regulatory framework within which industry can evolve. That's the way it's supposed to be. The government's job is to provide regulatory frameworks, not to be proactive in the sense we're getting from the department. You know, it even goes beyond that.

À (1015)

The Chair: Are you reading from a completed document, John, or is it one of the drafts the department has produced as it moves towards its policy?

Mr. John Cummins: It looks complete to me.

Mr. Andrew Morgan: It is a completed draft.

The Chair: There is a completed document. Is it this one here?

Mr. Andrew Morgan: Yes.

Perhaps I could draw your attention to page 5, where “enabling” is defined as “ensuring that DFO's laws and regulations relating to aquaculture are clear, efficient, effective, consistently applied and relevant to the sector”. I think the enabling comes in terms of how we regulate the industry; I don't think it's a promotion function.

Mr. John Cummins: Well, what you're saying really is quite contrary to what Mr. Fraser and the Auditor General have found. I find that very disturbing.

The Auditor General made it very clear that there is a problem with the way the department manages the fishery, that in fact it's not doing the job that it should, and says--I think quite clearly--that in regulating salmon farming in British Columbia, the department is “not fully meeting” its obligations under the Fisheries Act. How much clearer can you be?

The Chair: That point may be valid, but I am going to cut the discussion or we'll get behind. I think it has been pointed out that improvements certainly need to be made. We will certainly get to debate this issue as a committee, I'm sure, as we go to the drafting of our report.

Thank you, Mr. Morgan and Mr. Thomson. I apologize again for missing part of the discussion, but it was an issue beyond our control.

When we come back, our next witnesses, from the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association, will be Bill Vernon, David Groves, and Ward Griffioen.

À (1017)

À (1022)

The Chair: Order.

Welcome, gentlemen. I'm not sure who is making the presentation, but the floor is yours.

À (1025)

Mr. Bill Vernon (Representative, B.C. Salmon Farmers Association): Thanks very much.

My name is Bill Vernon. I'm part owner of a salmon farming company called Creative Salmon. We operate in Clayoquot Sound. I will start with a short history of our company, which is really a history of the industry, and talk about where we stand today.

I started in this industry in 1984-85 and have myself grown coho and chinook, that's all. I have no experience with Atlantic salmon other than eating a few in a few restaurants.

We started with wood pens, with nets that were certainly a lot less than what we see today, and, I would say, a very limited knowledge about growing salmon. A lot of us had to learn the old way--that is, by making mistakes along the way. In the case of our company, we've tried to keep our mistakes to a minimum, but there is no doubt that we have made mistakes, most of which have cost us money.

The industry originally started growing coho and chinook. We got our eggs from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I can recall, as many of us can, begging the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for some decent eggs. What we got were surplus eggs from the various enhancement facilities around the coast, wherever they might be. For anybody who understands how to grow fish, late eggs and surplus eggs are really not a good way to start a business. Many of us suffered as a result of that, though it certainly wasn't the only reason we failed.

Along the way, some companies went seeking other eggs from other jurisdictions--namely, Norway--and lo and behold we had Atlantic salmon arrive in B.C. The reason that Atlantic salmon arrived in B.C. wasn't just because a bunch of salmon farmers wanted to grow a different fish; it was because the seed that we had been given to start our industry with was not good seed.

In the case of Creative Salmon, we have stuck with chinook all the way along, and where we stand today is very different from where we were 15 years ago. I would like to give you a little bit of information about where we are presently with regard to three issues that are issues of public concern.

One of the issues is the use of antibiotics. This year, every fish we have harvested has not had any antibiotics. That has come about as a result of an awful lot of effort on what we called our drug-free fish. We took a chance five or six years ago attempting to grow fish without using antibiotics, and it actually worked fairly well.

Obviously, part of it is that we have had several generations of domestication. As a result, these fish survive better in an intensive rearing environment. We're quite confident that we can grow fish without antibiotics into the future, although it is possible that something may happen along the way. If that happens, we may have to use antibiotics as a way to solve a problem. However, our goal and objective is not to use antibiotics.

The other issue is around escapes. I've had one what I'll call “large” escape event in my history. It happened a couple of years ago, when we had a fairly significant problem with sea lions, a fairly well-publicized event. We lost 867 fish. Other than that, we have lost the odd individual fish as a result of what I would call mistakes—careless handling and so on. In the over 15 years I've been in salmon farming, I've lost less than 2,000 fish.

The other issue you hear a lot about is the impact on the bottom. There is no doubt we have an impact on the bottom. That goes without saying. Our goal as a company is to reduce that impact as much as possible. Again, I'm speaking on behalf of our company. We're looking at various ways—and we'll be starting another project this year—to try to further reduce the impact on the bottom by providing oxygenated water down to the bottom to try to help with the breakdown of feces and some wasted feed.

What's happened is that, over time, there have been public issues out there that we've heard about, and as an industry, and certainly as a company, Creative Salmon has tried to respond to those public issues by doing something about them.

I think you have the package I handed out. I apologize; there was some mix-up between here and Ottawa over my even being here, although it's hard to believe we could have a communication problem between Ottawa and British Columbia....

At any rate, in that package is our story, basically. I'll end my discussion at this point.

À (1030)

The Chair: I think Mr. Griffioen and Mr. Groves also want to say something.

Go ahead, Mr. Griffioen.

Mr. Ward Griffioen (Representative, B.C. Salmon Farmers Association): I'm an independent fish farmer who raises smolts. That means we do the freshwater cycle of the salmon. We start with eggs that we get from saltwater farms, and then we rear these fish in a reservoir system near Powell River.

We have what I call a family operation. We employ about 20 to 30 people, and we have a fantastic time working out in nature doing our fish-farming thing. Shares in the company are owned by workers and individuals within the company.

I've been involved in the industry for about 20 years, but I've been farming salmon for about 30 years. The interesting part to me is what you see here, the old guys in the industry. Out there it's 80% to 90% young people, who have a future, who can see their future, who are in an exciting part of growing food and doing it well. They're kind of stumped across the fence, but they're just as much environmentalists as the ones out there who are picking on us on a constant basis, who come out with incredible amounts of untruth that we have to counter.

I'd like to speak about my hands-on experience in raising fish. It has been mainly related to the fry side. I do both Atlantics and Pacifics—80% of my production is Atlantic. I see some very obvious behaviour patterns. Atlantic fry are much more difficult to rear than Pacifics. They need heated water to bring them along. They are not as aggressive as the Pacifics.

For example, if you put some Pacifics and some Atlantics in one tank, it becomes very obvious that the Atlantics cower in the corner, and the Pacifics take over the territory. So in regard to the threat of these escapees taking over our coastline, I'm not impressed and I don't think it will happen. I know how Atlantics are always feeding at the bottom, and that's where the sculpin are in the river system, so I think these things will be eaten up. And it's no surprise to me that none of these aggressive transplants has worked in the past, because of the behaviour of the fish. They just do not do very well as far as fry are concerned.

Personally, I don't get too excited about a few escapees. Escapees will happen for the same reason somebody will run out of gas on the Lions Gate Bridge. It's just a fact of life that these things will happen occasionally. They're not supposed to happen, but I don't think that major damage can be done because of the behaviour I deal with on a daily basis.

This other myth that I would like to speak on a bit is this close containment that is supposed to be the answer to everything. We were the first company that experimented with closed containment. We had these bags in existence, we pumped water around, and we scrapped the whole idea because we needed more and more diesel fuel and more and more oxygen to keep these systems running, and for what? So kayakers could paddle by and say that we were environmentally sound? It didn't make sense. We looked like Chicago out there in the middle of this natural environment with all this smoke going up, supposedly doing an environmental thing.

We as a company looked at it very seriously and decided that it was not for us. Sure, there are some places where this might work, such as if you're close to a hydro plant, but basically I'm not too impressed with that.

As to the other fear that Pacific salmon will be depleted in the future by fish farms, I don't believe that story either, because basically there's a lot of expertise and there are a lot of young people being trained on this coast on how to deal with rearing fish. I've personally worked in places such as Alaska, and I know how well we are able to deal with wild stock. The possibilities are there to bring wild stock back in large numbers to the same extent fish farming can continue.

That's my five minutes.

À (1035)

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Griffioen.

Mr. Groves.

Mr. David Groves (Represenative, B.C. Salmon Farmers Association): I'm David Groves. The company I'm a part owner of is Sea Spring Salmon Farm Limited, which is a small company. I've been in the salmon farming industry since 1974, when the earlier company we had was the first producer of market-sized Chinook salmon, which were six to eight pounds in size. At the present time we have contracted our operation back to a hatchery only, because we have a very good hatchery site and the original saltwater site we had was not adequate relative to present-day standards.

I've been in the business since 1974. I'm now old enough to wear both glasses and a hearing aid, but I'm still doing the salmon farming.

The speaking papers I have distributed cover pretty much all the issues. The first one I circulated to both the Salmon Farmers Association and a number of individuals around the country was really written in response to one of the particularly rabid editorials on the Rafe Mair Show back in February. The other document is sort of a thumbnail analysis of sea lice dynamics in the Broughton Archipelago, and I've written “draft” at the top of it. I apologize that in the shortness of time in the last couple of days I have not been able to put the references on it. I will make sure that the final document gets to the committee.

I'll make a few general comments, and then I'm going to dodge around and look at some of the issues, but only parts of them because it would take all day to discuss adequately all the items.

First of all, here's a general impression. As a scientist I've been absolutely bewildered in the last six years or so by the absolute wall of flack that's been coming up against the salmon farming industry and by the misinformation that is contained in that wall.

I've just recently learned that the chairman is a land farmer. I'm also a land farmer besides being a salmon farmer. When I see this stuff coming up, I think of a manure spreader when the operator doesn't know where the off lever is. And I can tell you as a land farmer, a runaway manure spreader is a terrible thing to see.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. David Groves: If you look at why we do aquaculture, particularly salmon aquaculture, I share the concern of many environmentalists—which I consider myself to have become—for the wild Pacific salmon. They are truly an absolutely priceless resource to this country. They have been a mainstay of our coastal economy for years and years, and of first nations cultures and economies years before we touched the ground in this part of the world. It's a resource that absolutely has to be maintained. It would be a national disgrace, and a great loss biologically, if we didn't do that.

However, the world demand for salmon is pretty nearly two million metric tonnes a year, even given a little overproduction in the last couple of years. The sustainable take of wild Pacific salmon around the Pacific Basin is in the order of 750,000 metric tonnes a year, not more than about a third of the total demand for salmon. It can't really be increased.

With more favourable atmospheric conditions in the north Pacific, so there are better feeding conditions, maybe we'll see some increase in the wild stocks. But basically, to my mind, the wild Pacific salmon are kind of like a motorcycle where you've got the throttles wide open; it's going flat out. You can't really profit further or you will start degrading the stocks further than they are.

So basically, that's why we do aquaculture.

To my mind, there are absolutely no good technical reasons why aquaculture and wild-salmon culture and enhancement can't be carried out simultaneously. It simply isn't a situation where, if you have one, you can't possibly have the other. That's absolutely ridiculous.

So aquaculture production occurs in British Columbia without impinging at all on the wild food stocks of the wild Pacific salmon. We get our food materials from elsewhere, and I'll discuss that in a little bit. Aquaculture can increase up to the point where we can no longer get an outside source of nutrients. In Canada our own prairie production of canola as a high-protein crop is increasingly important to aquaculture. It is important to consider alternate protein sources than marine protein in salmon rations. I'll get on to that a little bit more.

Basically there are three serious misconceptions in some of the arguments against salmon farming. I will touch on some of them, although some of them have already been dealt with, or will be, by other people.

The first misconception, which is totally false, is that aquaculture is assumed to be deleterious to wild stocks, and therefore, if aquaculture is expanded, the wild Pacific salmon will become extinct. That's garbage.

Secondly, the view that Atlantic salmon is an aggressive, invasive species in comparison with the Pacific salmon is also false—a lot of wishful thinking.

Thirdly, there is the misconception, which is utterly ridiculous, that the provincial and federal fisheries and environment agencies—who have the advice of a large world-class scientific staff—are unaware of the degree of technical risk posed by aquaculture. Of course they're aware. Up to this point, we've got all our information from them.

I'd like to spot around at a few issues, and try to get them on the table, and invite questions. Andy Thomson has already given you a lot of information about farmed Atlantic salmon. I'll just make a couple of comments here.

Escaped Atlantic salmon are certainly an embarrassment to the industry. They certainly are that, because they're visible, and they're there. We're extremely fortunate that those fish individually have a very low impact on the environment.

À (1040)

The Atlantic salmon watch program has been frequently criticized for being too small in scope and therefore it is prone to miss fish in various places where they should otherwise have been seen.

I'd like to point out that even though it is a rather small program, Andy does deal with 200 to 400 fish that are sent into the Pacific Biological Station for analysis every year. He has a mechanism for determining whether they are farm-raised; in other words, whether they've had an early hatchery existence or, alternatively, whether they are feral and they have actually had a wild-stream rearing existence. He can tell the difference by looking at the outer lips and the inner ears.

He's been operating that program for 10 years and he hasn't found one of the feral ones. There is a very small number of fry, which he talked about, that appear to be feral. I won't elaborate further on that, but if you integrate those numbers over 10 years, you come up with several thousands of fish that he's looked at. That is a statistically very significant sample, to the point that if there were large feral salmon running around in the chuck, sooner or later he would have found one, and he hasn't. So it would be nice to be able to expand that program, and it has been expanded, but you can't say that it's irrelevant to his study.

There are two places where I can see that feral Atlantic salmon are in trouble if they do occur in streams. I'm not going to get into the arguments about numbers of fish back and forth, but I have experience with growing both chinook and Atlantic salmon. I've co-cultured chinook and coho and cutthroat trout with Atlantic salmon of about the same size, at the same temperatures.

As Ward Griffioen has introduced the subject, I'll mention that if you grow these things together, the biggest physiological difference between Atlantic salmon and Pacific salmon is the extremely slow growth rate of juvenile Atlantic salmon up to about the size of 10 grams or so. Compared with the Pacifics, they grow at about half of the rate. So at ambient stream temperatures in British Columbia they grow so slowly that they are very rapidly outgrown by cutthroat trout, chinook, and particularly coho salmon. After a few weeks they become a size that could be feed to those species.

Pacific salmon actually evolved over millions of years from Atlantic salmon. The Atlantic salmon were in the Pacific Basin first and they became extinct as they evolved into the Pacific salmon.

I think they would have a great difficulty. They survive in their cold natal streams in Norway and Scotland only because there are not other Pacific salmon there. So if they grow slowly, that's fine, they eventually get there. In a British Columbia stream they're at a great disadvantage.

The other place where they appear to be at a great disadvantage is in their innate disease susceptibility. One of the things that Pacific salmon have evolved to do is to swim up rivers, expend all of their energy, get up to the spawning grounds, spawn, and then die. When they do that then there are the enormous challenges of all of the bacterial and viral diseases that they carry. So in order to survive over the millions of years, they've had to develop some innate resistance to things like furunculosis and IHN virus.

Atlantic salmon have really never had to do that, because in their native rivers they spawn in rather small numbers and they don't die in the stream, they generally go back out to sea to die.

So we have two places where I think Atlantic salmon, if they were spawned and did hatch in a B.C. river, would be in great difficulty. I can't say that this would guarantee that they would be dead, but it's certainly an extremely large disadvantage relative to the Pacific salmon. And if there are any Pacific salmon in a system, there are the Pacific salmon diseases. So the only place where you'd expect to find Atlantic salmon having any chance at all would be in a system that had absolutely nothing in it, which is almost impossible to find in British Columbia.

I won't elaborate further on that. There's a question of--

À (1045)

The Chair: Mr. Groves, you have an extremely good 10-page paper here that outlines a number of the points you've been mentioning, and I appreciate receiving it. But perhaps you could close fairly quickly, because we want to have time for questions.

À (1050)

Mr. David Groves: I'll cut it off and just list the things.

I've spent a lot of time thinking about salmon waste issues. Some health issues about dioxins and those kinds of things that have been found by people analysing very few fish have been taken out of context.

The concept that we are misusing marine feed to feed our salmon isn't valid. In addition, sea lice are portrayed as sort of swarming over small outgoing wild fish, and that isn't really very accurate, because there are several major sources of sea lice.

On the danger to shellfish, there are actually cases where mussel farms are within 100 feet of operating salmon farms, and both are thriving.

I'll shut it down right now and invite questions. I think the panel can talk about just about anything. Dr. Brad Hicks will probably talk a little later about the disease issue, so that's why I haven't touched on it yet.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I appreciate there are two papers from Dr. Brad Hicks here, two papers from you, and one from Mr. Griffioen. There looks to be good information in them. We will get an opportunity to go through them later.

Mr. Cummins.

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

Mr. Groves, to suggest that an opinion different from yours is just false, it's ridiculous, or to suggest that it's nonsense to suggest that DFO is unaware, without providing some substance for your opinion, doesn't fly too far.

Just as an example of the contradictions that float around here, earlier this morning.... Well, you said Atlantics generally go back to sea after they've spawned. Mr. Thomson, in his testimony, suggested that in Atlantic Canada, in the major river in Newfoundland, only 33% of the Atlantics went back to sea after spawning and most didn't. So there's a contradiction right there in the testimony I've heard this morning.

What we need are the facts. I'll look very carefully at your paper, because I'm sure there's going to be some substance there I can use. But unfortunately, the comments didn't lead me there.

The first question I want to ask you gentlemen is on this business of regulations. I'm concerned about the notion of regulations and what's available. I'm trying to find the Auditor General's comment on that issue, because I think it was significant.

But let me go to the notion of the impact the farms may have on the environment, and so on. What sorts of studies are you aware of that show the sorts of impacts fish farms have had on the environment? Is there anything that sort of stands out?

The Chair: Mr. Griffioen.

Mr. Ward Griffioen: I can only speak about what I'm doing in my particular reservoir. If you can extrapolate from that into the industry at large, you'll be amazed what a positive effect my fish farm has had on the Lois Lake fish community. The Kokanee population and the trout population are larger and there's more of them.

The feces go to a deep hole where nothing grows. It has definitely not affected us; nothing is bubbling up. The oxygen levels are fine down below. Four or five times a year we sample for phosphates and nitrates.

There are some pluses in there, and all I hear is that we're doing all this damage. Sport fishing has increased, all this kind of stuff is happening.

À (1055)

Mr. John Cummins: I don't doubt your sincerity. I recognize that you're small operators in the grand scheme of things, you're British Columbians, and that's good. The issue here is, what regulations are in place to give you the kind of guidance you need so that you can operate with certainty?

I'm going to go back to the Auditor General's Report, because he notes in there—and I'm sure you're familiar with it—that “responsibility for administering section 36 of the Fisheries Act (dealing with deleterious substances) has been delegated to Environment Canada”, under terms of a 1985 agreement. He goes on to say there's a problem with how Environment Canada is carrying out its monitoring responses under the MOU and the agreement. He says, “In practice, Environment Canada is monitoring the effects of salmon farming only on shellfish beds and not on salmon and their habitat.”

Then he goes on to say, “Both departments are aware of the limited coverage under section 36. Officials told us that Environment Canada has committed to establishing a working group, including Fisheries and Oceans, to report on the desirability of a section 36 regulation to deal with deleterious substances by 2001.”

Are you aware of the results of that working group? Has anything been done to provide you with the kind of guidance that would protect you from criticisms?

Mr. Bill Vernon: The Province of British Columbia, as well as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the B.C. salmon farms and others, were all involved in a sampling process over the last couple of years. Part of that sampling involved an intensive sampling of six farms on the coast. The reason for doing that was to establish baselines, if you like, and help the various governments to set those baselines, the regulations, with respect to that. I believe we're going to see that in the not-too-distant future. A lot of work has been done on that.

I can speak on behalf of Creative Salmon as far as what we've done. We've been involved in sampling done in and around our farms by an independent contractor for the last six years. We've learned a fair amount about what we are doing to the bottom of the ocean and what a good farm looks like and what a poorly sited farm looks like. We do have farms that we actually want to move because they're poorly located.

Obviously, from a company point of view, we're looking at other ways to deal with those impacts. But those studies are there, they have been done, and I think you will see in the next two to three weeks a regulation come out that will set those limits.

The Chair: It would be a provincial regulation, right?

Mr. Bill Vernon: Yes, but I think the department is involved.

The Chair: Yes, they are.

Mr. Griffioen wanted to speak as well.

Mr. Ward Griffioen: I can only speak for us. Since the start of our program, we have regularly sampled the water for phosphate and nitrate levels. All that stuff has been sent in to the province's aquaculture department. We have really kept close tabs on any environmental influence we might have.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: The federal government has the power, under the Constitution and the enabling authority in the Fisheries Act, to protect wild fish and their habitat. The minister essentially has the legal tools to do the job where there are applicable federal regulations.

My question, and my concern, is that those regulations are not in place for siting, as you're talking about now, and neither are there any particular guidelines for dealing with any deleterious substances that may emanate from a fish farm.

There are simply no federal regulations in place now, are there? Do you operate under any regulations? Do you say, in the process of doing your business, well, the regulations allow me to do this, or the regulations don't allow me to do that?

Á (1100)

Mr. Ward Griffioen: Definitely. If that reservoir turns green, I will be stopped dead. For that reason I've done the sampling and I do the sampling. So there is some regulation. Federal fisheries people do come by and check on me.

Mr. John Cummins: But in the memorandum of understanding that was signed between the federal government and the province back in 1988, they agreed that they would establish regulations governing a whole host of issues regarding aquaculture. I can't find those regulations, and you're telling me there are some. I'd like you to provide them for us if you can, because I sure can't find them.

Mr. Bill Vernon: Are you talking about regulations with respect to the benthic, the bottom, or are you talking only about overall regulations with respect to salmon farming?

Mr. John Cummins: Regulations that would govern salmon farming, regulations that would address the bottom issue under the farms. You were talking siting a minute ago. There were some proposed siting regulations put in place back in 1985, I think, and they still have not been enacted. So the farm you're talking about, moving the farms, what guidelines are there that allow you to operate your business with certainty?

Mr. Bill Vernon: Are you talking about from the department? Because we have lots of regulations with respect to the province.

The province people, if you like, are who we respond to. There have been new regulations and policy issued just recently, and there's a whole host of things we have to follow and report on. And the regulations are available. You can go to the province's website and get them.

The Chair: We will have the province before us tomorrow. We've seen some of that information in the past as well, but John, you're talking more about federal--

Mr. John Cummins: The issue here is that in the tidal waters the federal minister has a constitutional obligation to protect wild fish and their habitat. That's his purview; the jurisdiction of the province does not extend into the salt water. I understand that they have the authority to issue these licences, but their authority to protect the marine environment is simply non-existent. They don't have it. They may attach some conditions to a regulation, but if they pertain to the federal purview I'm not sure that those regulations would stand a court test, for example.

Mr. Bill Vernon: I'm not a lawyer, so I'm certainly not going to comment on that.

The Chair: Mr. Groves, do you have a point you want to add here before we move to Mr. Cuzner?

Mr. David Groves: Yes, if I could, I'd make one point.

I am certain that in the salmon farming context I've operated in we understand that we are regulated by the Fisheries Act. I'm certain that if we were doing something that was contrary to the Fisheries Act we would hear about it very quickly.

For instance, nitrogen excretion is almost exactly the same for both wild and farmed salmon. If you take the total production of farmed salmon and you calculate the total nitrogen excretion, yes, it is equivalent to 600,000 human beings. On the other hand, the 600,000 human beings contribute to point sources and the salmon farms basically are a diffuse source, and if you measure the amount of nitrogen that's around a salmon farm, it's almost not measurable. So that wouldn't contradict the Fisheries Act. The material underneath the pens, which is perhaps initially 15%, not 28%, of the dry matter in the feed taken in, is almost exactly the same as the composition of wild salmon feces.

If you take a million wild sockeye and there is ocean life, they produce 1,500 tonnes of feces that are almost indistinguishable from the feces that collect under a salmon farm. We haven't argued about that, but I'm certain that if DFO thought the deposit of feces underneath that salmon farm was deleterious and in contradiction of the Fisheries Act, we would hear about it very quickly.

Á (1105)

Mr. John Cummins: I guess the problem is that they haven't. That seems to be the opinion of the Auditor General. It certainly seems to be the thrust, certainly, of my findings.

As an example, there was a problem this past winter with diseased fish that ended up transported from a farm into a freshwater fish plant at a location in Delta. There were some concerns raised and then those fish were taken over to French Creek into a saltwater environment. But the fact is, to my understanding there were no regulations in place that would give you guidance on how to deal with that issue. Were there?

Mr. David Groves: Could I make one more point?

Mr. John Cummins: Sure.

Mr. David Groves: In that particular instance, this is supervised to a very high degree by the DFO fish health authority in Nanaimo. There was meticulous care taken in handling those fish that were infected with IHN.

There are absolutely no regulations or precautions taken in the commercial fishery in handling sockeye, for instance, because they carry IHN. It's the same virus. When the sockeye get up the Fraser River, before they die in spawning beds, up to 90% of them are infected with IHN. There is absolutely no regulation about that and it's the same virus.

So we would probably welcome some uniformity of regulations.

The Chair: I understand that DFO has been holding some consultations on site application review process, guidelines, etc. Have you people been involved in that? Is the objective there for DFO to get to some of the guidelines or regulations that John is maybe talking about?

Mr. Bill Vernon: I can't say what the department is or isn't trying to do. All I can say is that when you go through.... For example, I had a site relocated, and part of that relocation was to go through what's called the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It looks at a variety of environmental issues around the candidate's site, if you like.

Where the department is going with regulations and everything, I don't know, but we do have to deal with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

The Chair: There has been discussion ongoing at DFO with some groups, I understand, but I'm having a hard time finding out with whom.

Mr. John Vernon: Yes, I think there are discussions going on between the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association and the department, but I'm not involved, so I really can't speak to it.

The Chair: Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: These might be better addressed by Dr. Hicks, but perhaps I could throw them at you and get some comments anyway.

It's been indicated that there are a great number of untruths surrounding various aspects of farming, so maybe rather than dismissing them, you can try to enlighten us here--first, the fact that farmed fish are considerably more susceptible to disease than wild fish.

Mr. Bill Vernon: Maybe I can start. It's part of what I discussed earlier, and you'll see from the document I provided this year's survivals on the two different crops; one is completed and one is yet to be completed. As I said earlier, we haven't used any antibiotics with those. The survival rate on one crop is about 94%, and the survival rate on the other crop, 88%.

To the suggestion the fish are infested with disease and are dying like flies and everything, I'd be glad to provide my month-end documents for the last whatever amount of time you want to demonstrate not only how many fish are dying but also what they're dying from, because we take each dead fish, open it up, and try to find out what's caused its death.

When I first started farming salmon, the biggest threat to us was bacterial kidney disease. It is no longer the threat it was before, and that has come about because of better husbandry, better feed, the domestication of the fish, and vaccines.

Mr. Roger Cuzner: Is there any incidence of BKD now?

Mr. Bill Vernon: Yes, it's at sort of a chronic low level. Fish do die from it, but there's a variety of other things that fish die from. Some of them are what we'll call a “non-performer”; they don't grow to a large size, and they die along the way because they can't compete for feed. We have predators, and there's a variety of other diseases that they die from.

But if you look overall, if our survival is 90%, and 10% of those fish have died, they've died over a year and a half. They haven't all died at once. So there's a fairly low incidence of diseased fish within any pen at any time.

Á (1110)

Mr. Ward Griffioen: My comment is that worldwide there are about 200 million Atlantic salmon being reared in net pens. Every mortality is being looked at, checked out. There are about half a million or so wild Atlantics left. Guess where they find the diseases? Not in the wild stock, because we are scrutinizing every sick fish and every mortality. What did it die from? How come? That's why it seems to be so much slanted to this fish stock.

Mr. David Groves: Just so there isn't a contradiction, the domestic chinook are indistinguishably affected by diseases relative to the wild chinook, but in addition, we vaccinate all of them against several common diseases.

When I mentioned that the Atlantic salmon are more susceptible to disease, the unvaccinated Atlantic salmon are more susceptible to the diseases. However, every single smolt that goes to sea receives a needle injection for about four different components that they might commonly be affected by.

Unfortunately, in the vaccination program for IHN, the vaccine appears to be not quite as good as it is for some of the other things, so we're still experiencing some IHN in those stocks. We hope to find better vaccines available very shortly.

But the point I should make, so that there isn't a contradiction raised, is that the unvaccinated Atlantic salmon appear to be more susceptible to specific diseases than are the Pacific salmon, but the vaccinated one, such as an escaped pre-market Atlantic salmon, has a pretty high resistance to most things, so it itself is healthy. The wild-raised feral Atlantic salmon, if they exist, aren't vaccinated, so they would have a tougher show than the ones that come out of the pens.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: There's also a belief that the farmed salmon, at least the Atlantic salmon, for some reason draw sea lice, and then the sea lice prey on wild salmon smolt.

Could you comment?

Mr. David Groves: Yes, and I'm sure the other fellows can respond to this as well.

Studies that have been directed toward developing a vaccine against sea lice show that biochemically there's a lot of difference between Atlantic salmon and Pacific salmon. The Atlantic salmon do seem to be much more susceptible to the attack of sea lice.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: The Atlantic salmon do?

Mr. David Groves: The Atlantic salmon do, not the Pacific salmon. In fact, coho are very much more resistant to sea lice than Atlantics.

In the recent discussion about the Broughton Archipelago, the concept is that you have farms with Atlantic salmon and sea lice, and naive Pacific salmon smolt swim by and are overwhelmed by juvenile sea lice coming out of the farm. There are actually three components to that. One, we're not suggesting that the farm cannot be a reservoir of sea lice, but the incoming millions of spawning pink salmon, for instance, that are leaving your spawning run in the Broughton area were almost 4 million in 2000.

These have been documented as carrying up to five sea lice apiece, so you're talking about a very large number of lice coming in. Some of those get off the fish and into the farms as they go by. But the fish then spawn in rivers 15 to 40 kilometres away from where the farms are.

The next spring, as the little fish come out, those sea lice drop off those spawning fish. There are various mechanisms that allow that crop of sea lice to result in a challenge of juvenile lice the next spring in the estuarine areas where the little fish come out. So they begin to acquire sea lice very quickly after they've hit the sea.

In the time it takes them to get to the salmon farming area, they're carrying a load of lice that eventually mature to the point where they're secondarily reproducing. So they're sort of packing their own lice supply with them. Perhaps they can receive an additional challenge from the farms.

There needs to be some more work on that, but one of the problems is that surface sampling, which has been done in the last year or so, is probably accurate when you're catching 0.3-gram fish as they come out of the river. You take a scoop and get 100 or so fish, which is a representative sample. As they get out toward the salmon farming area, they also get bigger--five or six grams.

With experience--the other fellows have handled lots of fish and hatcheries, as have I--you begin to have a more and more disproportionately unrepresentative sample, because the bigger fish go down if there's deeper water, and at that stage they are seeking deeper water rather than being on the surface. So on the surface you end up with slow swimmers--fish that are terminally infested with lice and can't go down because they don't have the energy. So there's a sampling here.

We're not saying all that data is wrong. It's been published, and there certainly have been pictures of pitiful little pink salmon covered with sea lice. We've definitely shown that sea lice can kill small wild salmon, but the actual dynamics are multi-component rather than single-component. It's a very complex situation.

Á (1115)

The Chair: Mr. Groves has a paper that expands on what you're talking about, so I'm going to cut you off there, Rodger. We're starting to get behind.

Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Thank you.

We have talked a lot about the impact aquaculture can have on the environment. What interests me more is the impact aquiculture can have on humans. I believe that it is Mr. Vernon who portrayed himself as a good fish farmer who has not used antibiotics, especially not this year. I would like to know if at the present time most fish farms continue to use massive quantities of antibiotics.

[English]

Mr. Ward Griffioen: I can only speak for myself, and not as a research scientist. I've been raising salmon for 30 years. I eat it all the time. My wife still comes up with new recipes, and everybody loves it. I think I'm normal, and I've eaten a lot of slow swimmers and all these other kinds of....

The Chair: Mr. Vernon.

Mr. Bill Vernon: It's true that we've reduced the use of antibiotics, not just in the past year but over the past five years. It's been a slow process for us, because we try to do everything in our business in incremental steps rather than make large decisions that can have large mistakes.

The industry as a whole has reduced its use of antibiotics. We may be a bit more unusual than most, but I think you will find that the amount of medicated feed in the industry has gone down substantially. I believe I've heard recently that 2% or less of the feed is now medicated, which is quite a drop just in the last few years. I believe the reasons for that are related to the quality of the feed we're using, our husbandry activities, vaccines, and the actual development of our brood stock.

The Chair: Mr. Groves.

Á (1120)

Mr. David Groves: I do apologize; my French is lousy, so I won't try it. Perhaps next time I will be better.

Some health issues have been raised. As Bill Vernon suggested, our fish can no longer be considered to be laced with antibiotics. We barely use them.

Comparisons between wild fish and domestic fish are not particularly productive, because both of them are excellent products. I eat wild sockeye whenever I can get a fresh one. The rest of the year I eat farm chinook or farm Atlantic salmon, which are excellent.

I've leafed through some of the speaking documents, and there are some concerns about health issues. One of the articles points out canthaxanthin, which is a carotenoid we used to use in salmon rations to colour fish orange, not quite the colour of wild salmon. We now use astazanthan, which is the true pigment that is in wild fish. It can now be obtained commercially.

One of the reasons for going to astazanthan is that we couldn't get the other pigment, because so many women use it for tanning in the wintertime. So the supply was not available a lot of the time. But we don't use canthaxanthin any more.

There has been discussion about the PCB and dioxin levels of small numbers of analysed farm fish relative to wild fish. There's a little bit of difference. Mind you, the worker who did that work is a geneticist, and if there's one thing geneticists are supposed to know something about, it's statistics. They analysed eight fish. They didn't actually express the mercury contents of those fish. The wild fish, in that instance, happened to have higher mercury levels than the farm fish.

Recently, there has been some criticism of that particular paper. It was pointed out that by not eating salmon from a farm, the housewife is actually exposing herself to a higher level of dioxins and PCBs than she would otherwise. That particular article didn't give any of the background as to the level of these unfortunate compounds in all of the other things we eat.

So on a health basis, yes, farm salmon are extremely healthy, and I love to eat wild ones.

It's almost a pointless argument.

The Chair: Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: That was my second question. It is clear that a concentration of salmon in fish farms can but produce an important quantity of toxins. This is why I would like to know if the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has done a study evaluating the long-term quality of the product and the nutritional value of the fish, compared with wild salmon.

You are constantly coming back to the fact that wild salmon presents certain problems and that these are usually the same as those encountered in the case of farmed salmon. Farmed salmon is perhaps of a better quality, but wild salmon does not live in these situations of high concentration. That is a major difference. I would like to know if the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has really done a study of the quality of the product, and when I say quality, I am talking not only of the nutritional quality but also of the quality with regard to the levels of toxins and antibiotics, in another words of the content of the salmon we get on our plate.

[English]

Mr. David Groves: I think I got all of that, although my hearing aid is competing with the other device.

In terms of quality, Bill Vernon processes salmon, so I'm sure he can back this up. One of the advantages of farm salmon is that it's always fresh. By the time you get it to the market, it's within a couple of days of swimming around. The wild salmon also can be handled that way. So they're exquisite products. Too frequently in the wild-fish processing system the quality of the initially excellent fish is degraded to less than the quality of the farm salmon. This is a function not of the fish itself but of how it has been handled.

There certainly are some commercially procured fish that are of excellent quality. There is some difference in the composition of the salmon, in terms of fatty acids. You have to remember that the wild salmon in commerce is a maturing salmon; it's one that's on its way in to spawn. That's how we catch them. The farm salmon are basically immature fish that are six months to a year away from spawning, so they tend to be fatter. The percentage of essential fatty acids, for instance, in farm salmon fat tends to be a little lower than the percentage in wild salmon. However, the total amount of essential fatty acids, if you eat a portion of wild or farm salmon, is as high or higher in the farm salmon. It's a matter of the percentage being different, but the absolute amount being probably more.

Á (1125)

The Chair: I think Mr. Roy's question, though, was more along the lines of whether the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has done any analysis. Maybe Mr. Vernon can answer that question. The initial question was related to antibiotics. What role do the CFIA and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency have in terms of the use of antibiotics, the testing of antibiotics, and the health and safety of the fish for human consumption, relative to the CFIA?

Mr. Bill Vernon: We see the Canadian Food Inspection Agency fairly often at our processing plant. They take samples of the fish and take them back, and they also check all the record-keeping and so on. When we harvest fish, we have to bring with the harvested fish a document that talks about the antibiotics we used, if we used them, how long it's been since we used them, the prescribing veterinarian, and so on. All that documentation has to be with the fish and has to be available.

As far as any other comparisons that have been done by CFIA, I'm not aware of any, but there could have been some. I do know there have been other independent groups that have looked at and compared wild fish with farm fish. Again, I can't tell you exactly who they are, but if you like, we can try to get that information.

I did do a test some years ago myself, where we looked at the antibiotics in the fish. Actually, when we treated the fish, we waited for a period of time and then we tracked it, sent fish to a scientist at Simon Fraser University, and had him do the analysis, because he did the original work on talking about clearance times for antibiotics and so on. We monitored the reduction in antibiotics in the fish to see if in fact, from our point of view, this was actually working. It was amazing. It actually was very accurate, almost to the day. That work was done five years ago by us, and it was very accurate.

The Chair: It's a question we can raise with the CFIA.

I'm sorry, Mr. Roy, we're going to move on.

Mr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney: Thank you.

One of the challenges of being fourth up is that so many of the issues I wanted to raise have already been covered.

On the issue of antibiotics, of course this is a big concern also with land-based agriculture, with poultry, with beef. Studies are going on with Health Canada even now about residues of hormones and so on in beef.

Could you tell us about the clearance times you're talking about? How much of a time reserve do you have there before you market fish that have been treated with antibiotics?

Mr. Bill Vernon: I believe now it's a minimum of 105 days. Not having used antibiotics for so long, we haven't had to deal with that type of prescription, but I believe it's a minimum of 105 days' clearance time.

Mr. James Lunney: Thank you.

Mr. Vernon, in your report you mentioned that salmon farming accounts for about one-seventh of all the B.C. farming sectors, and about 40% of all the B.C. finfish value currently. That's a fair contribution to the economic activity of the province, I would say.

Now, you said that in the last 15 years you had one incident where you lost 867 fish to predation, and in your 15 years less than 2,000. That does raise a concern about escapes and especially about predators gathering around the nets.

The question here is, what can be done and what is being done to reduce the risk of predation and escapes from that source?

Á (1130)

Mr. Bill Vernon: It's not something I'm really proud of, but I think the incident that occurred with us at the time highlighted the issue. A group was put together of industry and non-industry people. We were trying to pool, if you like, the knowledge of what was working, what wasn't working, and so on and so forth.

What we've all done is to go to various types of predator prevention systems. In our case we're moving to pen systems that have wider walkways so there's a bigger space between the exterior predator net and the interior holding net for the fish. We've also all gone to heavier weighting on the actual nets.

Seals are not a really big problem for us; it's the sea lions. You're talking about very large animals, and these animals work together. We saw them at the time it was occurring with us. It sounded like Stanley Park. It was unbelievable, the amount of activity out there, especially in the evenings. Literally, what was happening was that the sea lions would charge one side of the pen, and the other guys would be on the other side of the pen. When the fish all pressed up against them, it was “have at 'er”.

So these are very intelligent animals. The system that works today may not work tomorrow. We have to evolve with it; we have to adapt to them, and so on.

I heard of one sea lion that jumped from the outside of the farm over a four-foot railing on the outside and over another four-foot railing on the inside to get inside the pen. You know, these guys are hungry, and when they see those fish, they're going to do what they can. Our experience has been that they're a bright animal.

We've removed all guns. We don't use them any more, nor do we even have a permit. We are fairly vigilant in making sure our nets are intact, and hopefully we are keeping them out.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Vernon.

Mr. Lunney, you have a last question.

Mr. James Lunney: You've covered some important issues here regarding the risk of the escapees actually establishing themselves. A number of things have come out today. I think it is very interesting information being put forward regarding their being vulnerable to predation themselves, because they're slow in growing.

We also heard that the Pacific salmon have adapted to high viral and bacterial loads, whereas the difference in environment here leaves the Atlantics vulnerable. Earlier today we did hear about studies and science to the effect that the Atlantics are not highly successful here, no ferals having been seen last year. Thank goodness the studies are being done; it's important to do more science, and I think we all recognize that.

Mr. Griffioen, you mentioned that they are also vulnerable to predation by sculpins because they're hanging around the bottom, I think I heard you say. What's a sculpin?

Mr. Ward Griffioen: All the streams in British Columbia have these little bullheads or sculpins that lay amongst the rocks. Whenever fry come down, especially fry near the bottom, they get eaten. Over generations the Pacifics have developed so they're higher in the water column, and they avoid a lot of that particular predation that will occur on fry.

Mr. James Lunney: I was particularly glad to hear Dr. Groves address the issue of the pigment, the canthaxanthin, and the fact that you've gotten away from using it, stuff used in tanning, because they have their concerns about that being related to ocular problems. I understand I can take your word that it's not being used in the industry today, by and large. You use the natural pigment...?

Mr. David Groves: I really can't say that it's not being used, but all the feed we use, for instance, has astaxanthin, and that's the only one I've heard about recently. Ten years ago there wasn't astaxanthin or others from natural sources, but now we have it.

Mr. James Lunney: And the last question here is another concern we've heard that does come out related to the smolts, and that is, the use of arc lights over the pens at night. Migrating stocks are drawn to the pens.

We used to hear that they were being eaten. I think the studies have shown that they're not being eaten. However, there is a big concern about the lights used over the pens. Fish being drawn toward the pens are vulnerable, then, to predators that gather around your nets and that then feed on the migrating fish going by.

Can you help us with that? Is that an issue or is that something we need to address with more science?

Á (1135)

Mr. Bill Vernon: I certainly couldn't answer, because I've never used the lights. In fact, I've always found when we turn lights on around the farm, the fish don't like it. Personally, I don't have any experience with it.

Mr. Ward Griffioen: We do use lights in a lake system and we haven't seen any of that effect. I'm sure that in salt water, herring or something like that might be attracted to a light.

The Chair: I think when we were out here previously and we actually had the time to go to different areas, quite a number of people were using lights at that time. We were around in a bigger area, rather than holding hearings in just Richmond or in Vancouver.

Can anyone answer the question more specifically? Are lights used less now than they were two or three years ago, or not?

Mr. Bill Vernon: I don't even know which companies are using lights, to be honest with you. I don't think anyone in our area is using lights. I don't know which companies those would be. There's not many to pick from.

Mr. David Groves: I can't contribute too much more than that. The chinook salmon farms that I'm aware of don't use lights. The Atlantic salmon farms have used lights to manipulate the maturation patterns of the fish so that instead of maturing early, they grow longer and they don't mature.

Perhaps when Brad Hicks gives his discussion he could give you some background on that.

The Chair: Okay, that would be a question to raise with him.

Mr. Lunney, is that it?

Mr. James Lunney: Yes, thank you.

Mr. John Cummins: I have nothing new to say, Mr. Chairman, I just want to follow up on something.

The Chair: I'll give you three minutes, John, and that's it, because we are way behind.

Mr. John Cummins: I guess the issue of lights probably points to regulations, and I'm not going to go into that right now. On the issue of canthaxanthin, in my understanding it's banned from use in processed foods but it's still permitted as a feed for salmon. The latest information I have is that it's still in use. Is that correct?

Mr. David Groves: That could be. Once again I'd refer you to Brad Hicks, because he manufactures feed and he's probably more up to date than I am. But operationally, we haven't seen it.

Mr. John Cummins: The information I have is that it's still in use. It's permitted and found as well.

Mr. Bill Vernon: I have a comment. We have done analysis on fish to try to determine the level of carotenoids in the fish, and we have found canthaxanthin in the fish. We never put it in, so it's probably come from the fishmeal itself. It does naturally occur.

Mr. John Cummins: I guess it's another issue that needs some science.

Mr. David Groves: I'd like to make one point.

The published analyses of the pigments in wild salmon show that astaxanthin is the predominant pigment. They also show canthaxanthin and several other minor carotenoids. So canthaxanthin isn't necessarily a totally unnatural pigment; it's one of the minor pigments.

Mr. John Cummins: When you talked about smolts, Mr. Groves, you mentioned smolts carrying lice with them. I didn't quite understand how they came to acquire them.

Mr. David Groves: The lice drop off the incoming adult salmon coming into a river system like the Kingcome River. Now, it's problematic whether those lice live to the next spring to produce juvenile lice, but it's not impossible that there are some other hosts like coastal cutthroat trout or juvenile coho or chinook salmon in the area or in some other reservoir. It isn't unreasonable, though, to expect that there will be a challenge of juvenile sea lice at the time of the out-migration. And some of the juvenile sea lice grab onto and can be eaten by migrating pink salmon, of course, because they eat that size of copepods. The juvenile lice will attach to the little migrating fish and it takes them a fair length of time to get to the outside of the inlets, perhaps 60 days, and by that time, some of those lice are maturing and reproducing secondarily.

So that's where you have, first of all, a load of juvenile lice that they've picked up fairly close to their natal streams, and as they go out to sea, they carry their own lice with them.

They could certainly pick up lice coincidentally as they go by another reservoir of lice--we're not trying to avoid that--but there are two big reservoirs of lice, and the one on the wild fish tends to be by far the biggest.

Á (1140)

The Chair: Last question.

Mr. John Cummins: You're probably familiar with the situation in Ireland. We won't go into that now or we'll run out of time. But as one comment, just to show you the type of difficulty we have in dealing with these matters, you reference bacterial kidney disease, for instance. Then there's this study that I referenced earlier, the December 2000 study by DFO, Aquaculture: Knowledge and Gaps. They reference that disease in there, and they report in a paper, Hastein and Lindstad, 1991, that BKD is occasionally found in wild fish populations; however, a heavy infestation of BKD in farm fish may pose considerable infectious pressure on wild fish populations.

So we get that kind of information. I don't doubt that from your perspective it may have decreased in the last little while, but obviously the department somehow feels there's still an issue here. When I look and ask what's needed.... We have to talk about regulations, about addressing some of these concerns of science and the environmental issues.

The Auditor General, at paragraph 30.47, says there ought to be a public inquiry under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act if this moratorium is lifted. Of course, he wrote his report before it was lifted by the provincial government, but his suggestion was that there should be an inquiry under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. John Fraser, former fisheries minister and former ambassador to the environment, agreed with the Auditor General that there should be a public inquiry to set aside again some of these concerns.

So my question to you is, would you support a public inquiry on the lifting of the moratorium, a federal inquiry under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act?

Mr. Bill Vernon: No.

Mr. John Cummins: Why not?

Mr. Bill Vernon: I don't think it's necessary. There has been lots of work done with respect to it. There's ongoing work.

With respect to bacterial kidney disease, I'd be happy to provide to this committee, for your scrutiny, all the information we have as a company. You can take a look at how big a problem bacterial kidney disease is.

That hasn't made its way to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Maybe it should. But I think there's ongoing work on all of this stuff, and to have another review.... I just don't see that it's going to satisfy anything. It's not going to do it.

The Chair: Mr. Groves.

Mr. David Groves: Could I make just one point? I'll be very quick.

Relative to bacterial kidney disease, as Bill Vernon pointed out, in the early days of salmon farming we received surplus wild eggs from the various hatcheries, sub-hatcheries around the country. The sub-hatcheries themselves, to my knowledge, don't screen their brood stock for bacterial kidney disease or IHN. But at the time we obtained those eggs, DFO taught us to screen brood stock for bacterial kidney disease and IHN, and a number of other diseases, and the incidence of bacterial kidney disease in wild Robertson Creek and Big Qualicum River salmon in those days—we did this 4, 5, or 6 years—was around 10%.

IHN in Robertson Creek salmon was always 2%; we never saw any in the Big Qualicum fish. We screen all the brood stock in the industry, because the best way not to have bacterial kidney disease, or to reduce it, is to chuck out the fish that have it, at the start. So we screen every single female for bacterial kidney disease and IHN, and the incidence of bacterial kidney disease is around 10%, something like that. It's almost exactly the same as it was when we were dealing strictly with wild fish.

The Chair: The last word to you, Mr. Griffioen.

Mr. Ward Griffioen: Yes, I'd just like to add to that.

I'm involved as a volunteer at the local salmon society, and there is a way bigger problem there with bacterial kidney disease on these wild fish than we ever have experienced in the farm.

The Chair: John, that's it. I'm sorry, but we—

Mr. John Cummins: That's contrary to what this DFO document says, so that's the dilemma we're faced with. You can appreciate that, I'm sure.

The Chair: There's no question there are contradictions and conflict.

Thank you, gentlemen.

We'll admit we are substantially behind. We do have one witness who will not be coming, so we can save some time there.

I'd call forward, then, the three groups: T. Buck Suzuki Foundation, Mr. Lane; David Suzuki Foundation, Lynn Hunter and Otto Langer; and Georgia Strait Alliance, Suzanne Connell.

Do you want to take a couple of minutes for a break, people? Yes?

Okay.

Á (1143)

Á (1151)

The Chair: Can we come to order, please, Rodger?

I think we'll go through the presentations, take a five-minute break, and then come back.

So who is first?

Mr. Lane.

Mr. David Lane (Environmental Director, United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union; and Research Director, T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation): My name is David Lane. I'm with two organizations. I'm the environmental director of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union, which is the largest group of commercial fishing people on the B.C. coast. I'm also with the T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation, which is a different organization from that of my colleagues here, who are with the David Suzuki Foundation. We have a different history. Our membership is largely commercial fishing people, and we focus solely on fisheries and fish habitat issues.

Á (1155)

The Chair: Mr. Lane, I didn't catch the first fishing group that you said you're a member of.

Mr. David Lane: It's the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union.

The Chair: Okay. Now I've got it.

Thanks.

Mr. David Lane: I'd like to start by correcting some of the statements, and in particular some of the answers to your questions, from the panellists earlier, particularly the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

DFO was asked a very simple question: what's the level of production of farm salmon in British Columbia? The person responsible for aquaculture coordination for the Pacific region could not answer it. He stated 350,000. As a matter of fact, in 1999 there were 50 million kilos of salmon produced. Unless those fish are the size of a small cow, there's a little bit of a discrepancy there. In fact, the DFO person was out by a factor of ten. He also did not know exactly how many chinook are being farmed on the B.C. coast. I think this is a fairly appalling lack of understanding of the big picture of what we're up against.

I'd also say, with respect to the industry representatives, they had some interesting information. But many, many times they said, “Well, this is, in my opinion, my experience”. So I think you're lacking the big picture of what's really happening in totality, as far as impacts on this coast.

Fisheries and Oceans at first stated there were no Fisheries Act violations from salmon farms. It was sort of corrected after that. In fact, there has been some impact, which is probably a violation of the Fisheries Act. It is absolutely the case that probably a quarter of the farms out there are in violation of the Fisheries Act, as we speak.

One of the members pointed out that DFO has passed on the enforcement of pollution issues under the Fisheries Act to Environment Canada. I was astounded to find out from the regional director of Environment Canada that DFO has seized that back. It's not being dealt with by Environment Canada. I would maintain it's not being dealt with by anybody. As was pointed out, there is not a continuum of enforcement, from letters to fines. There have been no charges or fines. It's a continuum from zero action to letters. I would love to see the Department of Fisheries decide they're going to run the commercial fishery on the basis of perhaps a few letters to offenders occasionally.

The question was asked about time withdrawals for drug use. It was stated it was a minimum of 105 days. That's incorrect. It's set individually by vets, based on the particular drug and environmental conditions.

There was a question on federal regulations. In fact, there are no specific regulations under the Fisheries Act to deal with regulating the salmon farm industry. It all comes down to vague interpretations of the Fisheries Act and policies that, as was pointed out, do not set the parameters or give any clarity.

I think the largest gap of information we heard this morning was in response to direct questions about studies on the impact of sea lice and disease on wild stocks. In fact, there are none. Nothing has been done to study the impact of sea lice and disease transferred from farms to wild stocks. Nothing is being planned. This is a travesty and a clear violation of what the Auditor General was pointing to: the need for clear research on the impacts.

I'll talk more specifically about the research that's lacking.

Provincially, there are some regulations. Some of them stem from a provincial environmental review that concluded in 1997, where 49 recommendations were put forward in terms of the necessary regulations for the salmon farm industry. We've looked through those to date and there are five that have been put in place--five of 49. That's the level of implementation of the recommendations that were put forward to the provincial government. One more is going to be put in place, a waste regulation, by the end of this month. About a dozen have been partially implemented, but the majority of those 49 recommendations are not in place provincially; they're not in place federally either. We would maintain that salmon aquaculture is in a policy vacuum and a regulation vacuum.

Getting back to Fisheries and Oceans' jurisdiction and responsibilities, which I think should be of primary concern to this committee, we see an appalling lack of research into the most dynamic probable impacts on the marine environment and wild salmon. DFO has not monitored how many sea lions, in fact, are killed every year. There are reports from farms as to what they say are the mortalities of sea lions, but DFO has never actually gone and in any way tried to find out if those numbers are correct.

DFO has not researched the long-term impacts of escaped salmon colonizing wild salmon streams. You've heard a few studies; they were not done by Fisheries and Oceans. Independent scientists had to get out and start doing some of the research that the federal government has been refusing to do, because I think they don't want to find out the real answers.

DFO has not researched the impact of sea lice pesticide applications on local shellfish stocks, as was recommended in the environmental review. They've not researched the impact of sea lice on salmon disease transfer. They haven't even started that, as I said before. They have not assessed or mapped juvenile salmon migration routes in order to establish a precautionary approach to siting farms. They have not established a precise level of seabed pollution that would lead to charges under the Fisheries Act.

They have not researched the impacts from escaped farm Atlantic salmon on wild B.C. streams; they have not monitored escaped farm Pacific salmon, and they have not studied the impacts of those escapes. Let's be clear: one in five farm salmon is a Pacific farm salmon that absolutely can interbreed with wild stocks and absolutely can colonize local streams, and that issue is sidestepped entirely by both DFO and industry.

This is just a partial list.

DFO, in its policy documents, often refers to a number of guiding principles, and I would say that in all cases it has been operating under a complete double standard by sidestepping these principles with regard to salmon aquaculture. Commercial salmon fisheries are now managed under a risk-averse policy, using a policy precautionary that is absolutely not used in managing salmon aquaculture. DFO has a policy of trying to work with stakeholders on fisheries issues. In this case, DFO has never met with environmental groups to discuss concerns.

DFO has stated policy as far as respecting first nations and the treaty process, and yet many first nations would say that has been violated and they are not being properly consulted about the impacts of this industry.

DFO, in many of its documents, has statements about ecosystem-based management and managing for sustainability, and we don't believe there's the information, the research, or the will to in fact use those principles as far as salmon aquaculture is concerned.

I'd like to leave it at that. Others from other organizations can get into more detail on some of the specifics and specific recommendations, and then we could handle questions later.

Â (1200)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Lane.

Now Ms. Hunter or Mr. Langer.

Mr. Otto Langer (Marine Program Director, David Suzuki Foundation): I'll take the lead.

My name is Otto Langer. Accompanying me is Lynn Hunter. Lynn is our aquaculture specialist and I'm the director of the marine conservation program for the David Suzuki Foundation. Until yesterday, I was an employee of the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. As of today I'm a citizen, so I can speak out on these issues.

For the last six months I've been on holidays and working for an environmental group, so I think I can add a bit of perspective in the question period in terms of how DFO actually functions.

We have submitted two briefs. I'm not going to go through them in great detail. I'll just make a general presentation.

The aqua- and salmon-farming industry began about 20 years ago in British Columbia, as you're well aware. It developed, unfortunately, around the technology of the open-net cage, and I think that's a source of some of our greatest problems. If we could change that technology and upgrade it, we would probably come up with several of the solutions we're going to be talking about over the next two days.

The industry was promoted by the federal and provincial agencies. It was treated almost as a gold rush, a land rush, and I think to some degree people are waiting for the second phase of the land rush to begin, once the provincial government lifts the moratorium on salmon farming in British Columbia.

Through this land rush/gold rush mentality, the regulation, research, monitoring, and enforcement lagged far behind the promotion element of the industry. From the federal point of view, the Fisheries Act was simply not applied as intended, and it has not been properly enforced.

There are a number of significant concerns you will hear about, and I appreciate the job you have in sorting out some of the facts from the fiction. Hopefully you can get the facts before you, make some of the decisions that have to be made, and provide DFO with direction so they can better do their job.

I'll summarize some of the overall environmental concerns. As I mentioned, the open-net cage is a significant problem, and that rearing--farming--apparatus alone gives rise to a lot of the pollution problems. It also relates to the disease and parasite problems, so it's a significant environmental issue.

Number two is the significant issue of the introduction of foreign species and escapes. Atlantic salmon are not the only issue here. A couple of years ago the federal-provincial agencies rubber-stamped the introduction of Atlantic and European oysters to the British Columbia coast. Now DFO staff have indicated that the public have come into Nanaimo with odd-looking oysters, wondering what they are. They don't swim very quickly, but yes, they've drifted off and reproduced. In a sense they're wild on the British Columbia coast now.

Also, inadvertently, a clam species was added to our mixture--a legacy of wild species on this coast--and that is a great concern. It appears as though we have never learned from the introduction of starlings to the North American continent, or various other species.

We introduced Atlantic salmon to this coast, and we seem to have bent over backwards to come up with 99 reasons why it'll never take. First of all, we said it would never survive--it survived. It would never spawn or home in our streams, and it homed in our streams. Well, it would never spawn--it spawned. Now we're being told they're in only 80 streams, etc.

I think there is more than a warning up there. We have to address the issue of the introduction of exotics. Have we not learned from several hundred years of human history about the introduction of exotics and the damage they can do to native species?

The third environmental issue is disease and sea lice. The disease issue has been discussed to date, and it will be discussed a lot more. The sea lice issue is, I think, a hidden bombshell. It didn't get the attention it deserved a few years ago, but we've learned a lot from the Europeans. Sea lice alone seem to have devastated wild trout populations in Scotland, Norway, and elsewhere.

Here we've had the agencies, MAFF and DFO, basically living in denial. It was mentioned that there was a sea lice workshop between eight DFO scientists and eight non-DFO scientists in March. I was at that meeting, and it was a bit of a watershed. At that meeting, DFO seemed to accept the fact that sea lice were indeed a problem and they were willing to sit down and discuss ten research priorities. They refused to discuss what they were going to do about it, or whether they were going to do any research or dedicate any money to it, but it appears as though there is some admission. We've learned from the Europeans that sea lice are a big issue that possibly will have a great impact on wild stocks.

The harassment and killing of predators is an issue. It's rather straightforward. We've heard about that already today, the killing of seals and sea lions. DFO have been issuing sea mammal kill permits illegally under the Fisheries Act, and we've been involved with a court action to challenge them.

Â (1205)

The federal justice people have come back to us quite quickly saying they appreciated that DFO were issuing their permits illegally and they'd like us to resolve the matter out of court as quickly as possible, and, in a sense, the almost wanton killing of seals, sea lions, and other sea mammals was being done as a fishery. That definitely is not a fishery. It's being done illegally under the Fisheries Act.

The next significant environmental issue is the significant use of chemicals and drugs. We've heard a bit about antibiotics, vaccines, anti-foulants, and materials on nets. I will not enlarge upon that. I have touched upon it a bit more in the brief, and you'll hear a lot more about that.

Two issues that are not too directly related to the welfare of wild stocks on the coast involve the quality and safety of salmon farming. Far too little work is being done to examine the quality of farmed salmon in terms of the chemical contaminants that can be in the salmon resulting from additives to food, or actually the food source itself, which can be quite highly contaminated with organic contaminants from wild sources of fish because of the high amount of oil in them.

The source of fish food must be questioned in terms of sustainability of the resource. Is it wise to take fish meal from third world countries and from other sources and feed it to our salmon to create a high-quality product so that the rich part of the world can enjoy salmon on their table year round? Some examination has to be done each time we import or produce a pound of Atlantic salmon. How many fish are we going to destroy in another part of the world that those people may depend upon? We're being told those are low-quality fish. We cannot take fish out of an ecosystem and not have an impact on the fishery in that geographic area of the world.

The issue has been raised, and it came up this morning, that we protect wild salmon by having fish farms. I would say that's a real myth, and if you want more information on that one, we'd be willing to respond to questions relating to that.

I'd like to move next into regulatory patterns. As David Lane mentioned, our laws and regulations have barely ever been applied. Federally, there is the federal Fisheries Act, with very strong statutes. They're not being applied. Even though as a member of DFO...about 15 years ago we knew that fish farms were creating an impact on the ocean bottom; there was great resistance to applying the Fisheries Act, and this carries on to this very day.

Joint federal-provincial roles--yes, both governments do have jurisdiction here. I think DFO has greater jurisdiction than they'd admit to, and to some degree they've allowed the provincial government to take the lead role and have followed in a supporting role. At times there's a tremendous amount of buck-passing on issues such as diseased salmon. The provincial government says they're only responsible for disease in the cages. If the disease gets out, it's a federal responsibility. It goes on and on like that.

Yet we hear all about the harmonization that's occurring every time DFO talks to the Auditor General's office. We haven't seen harmonization create a one-window approach to resolve some of these environmental issues.

I think there's a conflict in DFO. The promotion and the regulatory roles cannot be in one branch. It cannot be under one minister. I think that's a real problem. Again, what the aquaculture commissioner is doing is really largely in promotion of the industry, and that sets the tone for the department. That is a policy decision. There is no legal mandate to do that. DFO has quite a clear legal mandate to prevent pollution and to prevent harmful alteration of habitat. That mandate is subservient to the promotion mandate, there is very little doubt about that.

Also, Environment Canada seems to have a mandate here. The enforcement of section 36, the pollution section of the Fisheries Act, has been delegated to them. All I can say is, where has Environment Canada been over the last twenty years? It seems that on the east coast they have been doing their job. Where have they been on the west coast? No one is looking at the pollution problem in Environment Canada.

From a federal fisheries point of view over the years, if you are going to harmfully alter habitat, you have to be issued an authorization under the discretion of the minister. My question is, where are the authorizations? A few years ago DFO tried to issue authorizations. One on a farm was withdrawn. They issued the authorization again. Telephone calls went to Yves Bastien in Ottawa. Calls were immediately made to Vancouver. That authorization was withdrawn, with great embarrassment to the civil servants involved, and it was determined that authorizations were not required because DFO could not prove a harmful alteration to habitat. That was the position taken by Ottawa.

Â (1210)

Now DFO is thinking, legally, if there is likely to be an impact, we should be issuing authorization. So they seem to be going in a circle. The latest documents indicate yes, the Fisheries Act does exist, and if there's likely to be an impact, it is only organic deposits from the ocean bottom. They're not looking at the impact of disease, parasites, and the loss of living space in competition for food. They're only willing to look at deposits from the ocean bottom.

Why has the Navigable Waters Protection Act not been enforced? I received a telephone call last Friday from a DFO employee, whose name I will not mention, saying that new pens had been installed at Kent Island up in the Broughton group, and no Navigable Waters Protection Act permits are in place. The CEAA review has just started, yet these new pens are in place. The agency will indicate how diligent it is and how things have improved, yet the violations are taking place. Basically, they're following the lead of industry. Industry can do whatever it wants.

I'll go quickly to some conclusions and recommendations. The open-net caged salmon farm is environmentally non-sustainable and must be phased out by new technology. I think that's half the solution for most of the problems.

The introduction of Atlantic salmon and other exotics to this coast is unwise and a threat to wild salmon and other species. Consultation with American jurisdictions, including Alaska, and the public is totally lacking. It appears as though we only have consultation with the industry and the Province of British Columbia. Everyone else is closed out of the process. The State of Alaska has issued a number of press releases saying it is extremely concerned that neither the Province of British Columbia nor the federal government is involving Alaskans in the decisions that are being made. As Andy Thomson said, there are no borders for these fish. We are not taking an ecosystem approach when we do introduce exotics to this coast. Surely, there has to be collaboration among Washington, British Columbia, and Alaska. Why is that not taking place? Where is government on these cross-border responsibilities?

B.C. and Canada must adopt a precautionary approach to aquaculture. David Lane mentioned that. We are not taking the necessary precautions to ensure that this industry will not damage the natural environment if indeed it is environmentally sustainable.

I have a comment about British Columbia threatening to lift the moratorium on salmon farming. That was supposed to occur a few days ago, but I was told that for some reason they seem to have inadequate staff to move the process along. I would say it is foolhardy to lift the moratorium at this time.

The federal fisheries department has come out with a document containing interim guidelines. After 20 years of aquaculture, we finally have a binder called interim guidelines, and they're going to be implemented for the first time. The province is changing all of its controls and allowing much more self-compliance. So we're totally changing the compliance system.

We have not addressed a lot of the past environmental problems, but then we're going to lift the moratorium. The sky's the limit for new fish farms on this coast. I'd say that is damn irresponsible. Some common sense has to come to the two senior governments.

We have to resolve existing problems. If we're going to come out with a new management regime, that management regime must be shown to work before we expand the industry. If that management regime and new techniques cannot resolve some of the problems, then maybe we have to phase out the open-net cage on this coast.

DFO must relate to its legal mandate and protect and conserve wild stocks by the diligent use of the Fisheries Act. Staff have been prevented from using the Fisheries Act over the years along this coast.

The safety of farm salmon products must be more closely monitored. Federal food and drug inspection agencies are not adequately looking at the quality of fish and the degree of contamination. It appears as though more of this work is being done by private organizations and charitable causes than by governments.

Research and monitoring is sadly lacking. Mr. Lane mentioned this. Urgent research is required on open-net cage replacement technologies, the chemical use that's in place, habitat impact, disease, sea lice risk, fresh water fish farming, and the impact of exotic introductions.

Some of the problems we have with marine fish farming could be greatly increased by farming fish in fresh water environments. Recently, we had a letter from people in the Great Lakes area where eight fish farms are operating in Georgian Bay, and they mentioned a number of problems they're having. They're looking toward the west and east coasts for advice on how to deal with some of these problems. So it's not only a marine issue; now it's spreading into fresh water.

Â (1215)

Governments have shown great bias in the promotion of aquaculture. There's no doubt about that. Objective review and a balanced approach to the issues must now take place. We have yet to see a proper, balanced review of the industry and an evaluation of the risks. We keep relating to various studies, myths, innuendo that there is no risk, there is no problem. I have yet to see an objective review that puts it all into context and will satisfy the needs of the federal Fisheries Act.

The government has largely ignored its mandate regarding the protection of clean water, healthy habitat, and marine life. Ecosystem-based management is long overdue. Documents talk about ecosystem-based management; I see none of that thinking taking place.

Indeed, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act allows for a comprehensive review. The next time a fish farm is approved, I think the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act has to be triggered, whether it's an NWPA trigger or a section 35 Fisheries Act trigger. That trigger should allow a review of the whole industry and look at its cumulative impact. To do less I don't think is protecting our legacy on this coast adequately.

I'd like to make a comment about shellfish aquaculture. It's now rapidly expanding on the coast, and there seems to be a new land rush to intertidal habitats on the coast. Many of the bad examples set with salmon farming, such as promote now and worry later, are being set as precedents.

We look at certain coastal areas, such as the Baynes Sound area. We have bulldozers bulldozing the shoreline flat; we have fences being put up to control the spat. Once the spat is taken, we have anti-predator plastic matting being put over the beaches; 10% of the shoreline--and that's the Pacific coastal area--is now covered with plastic matting to keep out predators. These are birds, starfish, moon snails. Some of the farmers are actually illegally destroying starfish and moon snails by removing them from their leases and discarding them above the upper tidal environment.

Nowhere on this coast would you see a logger or someone else flattening beaches, bulldozers developing roads out onto beaches, running trucks out there. They'd be charged immediately, whereas here the industy seems to have immunity from the Fisheries Act. That's something we must come to grips with. Why is this industry being treated differently from everyone else?

My concluding comment is that the David Suzuki Foundation is not opposed to aquaculture. However, it must be based on precautionary principles in an ecosystem-based approach, it must be environmentally sustainable, and it cannot threaten our wild fish resources and coastal ecosystems. I think the public demands that.

Thank you.

Â (1220)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Langer, for your comments. A lot of what you said is in the paper here, I see.

Ms. Connell.

Ms. Suzanne Connell (Georgia Strait Alliance): I've just realized I'm the first woman to speak here today, so I feel quite honoured. Thank you for having me here.

My name is Suzanne Connell. I coordinate the salmon aquaculture program for the Georgia Strait Alliance. The booklet I've just passed out to you is what I'll be going through during my presentation today. However, I will be following my brief, which I understand you also have a copy of.

Our organization has been studying the issue of net-cage salmon farming and its impacts for the past decade. We are not opposed to salmon farming per se. We believe there are ways that fish can be farmed that are safe and ecologically sustainable. However, salmon farming, particularly in open net cages, is not one of these. We believe all salmon farming should be carried out only in closed containment systems that are built to eliminate the risks of escape, disease transfer, and waste discharge to the marine environment.

I refer you now to page 8 for a couple of photographs of a land-based closed containment pilot project located just south of Nanaimo. I won't read the captions, but you're welcome to take this home with you and show all your friends.

Since the Salmon aquaculture review ended in August of 1997, there have been many incidences in B.C. and worldwide that have served to underscore our concerns regarding the impacts of net cage salmon farming. In my presentation, I'll outline some of these, with particular emphasis on issues that fall under federal jurisdiction.

First I'm going to start with federal fisheries and its promotion of net-cage aquaculture. Through its federal aquaculture development strategy, DFO has actively promoted net-cage salmon farming and has failed to safeguard traditional fisheries and fish habitat from the ecological impacts of fish farming. In so doing, DFO has abdicated its legal responsibility to wild salmon and the communities that depend on a healthy fishery. We believe it is unconscionable and completely inappropriate to allow DFO, as a regulating agency, to act simultaneously as a proponent for the salmon farming industry.

Second, regarding agency oversight and decision-making, Canada's Auditor General released a report entitled, The Effects of Salmon Farming in B.C. on the Management of Wild Salmon Stocks in February 2001. In this report, the Auditor General concluded, with respect to salmon farming, that DFO lacks the scientific information needed for monitoring and enforcing the Fisheries Act--which of course it's required to uphold. New research is needed on the effects of Atlantic salmon interaction with wild salmon stocks in order to adequately prepare to assess new proposals or applications for relocating existing farms.

Third, there is a serious lack of information about the possibility of disease transfer from farm to wild salmon populations. I'm going to move on to Atlantic salmon in B.C. waters and ask you to refer to page 2 in your booklet. Atlantic salmon are a different species, of course, than the five species of Pacific salmon native to B.C. They have a different evolutionary background and lifecycle. The continuing use of this alien species in B.C. net cages carries a significant degree of risk to indigenous salmon, not only through risk of exotic diseases but also through colonization of wild salmon habitat.

Approximately 50,000 reported Atlantic salmon escape each year. Many more escapes go unreported. Atlantic salmon are now living in at least 77 streams on Vancouver Island and the mainland coast. I noticed Andrew Thomson mentioned 80, so I'll correct that. In addition, juveniles have been discovered in three B.C. rivers, confirming that Atlantic salmon can successfully reproduce in the wild.

Fourth, regarding diseases in farm fish, since late last summer, 16 farm sites in British Columbia have been infected with infectious hematopoietic necrosis, or IHN. In one case, 1.6 million Atlantic salmon infected with IHN were removed from a heritage aquaculture farm site and composted at a facility near Courtney, British Columbia. Some serious questions were raised about the removal, transport, and disposal of these diseased fish, and others raised many environmental concerns.

I'd like to refer you now to page 4 in your booklet. The picture on your left is a photograph of a barge carrying tubs full of diseased and dead fish--or mort is what we call the latter, as in mort barge. The tub on your right was actually overflowing at the time the photo was taken. The formic acid--which is supposed to be used to reduce or keep the maggots under check--wasn't doing such a good job in this case. The liquid was actually overflowing.

Other diseases affecting B.C.'s salmon farms include Kudoa, or soft-flesh disease, and various bacterial diseases. I refer you now to the photograph at the top of page 3. All of these fish are sole-captured in or around salmon farms. The photograph at the top left is a species of copepod, the same family as sea lice, which proliferate under and around salmon farms. The photos at the bottom of the page are of tumors frequently found on bottom fish near salmon farms.

A continuing concern confirmed by workers at farms and packing plants is that diseased fish are sometimes being rushed through processing plants to get them to market before the symptoms become visible.

Â (1225)

Next, on pesticides, I refer you to page 5. Worldwide—we've heard this a few times today—sea lice are considered the most serious problem facing the salmon farming industry. Sea lice are not harmful in small numbers, but dense crowding in fish farms can fuel a rapid and deadly spread of these parasites.

The industry cannot vaccinate against sea lice, but instead can only react once the infestations occur. Treatment is normally in the form of a highly toxic pesticide, normally Ivermectin, Slice, or pyrethrin. Because sea lice are crustaceans, these pesticides are also toxic to other crustaceans such as shrimp, prawns, and crab.

Atlantic lobster fisheries are being devastated around sea farms where Ivermectin and other delousing agents are used, particularly those in Norway and Scotland.

I refer you again to page 5, at the bottom. There is a picture of a smolt that is carrying a lethal load of adult and immature sea lice. This is one of 900-plus samples that were analyzed by Alexandra Morton—you may have heard about her research—during last summer's outmigration of smolt from the Broughton Archipelago. While sea lice are common in the wild, they are not normally found in pink smolt at a lethal level, defined by international pink salmon experts as 10 lice or more on a smolt of this size. In the first 660 samples that she analysed, Ms. Morton found that an average of 45% from the non-control areas had lethal loads of sea lice, and that the level of lice correlated closely with the proximity to the fish farms. Smolts that had not yet reached the farms were virtually free of lice, while those that had passed by the farms were highly infected.

In regard to human health, the B.C. salmon farming industry has refused to provide the government with a record of disease outbreak and drug use on a farm-by-farm basis, so we have had no way of knowing when a particular farm or company has a disease outbreak or has opted to medicate its fish. Government inspection programs are severely underfunded, and as a result only a tiny proportion of farm fish are actually inspected for disease or drug residues. As a result of this, significant levels of antibiotic residues have been found in 3% to 4% of the farm fish that go to market, and this includes many of the same antibiotics that are used to treat human infections.

The provincial government has eliminated the requirement for industry to retain medicated fish for 105 days before processing. Now we must rely again on the vets hired by the industry and on the very minimal inspection provisions of the Food and Drugs Act, as David mentioned earlier.

Next, on siting of fish farms, I refer you to page 6 in your booklet. Many current and proposed salmon farming sites are in locations that will impact first nations, local communities, and other marine resource users, including, of course, marine mammals and other wildlife. Unfortunately, the net-cage salmon farms are located along the wild salmon migration routes or near wild salmon rivers.

On your map, the red dots are fish farms and the arrows show you where the wild salmon must migrate.

As a result of such farm siting, disease pathogens or parasites from fish farms can be transferred to juvenile salmon that are migrating out from rivers and to adult salmon that are returning to spawn. This problem is becoming more and more clear worldwide. In past meetings of the Salmon Aquaculture Implementation Advisory Committee, DFO's habitat branch officials acknowledged that salmon migration routes are ecologically significant; however, they have fallen short, to date, of taking any tangible steps to protect these important migration routes.

On the sustainability of wild salmon in the commercial fishery, the salmon farming industry has severely undercut markets and prices for wild salmon in British Columbia. This has resulted, of course, in increased hardship for fishermen and coastal communities.

For example, in 1998 there was a very strong return of chum salmon along the southern B.C. coast, but fish farms had saturated the fresh fish market, and troll fishermen were only able to get about 16¢ to 18¢ per pound for their catch despite the fact that the chum were in prime condition. As a result, almost no one could afford to fish. Fishermen suffered financially and consumers had difficulty finding any wild fish to purchase.

On predator control, which you've heard about already, DFO studies of the impacts on marine mammals of acoustic harassment devices that are used by fish farms clearly show significant adverse impact, and harbour porpoises were consistently driven out of the areas when the devices were turned on. These harassment devices contravene the marine mammal regulations under the federal Fisheries Act, since they result in dispersal of marine mammals, yet they continue to be licensed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Â (1230)

Illegal shooting of wildlife by fish farm employees also contravenes federal statutes and international conservation conventions, yet DFO has failed to enforce these laws or prosecute any farms for violations.

Our organization, for example, heard from a fish farm manager that on one farm alone, employees had killed over 400 seals in a single year, yet no charges had ever been laid. I refer you to page 7 in your booklet, which shows you a picture of a seal that was found on Quadra Island. As you can see, it appears to have bullet holes in it, and we assume it was probably shot as a result of fish farming.

The use of extremely bright lights at fish farms to enhance fish growth is something that has alarmed local residents and raised concerns about disruptions to the normal movement of herring, oolichan, and other feed fish, and to the marine food chain. Night lights can also degrade the experience for wilderness tourism for miles around.

The Salmon Aquaculture Review recommended that the issue be studied prior to any more night-lighting permits being granted. Yet again, we see no move by DFO to address this issue, which of course falls under federal jurisdiction.

In conclusion I ask you, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, to call on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to uphold its obligations under the federal Fisheries Act. Under this act, this agency is legally obliged to conserve and protect wild salmon and the marine environment. I also ask the committee to ensure that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans conducts the necessary research concerning the impact of salmon aquaculture on wild salmon and other marine species.

Finally, I ask that the chair submit a list of questions I have prepared to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, on behalf of this committee. I'd be happy to pass them over to you.

I thank you for the opportunity to participate, and I wish you all the luck in your deliberations.

Â (1235)

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Connell. Just give those questions to the clerk. We'll have a look at them and see what we can do with them.

The minister has a lot of questions to answer for us on the Marshall decision, the aboriginal fishing strategy, and now this.

Let's take a five-minute break, grab a sandwich,and then come back to questions.

Mr. John Cummins: Is Lynn going to make a presentation?

Ms. Lynn Hunter (Fisheries and Aquaculture Specialist, David Suzuki Foundation): There will be a lot of questions.

The Chair: Thank you for the presentation.

Â (1235)

Â (1251)

The Chair: Okay, I'd like everybody to come back to order.

We'll start with Mr. Lunney.

Â (1255)

Mr. James Lunney: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I was hoping to slip over and get my coffee first.

Certainly a lot of issues have been raised again by our witnesses, and I think it does reflect that there's a very complicated array of issues. We're hearing different sides of all of them. I think it's important to get all the issues on the table, and that's obviously the reason we're here.

There's one issue I wanted to pick up on, Suzanne, regarding your presentation for the Georgia Strait Alliance. There's one thing I thought wasn't consistent, and that is you mentioned in one document that Atlantic salmon had been found in 77 streams and in the other one you said they're now living in 77 streams. I think there is a difference between having found salmon in the stream and actually stating that they're living in the streams.

Ms. Suzanne Connell: Good point. What I meant by that is they've been found in at least 77 streams. That may have been a typo. We can't say for sure that they're still living there, but they have been found in that number of streams. I heard either Andrew Morgan or Andy Thomson--I believe it was Andy Thomson--mention that Atlantic salmon had been found in at least 80, so I corrected that in my presentation because I had 77 in my notes.

Of course, the juveniles have been discovered in three B.C. rivers, confirming that Atlantics had successfully reproduced. So I apologize if that was misleading, I didn't mean to be.

Mr. James Lunney: From what we've heard this morning, although there's evidence that they've been able to reproduce, there doesn't seem to be much evidence that they've been able to sustain a population. There's certainly nothing convincing so far, at least that we've heard.

Ms. Suzanne Connell: But they have been found.

Mr. James Lunney: Yes. Not that it isn't a concern; it is a concern, of course, that they're able to survive at all.

Ms. Suzanne Connell: Yes, and to add to that, there are concerns from a number of environment organizations that the amount of research that's been done on this is incredibly limited. The only one we know of who's done research on the environmental and genetic implications of escaped Atlantics is John Volpe. He's the only researcher we know of who's done this, so there's a lot of concern that there isn't enough information out there, and we'd like to see more research by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Mr. James Lunney: I think everybody would like to see more research. There are certainly a lot of science issues that remain unanswered.

Mr. Lane, in your presentation, in regard to violations of the Fisheries Act and net pens, you stated that probably a quarter of the farms are in violation of the act in terms of damage to the marine environment. Could you provide some evidence of that? Where do you get that figure from?

Mr. David Lane: Here's one of the unfortunate aspects of it. I get that from the fisheries biologists within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans who are quoting that to me but are unable to act within their own department and unable to make that public. I think it's a shame that there is a lot of information collected by good people within the department as to what the impacts currently are, and yet that's being squelched. The data is readily available from a monitoring program that is taking place that shows the level of impact below all farms on the B.C. coast. The numbers are quite staggering.

Mr. James Lunney: I think it's a given that there's going to be impact from the sitings. One of the objections I hear from the site managers is that they would like to be able to move their sites or even rotate them to further minimize impact and to allow the subfloor to recover under the pens, but because of the restrictions under the moratorium period they weren't able to get approvals to be even able to move sites. There are certainly issues that way. We know there's going to be an impact. The question is, is it a mitigatable impact?

Mr. David Lane: Turn it around and sometimes there is very little impact, and I'd say that's a matter of good siting.

We do not have a provincial or federal siting policy that will ensure that we're limiting future sites to those that would be the best environmentally as far as benthic impacts go.

· (1300)

The Chair: Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: I am of the same opinion as Mr. Lunney. You have made a multitude of statements during the course of your interventions, but we the members of the Committee on Fisheries, will have to delve further into the state of aquaculture. As a matter of fact, we have been doing this for some time already. If you had a recommendation to make to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or had one priority to choose, what would it be?

[English]

Mr. Otto Langer: I think the one priority I would probably set is to get rid of open net cages and go to a closed containment system.

Ms. Lynn Hunter: I'd like to add a comment.

You're right. There have been a lot of comments this morning, but a lot of those comments from industry and even from the DFO representatives have been hearsay. There has been no peer-reviewed research done except by the environmental community that is before you today.

I've listened carefully to your question, and I think it's important that when you consider your responsibility as committee members, you must weigh not just the volume of words but what backs up those words. I would ask that you ask the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for the documentation to back up their assurances that there are no environmental impacts, because we'd certainly like to see those documents. I don't think they're there.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: You are asking the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to abandon open net fish farming and to allow, instead, closed containment aquaculture. As far as costs are concerned, do you believe that the aquaculture industry will be able to be profitable if it only uses closed containment systems?

[English]

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Lane.

Mr. David Lane: Exactly the same arguments were used by the British Columbia pulp and paper industry 15 years ago when the demand was there to get rid of dangerous dioxins, furans, and other organochlorines from their processes. They said they'd go broke. They did have to spend huge amounts of money retooling their technology, but they have done it.

As a matter of fact, I would speculate that if they had done it a lot earlier, they would have produced an environmental product that would have captured European markets, markets they've now lost because they were too slow turning to sustainable technologies. I would say the same applies to the salmon farm industry.

The Chair: Mr. Langer.

Mr. Otto Langer: I would agree with Mr. Lane, but I would also say we have to show a higher degree of environmental responsibility. If we do not go through that change from an open system to a closed system, what will the cost be to the natural environment? We always look at the cost to the investor: can he or she make a profit? But what is the cost to the natural environment of not doing things in an environmentally sustainable way? Do we just pass those debts onto the future generation, as we have in the past, while the wild stocks and the natural ecosystem keep getting degraded? That's the history of humans on earth. Let's do things properly.

A couple of governments ago, Canadians were told we were going to be the greenest country by the year 2002. With a lot of the decisions we make I just don't see that happening. There has to be a greater leap by the federal government to ensure that we protect the environment so it can sustain future generations.

The Chair: Ms. Connell, you had a point you wanted to make too.

Ms. Suzanne Connell: I just wanted to say that there's also a cost to other industries in British Columbia, for example tourism, as well as commercial and sport fisheries.

There are a lot of concerns from first nations people about this. You'll hear from them later today, so I'm just adding that in.

So there are other industries that are concerned about impacts to the way they do business as a result of aquaculture and the way it's being practised.

· (1305)

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: I have one last question, but it is very different. In the document tabled with us for the purposes of Ms. Connell's presentation, I believe the following statement is made:

A continuing concern—confirmed by workers at farms and packing plants—is that diseased fish are sometimes being rushed through processing plants to get them to market before the symptoms become visible.

This is a statement you made. I do not know on what page of the English version this appears, but it is in part 4 of the document. You must have some proof to back up such a statement. You are saying that this is confirmed by workers at farms and packing plants.

Do you have any proof? In your view, what impact might this have on human health? Do diseases carried by salmon have an impact on human health?

[English]

Ms. Suzanne Connell: I see which point you're referring to.

Under item 4, I do mention concerns about the diseased fish being rushed through processing plants. I can't say I have proof of that. We've been told that. There are a lot of concerns that this is what's happening.

I may ask other people on the panel here, to see if they could respond to that as well.

Ms. Lynn Hunter: I'd like to respond. The provincial government has confirmed that this is what's going on.

The Chair: I think, though, from a consumer point of view, it should be pointed out that whether or not those fish went through a processing plant, they would still have to meet the health quality standards of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. So there would be—

Ms. Lynn Hunter: And those standards are of concern to us as well.

The Chair: There would be no danger to human health as a result of that product going through.

Mr. Otto Langer: I think the concern is not necessarily disease, because there isn't good proof that some of these diseases would be transferable.

It relates more to bigger fish. When young fish get the disease they die quite quickly, and often they're sacrificed to clean up the problem. But if they're a large fish, there's a big investment there; they do not die as quickly, so in a sense they're nursed along.

One of our concerns would be if the fish are dying fairly quickly and they're large and marketable, will they be rushed to marketplace?

We're talking about 100 or maybe 150 days' withdrawal from certain drugs, and that type of thing, to make them safe for human consumption. Who is there enforcing those guidelines?

You're not going to want to wait a long period of time for your fish to, in a sense, flush out their contaminants so you can get them to marketplace when maybe they're going to die from the disease. So who is monitoring that?

The Chair: Regarding one other area that we've talked about previously, because there are some similarities between agriculture farming and aquaculture farming, certainly one of the programs in place in agriculture is that if you run into a serious disease, like tuberculosis in cattle, you immediately have a cull of the herd. You're compensated for that by the Government of Canada, and it's a program that has been suggested maybe should be in place in the aquaculture industry as well. It makes sense. That way, for the farmer, if a disease happens to occur, then the immediate decision can be made to cull, without serious financial implications. It's another thing that maybe we need to look at.

Thank you, Monsieur Roy.

Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I'm sure you can see that some of the challenge we have with the testimony we're hearing is that the information is either of opinion or anecdotal, or whatever. On the first two questions that were asked, your response was that because you've heard it through some of the biologists, it's almost secondhand information, and you've heard from the plant workers that they've rushed things through.

Again, you've sort of taken a shot at some of the past witnesses for providing that type of information. But I think certainly something that is coming through with us is that the scientific basis for any kind of decision-making is certainly lacking. So we appreciate that, but again, in your own testimony....

A quarter of the farms are in violation of the Fisheries Act. What types of violations are we seeing?

· (1310)

Mr. David Lane: These are pollution issues, pollution of the seabed, and there are many other areas. I was just referring to that particular issue.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Again, the regulations aren't well defined with respect to pollution standards, are they?

Mr. David Lane: That is part of the problem. Again, I brought up that example and the source I had. I'd just say that I don't want to be the conduit of this information. I think what's lacking here is the proper documentation, monitoring, and enforcement by Fisheries and Oceans. I believe it's their job, and it shouldn't be up to us to have to try to expose these problems.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Why is it you don't feel DFO wants the scientific answers to these problems? Opinions have been stated before, so we'll respect your opinion on this.

Mr. David Lane: I would agree with Mr. Langer's comments here that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans seems to have gone in the direction of being a promoter of aquaculture to the detriment of its role of protecting wild fish and the environment. As such, they've gone into it in a major way, devoting a huge amount of money and staff time and creating a whole system to enable that industry. They have a stake in not showing that there are problems that have to be dealt with.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Ms. Connell, you're in favour of the closed containment units. On page 8 you say it's the preferable way to go. These units aren't perfect, but they're a great starting point. What's lacking in those units? What do you see as the shortcomings in those particular units?

Ms. Suzanne Connell: Actually, I wouldn't mind deferring to David Lane. He went to a site very recently, and he may have more information than I do.

The Chair: Mr. Lane.

Mr. David Lane: Just a week ago I toured both land-based and ocean-based closed containment facilities, and, in a nutshell, the waste issue still has to be dealt with. Both are still discharging the same waste into the ocean, yet there are ways to solve this.

One of the companies that's promoting the technology has an alternative system of collecting the waste and treating it. Treatment can vary, even amounting to what would be standard for sewage pollution. It can be done.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Is there a company doing it now?

Mr. David Lane: The capacity is there. There are a few pilot projects that are being tried, and they're operating right now. They're having successful growth with their salmon, but the waste issue still has to be dealt with.

Ms. Lynn Hunter: I would like to add something.

Canada is a signatory to the Rio Convention on Biodiversity and supports the precautionary principle. That precautionary principle dictates that an industry has to demonstrate that it does not have a negative environmental impact. It's not up to individuals or organizations to prove that an industry is having an environmentally negative impact. The onus is on the industry to prove that they're not. I would ask that you invite the industry to submit the evidence that they're not having that negative environmental impact.

As far as research goes, we have the Senate, we have the Auditor General, and we have numerous reports all suggesting that more research has to be done. We agree. We're non-governmental organizations, charitable organizations, that are severely constrained because of budget. The Government of Canada gives millions of dollars for research into aquaculture development. They have yet to give one dollar for researching the environmental impact of those decisions.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Finally, Mr. Langer, you're in possession of the interim guidelines, and I'm sure your group has had an opportunity to review them. Could I get an opinion on how you feel. Are they going to have any kind of impact? And let me ask too, with the interim guidelines coming out, is there a consultation process in place?

Mr. Otto Langer: I'm not aware of any consultation process, and David's had a closer look.

It took me six weeks to get this document, so I haven't gone through it thoroughly. It's my understanding that this is seen as a final document, and we did not have any opportunity to comment on them. We once again found out through a tip from a DFO employee—“Did you know this exists?” And it's serious public information, so we tried to get it that way.

My general comment is that it doesn't have any teeth in it that's really necessary; it's more of an enabling document. You have to look at the introduction. It talks about the DFO mandate, and it's largely to facilitate the industry, to educate the public about aquaculture, and it doesn't really stress the need to protect the natural environment. Plus, everything you look at in here is interim guide, interim guide, interim guide. In fact, I could go on for all of the chapters in here—everything's an interim guide. We've been at this for 20 years. Why are we now coming out with an interim guide?

· (1315)

The Chair: Before I go to Mr. Cummins, on that point, we too just received a copy of this aquaculture site application guide. Do you have any idea who was consulted with? We were not made aware of it until last week, I believe.

Mr. David Lane: To our knowledge, the salmon farm industry was consulted, but not other concerned stakeholders.

The Chair: Of course, we'll ask the department when we see them in Ottawa, but what's the implementation process of this guide from here. Do you know? Or what do you think it should be? I'm asking whomever.

Mr. David Lane: In other realms, there's extensive consultation with stakeholders looking at all aspects of a new policy that's come down. This hasn't happened in the case of either this document or of aquaculture in general, which I find quite astounding.

The Chair: This may be the greatest document since the Bible, for all I know, because I haven't gone through it. If it's going to work, then it has to have the confidence of the industry in terms of the aquaculture farmers and those who have concerns about aquaculture in the general public. It has to have the confidence of everyone in order to mean anything totally. That's why I ask the question.

Mr. David Lane: It is important to note that the province, for the same reason, set up a provincial advisory committee that did include a variety of stakeholders to have discussions about what would happen with their regulatory regime. The federal government has never bothered to do that for a major industry on this coastline.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

Off the top, the first issue I want to address is the issue of escapees.

During the testimony we had this morning from departmental officials, David, you responded to it and you said that the number was out by a factor of ten. They said 350,000 Atlantics in production. So basically what you're telling us is that there are probably 3.5 million?

Mr. David Lane: Well, I don't have the number at my fingertips, but definitely we're talking about millions of fish, not hundreds of thousands of fish.

Mr. John Cummins: I think the interesting number there is that he said that escapees amounted to 0.3% of the production, which is a huge number. If you have 3.5 million fish, you're talking about 30,000 fish, a huge escapement there.

Mr. David Lane: Another thing to note is that the industry and government are predicting a doubling of production over the coming years. So we're doubling the impact of the escapes at the same time.

Mr. John Cummins: I was flabbergasted by that number, because I think it works out far larger than we would have thought.

Mr. David Lane: You'll see the number cited in the AG's report of 50,000 metric tonnes of production in 1999.

· (1320)

Mr. John Cummins: Yes.

I want to skip to a discussion of sea lice. In this DFO document entitled Impacts of Freshwater and Marine Aquaculture on the Environment: Knowledge and Gaps, they talk about research gaps related to sea lice infection. They suggest seven areas of study regarding sea lice alone. Problems associated with sea lice in Scotland and Norway were mentioned here this morning, and I know they have very strict regulations in place. The study I'm most familiar with is the one that was done in Ireland on the problem they had with sea trout. For the committee's benefit, I wonder if someone could give us an overview of the scientific studies that determined that sea lice were in fact a problem to these sea-going critters.

Mr. Otto Langer: I think the first study was done by... The Vancouver Sun called her an amateur biologist. She's probably doing more of our sea lice work on this coast than any of our scientists in government. She was able to document young pink--

Mr. John Cummins: If I can interrupt, Otto, I want to get to that issue, but what I was talking about first is that the problem with sea lice has been well documented in Europe and elsewhere. It's my understanding that a study was done involving about 60 streams on the west coast of Ireland, and a clear relationship was made between the problems they were having and the proximity of sea farms to the estuaries. I wonder if somebody could give us an overview of one of those studies or comment on it. It seems that DFO is ignoring the work that has been done on this issue elsewhere in the world. I'd just like it to be on the record.

Mr. Otto Langer: You've started to do the summary for us, I suppose. If we look at Norway, Scotland, and Ireland, there are good data to indicate that wherever we have fish farms, the incidence of sea lice in remaining wild stocks is greatly increased, to the point where wild stocks of sea trout have disappeared in adjacent streams. Yet we seem to be denying that in British Columbia. The sea lice problem has even been documented along the coast of Chile. So when we look at the major areas where we've introduced Atlantic salmon, we see that there has been an increased sea lice problem.

The response seems to be that sea lice are natural and that's no threat to wild stocks. The data collected on this coast to date would indicate otherwise. Charitable groups are out there collecting that data this very day and have done so in the past. It appears as though charitable organizations are putting more effort into this and taking the international information more seriously than the control agencies are.

Scott McKinley from the UBC aquaculture school received an extremely large grant from the European Union. One of our top-notch scientists in British Columbia, who works at the DFO West Vancouver lab, is in Norway studying the relationship between sea lice, fish farming, and wild fish. Why is our scientist, backed with European money, studying a problem in Europe and here we're ignoring the problem?

Mr. John Cummins: This is the issue as I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong. In Ireland it was determined that there was a causal relationship between the proximity of sea farms to the estuaries where these sea trout were entering the rivers and the sea lice problem. The connection was direct. In the rivers where there were no aquaculture operations in the estuaries, there was no sea lice problem. The result was that very strict regulations were put in place governing sea lice. When we had this problem at the archipelago, DFO was in denial and said it's not a problem. Maybe somebody could give us an overview of that for the record.

Mr. Otto Langer: I think that's a fair statement. A group did meet in March to discuss the sea lice problem. This meeting was the first indication that DFO were willing to sit down and discuss the problem, and they seemed to almost agree that it must be a problem if they agreed with the non-government types that there were ten research priorities. But it was rather odd, because DFO objected to any minutes being released from that meeting, so we agreed upon a synopsis of the meeting, and then they objected to that being released. I have to wonder why we can't be more open. Why are we covering up on these issues?

It's a well-known problem elsewhere, and strict regulations have been brought in, in such places as Norway. Norway has indicated that a farm salmon shall not have more than an average of 0.5—one-half—of a female sea louse per salmon. In British Columbia we haven't even considered such a regulation.

When we asked the provincial government for information on the degree of infestation of Atlantic salmon, we were told, “We just asked farmers to document that last year and they are doing it again this year, but you can't get those results until they are made public.” It's my understanding that fish farmers have been asked to count sea lice.

It's interesting. Norway has concluded that half a female sea louse per salmon is quite inadequate because the levels of infestation of wild fish are still very high. So they've come up with strict regulations and they've determined already that they are not adequate, and here we are, years behind.

· (1325)

Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Langer, you have many years as a DFO scientist, and because I think my next question might require it, I wonder if you could, for the record, give the committee an overview of your experience with DFO, just so they understand.

The Chair: Are you talking about the years he was employed in salmon--

Mr. John Cummins: I'd like to know about his background from the years he worked with DFO.

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Langer.

Mr. Otto Langer: Generally, I have a degree in fisheries biology, and I've mainly been an environmental protection expert, or habitat protection expert, over the years, with an emphasis on salmon. I spent much of the time in the first several years in fresh water and ocean protection. I moved to Environment Canada for six years to work in contaminants controls, such as PCBs, getting the first regulations in place in Canada, and that type of thing. Then I moved back to Fisheries, and I've spent many of my years in legal enforcement. I've probably been an expert in over 100 trials involving the fisheries, probably five times more than any other scientist in Canada. I've been involved in habitat planning most recently in my work. It's about 32 years of experience with the federal government.

Mr. John Cummins: When I made a presentation to the Leggatt inquiry on salmon farming, I pointed out to them that the Norwegian program for dealing with these sea lice had three key components. One was mandatory counting, recording, and reporting the incidence of lice. The second was mandatory delousing when maximum levels of sea lice are demonstrated, with emphasis on the period before the migration of smolts. The third one was use of cleaner fish as a supplement to medical treatment.

If I'm able to find this kind of information, why is it that DFO scientists can't find this sort of information, the information on the science that's done worldwide, and present that to the minister, and cause the minister to bring into effect some regulations that would remove, if you will, the shadow that seems to be overhanging the industry?

Ms. Lynn Hunter: That's a very good question.

I think that what is happening here is that policy is leading science rather than science leading policy. I think there is in fact a stifling of scientific information that doesn't support the policy direction that government wishes to take. I've seen in meetings with scientists that they are feeling very frustrated. We have the good fortune of having the benefit of that with Mr. Langer joining our organization, because he got tired of having that happen.

There seems to be a selective enforcement of the laws of Canada. When I break the law, I can expect to have some sanction. When the fish farming industry breaks the law, there's no sanction at all. I'm the only one in Canada who has ever prosecuted a salmon farm. That's rather surprising, given that even the justice department crown attorney said there was evidence of severe environmental impact.

I think that's a very good question you pose, and it's larger than what this committee's mandate has to consider.

As a citizen, I am concerned that the laws of Canada, the Fisheries Act, are not being enforced. Why is that, and why is it that the minister can't intervene? Why is it that a former official with the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance, Mr. Yves Bastien, is now being paid with taxpayers' dollars?

We're talking about much more than just fish here; it's the ethics of government.

· (1330)

Mr. John Cummins: Just for the record, you mention the fact that you brought a private prosecution. The Auditor General mentioned it in his report as well, although he didn't attach your name to it. Why was that dropped? The government took that over. Was it the provincial government? Why was it dropped?

Ms. Lynn Hunter: It was the federal government that took it over and stayed it. The reason it was stayed in court was that they have to have a reasonable chance of conviction. He said there was evidence of severe environmental impact, and he included his appreciation to me in bringing the case forward, but he said it was doubtful that there would be a conviction because Stolt Sea Farm, who I was prosecuting, would use the defence that it was government that had given the licence for this farm to operate, and for fish farms to operate generally, with the full knowledge of the impact they have on the marine environment. They would say you can't have one arm of government prosecuting an industry while another arm of government is giving the licences for that activity.

The Chair: Mr. Langer wants in here. Go ahead.

Mr. Otto Langer: I think the legal principle there would be officially induced error, basically. DFO had been sitting back for countless years, aware of the problem, going along with existing permits, mainly from the province, and doing nothing. Suddenly, out of the blue, someone lays charges. That could be seen as officially induced error, and I think that was the issue. There were split opinions in federal Justice on this issue, whether it was a winnable case or not, but I think the department decided to cut their losses.

Mr. John Cummins: So I guess in a sense the issue is that there were no regulations in place governing this particular issue and government had allowed it to proceed over a number of years. As you suggest, I guess it's an officially induced error and that's the end of it.

Ms. Lynn Hunter: The regulations are in place; they're just not enforced.

Mr. Otto Langer: I would argue that the provisions of the Fisheries Act are simple and straightforward. It says “thou shalt not harmfully alter habitat”, and when you allow a large amount of material to build up in some of this bottom habitat, you really don't need a regulation. It's pretty black and white. However, if you're measuring a millimetre or a couple of millimetres in the bottom, maybe, to be fair to the industry, you have to say that anything more than a centimetre of buildup of organics in the bottom would be seen as a harmful alteration of habitat, and the general provisions will apply. That's where guidelines could fit in.

With the examples we've seen, such as Stolt, it was black and white. On many farms there was an obvious violation under the general provisions of the Fisheries Act. That was documented about 15 years ago and nothing was done about it. Divers and work-level staff were quite frustrated by the lack of support from the government to address these problems. If it was done 15 years ago, we'd be way ahead of where we are right now.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins, we only have time for a couple more.

Mr. John Cummins: Okay, that's all I have here.

The Chair: Well, that's faster than usual.

Mr. John Cummins: One of the issues that was mentioned in your discussions was the issue of Alaska, and Alaska does not allow net-cage salmon farming, for whatever reason. But Senator Murkowski has advised the Secretary of State in the U.S., Colin Powell, that he believes the salmon treaty between Canada and the United States should be reopened and a section put in there governing aquaculture. In his view, these escapees are not strictly a national issue, but an international concern.

Would any of you care to comment on that? Where is that liable to go?

· (1335)

Ms. Lynn Hunter: I would certainly like to comment on that. I was in Ketchikan, Alaska, just this past weekend. This is an issue of huge concern to the people of Alaska, and it's not going to go away. I was the featured speaker at a public meeting, and a number of the movers and shakers in the Republican campaign were in the audience. The salmon treaty may be one avenue. The International Joint Commission, which is the organization that is to mediate disputes between Canada and the U.S., is also being considered as an avenue, and then there are all those ordinary people who were in the audience who are thinking about another blockade to prevent Atlantic salmon from going from the net cages in British Columbia to Alaska.

So there is a risk of civil disobedience at an international level if the good relations between Alaska and Canada are further damaged by the expansion of the net-cage salmon farming on our coast.

The Chair: We do expect representatives from the Government of Alaska tomorrow morning.

Go ahead, John, sorry.

Mr. John Cummins: The other issue I want to bring forward is the fish meal issue, and one of you, it may have been Otto, mentioned that the meal, the pellets that farm fish eat, are composed at least in part of fish meal. I think we have treated this fish meal as an unending resource, having the notion that the bulk of the product came from somewhere in the bottom side of the world. We didn't seem to have too much concern over it. Yet I have in front of me here a United States Department of Agriculture document, dated the 22nd day of the third month of 2001, and they prove, for example, that the government now is very concerned about sustainable limits of fish catches and it's starting to set limits on processing capacity and the vessels that are able to pursue these fish that will be rendered into fish meal. These documents show that there's been a slight decline lately in the volume of production from Peru, and from Chile as well.

So it seems to me that production of fish meal, although it's a long way off our shores, perhaps should be a concern. We all eat tuna. I don't know whether the tuna are feeding on those same little critters or what, but perhaps one of you might give us a little more background on the particular issue, or do you have any comment on it?

Mr. David Lane: The volumes of fish, largely anchovies, which are in this case mostly coming off the coast of Ecuador and Peru, are staggering, and it should be noted that it's highly unusual to be farming a predator that is carnivorous, but this is what the case is with salmon. So there's a need for a high degree of fish protein as part of the feed. But worldwide, the need for this kind of fish feed is enormous, given the scope of the salmon aquaculture industry internationally at this point.

I would agree wholeheartedly with Otto Langer's comments earlier that to be taking this amount of biomass out of an ecosystem will have tremendous long-term effects, all for the sake of producing a luxury food item here in Canada for consumers who are in a much better position than those in those countries where the fish are coming from.

Mr. John Cummins: As you suggest, the numbers are staggering. This U.S. Department of Agriculture document suggests that in Peru there are 110 fish meal plants, and, get this, they have a processing capacity of 7,500 metric tonnes per hour. Just absolutely mind boggling—7,500 metric tonnes per hour in Peru. They have the documents for 2000, and the production there was over 2 million metric tonnes of product produced in Peru alone. That's a huge volume of biomass coming out of the southern oceans. I guess the question is, how long can you sustain that harvest?

· (1340)

Ms. Lynn Hunter: That's the field of expertise of one of the leading academics, Dr. Daniel Pauley at UBC. He gauges that--it answers your question--it'll be less than ten years. Then the industry would be in collapse.

The Chair: Just on that point, in terms of fish feed, is there not some research taking place to find other resources for fish feed--

Ms. Lynn Hunter: We're going to have vegetarian salmon.

The Chair: I don't say it facetiously, Lynn. I'm sure there is.

Ms. Lynn Hunter: That's more of our taxpayers' dollars at work, researching aquaculture development in Canada.

The Chair: There's nothing wrong with good research.

Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: On this same point, I would like to refer to page 8 of the document you have submitted to us. I believe it is Mr. Langer's text. Is that it? Mention was made of the document from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, but I would like to know, in concrete terms, what the daily or weekly consumption of this fish meal is here in British Columbia. It seems clear to me that the meal produced in South America is not sold solely to Canada, but also to other countries, including the United States, a country that it too is a major producer.

I would like to know how many pounds of fish meal go into the production of a 10, 15 or 20 pound salmon. How many pounds of fish meal must be fed to a salmon before it is market-ready?

[English]

Mr. Otto Langer: I think the conversion rate of food into fish flesh we would eat is variable. In the past, the numbers that have been used are 2:1. Lately I've heard a spokesmen for the fish farmers of British Columbia saying some farms have got it down to as low as 1 pound of Atlantic for about 1.3 pounds of meal.

Past spokesman for the salmon farmers, Ann McMullen, said that one pound of fish has been produced with as little as 0.8 pounds of food. I have a hard time believing some of those figures. It's hard to produce a pound of food from 0.8 pounds of food. The salmon in those cages must be eating a lot of wild fish or other wild food to make up the difference.

The conversion ratio can vary a lot. That's one reason fish farmers like Atlantic salmon. They are more docile. They're not as aggressive. Their conversion rate is better than chinook or coho salmon.

I'm not an expert on food conversion.

Mr. David Lane: I would just caution the use of numbers. The salmon farm industry generally talks about conversion rate in terms of the mass of fish meal in the pellets. That's not the same as the number of fish that are fished to make that meal, which is quite a different number.

The Chair: I think, too, in terms of the conversions, Mr. Roy, you're talking about wet weight of fish versus dry weight of meal in some of the conversion figures. But those figures are available. I don't know if it was from this committee or if it was from an aquaculture conference I was at in Norway, but that information is available. I think, in fairness to the aquaculture industry, there has been a fairly substantial improvement in amount of feed to amount of fish actually grown.

Mr. David Lane To answer your previous question, there's at least one farm that's using an alternative feed, that's using partially canola and soy.

· (1345)

The Chair: Mr. Roy, does that answer your question?

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: We heard say that there is one farm that uses canola among other things. Mr. Easter asked the question earlier, and I would like to ask you if you have reflected upon this. Have you ever envisaged the possibility that this might be a replacement solution for the biomass that is presently used? Would this be applicable? That is what I would like to know.

[English]

Mr. David Lane: All I know is that so far they can't get beyond 50% vegetable protein, so there's still going to be a high degree of fish protein necessary.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Roy.

I have just one last question. I think nearly all the groups have mentioned that you're not opposed to salmon aquaculture--or aquaculture in general, I guess. Then how does the country accommodate the industry in a way that you could support it? Is it along the lines of the several points Mr. Langer mentioned? I believe Mr. Langer mentioned earlier that if he had to do one thing, it was related to the open cages. Am I right in assuming that? One has to be careful with assumptions.

Mr. Lane.

Mr. David Lane: Our organization also believes there can be sustainable aquaculture. We believe it would be closed containment, with waste recovery and treatment. We believe there should be some kind of timeline--we say five years--for converting; that when there have been any technological conversions in other industries there's a certain timeline to make it possible and practical. But we believe that in the interim we need proper regulations, following the lead of the salmon aquaculture provincial review, but also going beyond that to incorporate information we now know about environmental impacts.

I would also recommend that we follow Norway's lead in simply getting salmon farms out of major salmon systems. They're moving farms out of the major salmon fjords; that's a wise move. Given the impacts to migratory adults and juveniles, we should be doing the same here on the B.C. coast.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Lane.

Mr. Langer, and then Mr. Cummings.

Mr. Otto Langer: I think a fish farm fish should be certified as to being sustainable or not. We have the Marine Stewardship Council in London, England, that's trying to eco-label fish caught in a sustainable fishery. The aquaculture industry has indicated they would like to get an eco label. Some of us would strongly oppose that, because we think it is a very non-sustainable fishery.

However, if they did resort to new practices, new technology, maybe it's those fisheries that then should get the MSC label, and the customer would be buying hopefully a healthier product and one that is not a high risk to the natural environment.

The Chair: You'll have the last question, Mr. Cummins.

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

I want to quote from this January 18, 2002, DFO document entitled DFO's Aquaculture Site Application Review Process and Interim Guide. For reference, it's on page 4. This may show you why you don't want DFO on your side. I'll quote from it so I can't be accused of manufacturing this outrageous statement.

It says:

For example, a fisher's economic situation is affected because of impacts to fish habitat affecting the fishery. The aquaculture operation proposes to employ that fisher. Thus, the action of the aquaculture operation employing the fisher could be considered mitigation to offset the indirect economic impact to that fisher from the fish habitat impacts likely to be caused by the proposed aquaculture activity.

And they go on. They say:

The overall positive “direct” effects on socio-economic conditions that could result from an aquaculture project could then be used as a justification to outweigh the significant adverse environmental effects of the project.

So my question is, would any of you be satisfied having fishermen go to work for fish farmers? Would that be an adequate mitigation measure to overcome problems of habitat destruction?

· (1350)

Mr. Otto Langer: I guess I was in DFO when some of these discussions were taking place over a year ago, when DFO staff were being prevented from applying authorizations that would require compensation. I won't mention the name of the director then, but he did say we had to be more innovative and come up with different ways of getting compensation, and so on, and you can see a bit of it right there. That's one of the main reasons I left DFO. I basically think they lost their direction in what the Fisheries Act was all about.

The Chair: That leads me to my last question--

Mr. David Lane: I was wondering if I could address—

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Lane.

Mr. David Lane: As you know, there has been a huge displacement in the commercial fishery in the last five or six years, with thousands losing their boats and their jobs. The proof is in the pudding. There has not been a transfer of those people into the salmon aquaculture industry. Very few fishing people have moved into salmon aquaculture.

Quite a few hatchery workers with the technical skills have moved into salmon aquaculture, but in the main, it has not been seen as a good opportunity.

It should be noted that these are remote locations where people are on ten-day to two-week shifts, alternating with other crews. This is not a way to have a family life, to raise a family. These are low-paying jobs for those who are doing the hard work on the farms, and there has just not been that transfer as far as it being an alternative job source.

The Chair: I guess this question is really to you, Mr. Langer. Today is your first day as a citizen free of the tether of being an employee of DFO. This is not just related to aquaculture, but I can tell you, both as a member of Parliament and as a member of this committee, that DFO constantly comes under a lot of criticism, and it's not the only federal department to come under criticism.

If a department is going to do its job, and the federal government indeed is going to do its job, then the people have to have confidence in that department, that it is working in the public's interest and in industry's interest, a combination of the two.

From your perspective, based on your years of experience, what is wrong here? Is the system out of control? I know people in B.C. like to say, over the mountains and towards Ottawa, they don't understand you out here. I can tell you that exactly the same argument is played from Prince Edward Island, that Ottawa is too far removed from us too. What's the trouble? Is the system too bureaucratic; is it too centralized; is it out of control, or what, from your point of view? I'd be interested in knowing.

Mr. Otto Langer: One of the general comments I would make--and I'll try to be brief--is that in probably my first 20 years in DFO, DFO was looked upon and put on a bit of a pedestal as someone they could trust. When it came to environmental battles, whether it was forestry issues or anything, people came to DFO as someone they could trust. We were the last defence, really, on these issues. It was much easier working for DFO, because in a sense you were seen as a bit of a white knight; you always stood for the right thing.

That really started disappearing about ten years ago, and it has been a steady, ongoing decline. The decline probably started really occurring when John Fraser did his inquiry into the lost sockeye salmon in the Fraser River, and he referred to the reign of terror under....

Well, I won't mention ministers and deputy ministers who were in charge then. But things really started going downhill then, and DFO has never pulled out of that dive. I would argue that over the last four years the dive has increased.

In the last couple of years the morale has just been terrible. I think a lot of people, including young people, have just gotten up and taken holidays and went out and got jobs in the last year or so, which is something I hadn't seen in the past.

I think some of the real problems were the bureaucracy, bottlenecks, control, and centralization. The more ministers and deputy ministers who come along to say we're going to empower you, the more we're going to do to decentralize decision-making.

Usually the opposite would happen, and more and more effort of civil servants is used to write briefing notes on a daily basis to Ottawa. The minister has to be made aware of everything before it occurs, before he reads about it in the newspaper, and the task has become impossible. You just cannot keep the minister informed of everything that can go wrong.

Usually the minister is not too keen on everything that can go right, and basically it's become a giant exercise, in a sense, covering the minister's ass, staying out of trouble, and keeping everybody happy. And you cannot keep everybody happy when you're a regulator. At times you have to say no to people, and that “no” has become quite weak in a number of areas, especially in aquaculture; it's rarely ever heard.

I think a new culture has developed, and we need somebody to turn that around. I think it's really difficult for an agent like DFO to be a promoter such as in salmonid enhancement running hatcheries, which take up most of the money on this coast, versus habitat protection. How do you take that hatchery culture over many years and reverse it, because it might even be harming natural stocks? You developed the hatchery culture, and how do you get rid of it? We've developed an aquaculture culture. How do we change that?

Perhaps these activities should not be in DFO; they should be in a crown corporation in charge of the development of hatcheries, the development of fish farming, and DFO should live with their conservation and protection mandate embedded in the Fisheries Act, which is really their marching orders.

So I think, yes, there is a lot of frustration of employees in DFO, their morale is very low, and things have really slipped in terms of their credibility in the last decade, there's no doubt about it. I think we're at an all-time low...in the 32 years I was with DFO.

· (1355)

The Chair: Thank you for your frank response. We need to know that. I know a number of us have debated a number of times whether or not 200 Kent Street should be downsized and we should go with an eastern office and a western office, but we've never ever come to any conclusions on that either. It's thinking out loud.

Go ahead.

Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Chairman, I was going to make a comment that we've heard before about the difficulties in DFO science. And in the past when there's been a concern within the department, we've allowed people from the department to come before the committee in an in camera meeting. Any testimony they gave to the committee was taken in strict confidence and it would not have any impact on their careers.

It might be helpful, if some DFO scientists felt there was some sort of constriction on their ability to act in an appropriate way, if they wanted to contact you, we would make those arrangements and hear that testimony.

The Chair: That possibility is certainly open. We've had a few stressful moments with the deputy minister in that kind of approach before, but this committee is open to taking the approach that Mr. Cummins has considered.

So if anybody is interested, they can notify myself or the clerk.

Once again, thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for coming and laying your position out before us. Sorry again that we're running a little late.

The next witnesses will be the Ahousaht First Nation and the Fish Farm Working Group, jointly.

Welcome, Mr. Sidney Sam, Sr., and Darrell Campbell, who is the fisheries manager. We will have a brief pause to allow you to come to the table.

· (1356)

¸ (1402)

The Chair: So who is making the presentation? Is it Darrell or Sidney?

¸ (1405)

Mr. Darrell Campbell (Fisheries Manager, Fish Farm Working Group): I'll do the presentation.

The Chair: Go ahead. The floor is yours. Welcome, and thank you for coming.

Mr. Darrell Campbell: We had a very short time to draw this up, and we missed a couple of issues, but we'll make comments on it.

Since time immemorial, Ahousaht First Nation has played a major role in self-government and management of all aquatic species within our traditional territory prior to contact. It was based on sustenance. Our oral history tells us hish-shukish-tsawak; everything natural is one.

Interpretation of sustainability has made a major change since the time of contact because there used to be just us first nations we had to be concerned about, and not all the other user groups today. The B.C. government put farms in our territory 13 or more years ago with absolutely no consultation and with the falsifying of documentation by industry to obtain tenures that are still existing today. There were absolutely no disciplinary measures made by the B.C. government to correct this. Instead, what did they do? They offered to relocate them or pay them compensation if relocation was out of the question.

We'll expand a little further on that, but I'll just go through the list. These are some on our concerns. Number one is infringement of our food-gathering areas. Another one is expansion of some of these old sites to the new infrastructures. These sites are three or four times larger. There was absolutely no consultation by industry with us to do this. I have listed five of the sites here. The two top ones have numbers that our people who are employed at these farms gave me. I can give you a moment to do the arithmetic. It's five times, threefold. That's like 15 more farms done within our traditional territory without consulting us.

In our local papers they say expansion is not happening when indeed it is. Expansion is a real concern because it brings along disease concerns to all aquatic species, whether they be micro-organisms or the biggest fish or mammal. Medication is used with the new larger sites. Industry states they've downsized the medication. Yes, it may be true, but what if you're tripling or quadrupling the size of the farm in that same area? Does the medication magnify with the farm size and the added fish numbers? My arithmetic tells me yes.

Migrating fowl are feeding on the mussels and the pellets. Something I missed in here is that our people eat seagull eggs, which are now coming into season. There are seagulls that never leave these farms now because they're feeding on the pellets.

Migrating fry to adult fish feeding on pellets are just congregating because they see the farmed fish inside the pen, more or less in a tractor pen. We use that in the herring system.

Aquatic larvae or micro-organisms are migrating through the water, through the ebb or the flood waters. What happens when it meets the dead water that happens in September and October? There is no oxygen in the dead water. Does this explain why there are no clams on some of the beaches that used to have an abundance? These beaches are all near or in the proximity of a fish farm. They have to supply oxygen by means of a compressor to move the dead water. I'm going to ask that studies be carried out to meet the environmental needs and not just the farmed fish needs.

Noise from auto-feeders. Does this deter pelagic species because they are very receptive to noise? Our history will tell us. When the herring spawned is a good example. When they spawned we were told to paddle in there and not go in there with our outboards.

And on the last page, note that we are still very dependent on our aquatic resources. I ask that the comments made in the salmon aquaculture review not be interpreted the wrong way, so you can have a full understanding from our point of view. It comments that fish farming has little or no impact on human beings. I must tell you that the Ahousaht First Nation is human and it has had a big impact on our traditional food-gathering areas.

On a positive note, I must tell you, jobs have never been the issue. But the environment is of great concern so that we can have certainty in terms of all of our aquatic resources for our children, their children, and generations to come.

Something we missed was the issue of escapees. That is a big issue because it has happened within our territory in late December or January.

I'm going to ask Sid Sam, Sr., to jump in. He's been sitting on the working group we have, delegated by our people.

Sid.

¸ (1410)

Mr. Sidney Sam (Senior Member, Fish Farm Working Group): Thanks, Darrell.

First of all, I'd like to thank the group who presented before us. They've helped make our presentation a lot shorter, because we support a lot of the things they already said. So it makes things a lot easier.

In regard to some of the things that Darrell talks about, such as disease, we've actually had two farms that have had disease. One was in Mussel Rock and another in Binns Island. There were over 750,000 in the first pen, I think it was, and 735,000 in the second pen. They had to kill them. They all died. And this is the IHN, I think it's called; they quarantined the farms, which is good. There's nothing wrong with quarantining a farm and putting it away and destroying the fish.

In Nanaimo, I understand they burn them to a certain degree of heat to kill the disease. It's okay. There's nothing wrong with that.

But, again, you have boats running around. One of our boats that had do the transporting of these fish actually went to Ahousat. They go on a beach, scrub them off, and disinfect the boat. But why is it done in Ahousat, right in the bay? We must realize that fish are also in those bays—different kinds of fish. So there must be a reason why they use that disinfectant. I really suspect there's something wrong there. There has to be a better method than doing that. And I don't think it should be done in our bay.

Another thing about the pellets that are fed to the fish is that when I first started out, they used to be heavy and they used to drop straight down to the bottom of the farms. If you look at an old farm, it's just like a big pile of feed and waste down there. We examined one two years after we moved and it's still there. There's nothing alive within I think about 100 metres out there. After 100 metres, yes, there's a little bit of life, and a mile down there is life. But now they make the pellets more buoyant so they go this way.

I have a friend who goes out dogfishing. He was about three to four miles offshore, off the island, and these dogfish were full of pellets. Now you wonder why there's a ruling that says you have to quit feeding the fish in the farm up to seven days prior to processing them. Is that because of the medication? I don't know that for certain. Or is it because they're too fat? I'm told by a doctor I can't eat it; I'm on a diet. But if the fish that are caught three to four miles offshore are caught that morning and dressed on the way to Vancouver that same night without being fleshed out, is that medication still in that dogfish?

And what other kinds of groundfish eat the pellets? I assure you there must be other kinds of fish that eat the pellets that are down there. It's a lot greater than we can imagine, where the pellets go. And we have no control over it. We need to have some kind of system that's going to take care of that.

I think it was mentioned today that if you could get into closed containment, or a shore operation, or whatever it is, it would improve. We're not opposed to fish farming, mind you; no, we're not. As a matter of fact, we even talked about trying a pilot project onshore. Somebody's got to do it; we can't always just sit there.

I was here, I think it was a year ago, maybe two years ago. What did we do since? Not very much. Am I sitting here again and with nothing to happen in the next two years? I'm bothered by that, if nothing happened two years ago. I'd just like to know now: am I to get out of here now so I don't waste my time? I probably have some better things to do than sit here, if nothing's going to be done. I'm sure now that this long is just a little too long, that we wait and wait and wait.

Those are all my comments on some of the things that are happening to our area. One of our pens actually had a lot of dead fish in it—which one was that, Bare Bluff? It's so full of dead fish that actually the pen started buckling under, it was so weighted down with dead fish. That is a concern, and that's just within our own area, just within Clayoquot Sound. I don't know about any other farms that have the same kind of problem.

I think we need to do something now, or otherwise the food we eat is disappearing and disappearing fast. If you look at Cypress Bay, it's one of the best herring spawn areas there is on the coast. Today there's nothing there—nothing, no spawn at all. The seals that are around there are getting thinner and thinner and they're sickly.

When the bottomfish are on the fish farm—I said this the last time too—the scales are falling off when they're coming up. Their tarsals are down. But if you get that same kind of fish offshore, their tarsals are straight up; they're healthy.

So there is a difference between inshore and offshore. We need to learn about that; we need to know more about what's happening to our bottom. We don't know enough to carry on such an operation. It's just terrible, because it affects what we eat.

You heard Darrell talk about ducks and seals, and all the things we eat infringe on our right. Does escapement mean that fish farmers already spawn for 100 metres off their farm? Does that mean it comes under our right to fish it? Maybe it does. I don't know that; there's no clear picture of what is law under our fishing rights.

Take another species: Atlantic salmon. Is it our right to fish it? Maybe it is; it's in our territory. But in an escapement last winter where 10,000 escaped, we used beach seine, we used gill netting, we used trolling, we used the big seiner. We got two fish out of 10,000 that escaped.

¸ (1415)

There must be a way of capturing these things, because they tend to lie on the bottom of a net--not that they lie on the bottom of the ocean floor, because we couldn't catch them there. We never did catch them there. There has to be a better method of recapturing escaped fish. You heard Darrell when he said the farms are getting three or four times bigger. Does that mean their anchors are that much bigger? Not so. The anchors are still the same, I believe.

They have to improve, because these farms are now drifting onshore and breaking up. That's what's causing the escapement. We need to correct that. We were always told that Atlantic salmon are not a problem: they'll never survive in the wild; they'll never ever go up your rivers; they'll never ever spawn in your rivers. Today, they're doing exactly that. So we need to do something, and do something now.

Thank you.

¸ (1420)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Campbell and Mr. Sam.

Who wants to start?

Mr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to Sidney Sam and Darrell Campbell, from my riding, Nanaimo--Alberni. I do hope to get out to Ahousat and visit you out there.

I appreciate your being here to raise your concerns. I wanted to ask a few preliminary questions. How many sites are in the proximity of Ahousat currently?

Mr. Darrell Campbell: I believe there are 17 tenures, but I think a few are....

Mr. James Lunney: Sorry?

Mr. Darrell Campbell: I'll ask Kevin. He's a....

There are 16 and a couple are....

Mr. James Lunney: How close are they situated to Ahousat? Are we talking about within a few kilometres or...?

Mr. Darrell Campbell: Directly from Ahousat, there's one across the bay, maybe two and a half miles away. Then to the northeast and northwest, behind the Ross Passage, there's another one.

But our river systems--where we gather our food--is our greatest concern. It's one of our concerns.

Mr. James Lunney: Sure.

Some of your people from the band are employed in the...do you have the percentage?

Mr. Sidney Sam: About 60 first nations are working on the farms. I don't know how many Ahousahts.

Mr. Darrell Campbell: About 60 first nations.

Mr. James Lunney: You mentioned migrating fry and adult fish. Are they attracted to feeding on the pellets, or just congregating because they see farm fish inside the pen and are attracted to it? Is that something you're aware of, or are your people observing that wild stocks or other fish are accumulating around the pen?

Mr. Darrell Campbell: We observed this at Bare Bluff. We went to check Bare Bluff out because some of our people told us it was a bad site. A lot of the industry workers are aware of this, because four boats came over to see us right away.

We dropped a lure down, a buzz bomb. I'll bet our lure didn't even go down 25 feet, when, bang, we caught wild smolt chinook. I asked one of my very own people, “Did you see this?” His name is Marvin Samuel. He turned around and walked inside.

So I guess my question to this panel is regarding question (d) of DFO. Is that not obstructing the migratory route of a wild salmon? Our eyes have seen it. We've been out there. We've had the opportunity to see it.

I guess it goes a lot further than salmon. Talking to the guys out in Warn Bay, who don't use auto-feeders, they say the herring come in and go out on the other side of the island, but they don't go where all the auto-feeders are; they go where it's nice and quiet. That's to help answer your question.

¸ (1425)

Mr. James Lunney: I noted that you commented on the noise from the auto-feeders, and how it deters pelagic species. Is that something you are aware of, being near there? Is it the kind of noise that carries for miles over the water and is presumably magnified in the water? How big a problem is it?

Mr. Darrell Campbell: It never did get resolved through the study we did, working with industry and government. There was no clear answer from DFO. They were invited to our panel to try to work something out, and there was really no answer. It was left in limbo, I guess.

History will tell us that in dealing with herring, you stay away from them when they're spawning. A good example is our J licence operation this year. We had a really good spawn going. One of our guys jumped in a little kicker with a motor, bombed around there, and the next morning they were spawning. That's why I really believe our history is true.

Mr. James Lunney: I think that's the first time we've heard the noise issue being raised. On the issue of arc lights at night, is that something you have any observation or comment on?

Mr. Darrell Campbell: Yes. That's very evident at the bottom point site in the evening. We raised the issue of night lights three years ago or more.

Some of our people have observed that if smaller fish get in there, they stay in there and have no way out. So it is evident, night lighting...and it's never been remedied. You've heard all the terminology on that, but I still believe it's just to feed the fish.

Mr. James Lunney: With all respect, we haven't heard any scientific evidence, on the examination of the stomachs of the fish, that they're eating any substantial quantities of anything other than their pellets. I think there is a big concern that the lights draw a lot of wild fish around the pens, and they could be subject to predators on the outside of the nets.

I wonder if your people have any observations related to that, from being on the sites.

Mr. Darrell Campbell: I guess it goes a lot further. I didn't make enough points on the migration in the fall. You'll notice that the migrating birds that come in become residential because the food supply is there--the mussels and all that. That's another issue too.

These migratory species are becoming residential, and I don't think there has ever been a study done on that. But our people--even I go out there once in a while--and the people living within the area have observed that. That's our people's main diet in the winter.

Mr. James Lunney: Could you explain the connection between the mussels and the salmon farms? Are the mussels becoming attached to the farming equipment or the pens?

Mr. Darrell Campbell: Yes, they're becoming attached to the anchors and whatnot.

Mr. James Lunney: Okay. So that's sort of a spinoff or a by-product in the industry.

You mentioned the dead water at the bottom, or lack of oxygen. We heard from Mr. Vernon of Creative Salmon, which is in your area--the Tofino area. They are making an effort to oxygenate the water, to mitigate the effects on the ground there.

Are you aware of that?

Mr. Darrell Campbell: I guess I brought that up because if you go up toward Shelter Inlet—a beach I dug personally for years and years in the commercial dig—there's nothing there. It's right up at the head of the inlet, where all the floods and whatnot go. In September and October there's dead water.

I'm concerned about the micro-organisms and all the other larvae species that the herring and everything feed on that are connected to the salmon and whatnot.

Mr. James Lunney: I have a final comment, Mr. Chairman. The concept of hish-shukish-tsawak that you mention, that everything is one, is a concept that I think we do need to be aware of. We're part of the food chain as well. It goes all the way from the smallest micro-organism up through the predators, and we eat them finally. So that's a concept we do need to be aware of and respect.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

¸ (1430)

The Chair: Mr. Sam.

Mr. Sidney Sam: I'll explain what hish-shukish-tsawak means. We used to say it when there was nothing else around but local fish. All the other things are gone, but the fish farming is something new, and I'll say that fish farming is on the outside of that. It's a different species altogether. Now it's affecting what we call hish-shukish-tsawak. It's no longer there.

The Chair: Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Thank you. My question is on a point of clarification regarding something you said earlier. You talked about 5 specific sites and there was mention, I believe, of 16 operational sites. How many are there on your territory or within such a short distance that they impact your territory? What is the exact figure? What distance is affected, in terms of kilometers of beach or affected coastal area? You specifically mentioned a beach where there are no more clams. How many kilometers of coast are impacted by these sites in your territory?

[English]

Mr. Darrell Campbell: A key site would be like somewhere in the neighbourhood of Shelter Inlet where we have wild stock salmon, where we have heron that migrate in and out of that, what we call Watah. We have fowl that come in and go out of there. I guess it's been an observation over the years, not like a one-year observation. That's why I bring up Shelter Inlet, because that is where I dug shellfish, and that is where now our fishermen go and troll in the months of December and January. They are no longer getting salmon in there. Is it because there's no feed in there?

The heron are no longer living in there, feeding on the micro-organisms. So that's the reason I bring up Shelter Inlet. Right across our key salmon river, Megin River, there is a farm and at the other inlet that comes into the Shelter Inlet, there is another farm, Belcher, and then up the way about two or three miles more there is Dixon Point and then across to the southwest, two miles, there's another farm.

So with all this action of water going in and out, that's why I mentioned dead water with the micro-organisms. Is that where the problem stems from? Because within me and you...that's how we live. The things we don't see inside ourselves, the minutiae.

That's why I'm saying Shelter Inlet. I'm worried about it because the only heron spawn we have now is up in Sydney Inlet, and that's about four or five miles to the west of these farms. I'm worried about the chain reaction of what's going down. Is it going to hit that heron bed in five or ten years from now? We don't know. That's why I'm here voicing my concern.

The food inventory...as young as I am, there were over 50 different types of food that we ate when we gathered our people. That's not even talking about elders. These foods were prepared in many different manners, dried, half-smoked, jarred, or fresh. When I come to a city like this, I shake my head when I go to a restaurant and see how much I have to pay for a crab. I can go back home and enjoy it for free. It's the same with the Manila clam.

There is no dollar figure when it comes to food gathered within our territory--it's our life, our lifeline. That's why I'm here, and I've been here years prior to this trying to fight this environmental issue. I can foresee what's going to happen, or is happening. Five years ago they talked about disease. Guess what? It's pounding on our door. It has come in.

It's scary when my own brothers, who work there, have to leave their boots, rain gear, and everything on site there. They bathe on the farm site, they bathe when they hop on the boat, and they bathe when they hop off. Wouldn't you question that, if I had to do that here?

How serious is it really? In my eyes, it's very serious. I get concerned when my other panel member, who went out for some samples from the infected area, was pretty down. He couldn't keep the rain gear. They told him they were going to burn it--brand-new rain gear and boots.

So nothing has proven to me yet that there isn't anything happening down there that is bad or good. But what is evident now is that the fowl in Cypress Bay have moved outwards. They congregate two miles out, south of where there used to be many flocks in my teenage years. That's why I'm here, because all of my children still eat....

Does that answer your question?

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Oui.

¸ (1435)

The Chair: Last question, Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: I appreciate what you just said. So you say that you have four or five sites within a five-kilometer radius that are located near a stream or at the entrance to the inlet.

[English]

Mr. Darrell Campbell: Well, I wish I had a map here. I need one of Clayoquot Sound.

A voice: It's not very big.

The Chair: No, you'd need one that's like.... Okay, it's not big enough, Mr. Roy.

We should have one here really, Darrell. We're going to get one. But they're going to mark it on Karen's map.

Mr. Cummins.

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

You mentioned that some of these sites are located near rivers and streams. One notion that is pretty much uncontested is that where these salmon farms are located near streams, if there's a problem with sea lice, you will have problems with the spawners in those rivers.

There have been studies. In the previous discussion you may have heard about serious problems in Ireland, Scotland, and Norway. It pretty much conclusively--to my mind, anyway--demonstrated a problem.

I wonder if you've noticed a problem in the numbers of spawners that are returning to the rivers and streams where there is a farm site located adjacent to the stream.

¸ (1440)

Mr. Darrell Campbell: In the only systems we've been really concentrating on when we worked for DFO doing enumeration on the Megin River, we've seen a big decline in the chinook, and we don't know why. Eight or nine years ago Ahousat made the decision that we were going to release chinook and coho from our beach stand for home use, which we practice every year. This last year we didn't release one chinook, whereas five or six years ago we released well over a hundred right at the beginning of the chum run. So there have been indications that the chinook have gone down quite a bit.

It's puzzling, because that same time we did the chinook and the coho, we had known for a long time we had a coho problem arising, so we did not allow our people to gill-net in front of their rivers. We just beached and released the chinook and coho. But the coho numbers are coming back strong. They're stronger than I've ever seen them on the Megin, the one we monitor, and the sockeye too.

What I'm saying is that this is where we have a few farms going down through to that system, and I know it's stemmed from something more than four, five, or six years ago, a cycle ago.

So I have no idea, but what I have observed is the fry. Starting now and through to the end of May you'll see hundreds of thousands of fry going down the channel early in the morning on a sunny day. And they're going right through these pens. Mussel Rock is a good example. We have some video footage of that.

We have a video of Bare Bluff too, the diseased fish. That's really scary; the stench is permanently left on you. You have to basically chuck your clothes away after you're done with it, it's that bad.

But they have been observed in our system, the Atlantics. I personally have seen them swimming the rivers. So have workers who work under me and the guys who do the enumeration around the Tofino area. They've been there for a while.

Mr. John Cummins: To your knowledge, is there any monitoring of the incidence of sea lice at those sites?

Mr. Darrell Campbell: I have no knowledge of a sea lice problem arising in our territory yet.

Mr. John Cummins: That's good. Thank you.

¸ (1445)

The Chair: Darrell, you talked about the coho and sockeye coming back, but the chinook is in decline. Are these in the same river system relative to the fish farms?

Mr. Darrell Campbell: Yes. There used to be four fish farms down at one inlet, and the chinook have really declined. I don't know why it is, but the chinook seem to have just totally declined. Our concern at first was the sockeye, nine years ago. We shut it down for a few years, and we still only take it for ceremonial purposes. And we are lucky if we take 100 sockeye out of there annually for ceremonial occasions--weddings, potlatches, whatever. That's why I'm concerned, I guess.

The Chair: But is there anything to indicate that the decline of the chinook or the increase of the coho and sockeye is in any way related to fish farming or the fish farms in the area?

Mr. Darrell Campbell: That's why I say now...I can't really prove it because those were chinook species we caught off the Bare Bluff, congregating around the fish farm. That's why I'm bringing it up. We had three in a few seconds. And this Bare Bluff is just around the corner from the Bear River—the Bedwell-Ursus, they call it.

I don't want to see us end up being 100% reliant on the hatchery. We're fortunate that the Megin River is well-stocked, and I want to see it as such. And another thing, too, the pinks have really seemed to have disappeared out of the Megin. There used to be pinks in there.

That's why I'm bringing it up, because I've seen it with my own eyes. I'm not certain what species, but there are some species being seen going through these pens.

Does that answer your question?

The Chair: Yes.

The chair recognizes John Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: My sources tell me that at times black cod, when smaller, have gotten into these pens and then been retained. I understand that the salmon farmers have kept some of these black cod; they've been raising them as well. Is that happening in your area?

Mr. Darrell Campbell: Not with black cod, but my brother was telling me that at one of the sites he worked, there was a wild salmon in there. At the tail end of harvesting, he found a wild salmon in one of those pens.

The Chair: Any last comments you want to make, Sid or Darrell?

Mr. Sidney Sam: No, there are different species now proposed for farming, like black cod, halibut--different things like that. I just wonder now whether that's infringing on our rights, because we no longer have a right to fish in these fish farms. Outside of them, yes--we do have a right outside of the fish farm.

But if they are going to constantly put species in there that it is our right to fish, without consultation again, I think we're going to have a problem. There's no money to do a study on all the things we eat; it is not there. We don't have any funding to see what the salmon have done, what the seals have done, and all the other species we eat. We don't know anything. You people will never know about the disappearance of what we eat. We need funding to do that.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, folks.

We'll take a five-minute break and then come back.

¸ (1447)

¸ (1456)

The Chair: We'll come to order again.

Welcome, Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council. We have with us Mr. Cranmer, Mr. Whadams, Ms. McIvor, Mr. Joseph, and Mr. Moon.

Go ahead, Mr. Cranmer. The floor is yours.

¹ (1500)

Chief Bill Cranmer ('Namgis First Nation; Chairperson, Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm Chief Bill Cranmer of the 'Namgis First Nation. We belong to the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council. Chief Willie Moon is here from the Tsawataineuk, Kingcome Inlet. We have also Chief Percy Williams--who is not here--from the Kwicksutaineuk. Also with us is Chief Robert Joseph from the Gwawaenuk.

Just to give you an indication of our territory, it includes all of the Broughton Archipelago. To give you an indication of the Kwak'wala peoples, who we are part of, it starts right from the northern end of Vancouver Island with the Tlatlasikwala; the Gusgimukw, Quatsino; Kwagiulth, Fort Rupert; 'Namgis, Alert Bay, all the way down toward Campbell River. There's the Lawitsis Ma'amtagila right down to Ladysmith, Campbell River. That's on the Vancouver Island side.

On the mainland side--

The Chair: Right to Campbell River?

Chief Bill Cranmer: Right to Campbell River. That's the Kwak'wala-speaking peoples.

On the mainland side, our northern neighbours are the Ooikinuth, Rivers Inlet. The Gwashnalagwashta are part of us; the Gwawaenuk, next door to the Gwashnalagwashta; the Tsawataineuk, Kingcome; the Ah-Kwaw-Ah-Mish,Wakeman Sound; Kwicksutaineuk at Gilford Island; Mamalilikulla at Village Island; Da'naxda'xw, Knight Inlet; the Lawitsis Ma'amtagila; and it goes down further, toward Cape Mudge. It meets up with the Cape Mudge to the south.

So that's who we are, the Kwak'wala-speaking peoples, but we're here representing the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council.

The Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council has been in front of the Senate standing committee. They came to Alert Bay to hear us. We also made a presentation to Judge Leggatt in Alert Bay. The presentation we have come here with is what's continuing to happen in our territory with the fish farmers. We had quite a detailed presentation to the Senate standing committee, also to Judge Leggatt's committee. So what you see here is what's still happening in our territory since those presentations.

The speakers before us, our brothers from the Ahousat, have the same concerns. The Georgia Strait Alliance outlined all of our concerns, our fears about the harm to the wild stock. And it's not just the salmon. We're talking about herring, halibut, cod, dogfish, all the resources of the sea. We have very serious concerns about those.

We're so concerned about what's not happening with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that we have two people working with us for the tribal council--Brian Whadams and Connie McIvor--to keep an eye on the fish farms. A lot of the letters you see here are a result of their observations in the past year.

We are opposed to the lifting of the moratorium, and we think the Minister of Fisheries isn't upholding his mandate to protect the resources. As a matter of fact, it was one of our tribal council members who filed a writ on the issuance of predator licences, as they are hunting--shooting--what is still part of our traditional diet, the sea lions. And I understand they're now trying to settle out of court.

We are considering doing the same thing with the Minister of Fisheries, because he isn't living up to his mandate for protecting the resources. Not only that, but the whole issue of consultation is also a very serious matter. We still have references coming to us for additional sites.

Of the 26 sites in the Broughton Archipelago, none of them meet the standards of the aquaculture review in terms of siting requirements. We would want them all moved. They are in the migratory routes of all the salmon that go into the inlets, and the outward migration of the small fry as they are coming out. We understand they are still using lights in the evenings.

I'll call on Brian to outline some of the things he has noticed are still happening in the fish farms in our territory. You will notice there is mention of them dumping all the cleaning materials into the salt shack.

So maybe, Brian, you can touch on some of these things that are still happening.

¹ (1505)

The Chair: Before we go to Brian, Bill, you had mentioned the Minister of Fisheries. Do you mean the federal or provincial minister, or both?

Chief Bill Cranmer: Both.

The Chair: Thanks.

Brian or Connie.

Mr. Brian Whadams (Representative, Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council): Yes, I think Connie should first read a couple of these letters where we had found some infractions before we deal with that.

The Chair: Go ahead, Connie.

But while Connie's looking that up, Brian, you said in your letter of December 3 and December 8 that a clam beach had been destroyed. Did you get an answer back from anyone?

Mr. Brian Whadams: Not from anyone.

One of our biggest concerns is that of these farms allocated in the Musgamagw traditional territories, each and every one of them are around the traditional clam beds. That's one of our major concerns.

If you look into the policies they have in place, they have to be 300 metres away from any clam beds. We have proof on film that some of these clam beds are approximately 150 feet away, or less than that. It's one of the biggest concerns we have.

There are a few places that are now closed down for clams that were a major harvest for first nations in the past. They would be Cypress Harbour, Cecil Island, Simoom Sound, Sir Edmond Bay, and Cliff Bay. All of these are shut down for clams today. The Department of Fisheries haven't given us reasons. They indicated it was a health issue.

The Chair: One of the difficulties in that, though....

Where I live in Prince Edward Island, which is as far away as you can get from here and still be in Canada, we have clam beaches that have been shut down too. We have no finfish aquaculture in the waters. We do have shellfish aquaculture, which is not far away. But clam digging is not what it used to be.

Mr. Brian Whadams: It's not that the clams are disappearing; there are a bunch of clams there.

I was a commercial clam digger in the past. I still go out for food for ceremonial purposes today. What we're finding with some of these beaches now, which in the past were beautiful white beaches with nice clam beds, is that they smell like the sewer system when you walk on them. They have completely changed to black beaches; they've turned to mud. It's having a major impact on us. It's frightening to watch.

The monitoring system that goes on out there with DFO is a major concern for us, because all the infractions we've found since February, with the IHN breakout, is that we have never seen the DFO take part in any of this. That's why we've kept on writing these letters to indicate why they aren't out here monitoring what's going on.

This is a major concern for first nations people. We've witnessed anywhere from 3% to 5% herring coming out of those open-net cage pens from Cliff Bay. They were getting pumped out by a commercial boat. I asked the skipper, Gordie Wasden, how much of this was herring and capelin, and he said it was anywhere from 3% to 5%. He invited us onto this boat, the Odysseus, because he had a real concern about what was going on out there. He saw that we had a camera, and he said,“You gotta take pictures of this.”

¹ (1510)

The Chair: Thank you.

Connie, go ahead.

Ms. Connie McIvor (Representative, Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council): Brian touched on the herring, and I'm sure we'll get into that later.

I'll read the letter we wrote to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, to which, again, we didn't get a response:

This letter is to inform you of questionable “violations” and activities that we witnessed in the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Traditional Territories in the Broughton Archipelago.

On March 04, 2002, the MTTC staff, Brian Wadhams and Connie McIvor, Outreach Coordinators, coordinated a trip to Notice Point with the Kwakiutl Territorial Fisheries Commission, Robert Mountain and Allan Alfred, Aboriginal Fisheries Guardians, and [a couple of] Outreach Coordinators from Sointula. When we pulled into the Bay area, we noticed a crew on a barge, power washing fish farm equipment. We decided to document this procedure on videotape. Upon talking to an employee from Sam Cooks Tug Boat Operation, he indicated to us that they were de-contaminating diseased fish farm floats and walkways. They were using “Javex Bleach”, approx. ¼ litre every 12 seconds which was on a timing system. [We asked] Is this your example of taking precautionary measures? Your urgent action is required immediately to stop deleterious substances from going into the water of the MTTC Traditional Territories. The fish farm industry was supposed to dispose of the infected equipment. Why wasn't DFO notified and if they were, why were they not monitoring this process? Why would they move diseased equipment to an un-diseased bay? Why didn't they disinfect this equipment on land? The barge sitting in the bay was about 25 feet away from a commercial, food and ceremonial clam beach. This is the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk First Nations Traditional Territory.

Schedule C-New Tenure Siting Criteria in the Aquaculture Management Plan and Application for Crown Land states: “300 m from inter-tidal shellfish beds that are exposed to water flow from a salmon farm and which have regular or traditional use from First Nations, recreational or commercial fisheries” “125 m from all other wild shellfish beds” “No salmon farms in areas that would pre-empt important Aboriginal, commercial or recreational fisheries as determined by the province in consultation with first nations and DFO”.

Due to the lifting of the Moratorium on fish farms and the mismanagement of the governments, the MTTC is outraged with the waste management plan that is not being implemented by the Aquaculture Industry! Why is the Aquaculture Industry allowed to make and break their rules and regulations? It seems that the Aquaculture Industry is dictating to our government of how the Industry should be operated! The federal and provincial government has the obligation to protect First Nations interest for food and ceremonial purposes. To allow the Aquaculture Industry to come into our traditional territories and dump hazardous waste such as bleach, raw sewage, copper sulfate, bio-deposits...is detrimental to our traditional foods and our way of life.

On numerous occasions, the MTTC and the KTFC have gone to investigate the environmental impacts, and not once has DFO been there. We were able to document (videotape) the impacts that the fish farms have had and are having in Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Territory. These are only some of the reasons why the MTTC has had a “zero tolerance” for fish farms in our traditional territories.

We expect the Fisheries Act to be enforced. We further expect there will be charges laid in this case, so violators will not continue to damage our territories.

Again, we didn't get a response to this letter.

¹ (1515)

The Chair: Thank you. I see you've copied that to myself and Mr. Cummins and a number of others. After talking to Mike, I do remember getting the letter, but we didn't carry it any further either. We'll have to admit that.

I could see not getting a response in two months. Sometimes I write a letter myself to the minister and don't get a response for three months. In any event, I will draw that letter to the attention of Mr. Thibault when we get back to Ottawa.

Sorry, Bill; go ahead.

Chief Bill Cranmer: The other thing is that the DFO area manager in our territories has actually told our fisheries guardians to stay away from the fish farms, not to go in and observe, just to stay away. That's really not acceptable, because they're not doing the job themselves.

The Chair: Mr. Joseph, go ahead.

Chief Robert Joseph (Gwawaenuk First Nation; Representative, Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council): Thank you.

First of all, I'd like to express Chief Charlie Williams' regret at not being able to be here today. He was on his way but was called back on some urgent matter.

However, my name is Chief Joseph. I'm chief of the Gwawaenuk tribe as well, and I'm a former chairman of the Kwakiutl Territorial Fisheries Commission that I'm representing today. So I have some familiarity with the organization and their concerns.

We're very pleased to come here before you today and we're grateful that you're travelling and soliciting more opinions on the issue of fish farms before it goes too far. I hope hearing our voices will lend another level of perspective that might urge more caution on the part of the province and the federal government with respect to the advancement of the fish farm industry.

We're really concerned first of all because they brought in a foreign species--the Atlantic salmon--to our territory, and we think the current practices they apply in fish farming are not environmentally sound. We've always said that all of us have the responsibility to push the industry to the very highest and very best practice we can get them to apply. Otherwise, we're all going to suffer in the long term from the consequences of not doing that.

It's difficult on one hand to make presentations to the various government committees and agencies because we know that, by and large, most of these processes are driven by scientific information, by scientific input. And for the most part, the kind of science we bring here--a traditional science that has evolved over millenniums--has been disregarded by industry, by DFO, and by the province.

We have, through our own existence and our own presence on our lands, observed over time the things and situations that are required to bring about balance and harmony in our territories. We don't think fish farms are bringing balance and harmony to our territories. We think they're a threat to the very sacred need to have a balance in our territories between all of the animate and inanimate life forms that prevail in our marineways and our lands.

That's why I'm here before you today on behalf of the fishery commission, urging you to think very carefully about the need to incorporate into the volume of scientific information you're receiving the traditional knowledge we're trying to present here today.

I was part of the salmon aquaculture review process from time to time a few years ago. Throughout all of that process we brought out a number of concerns that were never addressed or even taken into account. We predicted exactly the findings and exactly the things that resulted from that salmon aquaculture review.

We said at that time that we were unhappy and that we would struggle with all of our might and all of our ability to try to make sure we would still demand a high practice from the industry and from those people who are promoting fish farms.

One of the discouraging things I've noticed over the years is that our own Department of Fisheries and Oceans seemed to have abrogated its responsibility on this issue a long time ago. They're not present on the ground. With our limited resources, we're trying to monitor what's happening out there. We make observations and they're still not taken into account; they're still being dismissed. It's real cause for concern when that happens.

Any time aboriginal people express concerns about the sustainability and balance of the environment, all kinds of alarm bells should go off everywhere. Ultimately, we're the last line of resistance for bad industrial practices and initiatives that pollute and destroy our environment. It's important to hear us out fully today and hear some of our concerns around that.

There are far too many fish farms in our territory, the Broughton Archipelago. A few years ago, the provincial government created a park in our territory. They never came to any of our communities to meet with us to ask for our feedback. There was absolutely no consultation at all.

A year or two following that, conveniently, fish farms were introduced in the Broughton Archipelago. For thousands of years this area has been our bread basket, our deep freeze, where we have all of our groundfish, shellfish, and salmon that migrate through there. Nobody thought to ask us what kind of impact these fish farms might have on this very sensitive little ecosystem that has provided our sustenance for thousands of years.

We're really concerned about one issue that nobody has taken up at all--not industry, government, or the review exercise I mentioned. Nobody has ever thought to respond to our question about what these fish farms will do to our food chain in a sensitive ecosystem. We think that in the long term, and even in the short term, it will happen; they will destroy our food chain.

Every time I think about that, I think, “Wouldn't it have been marvelous if the first non-aboriginals who came to this country, who wanted us out of the way, had introduced fish farms? That might have done the job.” Ultimately, if you destroy our food chain you destroy our health, our communities, our way of life, and thousands of years of cultural evolution.

So everybody should be paying attention. DFO and the national health department should help us determine, once and for all, whether or not our food chain is being destroyed, and if that destruction has the capacity to filter into our own human health. We've raised this issue over and over again, and nobody has ever tried to respond to that.

The other thing we're very concerned about is diseased fish. Since the announcement of the policy, there has been an outbreak of Atlantic salmon carrying this disease—I don't even know how to pronounce it—at a Cliff Bay farm operated by Heritage Salmon Limited.

Our fisheries guardians attended this fish farm and observed that the diseased farm fish were not kept in isolation. The procedures were deficient. Of particular concern was the non-involvement of either provincial officers or Department of Fisheries and Oceans officers in monitoring the removal of diseased farm fish from their pens, by using herring pumps, to two seine fishing vessels.

This process resulted in the spread of contaminated water, foam, scales, blood, and carcasses into water outside the pen. While the pump was operating to remove the diseased fish, a variety of birds had a feeding frenzy on diseased fish. We believe this process resulted in a serious risk to wildlife populations that our people are dependent upon.

In addition, we have information that the disease still exists in four other fish farms operating within our territory. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has not provided any information about their investigation into the disease outbreak at any of these farms.

I just want to quickly list a number of concerns the fishery commission wants me to present today. We have the following concerns about the policy and proposed legislative amendments.

¹ (1520)

One is the lifting of the moratorium without adequate scientific evidence or community support. Any time we're talking about development in new areas, it's essential to have community support if we're going to expect industry or any particular industry to develop and be embraced and supported by the communities. As long as we don't get community support with respect to fish farms in the Broughton Archipelago and some other parts of the coast, that industry is going to be in for some continuous headaches along the way, and I don't think that's the best way to develop industry.

Two is the proposed exemption for fish farms from regulations that prohibit dumping waste into the environment. When we're at a stage where these fish farms are a developing industry, there should be no exemption. We should hold them to the highest rules and regulations we possibly can, to satisfy everyone's interests. In turn, if we did that, those fish farmers would benefit from our support once we knew they were operating satisfactorily.

Three is the proposal to increase the allowable sewage discharge into the ocean.

Four is the proposal to allow fish farms to discharge their waste without first obtaining a permit.

Five is the proposal to have fish farms be self-reporting.

Six is that the policy and proposed regulations do not address the prevention of pollution, the spread of disease, or the escape of Atlantic salmon into the ocean.

Seven is the non-implementation of the majority of recommendations from the aquaculture review exercise in 1997.

In addition, we have the following concerns about the location of fish farms within our traditional territories: the negative effect fish farms have on the exercise of aboriginal rights to fish and harvest marine resources for food, social, ceremonial, and commercial purposes; negative effects on eulachon and wild salmon populations; disease transfer to wild stocks; effects of pit-lamping on wild stocks; predation on wild juvenile salmon by escaped farmed Atlantic salmon; competition effects and potential genetic hybrids between wild salmon and escaped farmed Atlantic salmon; negative impact of farm operations on the bed floes and associated faunal organisms; cumulative and distant effects of antibiotic use on the fishery; poor location of fish farms in relation to shellfish stock; negative effects of fish farms on the frequency and duration of algae blooms; lack of remediation efforts for abandoned farm sites; absence of economic benefit to members along that coast; and widespread, chronic non-compliance of farms with regard to location.

All these concerns have been repeatedly communicated to both the federal and provincial governments, but have been ignored.

One more comment is with regard to the Auditor General's report. We have had an opportunity to review the report of the federal Auditor General regarding the effects of salmon farming in British Columbia on the management of wild salmon stocks, dated February 6, 2001. The Auditor General concluded:

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

The Auditor General highlighted many problems with fish farms that are not being addressed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the province, including lack of a formal plan by DFO to manage risks, inadequate monitoring and enforcement, no regular monitoring and enforcement, no regular monitoring of wild salmon stocks adjacent to fish farm sites, and inadequate monitoring for the presence of Atlantic salmon. The Auditor General concluded that the department is currently unable to assess the cumulative environmental effects of salmon from operations, as required by the CEAA.

To date, the KTFC has not been advised by DFO or by the province of how these problems identified by the Auditor General's report will be addressed. The Auditor General's report has only substantiated the problems with fish farms that we have known for years.

It is hard to believe the province is lifting the moratorium when it is well documented that fish farms, on a widespread basis, lack compliance with current environmental regulations.

In conclusion, the KTFC has three recommendations.

¹ (1525)

The first recommendation is that there be a government-to-government consultation process established to address and accommodate our concerns; two, that no government decisions in relation to the fish farms within the Kwakiutl territory be made without the informed consent of the Kwakiutl people; and three, funding be provided to the KTFC and our member first nations in order that studies concerning community and environmental impacts can be carried out.

So those were the recommendations from the Kwakiutl Territorial Fisheries Commission.

Thank you.

¹ (1530)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Chief Joseph.

Chief Moon, did you have anything you wanted to add before we go to questions?

Chief Willie Moon (Tsawataineuk First Nation; Executive Member, Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council): I am basically here to tell this panel, as we've told many other agencies, that we, as a Musgamagw nation, are still at zero tolerance with the fish farms. We want them out of our territories.

I want to talk a little bit about consultation, because we're in a little bit of a predicament in our territory. One of our members works for one of the fish farm industries. Not too long ago the industry had stated that they were consulting with first nations, and they were doing it through the fellow that was working for them. In our community we have a governing body who looks after the well-being of our people, and yet industry can pick and choose whom they want to consult with.

I don't think that's right, and I don't think the government would appreciate that if we did that to them. We have a governing body within our own territories. I think that's something that needs to be brought to industry as to the proper consultation that has to happen.

But as I said, our stand as the Musgamagw nation is that we want all of those fish farms out of our territories.

That's all I need to say for now. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, folks.

Turning to John in a moment, just on the presentation by Brian, you mention in here the letter dated April 22 to Minister Thibault. You say that from the information gathered on the migratory routes of the wild salmon and finfish, they have documented and videotaped herring and capelin caught in the open net-cage system.

Did you send that videotape to the minister, is it available, or what?

Mr. Brian Whadams: Yes, the tape is available. We made up approximately ten copies and we shipped it to the press, to the David Suzuki Foundation, to a few of the people that we were in organization with. But we can get you a copy of that, no problem.

The Chair: If you could get that, it would be appreciated.

The other question I had was that Chief Joseph said it's discouraging that DFO has abrogated their responsibility. Could you expand on that? Where do you see...?

Chief Robert Joseph: Over time, we've had some discussions with DFO representatives, including a discussion with the fishery minister, Herb Dhaliwal, at Alert Bay about a year and a half ago. We voiced the very same concerns to Mr. Dhaliwal. He simply wanted to assure us not to worry, that all of the information would be considered. Furthermore, he said there would be, I think, about $7 million set aside for research and development. So we thought that maybe this would be an opportunity for the aboriginal people who are concerned about the development of fish farms to access some resources, so that we could verify our visual observations about what's going on over time.

It seems to me that unless we do that, most panels and most government representatives are not going to consider it scientific. Unless you observe over time and make all kinds of records, nobody is going to take our concerns into account. We thought at that time that if Mr. Dhaliwal provided the kind of research and development money that he said would be available, we could develop some of this capacity to do that ourselves.

There are very few other people on the land of which we are talking about. I think we're in the best position, if we had the capacity, to monitor and to record those things that are developing within the ecosystem and through the environment.

In all of the press releases on fish farms, there has always been an advocacy role for DFO to promote fish farms. They've refuted many statements and findings by different parties about the impact of fish farms on wild stocks. They've refuted the idea that Atlantic salmon could breed in our rivers. They've refuted all kinds of information that I think they should have at least taken into consideration and studied before they jumped in on the side of development and industry. That's our view from the ground.

We're probably the most powerless people in the world, yet we're the most impacted. We don't have the resources that fish farm advocates or government representatives who advocate fish farms have. When we try to bring what little knowledge we have to the table, usually it's not taken into account. I think that in the first instance DFO should have facilitated some real dialogue among aboriginal people, DFO, and industry. They never did that. The exercise on the coast simply went straight to the aquaculture review initiative, which was undertaken by the province a few years ago.

One of the important perspectives that needs to be brought not only to this forum but to other forums is the lens by which we see our territories. We see our territories through a different lens. We see through millenniums, right from our first Genesis stories, our relationship to the land and the need to have respect for the balance and harmony that has to take place if it's going to be sustained for generations of people to come.

I always ask myself, what do Mr. Dhaliwal and Mr. van Dongen think? Do they not take their children and grandchildren into account when they recklessly advocate for the lifting of moratoriums and advancing this industry? I don't understand that. I think all of us are beholden to and are required as a matter of sacred trust to look toward future generations before we jump into.... We have time to look into these issues very seriously.

Right now, the province, for instance, and the feds, I suspect, want to lift the moratorium on gas exploration. We should have time to consider that one very carefully, too. But time will be of the essence again, and people are going to dismiss the concerns of coastal and aboriginal people who live in those areas and care very much and who depend on the sensitivity, balance, and harmony in those ecosystems we talk about.

¹ (1535)

The Chair: We've made some recommendations on gas and oil development and leases on the east coast.

Mr. Cummins.

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

I want to thank the group for its presentation and the clarity of it.

Chief Joseph, you mentioned your concern about DFO's advocacy of fish farms. I'm not sure when you arrived here today, but earlier this morning we were discussing that issue, and I raised it with the department and others who followed. It seems to me that when it comes to fish farms, DFO cannot be both the advocate and the regulator. There's a conflict there. Given that conflict, it drives at the very credibility of the department and its ability to do the job. DFO should be a regulator and not a promoter, to put it in very clear language. I don't think you would have any difficulty with that.

Chief Robert Joseph: I have no difficulty with that at all. I think DFO should do what it was supposed to do in the first instance, and that is, be the regulator, the protector, so to speak. I don't think there's any place for them to be advocating for industry. Industry can do that on its own very well, I think.

I hope the fisheries minister and the departmental officials will hear this. We can't afford that kind of risk. It's too much of a risk having DFO play both roles. Our first obligation should be the protection and enhancement of wild stocks.

That obligation adds a whole array of other sorts of implications when we talk about the protection of wild stock. When it comes to aboriginal people, it adds a whole array of implications.

If DFO is party, whether inadvertently or not, to destroying eventually the wild stocks, then they really have abandoned, abrogated, and betrayed a fiduciary trust they should have over wild salmon.

¹ (1540)

Mr. John Cummins: They have that constitutional obligation. I think the Auditor General made it very clear in his report. I take it from your comments that you're in full support of the findings of the Auditor General's report.

Chief Robert Joseph: Yes.

Mr. John Cummins: You mention, of course, your traditional territory includes the Broughton Archipelago. That obviously was an area of some concern. I am losing track of time here, but within the last year, with the outbreak of sea lice, the issue really came to the attention of the public in British Columbia.

I wonder if one of you could give us your take on that sea lice issue. I believe it was Alexandra Morton who brought the issue to the attention of the public, but I may be wrong on that. I wonder if you could just give us your take on the finding, and then the DFO's response to that.

The Chair: Mr. Whadams.

Mr. Brian Whadams: We spent some time with Alex out there around the farms. I witnessed her touching these small fry. These are juvenile fry; some of them even had their sacks on, coming out of the rivers and streams.

We witnessed them around the farms where the sea lice were a major problem. She did some documentation away from the farms, and saw there wasn't as much sea lice on those fish at all.

We were with her approximately a week ago, I guess. She brought in approximately 20 small fry. I think they were springs. They were just loaded with the sea lice. They are never going to survive. That's one of the biggest problems we have there right now.

Mr. John Cummins: The DFO's response was to go into the area--I guess several weeks after the issue first broke--to do some testing. My understanding is they went into the wrong area to do their testing. They were actually doing some drag sampling, but at a depth of water where they weren't likely to find fish. Is that correct?

Mr. Brian Whadams: Yes, that's true.

The same skipper who was pumping out the herring at the time, on the Odysseus, was using a net that was insufficient to do the test. I think it was 50 yards long, or maybe 30 yards; I don't know the depth of it, to tell you the truth, but it was a really small net. The only way you can do an accurate study on that is doing it with a speedboat, and doing it along the shore. They were in deep waters, and you could not catch the fish.

Mr. John Cummins: To your knowledge, then, there's no monitoring of lice at those farms now?

Mr. Brian Whadams: Alex Morton is the only person I know who is doing the monitoring. I don't—

Mr. John Cummins: But the operators aren't required to?

Mr. Brian Whadams: I have no idea what their obligations are for the sea lice problem.

Mr. John Cummins: Nobody told you any sort of monitoring is going on? You've never been reassured by any DFO official there is some ongoing monitoring of sea lice?

Mr. Brian Whadams: No, we've never been told that.

Chief Robert Joseph: We're not allowed close to the farms.

Mr. Brian Whadams: That's one of the biggest problems we have. It's kind of a joke now.

We got a letter from Heritage last week. They want to talk protocol before we go into their sites. I just laughed at that, because we've never been consulted from the beginning. So why do they want to bring up protocol now? It's kind of sad.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins, two minutes.

Mr. John Cummins: There's been a fair amount of study done on that sea lice issue, as I'm sure you heard earlier, but one of the concerns is that returns to the rivers will be impacted over time when sea lice are prevalent at farms on the migratory path of these returning salmon. So if there's a farm in the estuary leading into the river, over time it will have a serious negative impact on stock.

Have you observed that at this point, or are these farms just too recent a development?

¹ (1545)

Mr. Brian Whadams: I'm a commercial fisherman, and I've spent 35 years as a commercial fisherman. The Broughton Archipelago was one of the major fishing sites we have had for commercial fishing in the past.

Three years ago they had a commercial opening in the Broughton Archipelago, which they haven't had for over 15 years. We just had a small opening in Thompson Sound and Tribune Channels, which is a small portion of the Broughton Archipelago. Within that area we caught approximately 7,000 escaped farm salmon in the three days we had an opening in there.

What happened there is that about three days later the farm fishing industry indicated they had to do a report. They weren't expecting an opening in there; they were going to try to keep it quiet that they had an escapement. DFO had a commercial opening, and we caught approximately 7,000 Atlantic salmon in that area. If they had opened up the whole area, we don't know how much we would have gotten.

Mr. John Cummins: In days gone by, there used to be troll fisheries and whatnot operating in a place like Blackfish Sound. That's just not on the go any more, is it?

Mr. Brian Whadams: Not any more. This is one of the biggest problems we're having as commercial fishermen today, that this farm fishing industry has basically overtaken the market. The commercial fishing industry hasn't had the opportunity to fit into the market anywhere...I mean, their low-price costs. The government had a buyback program five or six years ago, along with the Mifflin plan, and indicated to us that they'd cut the fleet in half and give the commercial fishermen more time. And I'm still waiting for that “more time”.

The Chair: That was loud and clear yesterday morning.

Mr. Cummins, you can have a last question.

Mr. John Cummins: Just on that last note, Alert Bay was one community that was really devastated by the fleet reduction. You might just want to comment on that for the record.

It's a little off topic, but I'm sure Mr. Easter would be interested in it.

The Chair: The first time Mr. Cummins was off topic.

Mr. John Cummins: No, I'm doing this for your benefit, Mr. Easter, because I know you're interested.

Mr. Brian Whadams: It's a good question. In the past there were approximately 400 gillnetters in Alert Bay alone and 200 seine boats. We're cut down to maybe ten gillnetters now and six seine boats. So it's put our community out of work; that's the bottom line.

Chief Robert Joseph: Just one last note. That's why there's an urgency about our need to protect whatever is left. We should be certain. If there are risks to these wild stock, whatever are left, we have to be certain. Otherwise, we are going to be complicit in industrial genocide. That's what I think.

Mr. Brian Whadams: One of the things you have to understand, too, is that last year was the fourth-biggest run recorded in history of the salmon coming back, and the commercial fishermen who are left sat on shore and watched it pass.

The Chair: We heard that yesterday from the seine area D, was it?

Mr. Brian Whadams: Yes, that's the area I have too, area D.

The Chair: I have just two questions out of what John was asking.

Concerning your letter to Minister Thibault on the tugboat operation and the Javex bleach, etc., and where the clam beach was destroyed—I can't find that letter here right at the moment—do you report that to DFO?

Mr. Brian Whadams: Yes.

The Chair: And do they ever show up to have a look at it?

Mr. Brian Whadams: No, never.

We go unexpectedly; we just go out in a boat whenever we feel like it, and we've been really fortunate to run in and see all these violations going on. It seems as if every time we go out, there is a violation. That's one of the biggest problems we're having. If we spent every day out there, what would we find? This is four trips we took out, I think, and every time we found these violations.

You see, they were using a pressure washer, and every 12 seconds that bleach went through the pressure washer. I think they figured out it does about 150 gallons per day. We had a couple of guys who went and gathered up some of the containers that the bleach was held in, and they found the tugboat name on it and things like that.

The Chair: Mr. Cuzner.

¹ (1550)

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I'll ask three quick questions and then I'll step back and let you guys answer.

Mr. Whadams, how wide an impact area would be the apron of impact around the fish farms? How much clam area is being affected by each one?

Chief Joseph, I really appreciated your presentation. What we're hearing here is that the concerns have been raised and the opportunity to speak has been there, but it just seems nobody's listening.

Chief Cranmer has identified that he has been in front of the Senate committee and what have you. Where have you presented your brief? You said you've spoken to levels of government. So I'll ask you that one.

Finally, to the three chiefs, it's been stated with our past panellists, more specifically from the Suzuki Foundation, that they are not opposed to fish farming as long as their concerns are addressed and it progresses in an open and transparent manner that's respectful of their concerns. Maybe you guys could share that opinion.

So perhaps we could knock them off one at a time.

Mr. Brian Whadams: I'd like to mention some of the ones from the clam beds. You have Mound Island, Cecil Island, Cypress Harbour, Sir Edmund Bay, Cliff Bay, Wallace Bay. All these areas where these farms are sited are all traditional clam beds, and not only traditional clam beds; these are where our herring spawn.

We had a really good commercial herring fishery in there approximately 20 or 25 years ago. They just aren't returning, and we're questioning why. Once we saw the evidence coming out of these open net-cage pens, where from 3% to 5% of what they were holding was herring, that gave us an indication of why those herring aren't coming back.

One thing you have to understand is that the farm fishing industry doesn't have a licence to catch herring. It does not have a licence to catch herring, yet they're still destroying them. The migratory routes...there are so many things that are in violation within our territories today. The lice problem isn't just on salmon. Perhaps you can get some information from Alex Morten now that she's finding lice on the groundfish, the cod, the halibut, and things like this.

So it's not just the salmon that are in trouble here. One of the things you have to understand is that's our garden out there. We can't sit back and let this happen any longer.

The Chair: Chief Joseph.

Chief Robert Joseph: With respect to where we've tried to have our voice heard, we of course took part in the salmon aquaculture review process that went on for a few months a couple of years ago. There were number of meetings at which we tried to articulate our concerns. And around that table were all kinds of federal representatives, provincial representatives, environmental groups, commercial fishermen—anybody who had an interest in the kind of impact these farms might have in the areas they're in. So a lot of people should have heard us, should have taken into account some of our concerns.

In addition to that, we made numerous trips to Victoria to talk to Dennis Streifel, who is the previous Minister of Fisheries. And we talked to Mr. van Dongen, the current Minister of Fisheries, we talked to Mr. Dhaliwal—I'm not sure if he's still the Minister of Fisheries—

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: No, he's not.

Chief Robert Joseph: —but we talked to him when he was the fisheries minister.

It appears that no one took into account any of our concerns. These are concerns that were absolutely ground zero concerns. What happens on the ground where these fish farms are, to the environment, to the food chain, to the human population that exists here and is likely going to be here long after the fish farms are gone? How do we make sure that things are a good standard, a high standard, a safe standard? Nobody ever addressed those issues in the Salmon aquaculture review committee.

We had only vague promises from Mr. Dhaliwal that there'd be an R and D pot of money for people to do further research and a whole number of other things.

Nobody anywhere gave a hoot about aboriginal people and their health and the Broughton Archipelago. Not one soul said, “We're concerned about what you're saying, we care, and we're going to look into it.” We've been dismissed or made marginal on that part of the coast, and nobody cares. I'm asking again for you to care and to bring our message to the appropriate people.

¹ (1555)

Chief Bill Cranmer: The tribal council has stated publicly that it's against the open-net pens. We would be agreeable to looking at closed containment systems.

Chief Robert Joseph: We know that fish farms as an industry are here to stay. It's here now, and it's going to be here for some time. But we would be remiss in our role and responsibility not to ask them to have the most effective, efficient application of practice when it comes to the environment and of course the health of the communities around it.

We're not opposed per se, but if we simply roll over now and say that we give up, you can imagine...and they've said themselves that every year there can be a 10% increase. Ten years from now there will be double the number of fish farms. They're going to be bigger than they are, and there'll be no chance at all to protect the integrity of our coastal salmon stocks or the watershed.

The Chair: Chief Moon.

Chief Willie Moon: From our community's point of view, we are saying zero tolerance, and members of Dzawada'enux have stated very clearly that they don't want any fish farms within our territory. We have seen the practices over the years, and they're devastating the wild stock. The Kingcome River used to be one of many rivers that had a lot of salmon coming up there. Now most of those salmon in our river system are almost to the point of extinction. Do we want to add more predators into that territory to kill off the rest of the wild stock? No. That doesn't sit well with our people.

Even on land we're still against that. Whatever is being destroyed on the bottom will eventually be destroyed on land too. They have to get rid of that stuff somewhere, so where else other than put it on land that will absorb the water? So as the Dzawada, we're still at zero tolerance.

The Chair: Monsieur Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: You already answered, I think, most of the questions I had, especially with your last comment. I understood Chief Moon to say that he has zero tolerance for fish farms in his territory. But I also heard from Mr. Wadhams a claim that makes me wonder. He said that every time they go out in their boat they find a violation. In your letter to the minister you refer to power washing with Javex. What other types of violations have you witnessed directly as you go out in your boat?

You also answered in part to my question on the effect of fish farming on First Nations fishing rights. But is it true that the situation in which you find yourself is specifically due to the arrival of fish farms? I am asking the question because in one of your documents you say that fish farming, in fact, provides almost no jobs for you and that very few of your people have been hired, despite the large number of farms. All considered, did the farms in your territory bring any benefits for you, other than misery?

[English]

Mr. Brian Whadams: Oh, lots of questions. I'll answer your last one first.

We have approximately 3,000 members in the Musgamagw Tribal Council, and of them we have approximately 10 people working there today.

You asked questions about what we witnessed out there. We witnessed our clam beds being destroyed; we witnessed bleaches being dumped into the ocean, which is a violation; we witnessed alien species being introduced into Canadian waters, which is a violation. Along with Alex Morton, we witnesses the lice problems.

And these are just a few. As I said, we've only been out there a few times, and every time we've been out there we have witnessed new violations. We don't know what we're going to find next. But you know, we're going to be there, so they're gone.

One of the things that concerns me the most is closed containment. Until this industry can figure out a way to control the tidal waters and the winds in our traditional territories, it will never be able to be able to control its escapements.

º (1600)

The Chair: Mr. Cranmer.

Chief Bill Cranmer: There is a reason why there are not a lot more of our people working there. They believe in what we're trying to do, trying to stop the expansion of aquaculture. To be seen as working with the enemy, if you want to call it that, just wouldn't sit well with the majority of the community. But there are some doing this work.

My son was just offered a job last week to operate a boat for them. He said, “No, my dad would probably kill me.”

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Monsieur Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Thank you. I have one last question, because I believe there might be some confusion. There might be confusion because we just talked about closed containment, but those sites that we discussed earlier, the systems it would be desirable to develop and that environmental groups are calling for are more than closed sites. These are sites on land, with waste control and total control of... There is no discharge at all into the ocean. These are the potential fish farming systems that were discussed this afternoon. However, I understand Chief Moon is opposed even to such sites in his territory. He says he does not want to take the risk. So are we talking about the same thing, you and I, in terms of closed containment? Are we talking about land sites with treatment of waste? Would you be willing to accept such a type of farm?

[English]

Mr. Brian Whadams: I think I missed half your questions here. I forgot to put on my earphones.

As I said, the tidal waters are so strong in our traditional territories that you cannot have these open net-cage pens in the ocean; it's impossible.

At Wehlis Bay, I think approximately five years ago they had a really big impact on the tidal waters there. The tides were so strong they smashed the open net-cage pens together and there was a big escapement.

The tidal waters are one of the biggest concerns we have. No one has control over that, and they'll never be able to have it. Even with the IHN breakouts here, you talk about quarantine. Cliff Bay had a quarantine on it that affected approximately 1.6 million fish in that area. Burdwood Group is only about a mile and a half to two miles away from that area. As long as there is water from there running through the tidal waters, these farms are going to be affected one way or the other. You cannot stop it.

It's just a disaster waiting to happen. You can't stop the tidal waters. They're so strong in there. I've been a fisherman for over 35 years, and I know what the tidal water can do. Even we commercial fishermen have to be careful.

º (1605)

The Chair: Chief Joseph.

Chief Robert Joseph: I hust wanted to comment on the closed-net uplands development of fish farms. If we must have fish farms, that's probably the ideal, to have it that way.

Further, I think if we could have those, we should have them sited right where the big markets are. Japan, for instance, is a big market for fish farms. Let's site them in Japan, then, or somewhere close to where people have to deal with them.

Voices: Hear, hear.

The Chair: Connie.

Ms. Connie McIvor: I think one of your questions was, if there are larger sites, more people would be employed. That's false. I took at trip to Doctor Island, which is a super-site, a larger site. It's a bigger net, that's all it is. It holds more fish, but it takes only two people to operate.You have two people working ten days to two weeks, and then they shift with another group of just two people.

So it's not going to employ any more people; it's going to employ less people.

The Chair: Mr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney: I'll comment briefly. I think the issues have been covered very thoroughly.

One issue I hadn't heard about earlier in the day was the observation about other species; capelin and herring are the ones I believe you mentioned. I think I heard that they were 3% to 5% of the contents of one net.

Is this unique, or are you aware of this being found fairly commonly, that other species are getting into the nets?

Mr. Brian Whadams: Well, all we want to do is give you the proof we have. We've heard of black cod being caught in there. They have some kind of bullheads and things like that, but we didn't witness any of this. All we want to give you is the documented proof we have.

One of the really important things for you guys to do is to go and talk to the ex-employees, those who have worked for the farms in the past. This is where we are getting a lot of good information.

I've heard previous speakers talk about how staff at the DFO are not being allowed to speak their minds. I've witnessed that. I've met with the DFO, and they'd say things to us that they would not repeat to anyone else. They've made comments about that.

I mean, their hands are tied. I don't know who is tying them, but they're tied up.

The Chair: I'm sorry to interrupt here, James.

I appreciate your statement, Mr. Whadams, that you don't want to get into the “we've heard”, that you want the documented evidence. But even at that, what we have to determine here.... And I'm not going to say what's happened in the past doesn't matter--it does matter--but I think our job, as a committee, is this: How do we ensure that DFO, and whatever other regulatory bodies may be involved, have this industry progress into the future in a way that satisfies, at least to the greatest extent possible, all the other people and industries affected?

We can spend a lot of time looking at the past, but other than what we can learn from it, it's not going to give us the direction we have to go in. We have to somehow establish a system that there's confidence in; that there is monitoring; that there is policing; and that the environment is protected, etc.

Am I correct in that?

Mr. Brian Whadams: Yes. I guess you're correct on that, yes.

The Chair: Mr. Lunney, do you have anything else?

Mr. James Lunney: No, that's okay.

The Chair: Thank you, folks, unless there's another quick comment someone wants to make.

Mr. Cranmer.

Chief Bill Cranmer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to ask, what can we expect from this process--any changes?

The Chair: That's a fair question, Mr. Cranmer. We would hope so. We will certainly, as a committee, draft a report. We are having some difficulty finding the time to get it done, to be honest with you.

We have done probably nine letters and two reports in the last six months, some of them fairly controversial and some of them not too controversial. We have to complete a study, which is nearly completed, on foreign fishing on the Grand Banks and Flemish Cap off Newfoundland. We'll have a meeting to finish that up. Then we have to get started on writing a report on this.

As a committee, we do work reasonably well together. We sometimes have our differences, but we're not at all afraid to challenge the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or the Government of Canada. We tend to call things as we see them. If some tough recommendations need to be made, I think the committee has the political will, regardless of the consequences, to make those kinds of recommendations.

Our difficulty is going to be in finding the time to put together the report before the House closes some time in June. We have to crunch time in terms of timetables. I'll admit that upfront. It's going to be difficult for us to get it done on time, but we will try.

Thank you, folks.

The next group is the B.C. Aboriginal Fisheries Commission, with Mr. Narcisse, Mr. Lucas, and Ms. Urban.

º (1609)

º (1612)

The Chair: Whoever wants to lead off, go ahead. I think we need to jog around about 10 blocks right at the moment.

The floor is yours, Mr. Narcisse.

º (1615)

Mr. Arnie Narcisse (Chairman, B.C. Aboriginal Fisheries Commission): Thank you, sir.

My name is Arnie Narcisse. I'm the chairman of the B.C. Aboriginal Fisheries Commission. Our organization represents the interests of the 202 first nations in the province of British Columbia. Our role is to facilitate and coordinate on behalf of the 202 first nations, and to protect and enhance the fishing rights of those 202 first nations.

To my left is the coastal co-chair of the organization, Mr. Simon Lucas. I might point out to the committee members that Mr. Lucas will be receiving an honourary doctorate from the University of British Columbia on May 24. I think that is very important to point out to the committee members, because as a commission we are indeed trying to forge a relationship between the two worlds of science embodied within this man and this lady, who represent the mainstream, occidental science world.

This is Diane Urban. She is the aquaculture file manager for the B.C. Aboriginal Fisheries Commission. She basically helps me in terms of putting together these sorts of presentations, in terms of keeping on top of issues. It's a full-time job, and I must commend her for the work she has done.

It is late in the day, gentlemen. I don't want to take up too much of your time. I won't regurgitate too many of the scientific data you've heard during the day. Our purpose in being here today is to point out to you the inextricable relationship between the first nations of this province and the salmon and other fisheries resources.

To that end, at the conclusion of my presentation, Mr. Lucas will briefly delve into the health aspects and health concerns. He is intimately aware of and familiar with that, as he is diabetic. He will tell the story of the removal of these protein sources from our traditional territories and the consequent impacts upon our health.

I want to deal with basically four specific issues. The first deals with the effects of salmon farming on first nations. The second deals with first nation concerns regarding policy and regulation. I then want to tell you what our commission is doing about the situation, and finally, what the commission expects of this committee and the regulatory agencies.

As was just articulated by Chief Robert Joseph in his own inimitable way, there is an inextricable relationship between ourselves and the wild salmon stocks. It's still very much a bread and butter issue from our perspective. We are trying to protect those food sources that we have relied upon for many millennia.

To Mr. Lunney, in terms of the comparative sciences, during the break you were pointing out that science is based on continual observation. I might point out that the knowledge this man has here is based on millennia of observation,. So indeed there is a very real correlation between the two worlds.

The wild salmon have always provided bounty and wealth, and health, I might add, in terms of sustenance for the first nations. The first nations of British Columbia will not tolerate any activity that threatens or puts those wild stocks at risk.

In terms of the effects of salmon farming on first nations, with regard to environmental concerns, we have concerns regarding waste discharge, polluting the ocean floor, and contaminating shellfish beds, still an important traditional resource.

We have concerns regarding impacts to wild salmon and disease transfer to wild stocks. You've heard the concerns regarding sea lice, and we share those. We have attempted to put the regulatory agencies, such as DFO, on notice regarding the requirement to look after these wild stocks of salmon. From our perspective the effort on the Broughton Archipelago last spring was poor. It was basically a day late and a dollar short.

There are also unknown impacts on other important first nations fisheries, and those were elicited earlier regarding eulachon and herring. We have concerns regarding escaped Atlantic salmon colonizing and breeding in coastal streams. Despite any statements to the opposite, they are indeed in the Psitika River, on the north part of Vancouver Island; they have indeed colonized there, so any statements to the contrary aren't true. There is a proliferation of fish farms in proximity.

In terms of health issues, with the use of antimicrobial drugs and toxic chemicals to control sea lice, we wonder, do these get into the food web? Studies from eastern Canada show a buildup of chemical residues in some aquatic invertebrates such as crab and lobster. Residues of drugs have been shown to persist in the sediment. The potential for disease resistance to be transferred to humans through animal products is acknowledged by scientists, but not by industry or government. With other chemicals, including heavy metals such as copper and zinc, what is the impact on non-target marine species, and ultimately humans?

Little research follows up on these concerns. A quote from an international scientific journal basically states that:

Much more research and information is required before the risk that chemicals used in treatment of sea-lice infestations pose to exploited populations, other species, and habitat can be assessed.

We can give you the source of that. It's in the material.

First nations have no science-based assurance that the risk is known, much less whether it is acceptable. What we get instead is ideology--wishful thinking at best--hoping the problem will go away. I might point out that the perspective of this industry is very much one that can be encapsulated as out of sight, out of mind. It's only them damn Indians anyway, so what's the problem? I point out to you, gentlemen, that the problem is widespread, and is much more than just an Indian problem.

In terms of economics, led by the allure of new technology and quick fixes, everyone is looking to aquaculture to solve the economic problems on the coast since the Mifflin plan took away the fisheries livelihood of first nations people. You've heard this time and again. We just wish to reinforce the message.

What remained after the gutting of the fishery for first nations has been further eroded by plummeting wild salmon market prices, largely due to the farming industry over-saturating the global market with farmed salmon. This need not be the case. With strategic marketing efforts, at a fraction of the cost of promoting the aquaculture industry governments could work with first nations and commercial fishers to create a global demand for high-end wild salmon.

According to a recent research paper by renowned environmental economist Rosamund Naylor, from Stanford University, finfish aquaculture has not reduced the capture fishery anywhere in the world. So they aren't saving the resource, if that's the line they're trying to give you. But the DFO's preference for developing the finfish farming industry over the wild fishery is apparent, as manifested in its policies and regulations. You've heard that time and again from previous presenters. We wish to reinforce that point.

Secondly, regarding first nations concerns respecting policy and regulation, siting, and failure to consult them, first nations have traditional territories where they have fished and harvested shellfish and other marine resources for millennia. In many cases, salmon farms have appeared in these traditional territories without consultation. The question of where fish farms are sited is therefore paramount.

º (1620)

Industry and government claim they consult first nations on salmon farming decisions through a referral process, but this process is flawed. And I might at this juncture point out to the committee that there are numerous recent Supreme Court decisions--Taku Tlingit, Haida Gwaii, Maliseet, Mikisew, the list is endless--calling for assurances of best consultation practices between first nations and governments. That is not happening in this province.

Applications for farm licences may be faxed into a first nations office, yet they may or may not get reviewed because of a lack of first nations capacity, and that is a very real issue.

What process is in place for ensuring that objections or concerns are integrated into the permit decision? Presently, there's a group called SAIAC, the Salmon Aquaculture Industry Advisory Committee, basically struck by and for the industry, and we have no assurance and no comfort in letting them regulate this industry. The salmon aquaculture review in 1997 made it clear that these flaws are problematic and that until they are addressed, siting can hardly be called consultative.

Our belief that little has changed since 1997 is further reinforced by a DFO document on siting guidelines produced this past winter in consultation with industry but without consultation with first nations. This is unacceptable.

What the B.C. Aboriginal Fisheries Commission is doing is to facilitate a mandate to protect and enhance the aboriginal fishing rights of the first nations of British Columbia in part through government-to-government interaction. The commission has passed two resolutions, and these were passed this past March at our recent AGM. The first dealt with fish farming and the environment and called for a summit dealing with fish farming and the environment.

The Auditor General's report in December 2000 found--and again, you heard this previously--that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is not fully meeting its legislative obligations under the Fisheries Act to protect wild Pacific salmon stocks and habitat from the effects of salmon farming. Further, the report cautioned that the potential cumulative environmental effects of multiple salmon farm proposals warrant public reviews before a decision is made to lift the moratorium.

The B.C. Aboriginal Fisheries Commission is doing what the government should be doing, holding a public forum for reviewing the industry. This forum will take place on September 22, 23, and 24 at the Squamish Recreation Centre in North Vancouver. I've been on the Rafe Mair show twice, inviting the public to participate in this session. I pointed out that the man in the street has never had an opportunity to voice his opinion or concern with this industry, and this forum will allow that to happen. A man can literally walk in off the street, walk up to a microphone, and get on the record. This is what we talk about in terms of our commission doing what the government should have done in the past.

With regard to best practices and monitoring in first nations territories, first nations are concerned about many of the practices and procedures employed in fish culture and transport that may exacerbate the local impact on public health and environment. The B.C. government has recently placed the responsibility over monitoring of the environment in the hands of the industry. Given the record of industry performance and non-compliance, we are not satisfied that our concerns will be addressed.

The role of aboriginal traditional knowledge in developing local best practices for fish farming is important. The B.C. Aboriginal Fisheries Commission will advance the first nations role in developing policies to set and monitor best practices for fish farming.

And finally, the B.C. Aboriginal Fisheries Commission's challenge to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans is to recommend to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that it support the development of co-management fishery solutions for first nations.

I might at this juncture point out that we are engaged in discussions with western federal agencies--Parks Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Indian Affairs, HRDC, and Environment Canada--in an attempt to deal with fish, fisheries, and fish habitat impacts. We're encouraging Health Canada as well to join this public dialogue forum.

º (1625)

The committee should also apply pressure to the province to keep the moratorium in place until a full risk assessment of an expanded industry is complete. That is the point we wish to reinforce here, the fact that the moratorium must stay in place until a full risk assessment is done.

The 1997 salmon aquaculture review put forward 49 specific recommendations dealing with the endless litany of issues and concerns you've heard. In the five years since the review and its 49 recommendations, only six have been acted upon in any way, shape, or form, leaving 43 to be implemented still. Therefore, you can see the concerns that the first nations have regarding this industry proceeding hell-bent for leather, without any cognizance of ecosystem integrity or the reliance our people still have on ecosystem integrity in gathering the traditional food sources we still rely upon.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation, and turn it over to Chief Simon Lucas from Hesquiaht.

The Chair: Congratulations to, I guess, the soon-to-be Dr. Lucas. The floor is yours.

º (1630)

Chief Simon Lucas (Coastal Co-Chair, B.C. Aboriginal Fisheries Commission): Thank you.

I'm from the west coast of Vancouver Island, within the Nuu-chah-nulth tribes, from the Hesquiaht tribe, which is right on the west coast, adjacent to the Pacific Ocean. My hereditary name is Kla-kisht-ke-is. The tribe is made up of ten hereditary chiefs. It has eight major groups within the tribe itself, all with different names. I'm what you call a He-mias-aht within the Hesquiaht tribe.

I was one of the review members. There were, I think, 100 of us who sat around for about a year, having serious discussions. I should also state that I was a member of the B.C. Medical Association aboriginal committee that was within the BCMA. One of the things I learned from BCMA--a book was to be published--was that first nations in British Columbia are leading in all sicknesses in the province, even deaths by car accident. So in terms of the health of the first nations, we're in dire straits, and anything new that comes along adds to these dire straits.

At the review, one of the things we talked about was how we could get information on the medication being used on the fish. At every meeting we had, we brought up that issue. Finally, the province told us there was confidentiality here, a doctor-patient relationship. They told us the fish was the patient.

I found that totally incredible. In the world of cigarettes, it tells you right on there the dangers of smoking cigarettes, and yet we couldn't get any information about the medication being used on the fish.

So why are we concerned? There are many examples. I'll take a couple.

The first nations people probably made the bologna and wiener industry, and it's been proven that these two foods are cancer-causing. The two also have led to serious diabetic problems. We know that for a fact now. We know that one of the things that has caused a great deal of problems for first nations is alcohol. Every type of sickness caused by alcohol, we got it. We also know that these took years. It didn't come two years after eating bologna. We were introduced to bologna, and it was in the fifties that my family was introduced to the welfare system.

Indian Affairs came to a place where I was being raised, the Ehattesaht up the coast, and it was there that they introduced my parents to this food: “From now on, this is what you're going to be eating.” I'll never forget what they asked my mom. They said, “What does your family eat?” My mom had 20 cases of different species of salmon for the winter. We smoked our fish in many different ways. She showed them the spines that were smoked and dried and the skins of the fish, plus the flesh itself of the fish. She had 20 boxes, and the man said, “You poor people, that's all you're eating. Well, next month you're going to be getting beans, spaghetti, some canned stuff that you're going to be eating”, not realizing that 40 years down the road, what they showed my mom was going to have very serious implications for the health of the family.

We're saying that the implications from the farm fish are maybe 40 years away. You and I don't know that, but what we do know is.... You all know the whole issue of the residential schools, what happened there. Some of our people went to residential schools in 1910 all the way to 1960. What was the mental and physical impact from those?

When you're talking about years down the road, probably in the year 2020 you're going to start seeing some impacts of the farmed fish. What I can see is that our people, my grandchildren, will be going to court. If you haven't learned anything from the residential school issue and the other foods our people are talking about.... Look what's happened to us from eating bologna and wieners and other things that were introduced to us.

Some of our people are talking seriously about what's happened to us. On the health issue, what happens to us? Well, on the issue of alcoholism, the spirituality of the individual was seriously impacted. The spirituality of the person literally was gone. When you look at the whole aspect of the health issue, it's a very serious issue for our first nations.

The other thing that's important is the hereditary system that the coastal tribes are involved in, and that has existed since time began for us. I'm one of the hereditary chiefs that make up the Hesquiaht tribe. When you turn over your hereditary chieftainship to your grandson, you're of the assumption that the land is still the same, that the ocean is still the same.

º (1635)

One of the things about the coastal tribes is their relationship to saltwater; we have a very strong, spiritual connection to saltwater. It's where we get a lot of our cleansing to this very day.

The whole issue of health covers many parts of our lives, not just one little aspect. I hope I've given you the depth of why we're concerned.

º (1640)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lucas.

Mr. Arnie Narcisse: I'm here to answer any hard and fast questions you guys might throw at me.

The Chair: That's great.

Are you ready, Mr. Cummins?

Mr. John Cummins: I have a couple of quickies here, basically to do with the lack of regulations.

You were here for the previous presenters. We discussed briefly, as we have been doing all day, this notion that the department is in an advocacy position here rather than operating as a regulator. I would presume that's a concern of yours as well.

Mr. Arnie Narcisse: Very much so, Mr. Cummins. Indeed, last week our commission held a conference dealing with the roles of our aboriginal fisheries officers and guardians, and pointed out that this indeed is a very specific activity that our aboriginal fisheries officers and guardians could be undertaking.

You heard my comment earlier about this industry being in those sheltered bays and coves. That's where our territories are as well. We're there. We should be part and parcel of the monitoring and regulation of this industry.

Mr. John Cummins: You talked as well about concerns around the health of the fish. Again, there are no health regulations in place under the Fisheries Act except regulations on the importation of fish eggs. I would assume, then, you would support the creation, if you will, of fish health regulations under the Fisheries Act, so that one would be able to monitor the health of fish stocks adequately.

Mr. Arnie Narcisse: One would have assumed that this sort of regulation would have been anticipated back in 1997. In a nutshell, this expresses our frustration that only six of the 49 recommendations tabled in 1997 have been acted upon. Those were some of the specific ones I'm talking about.

Diane.

Ms. Diane Urban (Aquaculture File Manager, B.C. Aboriginal Fisheries Commission): I'd also like to point out that in Norway, where sea lice is recognized by all to be a serious problem, the government has imposed regulations on the industry and they are required to monitor salmon on their farms. If there are any more than, on average, half female sea lice per fish, they have to do something about it immediately. There's no contest about that. That's required.

Mr. Arnie Narcisse: Whereas here you can have the little smolts covered with them and not a damn thing gets done.

Mr. John Cummins: Yes. I think the regulations in some of those places require.... In Ireland, if my recollection serves me correctly, 14 times a year they have to make these tests. It's monthly except during the time when the smolts are transiting the area, then they have to do it twice a month.

It's beyond my belief that our people.... I'm able to get this information. You're able to get this information. Why DFO can't is beyond me.

The Auditor General in his report--and again, you referenced the Auditor General in your comments, Mr. Narcisse--says there ought to be a public inquiry under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act if this moratorium is lifted. John Fraser, the former fisheries minister and Ambassador to the Environment and Speaker of the House and so on, agrees with that.

I'm sure, from your comments, you would also support a public inquiry on the environmental impacts of fish farming prior to the lifting of this moratorium.

Mr. Arnie Narcisse: That's basically why we're convening the session of September 22, 23, and 24, to allow the public to have their input into this industry, in terms of setting regulation that will be much more stringent than that presently put forward by SAIAC.

Mr. John Cummins: If the government were to conduct a full-fledged inquiry with all of the associated experts and independent people, this would certainly be something you would support and actually encourage.

º (1645)

Mr. Arnie Narcisse: That's what we're going to be doing. We are going to be inviting the experts. I've invited Odd Grydeland, the president of the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association, along with a number of his buddies. I told them, you're going to have a fair opportunity to tell your side of the story. They've had numerous opportunities, I might remind the panel here, to tell their side of the story. Indeed, there's the matter of $75 million. There's a salmon aquaculture commissioner when there is no wild salmon commissioner.

From our perspective as first nations, we wonder what the hell is going on. You have a federal agency, which is supposed to look after wild stocks and their habitats, promoting farm salmon. What the hell gives?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cummins.

Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Following up on your presentation, I have one question and it is in three parts. I would like you to elaborate on your summit on aquaulture. You gave us the dates, but I would like to have more information on the conference itself.

You are strongly opposed to aquaculture. Is it your hope that the province will maintain the moratorium on aquaculture and the development of new fish farms?

I would also like to return to the recommendations made in 1997. You said only 6 of the 49 recommendations were implemented. Among the remaining 43, which ones would be your priority for implementation?

[English]

Mr. Arnie Narcisse: Thank you, monsieur. In terms of the summit and the question on the 49 recommendations, I'll leave those to Diane Urban.

In terms of the question regarding whether we have hopes that the province will do the right thing, all we can do is hope. We would also hope that this committee would impress upon the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that they do indeed have a responsibility under subsection 35(1) of the Canadian Constitution, and also under article 8(j) of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which basically states that nation states and governments must make best efforts to ensure that the indigenous population's ways of life and traditional food sources are not impacted. So we do understand the big picture that has played out there.

We are trying to press every button we can, Mr. Roy, in terms of ensuring that this moratorium is maintained. All we can do is hope that this committee hears our concerns and presses the department to ensure best practices are basically taken on in the future.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Among the remaining 49 recommendations, is there any one you would like to see implemented sooner?

[English]

Mr. Arnie Narcisse: All of them. They're all equally important. We cannot place one above the other. I think the initial list of concerns contained around 250 items. We had to summarize them into some sort of manageable number, and this is what we reached consensus on. It wasn't just the first nations that put these 49 recommendations on the table. It was all of the people involved in the salmon aquaculture review of 1997.

The Chair: Ms. Urban.

Ms. Diane Urban: I'd also like to add that from a first nations perspective—if I may speak for them—consultation with first nations is an issue that is involved in a number of the different recommendations. It is something that should be implemented immediately. There should be full, meaningful consultation with first nations on all issues that are of concern to them. That would go a long way to mediating some of the problems with this industry.

Another outstanding issue is disease. We've heard time and time again—as I'm sure you have, from various presenters—of the urgency of the disease issue and the fact that there seems to be so little research done and so few surveys going on to find out what's actually happening. The whole disease issue is something that should be dealt with immediately, in an open way.

We're told that there is a fish health database being developed by industry with the provincial government. But it's clear that it's a private database and the information is not going to be available to first nations. This is problematic.

I'll address the summit details now.

º (1650)

The Chair: Just before you do, may I ask, were you consulted on the aquaculture site application guide, which is this thick and which we managed to hear about just last week ourselves?

Ms. Diane Urban: No.

Mr. Arnie Narcisse: That was part of our presentation. It was an extreme concern of ours, the fact that DFO went to the industry and discussed siting with them, in our absence—

The Chair: We can't find out even from the industry who was consulted.

In any event, thank you. I just wanted it on the record.

Ms. Diane Urban: Okay, back to the summit now. The dates of the summit are Tuesday, September 24 to Thursday, September 26. We're working with the province. We have a joint steering committee, and we're developing the agenda right now.

It looks like we're going to take seven of the main issues, the ones that were dealt with in the salmon aquaculture review, and we're going to frame a question around each of these issues. We're thinking of having one expert or scientist from each sector--for example, from industry, government, first nations, and the environmental sector. Each of these experts will have an opportunity to speak to the issue. What we're trying to do is create an atmosphere where these issues can be discussed in a progressive way, with a minimum of conflict; that's not the objective. From there, when the issues are brought out in the open, we can move forward and identify problem areas, areas where policy needs to address these things.

It's open to the public, to everyone. And it's a first nations theme as well, so everything is from a first nations point of view.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Urban.

Mr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney: Thank you.

Who is being invited to the conference coming up in September?

Ms. Diane Urban: Pretty much everybody: industry, environmental organizations, government, the public, the sports fishing industry, the commercial fishing industry, our neighbours in Alaska and Washington.

Mr. Arnie Narcisse: We feel that the PFRCC needs to be at this meeting in that their role is to be the watchdog of the status of stocks and habitat. We feel this is part and parcel of their activities. Therefore, we're going to invite Mr. Fraser to come and answer some of the questions, specifically dealing with the Auditor General's report, on just why the hell they aren't doing more.

Mr. James Lunney: Ms. Urban, regarding the question of residues and toxic chemicals--since you represent the science there--you mentioned copper and zinc in your presentation. Do you have scientific studies or evidence about these elements affecting other aspects of the environment, or just questions and concerns?

º (1655)

Ms. Diane Urban: I have both. A number of studies have been conducted on the east coast in the Bay of Fundy, looking at some of these questions. They have found evidence of residues building up in some of the aquatic invertebrates and in sediments.

It depends on the chemical you're looking at. The studies are not always consistent, but they raise a lot of questions about what's happening on our coast. Why isn't the research being done here?

Mr. James Lunney: On the question of sitings, I guess this goes back to the earlier presentation on the Broughton Archipelago, where they said there were very rapid tidal flows. That's presumably one of the reasons they were chosen for siting. I guess when there's a good tidal flow, there's presumably less environmental impact on the floor. So that creates a problem.

I just want to ask—and maybe Simon Lucas can answer this—on the siting near aboriginal communities, is there any consultation at all on the location of sites?

Chief Simon Lucas: There's been absolutely no consultation with any hereditary chiefs or the tribe itself. To assume that tides are going to keep the sites clean; it has to land somewhere, and I think that should be taken into account. Where the fish farms are doesn't mean other areas aren't going to be contaminated.

Mr. James Lunney: I know one the big concerns with some of the earlier sites were shallow waters, rather protected bays, and minimal tidal flushing. I think they tended to choose sites with better flushing.

Mr. Arnie Narcisse: You're just spreading the problem with a good flushing.

The Chair: Just on the siting business, in British Columbia, if you wanted to establish a plastic processing plant outside of Vancouver, do you have to go through a public hearing process? You do in P.E.I.

Mr. Arnie Narcisse: We have to go through Canadian environmental assessments on practically every activity we do on our reserve lands. Even to dig a septic hole, we have to go through an environmental assessment. So we are rigorously regulated. We can only wish and hope the same sort of stringent regulation is imposed upon this industry.

The Chair: You've answered my question, then.

Mr. Cummins is next for one question.

Mr. John Cummins: This is a question I don't necessarily expect an answer to today. I've been pondering it for awhile, and I'll give you something to ponder as well.

It's my understanding, and it's a pretty accepted fact, that the federal fisheries minister has a constitutional obligation to protect wild fish in their habitat. I think we'll agree on that.

On this provincial salmon aquaculture review, in the final report in volume 3, page 34 of 81, it talks about the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act. I want to read a couple of paragraphs from this, and I would appreciate your comments. Your jaw may drop, but you may be familiar with it.

It says, “A new piece of provincial legislation has the potential to affect some aspects of salmon farming in the future”, including aspects related to operating practices, and, “The Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act, passed in 1995, provides a number of measures” to protect agriculture in British Columbia, that applies only to existing farms.

It goes on: “If the requirements of the Act are followed on a farm operation, a farmer cannot be sued in nuisance for any odour, noise, dust or other disturbance resulting from the farm operation and a farmer cannot by injunction or other court order be prevented from carrying on that farming operation.” It goes on to say, “Under the Act, farm operations include aquaculture as defined in the provincial Fisheries Act when carried on by a party licensed under that Act.”

The next paragraph says that for a salmon farmer to be entitled to the protections noted above, the farm operation must be conducted according to normal farm practices, under a valid aquaculture licence issued under the Fisheries Act, and in compliance with the legislation and land use regulations.

It goes on to say, “Instead of bringing an action in nuisance...it is possible to bring a complaint about odour, noise, dust or other disturbance from a farm operation to the Farm Practices Board, which is established by this Act. The Board will determine whether or not the practice complained about is a normal farm practice. If the Board finds that it is a normal farm practice, it must dismiss the complaint.”

Well, the suggestion here is that this right to farm act applies to aquaculture and essentially that it puts existing farms beyond the reach of the law.

Mr. Arnie Narcisse: What's the date on that?

Mr. John Cummins: The act was passed in 1995, and it's referenced here in the Salmon Aquaculture Review in volume 3, page 34 of 81.

Mr. Arnie Narcisse: It's strange that this question was never posed during the 1997 salmon aquaculture review.

Mr. John Cummins: Well, it's in the report of the review. I meant to raise it earlier in the day. It's one of these things I bring up late in the day, but—

» (1700)

Mr. Arnie Narcisse: It would appear to me that it's basically an effort to justify the nuisance aspect of this industry. You've heard about the acoustic deterrent devices they utilize, the nighttime pit-lamping, and the stink that goes on with it. A lady named Gloria Graham from Sooke Harbour has been complaining about this issue for years, and basically all these complaints are falling on deaf ears.

I would counter and ask about the rights of the first nations to eat wild salmon. I think those are paramount to any farm act that may exist here in this land.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Arnie Narcisse: I have a final comment. The tobacco industry basically justified their existence utilizing this farm act as well. People will use things as they will. That doesn't mean they're always right.

The Chair: I have one further question. In your paper, on page 3, your recommendation is what you expect this Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to do, and that is to recommend to the DFO that it support the development of co-management fishery solutions for first nations. Could you expand upon that and explain more specifically what you mean?

Mr. Arnie Narcisse: Yes. That's basically why I took the tangent to try to explain the policy dialogue forum we're engaged in with the western federal agencies—DFO, DIA, Parks Canada, Environment Canada, and HRDC. It's an effort to get at the heart of the policy-making machinery that designs this sort of policy, and it's all intended to get first nations to true co-management. Basically now we're at what I would call “cooperative co-management”. It is not true co-management in that from our perspective, true co-management allows for the exercise of the jurisdiction of the first nations as well. If we were allowed to exercise our monitoring and enforcement jurisdiction, it would be a hell of a lot more stringent than what is presently in place. That's what I'm saying about this.

The Chair: Diane.

Ms. Diane Urban: I'd like to add that it's no secret that the coastal villages and communities are suffering desperately economically. It seems there's a real push from DFO and a number of other agencies to develop aquaculture as a solution to some of these problems. Indeed, some first nations are looking into it. Some are involved in salmon farming.

We'd like DFO to take a step back and recognize that there is a wild fishery out there that is not being developed or promoted. There are a lot of potential opportunities to build that back up again for first nations. So rather than just focusing on the salmon farming industry and writing off the wild fishery, as it seems is happening, they should look at this option for first nations.

» (1705)

Mr. Arnie Narcisse: Basically, from our perspective, the wild fishery is being ignored to death. There's a real sense that we want that oil and gas over there in Hecate Strait. We want bulk water exports. Therefore, if we turn a blind eye to those fish over there, maybe we won't have to ensure clean water, healthy ecosystems, and other expensive activities.

I might remind the panel that the government in this province has virtually abdicated the field of ecosystem integrity through their gutting of the agencies that are tasked with enforcement monitoring of habitat requirements.

The Chair: I'd just point out on the oil and gas that this committee did make some recommendations in terms of oil and gas leases in eastern Canada, in which we basically took the line that the fishing industry.... They're looking at leasing or developing oil and gas in the most sensitive spawning ground in the fishery in the east coast. We took the position that this industry is sustainable if managed properly. It can be there for generations and generations. Whereas if you develop the oil and gas industry, then in 25 years it may be all gone. Therefore, don't put at risk a sustainable industry managed properly just for the sake of oil and gas. In any event, that was an issue that was looked at.

Thank you very much for your presentation today.

Mr. Lucas.

Chief Simon Lucas: Several years ago I was over in Tasmania, Australia, and one of the things our government was doing there was promoting farm fishing. In this case they were selling coho roe to the indigenous peoples there. I know that for a fact, because we were told that this was being promoted by our government in Australia.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Urban and gentlemen, for your presentation and your frankness.

We will now turn to the research and development manager with Pacific National Aquaculture, Kevin Onclin.

Gentlemen, the floor is yours.

Mr. Kevin Onclin (Research and Development Coordinator, Pacific National Aquaculture): I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak today, and I'd like to thank Sergio and that group for letting me go ahead. It's been a long day already for everybody, I know that.

There are many topics I'd like to discuss today. We've heard a lot of information, and I know that I could answer a lot of those questions from a technical standpoint. I've been in the fish-farming business for 16 years. Prior to that I was a DFO employee from time to time, like someone else here. At that time I was a field biologist working on salmon stocks in northern B.C., Yukon, and Alaska. I have some perspectives there also, but another day, perhaps.

I'll try to make my presentation very brief and then try to address as many of the technical questions asked today, ones there weren't answers for, as I can.

Salmon farming, as you can tell, is a very complicated agribusiness, and requires time and complete information to understand all the issues. They say you should talk about things you know as opposed to what you think you know, and I have taken that approach today. I'll be talking about economics and environmental sustainability for the salmon farming industry, using, of course, the example I know best, which is the company I've worked for over the last nine years, formerly Pacific National Group and now Pacific National Aquaculture.

I would like to talk about the economics of fish farming with regard to the company I work for, the staff we employ, and the communities where we operate. While I agree that money and economics do not solve all problems and do not justify a lack of environmental stewardship, I hope to demonstrate to you today that salmon farmers take both seriously.

PNA salmon-farming operations, the hatchery and the farms, are all located in the Alberni-Clayoquot regional district. For any of you who don't know, the Alberni-Clayoquot regional district, or ACRD, has been struggling especially hard in the last decade because of forestry and commercial fishery downturns.

I could cite many examples, but the most telling tale is that recently—and I sit on the regional district advisory board—we were provided with the socio-economic indexes for the Alberni-Clayoquot regional district. You may find this surprising, but it scored the lowest in the province on many fronts, lower than some of the communities I've worked in previously in northern B.C., which I thought would have been difficult to do. That gives you a perspective of where we sit as local people in our communities.

You may find this also surprising, given the tourism industry that is so touted in Clayoquot Sound with Pacific Rim National Park and the Clayoquot Biosphere. In many communities in the region the annual unemployment figures have ranged from 30% to as high as 70%. I have lived in Ucluelet for the past nine years and have witnessed the economic hardships related to the hake fishery, displaced forestry workers, and salmon fishery closures, to name a few. When I say salmon fishery, I mean commercial and sport fishery issues, because we rely on sport fishing as well.

The bottom line is that the region is made up of coastal communities, and the consistent message is that no community can rely on just one industry or business, even tourism. I point this out as a salmon farmer and as a member of the local community. I certainly support all those industries' participation and success in our communities, not tourism by itself nor fish farming by itself.

We have a very viable crab fishery, but the catch has been declining there, which causes me concern. There are lots of things that cause me concern in our area.

For survival the coastal communities need diversification. Many speakers have come to our chamber of commerce and given presentations on diversity.

PNA is the largest employer of full-time salaried employees in the Clayoquot Sound area, and here I would like to make a point. I've heard lots today about people commuting and camp life. As to the figures that are presented in the table I have supplied to you, most of those people other than the Vancouver Island residents outside of the local area are all local people, commuting every day to the farms and going home at night to their families. To say that the people who work shift work and go back to the Vancouver Island communities outside our local communities do not have families is false. Most of them are our most senior members, who have already had families and have houses and mortgages in those other communities, and because of their families they're unwilling to move out to a remote area.

» (1710)

Rather than displace that senior expertise, then, we've adapted. I think that's very important to point out. I've heard that time and time again, and it's completely false.

I would like you to look at this table. In the communities of Ahousat, Tofino, and Ucluelet, we have 52, 48, and 34 employees, representing 23.7%, 22%, and 15.5%. The direct payroll figures are there for your viewing. Port Alberni has 31 and other Vancouver Island locations 54 people, for a total of 219 people working in Tofino operations. The result is that 75.3% of the staff live in the Alberni-Clayoquot regional district. Staff living in the local coastal communities, excluding Port Alberni, represent 61.2%. An additional 30 employees live in Port Alberni and work at our hatchery. In addition to our direct payroll into the communities—$7.67 million—we also have spent, as you can tell, on annual contract services $1.08 million in Ahousat between water taxis and tug barge and delivery boat service; $2.18 million in Tofino-Ucluelet on a variety of boat servicing and tug and barge activities and trucking; and in Port Alberni, another close to $1 million.

Last year we spent approximately $6 million on building of new Cat Cage systems by Alberni Engineering, and we have four more cage systems ordered and being built in British Columbia this year. On our supply and service, we have approximately $500,000 a year. In total, supply and service in British Columbia is $3 million.

I bring this up not to throw down a gauntlet, but there are economic and social aspects of our industry that I think weren't stated today. I feel they need to be stated.

To put this all into perspective, the three communities of Ahousat, Tofino, and Ucluelet are 800, 1,600, and 1,800 people respectively. It depends on whose statistics you use, by the way. The 800 I have from the Ahousat.... In the official stats it says 500. Consequently, out of 4,200 people, assuming three people per household, PNA has staff from approximately 10% of the households in the local area. I would also like to add that I have not put any multiplier effect on the direct salary figures or the contractor fees paid out, but a conservative estimate of a factor of three, I think, would be reasonable.

In a study of the Alberni-Clayoquot region, the salmon farming industry in the region had a total economic value that was slightly ahead of tourism several ago. The study was based on wages, contracts, supply and service dollars, and multiplier effects. I do not mention this to undermine the value of tourism, but once again to point out the relative importance to salmon farming to local communities and stress the importance of diversification.

That concludes my discussion on economics. Much of the discussion today was about what has happened in the industry. Unfortunately, I didn't hear a lot of talk about what kinds of things industry is doing to address some of the concerns brought to the table. So I thought I'd spend some time on this. PNA by the end of this year will have spent $31.6 million in capital, investing in new types of cage systems. These cage systems alone are three times the cost of the conventional cage systems. If you add in all of the new technology that we've put on these cage systems, they are in the order of about six times the cost. Why have we done that? I'll cite a couple of examples. The stronger cage systems can be moved away from the shoreline and turned 90 degrees so wave and water movement is cross-current to the cage system. The significance of this is that the fish receive better water flow and increased oxygen for more efficient digestion, growth, and feed utilization. Cross-current also minimizes the effects of fish waste by dispersing the waste over a wider area of the lease. In the past, water had to pass through all the cages in the system. Now it passes through only two cages at any one point. This is also much better for fish health issues.

» (1715)

The stability and high flotation of the new cage system allow an underwater steel grid. For example, our new Cat Cages have 38 tonnes of steel per six cages, and they're dropped to 30 metres. The steel grid is designed so it is longer and wider than the main cage system. An underwater pred-net is sewn into the grid and dropped, so the pred-net is tensioned with the weight of the steel. This acts as an exclusionary net for large predators, such as seals and sea lions. We have just come through prime predator season, and the new cages have been a resounding success—no disposal of predators required at those sites.

The high flotation also keeps the seals and sea lions out. Bill Vernon, I think, mentioned the jumping ability of sea lions. We witnessed that firsthand.

Some of our escapements over the last couple of years have been due largely to predation issues. We have bird nets around the top of the whole system, sewn into the sides with poles that stand at eight feet, and sewn right into the underwater pred-net. The result is if a sea lion jumps, they'll hit pred-net underneath, or pred-net on the top. It's also about 1.5 metres out of the water. So we've virtually eliminated the possibility of a sea lion getting into those cage systems.

There's a cost, as I mentioned, but it's something we believe in, and we've spoken loud and clear, I think, with our capital investment over the last two years. By the end of this year, we will have all of our fish into new cage systems. We are slowly but surely getting rid of all the old assets.

The other aspect of predation, of course, is fish health issues related to the stress caused by predator attacks, and that has diminished greatly as well.

Another benefit of the underwater grid and pred-net is that they create secondary containment nets. We have sized the net as small as we can without affecting the bird population, and the secondary net can hold fish from two kilos or more if there's a breach in the main net. So it completely surrounds the system. The grid is actually larger than the main cage system, so the pred-net is kept a distance, and it's tensioned. We've actually seen the sea lions run at it, hit it, and literally bounce off the net.

The steel grid has eliminated the need for internal and external weights in nets, which also used to create holes in the nets from time to time. You've heard of the concerns around tidal flows with external weights. This steel grid system holds the nets in shape because we run clotheslines—no weights at all. This allows the net to hold its shape. There's less stress, less squeeze, during tides. We don't get the net squeezes from tidal runs.

The other benefit is that because the nets now hold their shape in the current, we've been able to install what we call uplift cones. The uplift cones are designed to fit into the bottom of our specially designed nets, which allows excess feed, fish waste, and dead fish to be collected on a daily, hourly, minute, or second basis. This, along with cameras, helps monitor feeding so that it's more efficient, with less waste of feed, which means less impact to the ocean bottom and the benthic communities. In addition, if and when medicated feed is required, the collection system minimizes the waste of medicated feed.

The uplift cone also reduces the amount of diving required and increases the frequency of dead-fish retrieval, which reduces the chances of spreading fish health issues such as bacterial infections. The dead fish now do not come up through the water cone, they come up through the piping.

In the future, we'll be looking at ways of using that collection system with actual collecting of the waste to even further reduce the impacts through header pipes that are already in the pipes.

I heard about the issue of noise. We've gone to—

» (1720)

The Chair: You said the dead fish don't come up through the water column, they come up through the piping system. I don't quite understand that. I understand most everything else you've said, because I've seen some of these, but can you explain that one?

Mr. Kevin Onclin: It's an uplift system. There's a collection cone at the bottom. So if a fish dies and falls to the bottom, or the feed.... The sides are designed to be very steep, with small mesh, and it goes down so that the fish, the feed, or the feces tumble down, the airlift injects, it gets sucked into the cone at the bottom, and it comes up through an eight-inch air pipe.

The Chair: Okay, I got you.

Just put on your headset for minute.

» (1725)

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: I would just like to ask the witness to speak more slowly because the interpreters are unable to keep up. It is too fast.

[English]

The Chair: Just slow down a little, I guess, Kevin. Claudia is running a sweat back here.

Mr. Kevin Onclin: Okay. I was trying to be as fast as possible, because I know all these other people are waiting.

The idea behind the uplift cone, of course, is to collect feces, fish, and any wasted feed. When the visibility goes down, the cameras don't always pick up everything, so the staff on site can use cameras that watch the pen and the salmon swimming around. They can also check the box to see if feed is coming back up. So it's a double monitoring system.

I have a lot of pictures, which I could forward to the committee; however, I'd really like to encourage the committee to come out and see the new technology, to understand some of the improvements we are trying to make to address many of the issues surrounding environmental sustainability.

I would also like to point out that the company I work for has 24 full-time scientists through EWOS Innovation at two research centres in Norway, and a smaller research group in Chile working on environmental and economic sustainability. It's a principle our company believes in, and obviously, with the capital we're injecting, we believe we're moving in the right direction.

I could discuss many other ways that salmon farmers have accepted the challenge to act responsibly from an environmental standpoint. I think the point I want to make is that we are making significant progress in a relatively new industry. It always takes time, energy, money, imagination, research, and planning to make any business or venture successful and to be able to address and solve new concerns as they arise. There will always be new concerns. I don't think there is an industry I know of that doesn't face new challenges, regardless of what kind of business they're in.

I think the word “responsibility” means you attack those concerns and try to mitigate and solve them. To me, that's what is called “adaptive management”. I don't believe people should be allowed to say no. I just don't believe in that philosophy; I believe in adaptive management. It's the only way to foster industry's attempts to improve and open up industry. They want to be transparent, and they want to talk about things, and they want to work with everybody. I don't think it helps regions such as Alberni-Clayoquot in any practical way to achieve diversity of economics and long-term sustainability. There must be support from the federal government as well as the province to ensure that practical, common-sense approaches are taken to work with industry, as opposed to alternatives of no support and fearmongering.

In closing, there must be a balanced approach in the sense that salmon farming must not be looked at in isolation. We too often get our blinders on and want to look at just salmon farming, but I think we have to look at global issues. We have to look at world food production; we have to look at many of man's other activities and keep fish farming in perspective. In that regard, I think salmon farming is a very good industry from an economic and an environmental, sustainable perspective.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Onclin.

Mr. Hicks, we have, I believe, a couple of papers of yours before us.

Dr. Brad Hicks (Executive Vice-President, Taplow Feeds): I'm just going to table those papers; I'm not going to speak directly to them. Time is of the essence. Everybody is tired, including myself. I think what I will do is make a very brief comment. I would much sooner have some time for a dialogue.

I have a lot of expertise in this industry. I've been at it for 30 years. I'm trained as a fish health veterinarian. I have farmed in Canada, Chile, and the United States.

I have farmed four or five different species, including black cod, for Mr. Cummins' information. Currently, I am part-owner of a feed plant. In addition to supplying feed to the local aquaculture industry, I supply feed to Japan. So I have some knowledge of the Japanese system as well.

I'm really going to try to save some time for dialogue and perhaps try to answer some of the more burning issues.

That said, I have a couple of opening comments. It has been said a couple of times that we should have another inquiry. The salmon aquaculture review in British Columbia was either the third or fourth inquiry. It was to be the mother of all inquiries. It was a very long inquiry. You've heard some of the people from the first nations community talking about being there for 18 months. I also was there for 18 months.

All of the issues I've heard today, including the long list from Mr. Langer, were addressed in that salmon aquaculture review. I actually dug it out and looked at the Atlantic salmon section to see if there was anything new, and there was virtually nothing new. There are some small changes in the details. But that's still a very good, substantial review, and I don't think we have to go there. I think what we have to do is move forward.

One of the elements we've talked about is disease. There is the national aquatic animal health program, which is presently being developed by the federal government. They will soon be going to the cabinet for some funding, I believe. Everyone seems to be concerned about disease. So I would put it to this committee that you've heard about it, and when it comes up, there's an opportunity to do something. It will have some regulations attached to it, I believe, in addition to the current fish health protection regulations, which were referred to earlier as regulations for importation. So there is a lot of work being done.

Just so you know, myself and a fellow named Professor Rick Moccia from the University of Guelph are the guys who brought the fish health protection regulations under review. The first nations aren't the only ones who aren't heard. We got them to initiate a review of those regulations in 1982 because they were insufficient. That's 20 years ago.

The other issue that has been referred to tangentially today is the market. There is no question that salmon farming has changed the marketing of salmon and the respective value of salmon coming from various segments. Globally, about 85¢ of every dollar spent on salmon now goes to a farmer. I might add that's not a Canadian farmer; that's a farmer in another jurisdiction.

You are going to be hearing from the Alaskans, and you'll see that I put a little note in one of my papers about what has happened to the value of the wild fishery in Alaska. Those are their numbers. Those are not my numbers. Despite a 60% increase in volume for the wild salmon fishery in Alaska, since 1994 the value of that fishery has dropped from approximately $500 million U.S. to $216 million U.S. last year. There is a tremendous amount of pain and anger associated with that change. I think that's part of what you'll see.

I think some of that anger was also present in British Columbia. The Mifflin plan and the associated $600 million did alleviate some of that pain and anger, but some of it's still here. You have heard some of it today.

My heart goes out to those guys, but it's not B.C. salmon farmers who are responsible for the 11¢ a pound pink salmon coming out of Alaska. We produce less than 5% of the world's salmon, farmed or otherwise.

If Canada is going to participate in salmon in the future, somehow we're going to have to come to grips with how to deal with this industry.

On the regulatory front, it has been said a couple of times that there are no regulations. I can assure you that I have spent most of my life dealing with regulations. I will agree that the Department and Fisheries and Oceans doesn't have a lot of regulations that apply directly to us. We come under some general context in the act. However, I believe there are 37 pieces of legislation that do contain regulations that apply to us, and all of that is available in the SAR. It contains a list of all the regulations from all the various departments that apply to us both federally and provincially. I would have brought it with me, but I didn't know that would be an issue.

» (1730)

Mr. James Lunney: What document are you talking about?

Dr. Brad Hicks: The salmon aquaculture review. It's actually a very good document.

On the predator issue, you've heard time and time again that good fences make good neighbours. That's what predators are about.

Thank you very much. I'll take questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Hicks.

We'll start with Mr. Cummins.

» (1735)

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

I don't take issue with you, Mr. Hicks, when you say that the B.C. salmon farmers shouldn't be blamed for the pricing problems that fishermen in British Columbia or Alaska are facing. It's a problem of the world supply of product that's on the market, and that's the issue. And is it not also the case that the large volume of product that's coming out of Chile, in fact, poses a problem for the aquaculture industry in this country, as well, in that the price at which Chile appears to be able to put its product onto the market is probably below the cost for salmon aquaculture operations in this country?

Dr. Brad Hicks: I would say that this is partly true. I would like to broaden that question a little bit, if I may. I did farm in Chile, and the reason I went to Chile is that I was not allowed to farm here. I took good, hard-earned Canadian investment dollars and went to Chile because my vision was that salmon farming was going to happen. I did go farming in Chile, and subsequently I imported fish into Canada from Chile to supply processors in Vancouver, because they couldn't get local fish to meet their needs.

One of the reasons the Chilean industry can produce fish cheaper than Canada is that it's been allowed to grow; it has economies of scale, it is technically now more advanced than we are, it's a much bigger, stronger industry. It's a $1.5 billion industry and growing. We had that opportunity here. We were first out of the starting blocks. B.C. could have a $2 billion industry here. It's going to take a bit of will; it's going to take some changes in attitude; and it's going to take some acceptance, but that's the potential.

Quite frankly, if Alaska ever goes salmon farming that's what I would see as a real threat. The ability of Alaska to produce farmed salmon would be equal to Norway. Norway is producing 450,000 tonnes of farm salmon.

Mr. John Cummins: I think the issue when you're talking about pricing is that Chile is able to produce that product more cheaply. Some of the material I've read suggests that there's a pricing problem in the United States because they aren't able to compete with the prices that are coming out of Chile. In fact, the current fisheries minister, when he was the ACOA minister, allowed for a holiday for some of the loans that operations on the east coast had, because they were having difficulty putting their product on the market at a profit. So it's probably an issue of oversupply on the world marketplace right now for salmon, is it not?

Dr. Brad Hicks: There currently is an oversupply in the marketplace for salmon. There was an oversupply in 1991. The salmon farming industry hit the wall in 1991. There were 30,000 tonnes of frozen salmon in Norway, which was referred to as the “salmon mountain”. We managed to go through that.

The next time we hit the wall was in 1997; at approximately 650,000 tonnes of production we hit the wall again. That was the next time when cost of production exceeded market value because we oversupplied. The world market in the meantime continued to grow. The next time we hit the wall was when farm salmon hit 1.2 million tonnes. That was the next time we hit the wall. We're now at the wall. Will that get resolved? Absolutely.

So in the next growth phase, after this hitting of the wall is finished with, is Canada going to be prepared for the next opportunity?

Mr. John Cummins: This is a question that's out there. The issue that I see, from my perspective, anyway, is the issue of the style of regulations that are going to be in place in this country and whether there are going to be any.

But perhaps before I get into that, you had mentioned in your talk the notion that perhaps there's no need for another review of the type that was done by the province, but the Auditor General said, after his review--at paragraph 30-47, as we pointed out before--that there ought to be a public inquiry under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act if this moratorium is lifted. And I guess it would be your view that this would be unnecessary, correct?

Dr. Brad Hicks: I did go to meet with the Auditor General when his report came out. I actually wrote a review of his report, which I'll send to the committee since there seems to be some interest in that element. We did have a discussion of those issues.

At the time I said, if you'd taken the time to look at the salmon aquaculture review, and read through it.... Even today with all these presenters here, we've been through this. It cost a couple of million dollars last time. It cost a year and a half of people's time. It was going to solve this problem. My guess is we will have another review and those who do not like the outcome will continue to call for yet another review. At some point we have to move forward.

Earlier, Mr. Cummins, your comment was wouldn't it be a good idea just to get some regulations on the table, so you guys would know where the metes and bounds of your business were, and what the speed limit was. Well, the industry's in favour of that. The industry has embraced something called “performance-based standards”. It allows us provincially...and I understand these are provincial regulations and you're federal gentlemen. But in reality that's a regulation that does set metes and bounds on what we can and can't do. The national animal health program is going to do exactly that. In reality the industry's moving just exactly in the direction that you've suggested a couple of times.

» (1740)

The Chair: Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: I don't deny your observation, but I guess the issue is, where is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on this? As you well know, for the sake of an example, specific fisheries regulations are there. They inform just what is possible and what isn't possible in the harvest of Pacific salmon. I cannot, for the life of me, find a comparable set of regulations that govern the aquaculture industry.

I think that's largely where the problems come, and why there's a distrust there. The department is seen as a promoter. Its face as a regulator is not obvious. We've had folks from your industry admit as much in earlier presentations, that many of these regulations are simply now just under development.

Dr. Brad Hicks: That's correct, and I might remind you that in the wild fishery back in the 1940s there weren't a whole lot of regulations, either. So regulations—

Mr. John Cummins: That's simply not true. The Fisheries Act has been in place for well over 100 years.

Dr. Brad Hicks: The regulations, not the act. The act still applies to us. The Fisheries Act, itself, does apply to us. Back in--I'm guessing a little bit here--about the mid-seventies, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans came out and declared before cabinet that fish farming was a fishery and that we were governed by the act.

Mr. John Cummins: Oh, absolutely, there's no question that you're governed by the act.

Mr. Brad Hicks: Okay, but I'm talking about the regulations here.

Mr. John Cummins: I mean, what goes on in tidal waters is governed by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. There's no question about that.

Dr. Brad Hicks: But we're talking about regulations. There was a guy named Sinclair, from the University of Winnipeg, who in 1961 actually wrote the thesis that ended up bringing in licensure to British Columbia. Those regulations that are tied to licences are a fairly recent phenomenon. I think this industry will see regulation. I don't think there's any question. And I don't think the industry is against regulation. What the industry wants to see is where the bloody road map is, because we have been....

I was saying to someone a little earlier that I've been at these meetings for about 20 years, I've been farming for 30 years, and for the first 10 years people thought, gee, what a neat thing I was doing. Then when I started to make some money and things started to happen, when we got a little bit bigger and we ended up on other people's doorsteps, that's when the discussions started in earnest.

I am just so afraid that this bickering is going to go on forever. Your suggestion that we bring in some regulations everybody at the table understands.... Then if the farmers break the regulations, charge them, send them to jail, fine them, or whatever--whatever the regulations are.

When we were at the salmon aquaculture, somebody said that the fish farmers were shooting all the bald eagles. I said, excuse me, I'm a fish farmer, and I've never shot a bald eagle, and as far as I know none of my staff has either. I suggested that if they actually knew of someone who had gone out and shot a bald eagle, they should see the appropriate authorities.

I am so sick and tired of the innuendo, the mudslinging, and the accusations. Just go and tell somebody. Let's go to court, and let's have the discussion where there's a judge in the room instead of just having all this innuendo. I'm a huge fan of getting some structure around this industry so we can move forward.

» (1745)

The Chair: We're not too keen on the “I hear” comments either. We want concrete evidence.

Mr. Cummins, will you quickly sum up here.

Mr. John Cummins: Well, that's my prime concern, this bundle, if you will, of regulations. This is so everybody knows what the rules are, where they stand, and what's possible and what isn't. Once regulations are proven to be ineffective, then you have something to address.

That's the point the Auditor General was making when he suggested that under the Environmental Assessment Act there should be a study. It just seems to me from the information I've received here again today that there is a variety of views on whether or not certain practices are harmful or not and what may or may not be a problem, and I think those issues still have to be addressed. Obviously, the recommendations of that salmon review didn't do that. They haven't satisfied a lot of people, probably for good reason.

Dr. Brad Hicks: I understand that opinion, but I can tell you that at the end of that review the people at the table were pretty convinced that it had done its job. There were still some who did not participate. For instance, the Suzuki Foundation; they were invited but they did not participate.

The Chair: Is part of the problem that quite a number of the recommendations have not been implemented?

Dr. Brad Hicks: That's a concern. From where I sit, that's a public administration issue, and I'm not here to discuss whether or not the government is actually a good public administrator. That's a whole different forum. That may be part of the concern, but let's get on with it; let's not start over again.

We must move on this file, and I just use the fish health protection regulations as an example: 20 years. I don't want to be here 20 years from now having this discussion.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Hicks.

Kevin, do you want to add a point or two to the discussion?

Mr. Kevin Onclin: Yes.

For a variety of reasons, since 1993 I've sat and twiddled my thumbs in the industry. One of the issues that comes up is that now I'm part of what is probably going to be the second-largest salmon farming company in the world with this latest merger, people say, well, why did it go that way?

I think you have to understand that the company I worked for previously was the largest independent British Columbia shareholder-owned company in existence. We were the last one. You can't keep going to the shareholders and everybody else for basically nine years and keep saying, well, we're just not sure if we're going to have our leases renewed, not sure what the regulations are, and not sure whether that paper that says “licence” on it means anything. No, we don't know what the costs associated with all the new regulations are going to be, etc. I can go on ad nauseam.

This is a business, an agribusiness. You should understand that fully. I have 219 employees who are always asking, what's the next turn? What is going on? Where do we stand?

So I'm trying to take it down to the grassroots here. We need a clear framework. What we don't need is to keep hashing and rehashing the same old issues. We need to move forward and we need a structure--not just the regulations--between all sectors and all government bodies to work together on finding solutions, as opposed to just keep on identifying the problem. It's a futile thing. We know what the problems are. We know what the issues are. Let's move forward and come up with some solutions that are workable.

» (1750)

The Chair: I don't think you'll get disagreement from committee members on that. I think Mr. Hicks said it right, that industry wants to see where the bloody road map is. I think that's a fair statement. If there's a problem out there, and people are accusing people of a problem, then have them charged.

Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I agree. I think what we've heard throughout is that the industry itself has matured and learned over the last 20 years. Certainly there have been improvements in caging and feed systems, including closer monitoring of feed and far less waste. I guess we need DFO not to be a cheerleader but more of a referee.

I have two specific questions.

To Dr. Hicks, it's been stated that farm salmon have a much greater risk of contracting disease as opposed to wild salmon. Could I get a comment on that?

The Chair: Dr. Hicks.

Dr. Brad Hicks: I'm not begging the question, but it's a complicated one. We have primarily three species of salmon that we farm: Atlantic, chinook, and coho. We have six species in the wild, and a suite of diseases that includes viruses, bacteria, parasites, and fungi.

So we have this huge matrix in front of us, and you ask me the question, are farm salmon more susceptible? I'm sitting here with this matrix that's 30 x 30, saying, well, in this case they're more susceptible and in this case they aren't, and in this case they're more susceptible and in this case they aren't.

So to answer your question—

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Just to qualify that, I got a 65% in high school biology, so....

Dr. Brad Hicks: Well, okay. I think that's about what I got in high school, but I did pull up my socks.

To answer your question, in some instances they are more susceptible and in other instances they are more resistant. I'll just give you an example, because it has come up today. The Atlantic salmon is definitely more susceptible to IHN. Just so that everybody on the committee knows, when I was farming Atlantic salmon in British Columbia—before I was kicked out of the farming business through a merger, and went into the feed business—my salmon had IHN in 1991. IHN was in Atlantic salmon here previously. This is not a new issue. Some people say the SAR didn't address this. I assure you, the salmon aquaculture review did address this, because it came quite a bit after 1991.

So Atlantic salmon are quite susceptible. That particular virus was originally called “chinook salmon virus”. Why? Because it was first discovered in chinook salmon.

Then it became an issue with sockeye. When they first started doing the big hatcheries in Alaska, it was actually the stopper for success in the sockeye enhancement industry. Once they solved the IHN problem in the sockeye—through sheer management—that's when the sockeye really took off in enhancement. I have a shelfful of papers on this, but I didn't bring them with me, because I didn't know this would be the issue today.

So in that case, yes, the Atlantic salmon is more susceptible. However, there is a disease called vibriosis. It's a bacterial disease from a bug called vibrio anguillarum; I'll just use a little Latin so you'll know I'm real. It's a bacterium. Chinook salmon are quite susceptible to that bacterium, but Atlantic salmon couldn't care less. There's never been a case of vibriosis in Atlantic salmon.

To answer your question, it really depends on how fine the resolution of the question is as to what the answer is. I would say that, overall, farm salmon are no more susceptible to disease than wild salmon.

Then there's this issue of stress. Everybody talks about stress and crowding. Well, I think where this came from was that in the old days, DFO had a policy in hatcheries that if the fish got sick, they were released to release the stress, because the stress of being in the hatchery was what caused them to be sick. If you read DFO hatchery documents circa mid-seventies, early eighties, it's just peppered throughout there. That has become an urban legend, in my view. We have 96% survival on our farms. If you take away the first 90 days with Atlantic salmon, you get 98%, 99% survival.

I don't know whether that answers your question. I talked for a while, anyway.

» (1755)

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: That's fair.

The Chair: Kevin, you wanted to make a point?

Mr. Kevin Onclin: Yes. One of our farms had IHN this year. In my discussions with insurers and everybody else--obviously everyone is concerned about the issue--I like to point out that much of the Atlantic salmon farming industry at one point was crippled by a bacterial disease called furunculosis, but due to research and better vaccinations, that's become less and less of an issue. The insurers said we were right. At one point, we thought that was a hurdle that couldn't be overcome.

So we're dealing with animal health issues. We screen our brood stock, we screen our eggs, we do half a million dollars at least in vaccination programs, all to protect our stocks, because obviously it's in our best interests to do so.

You're talking about support of DFO. I would also like to point out that in Norway they originally had a family brood stock program. It has now been turned over to the private sector, but it was started by the federal government. They have worked on many issues, such as disease resistance, in their breeding programs.

Currently in Canada, especially on the west coast, we've had no support from anybody for that. Our industry is not of a significant size for an individual company to take that on. It may be, now that the larger companies are involved. But I wanted to point out that their industry is so far ahead of us on research of breeding, also to help with disease resistance, that we pale.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: My colleague, Monsieur Roy, had asked one of the panelists this question: If you had one recommendation to make, what would it be? The reply was the abolition of open-net cages and the movement to closed contained systems.

What are some of the factors around that? Would the costs be greater? Would the benefit be that great? Could you just give us your opinion on that recommendation?

The Chair: There is some information in one of Mr. Hicks' papers on that as well.

Go ahead, very briefly, because we can turn to the paper.

Dr. Brad Hicks: I'll be brief.

The cost of production is higher, full stop. The environmental damage is greater, full stop.

The Chair: I guess one of the difficulties on that question.... I was thinking of it earlier when Mr. Cummins was asking questions about Chile as well. There's certainly a belief in this country that Chile's environmental performance relative to fish farming is not very good. Is that fact or is it fiction? You've been there. One of the difficulties for fish farming operations here and on the east coast, similar to the agriculture farming operations, is the global competition.

Could you comment on both of those points?

Dr. Brad Hicks: The reason I was so brief was that I thought I'd spark some interest.

If I can just back up half a second here, if you look at the paper from Creative Salmon, you will actually see a detailed explanation of the environmental cost of going with either land-based or closed containment. I was not being facetious; the numbers have been done.

Now to Chile, to make a quantum leap down south. Chile's regulations are different from Canada's; however, they are no more or no less stringent, as Mr. Cummins has mentioned. First of all, there are not a lot of regulations in Canada, and there are not a lot of regulations in Chile. They're both new industries.

The Chilean industry controls the importation and movement of eggs under the equivalent of federal statutes, just as they do here. There is an environmental department in Chile that monitors farms. They have disease experts in the government, just as they have here. They have a food inspection agency, the same as here. Chile exports a significant amount of its crop to Europe, so its food inspection agency meets the demands of the EU. I don't know if that answers your question or not.

One of the differences with Chile is there was not a wild salmon industry to have a fight with, quite frankly. I moved to southern Chile and put farms in an area of the southern hemisphere that is the equivalent of the north end of Vancouver Island. When we arrived in the early nineties, the young people were migrating to the city and ending up on the equivalent of Hastings Street in Santiago.

I've been down there for five years. Now these people are building houses. There are schools for them to go to. They're staying home and not going to Santiago to live on the streets. It irks me to no end when people say that's bad and wrong--new hospitals, new schools, new roads, people staying home and having families. I just don't get it.

If you look at Charlotte County in New Brunswick, all the things salmon farming has done there socially are not bad. That's my view, anyway.

¼ (1800)

The Chair: Kevin.

Mr. Kevin Onclin: I don't know if Andy Thomson mentioned it this morning, but the central region board had a presentation the other day. Closed containment does not ensure no escapes. Right now, the waste handling actually concentrates the waste more than our new conventional systems, which have collection but much wider dispersion and dilution, and rely on power.

When you're looking at the land base and closed containment, I'd like you to keep in mind that we have a society, especially in North America, that requires an increasing consumption of energy and water. When I did the analysis, which was part of Bill Vernon's presentation, we would have had to dam the Thompson River at one point to drive the pumps to pump to the land base, not to mention using up all the land to put this industry.

As an environmentalist--and I consider myself an environmentalist, by the way, depending on your definition--to say we will go from a passive use of the ocean and mother nature to burning fossil fuels and damming rivers to create an aquaculture industry doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I think there are other ways to mitigate the concerns in salt water. As a world food producer, the population is growing more and more globally. There is more reliance on the ocean to provide food because we have more ocean than land.

I'm not saying it should all be farm salmon; there can be a variety of things in many different countries. We can't keep up with soil erosion in the prairies. We have issues of beef, poultry, and pork using 70% of the fishmeal in the world. Do you think that's right? Don't just focus on farm salmon when you talk about issues like fishmeal production, because 70% of fishmeal production goes to terrestrial animal production. My biological feed conversion in salmon is down to 1.1 to 1.2. Economic feed conversion, including mortalities, is about 1.3. I wanted to correct that information, which I had heard earlier.

That is where our industry is at. We are now using half as much fish meal protein as we used to. There are a lot of issues here. When you talk about land base and closed containment, it's just not that easy. And to me, it's counterproductive to the environmental movement.

¼ (1805)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Onclin.

Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

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

You often made a comparison with agriculture and you even stated that fish farming is an agri-business. I would like to dwell a bit on this comparison. I should tell you that I come from an area that is also surrounded by water, the Lower St.Lawrence-Gaspé region. We have the St. Lawrence on one side, Chaleur Bay and the Atlantic Ocean on the other. We are presently having a dispute which is not unlike yours here with aquaculture. It has to do with the siting of mega pig farms in agricultural areas. In fact, whenever there is a project to develop such an industry, the locals almost rise up in arms. You can imagine the amount of waste such an industry produces and the environmental management problems this causes. I believe this industry--I am not saying this is a solution in your circumstances--will have no other choice, if it wants to continue to develop, at least in my part of the country, than to treat mechanically the waste produced by the pigs, in other words do exactly was has been mentioned today...

Let me give you another example. When I was mayor of a municipality of 4000, in the early 1980s, we proposed to build a wastewater treatment facility, because our sewers were running into a bird sanctuary, but people called me crazy because it would cost 2.8 million dollars. So we built the facility anyway and now we have a salt water marsh which has been developed for tourism and which is a great asset. People are very proud today about what we accomplished in the early 80s. I must say that I was still very young at the time, although I still am.

I believe aquaculture will not be able to solve its problems without looking for new solutions. I agree with you, Mr. Onclin, when you talk about practical solutions. However, there will be no practical solutions, and the people will continue to oppose you, if you do not solve some problems such as waste treatment. Whether you like it or not, you will have no other choice but to go this route. You will no longer be able to discharge into the environment your untreated waste. This is what I believe.

I would also like to talk about concentration in the industry. This has not been raised yet. I talked about pig farming in my province. In Quebec, or even in Canada, there are only five big corporations that build these mega pig farms. They do not create much employment, nor much economic activity in the surrounding area.

Is that true also of aquaculture? Do you anticipate a consolidation of businesses in this industry? Are these companies owned by Canadiens or foreigners? Sorry for having kept the floor for so long.

¼ (1810)

[English]

The Chair: I think the evidence is already there, is it not?

Mr. Onclin, go ahead.

Mr. Kevin Onclin: We take the waste management very seriously and that's why we've gone to performance-based guidelines for waste management. I know the salmon farmers in British Columbia are on the leading edge of that. There are many jurisdictions, including companies within our own organization, other farm companies in other areas of the world, that are looking at our performance-based criteria. So we do take it seriously.

Our company was actually two of the eight farms that were in the focus studies on benthic impacts. We just gave a presentation to local first nations and the central region board with our scientists. I have no problem sharing that information with the committee. In some cases we found proliferations of increased productivity to the farms. What we do know is that the impacts are usually on the high trench sites, up to about 200 metres, but they're very low impacts. That's on the old conventional systems. Now we're moving to our collection systems and cross-current systems. Obviously we have in mind to look at our uplift system and go beyond that in our investigations of how to keep improving our waste management issues.

Do we need to go to closed containment in order to address those concerns? I don't believe so. As I said, I can only speak on my company's behalf and the things that we feel we have to do to look at waste management. But we're also audited. We have two full-time environmental monitoring people who go around and sample transacts on our farms. We have people who weight-sample fish every month. Every pen in our company is sampled, so that we know what kind of feed management is going on, what our FCRs are, what our growth rates are, who is wasting a pellet of feed. Those are all tools that can be used to deal with waste management very effectively.

We have new feeders that absolutely work on a principle of air-driven gyros that make sure that the feed isn't lumped together--it's evenly spread out--so that the fish all have an equal opportunity to feed and there's not a glob of feed going down into the population. These are all subtleties. As I said, it takes more than a five-second sound bite, unfortunately, to go into the details of how we deal with waste management, but I can assure you we're hitting it from every front.

Our largest cost of production, probably 60% to 70%, is feed costs. In our contracts for feed we have digestibility penalties. That means that if the diet is not exhibiting good digestibility the feed company owes us money, and that goes back to waste management. There are a lot of subtle steps that we are taking to address this problem.

As far as globalization is concerned, I'm afraid that jury is already in. With the moratorium and the sitting and waiting, we lost a significant market share in Canada. The shareholders gave up. That's done. I just don't see that. We're already in the end of that. Does that mean there isn't a commitment to the area? No. But it does mean that we're on a global playing field.

The Chair: Mr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney: I want to come back to the feed in just a moment. First, though, I would say that PNA, which Kevin Onclin represents, is, as he correctly pointed out, one of the largest employers in the Tofino area, and is even acknowledged, as was mentioned earlier by our witnesses from the Ahousat band, Sidney Sam and Darrell Campbell, as a large employer for their people. It is important to get on record the economic impact this has in one of the regions of British Columbia that has the most severe economic conditions at the present time.

So I appreciate that being on the record. One of the things we have to deal with here as a committee is balance in terms of reality.

I appreciate, Kevin, what you've mentioned in terms of the technology of a developing industry; that there is new technology that's answering a lot of the criticisms. I think many of the criticisms we've heard levelled today are in fact related to older technology. That is being addressed and is something we have to be cognizant of.

But I wanted to just say, with all that's been said lately--the Rafe Mair program has had a campaign on recently about aquaculture--it seems there's a lot of publicity in this province about issues related to aquaculture. I would like to know if either of you have had the opportunity--Dr. Hicks, with your extensive experience as a veterinarian doctor and your 30-plus years experience in this industry, or Kevin, with all of your experience, and being a former DFO official--or have been invited or been able to participate in the dialogue in public related to the Rafe Mair program, for example.

¼ (1815)

Dr. Brad Hicks: I've actually been on the Rafe Mair program, but he doesn't like me very much, so he didn't invite me back. He doesn't like to be challenged. I'm sure Mr. Easter got an experience today he'll remember for a while. Mr. Mair does not like to have a level-playing-field debate. He controls the microphone; he controls the conversation. It's quite an interesting experience, to tell you the truth.

That said, I have probably given in the last 10 or 15 years a hundred presentations to a variety of communities, groups, peoples--people in the industry, people outside the industry--to help explain what I perceive is happening, anyway. Sometimes I go places and they call me names, but I still go.

I farmed in Clayoquot Sound. In fact, the farm Kevin's farming now used to be mine, just to give you an idea. It was National Sea Products--you people know who National Sea Products are: Captain Highliner--who was our major shareholder and was one of the groups who gave up on this industry in Canada.

Guys, you have to appreciate that when I go to a board meeting, and I'm sitting on a farm...and my licence expired seven years ago. I can go to Chile and I can get a licence that's good for 99 years. It's collateral; it's an asset; it has real value. Here I get to squat, for which I get the like amount.

I would really like this country to move forward on this file, quite frankly. I think we can. We have done a lot. This industry has come ahead leaps and bounds since the seventies--like all industries. Look at the auto industry: the auto industry didn't have the vehicles it has on the road now the first day it got started; we didn't have inquiries for the first 50 years before we ended up with seatbelts. I mean, let's just do it.

The Chair: James, go ahead.

Mr. James Lunney: Here are just a few questions I think are important, since we have someone here actually who's a food--

Mr. Kevin Onclin: Do you want me to answer that question?

The Chair: Oh, I'm sorry, Kevin.

Mr. James Lunney: Oh, yes, Kevin, okay; I'm sorry.

Mr. Kevin Onclin: Actually, we merged three companies about 18 months ago, so I've had my hands full dealing with that. We've had a lot of issues in the transition. But my new position is, of course, more in the role of trying to get out to talk about what things we are doing, as opposed to how things were done in the past. I hope to build on that.

But at the grassroots, at PNA we have university students quite often and lots of people coming out to the farms. I've invited a lot of people who were here today to come out to see our new systems and the type of technology we're using.

So in answer to your question, I've done lots of interviews over the last 15 years on CBC and CTV, with the Globe and Mail and Radio-Canada, on a variety of issues, from Marketplace to W5. I'm always willing to engage and discuss the industry I obviously believe in, because I've been doing it since 1985 and got out of the sockeye salmon business.

The Chair: Last question, James.

Mr. James Lunney: My questions are all related to food production or the aquaculture feed. A number of questions have come up related to that--the sea source. I think, Kevin, you made some interesting observations about how much fish pellet meal and food is being used actually to feed land agriculture animals.

Further to that with respect to sea source, land source, and other sources of feed, as a food producer, Dr. Hicks, are you able to keep up with the formulation?

As well, I'd like you to address concerns that have come up about toxins in the feed, particularly in relation to the oil concentration and to oil-soluble toxins that might be present in feeds. Then there's the issue that was raised on the carotenoids, which have caused concerns, the so-called tanning agents for the colour of the flesh. You're using the natural one.

Could you please comment on those issues for us, for the record.

¼ (1820)

Dr. Brad Hicks: On the source of fish meal and fish oil, the primary source is South America, either Peru or Chile. Secondary sources include our waste stream products from the herring roe fishery in British Columbia, for instance. The crab fishery on the east coast produces some crab meal for the industry, and the herring roe industry on the east coast supplies fish meal into the industry as well. There is menhaden meal, which comes out of the Gulf of Mexico. It's a smaller part of that meal production. Then if you move to Europe, the primary source for fish meal is sand lance out of the North Sea.

Those sources of fish meal did not come along with aquaculture. The fish meal fishery began roughly in the thirties, at least the ones in South America, which are the ones I've at least read the history on. I don't know the North Atlantic one per se.

In fact, on this coast in the forties there was a big reduction fishery for sardines. The idea of using fish meal didn't appear with aquaculture, and I think that's important. Fish meal was primarily used as fertilizer, and the fish oil was used as a fuel to be burned in engines, boilers, or whatever. In Alaska they still use a fair amount of fish oil in boilers as a fuel. And the other thing was that when they originally did this, they flame-dried the fish meal, which in my vernacular essentially means they destroyed the biological capital. They really denatured all the proteins and turned that into basic fertilizer.

One of the things that happened with fish farming is that fish can't use those denatured proteins. We've changed the fish meal production to a gentler, kinder form of production called steam-dried, in which the protein, that biological capital, is actually saved, if you will. The fish oil, rather than going off to be burned in internal combustion engines and boilers, is now turned into food. In both instances the fish meal and the fish oil quality have been just revolutionized in terms of biological value, yet the fish farming industry gets no credit for all that work.

It's an industry where we are a significant participator in the use of fish meal and fish oil, but we are not the major user of fish meal and fish oil. We're actually using half as much fish meal, yet we've been producing twice as much salmon in the last ten years. That's just an example of how efficient we've become. There are a whole lot of elements in there, but we've become quite efficient.

Your next question was about toxins. I believe you'll hear tomorrow from Dr. Michael Easton, who will discuss the toxin issue, at least as far as the POPs, persistent organic pollutants, are concerned. I have included in my submission a letter to the editor of Chemosphere, where Michael published his paper outlining some concerns from a food specialist from the United States. I worked in organic pollution in the Great Lakes for about 10 years, but I will refer you to Mr. Easton's paper for an actual detailed discussion. Let it be said that all the levels that have ever been found anywhere are way, way below action levels for the CFIA, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Carotenoids are a big group of pigments found in nature. They are primary precursors for vitamin A, and they have a lot of other, extra things they do. They give us colour. They're antioxidants. There are two primary carotenoids used in farm fish, and one is canthaxanthin. Canthaxanthin is legal. In Europe they are talking about decreasing the concentrations you can use, but they are legal. They are primarily used in chicken and fish.

They also turn up in ketchup and a whole bunch of other things we eat. Anything red may have cantha in it.

Astaxanthin is the other major pigment we use. In addition, there are two natural sources of pigment. One is something called Phaffia yeast. It's a yeast. It's not very stable. It has tried to make progress in this industry, and hasn't. The other is an algae that produces astaxanthin. Astaxanthin is a natural product. It's not some bizarre, strange, chemical colour, red dye number 6 or anything. It's a natural product. Some people use the algae, which is out of Hawaii, but very small quantities are available. It does occur naturally in crabs and shrimp and whatever.

¼ (1825)

Mr. James Lunney: Just a final comment before we leave that subject, and that is--

The Chair: Mr. Onclin, we're going to have to go to you, and that's it. Go ahead.

Mr. Kevin Onclin: The use of the two pigments depends on the market. Our company was 100% asta and we tried to sell some fish into the States. In the United States, the people said the fish looked funny; astaxanthin is more in the Japanese market. So it depends on your market. Because they started off with cantha in the United States, that's what they're used to seeing.

The other thing I'd like to mention is that in the old days we used to use krill, squid, or other things, which naturally have those pigments in them, which the salmon assimilate. Again, to reduce the reliance on a wild fishery and to get our costs down, because it was very expensive, we switched to the actual pigment itself.

There were a couple of quick ones I just wanted to mention that came up and that I think are important. Most of the industry does use lights on systems for particular types of smolt that come in prior to the winter solstice. Otherwise, the fish will recondition, will go back to par, and will drop out of the population. In order to get year-round marketing and to make sure you're stocking in most months of the year, some lighting is required for the half entry. I just wanted to clarify that because it wasn't answered by the panel this morning.

The second thing I wanted to answer on is sea lice management. Our company has been doing sea lice management, where we go around and sample fish on the farms, for the last six years. I was talking to Brad about this. I have documentation of it. We actually have stricter measures in our company than Norway does, because we believe in area management principles. It is ongoing. It's not a very big issue in B.C. I can honestly say we've seen a problem maybe once or twice in my history of 16 years.

The Chair: I just have one question—and I don't know if you can answer it or not—on the confidence of the general public in DFO, whether or not the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is doing its job. It's come up several times.

From your perspective, DFO being the regulator under the fish act on one hand, and the lead federal agency for aquaculture development on the other.... To a certain extent you can understand that people see it as a perceived conflict of interest. Can they really do their job with that internal conflict, or do we need to be looking at some recommendations? I don't know whether that goes to a crown corporation or whatever, but there is a perception of conflict there. Do you have any suggestions on how to deal with that?

Mr. Kevin Onclin: Yes. Right now, my experience with the provincial government is moving in the right direction. Even within the ministry of fisheries, we have the sustainable aquaculture group, who work with us on management plans and issues around tenures and fish health work.

They also have the officers who come around and do routine audits of our operations, the code of practice, including dive audits of our pens.

It can work, but there have to be clearly defined job descriptions and boundaries for each group. “Never the two shall meet”, really, is the way it has to work.

I guess the other working model would be to just separate it completely out of the fisheries. But I think there could be a lot of synergies between the wild fishery and the aquaculture industry. Maybe I'm being optimistic. But I think in the future that Canada, on the global scene, as Brad said, is not very big and—

¼ (1830)

The Chair: Kevin, we're never, though, going to get to those synergies if the industry is constantly under attack because of perceived conflicts and difficulties, real or imagined. That's causing problems.

Mr. Kevin Onclin: That's correct. I said it's optimistic future thinking.

The Chair: Mr. Hicks, did you want to add anything?

Dr. Brad Hicks: Yes. This inherent conflict has been an historical problem with DFO. Before private sector aquaculture....and you have to remember that DFO has been at aquaculture for about 100 years.

The Chair: With hatcheries and—

Dr. Brad Hicks: It was not always DFO, but also the ministry of the environment and ministry of marine, or whatever. But they've been at it for about 100 years. For most of that period, they had a program that supplied fish to the wild fishery. So they've always been in a conflict.

At one time you could get recipes from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. They were a great promoter of fish at one time. I believe they still do trade missions for both wild and farm fish.

So that has been an issue for DFO forever. It's not a new issue within DFO. It has been brought up recently as an issue, because, I think, DFO has finally decided that aquaculture is actually going to come to the table. We were in the backroom for a long, long time with DFO. We could never get a seat at the table.

Finally we're at the table, and everybody says we're getting everything. I call it the “new kid on the block” syndrome. We're the new kid on the block. We are getting some attention and everybody is re-shifting.

That said, I was a big proponent of moving aquaculture into agriculture—in other words, the farming issue. DFO was absolutely vehement we were a fishery, and not farming. After about 15 years of the fight, I gave up and accepted, okay, we're a fishery. So now you're telling me that we're a fishery, but you don't want to have us in your house.

We're new kids on the block. We're trying to find a place. Mom and Dad are kind of trying to find a place for us, too, between the environment and fisheries, is how I see it. In reality, I don't think it's a big issue for DFO. It has been a promoter of the wild fishery for years and years, and, at the same time, a regulator of the wild fishery. It didn't seem to be a big issue then. Maybe it was, and I just didn't know about it.

The Chair: Okay, thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. James Lunney: Mr. Chairman, just one little comment here. And that is with this issue of the regulatory—

The Chair: Do you guys want to be here all night? There are two more witnesses.

Mr. James Lunney: For the record, just let me say this. That's exactly the same issue we have with the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food on the biotechnology issue, as both the regulator and the promoter. We hear exactly the same issues in that debate on the health committee.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins, what's your one last question?

Mr. John Cummins: There's just a couple of points here—

The Chair: One.

Mr. John Cummins: —to show there are differing points of view.

Kevin, you mentioned that, because of the moratorium, you had lost market share. There may be some truth to that, but it's also a fact that this past November, delegates from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland visited Ottawa and petitioned members of Parliament and the government. They felt threatened by the ongoing dumping by Chilean producers into the U.S. market they have. They claim if the price of $1.50 U.S. per pound per salmon continues, the industry in Atlantic Canada would lose $50 million over the next year.

So the dumping by Chile is certainly a factor I think you must face.

On another issue, you suggested that the bulk of the use of fish meal, I think you said like something like 70%, goes to terrestrial animals. In a document Mr. Fraser presented and tabled with the Leggatt inquiry, the claim is made that within a decade the demand for marine oils for salmon and shrimp farming might displace all the demand from terrestrial food production, swine and poultry systems. The supply is limited and overfishing must be avoided.

So there's a different point of view on that particular issue, but—

The Chair: That's not unique. We've heard lots of different points of view today.

Mr. John Cummins: Yes.

I have a couple of very quick questions.

The Chair: I thought that was it, John.

Mr. John Cummins: No, that was just comment.

The Chair: Let's have one question, and then we're closing.

Mr. John Cummins: All right. I'll go to one.

I wanted to ask you about the fish escapes last December from your facility, Kevin. But I also understand that an issue was raised earlier today about algae bloom and die-off at Bare Bluff site, which is one of your sites. The folks from Ahousat raised that. I wonder if you might briefly want to comment on those couple of issues.

The Chair: Thanks, John.

¼ (1835)

Mr. Kevin Onclin: Yes, I actually had those down to respond to.

On the Bare Bluff issue, I wish I had pictures. In some of the old technology the plastic circle cages, which are very inexpensive but can handle rough water, are used, and the Bare Bluff site is in a long fetch, so initially we had put those cages there for that reason. The difficulty we found was that the circle cages were never really designed for the amount of weight and tarp system we had to put on for the bloom.

As Bill Vernon mentioned this morning, we do make some mistakes, so that system is actually gone. We're actually selling off our old assets and we're putting a Cat Cage in there with lots of flotation, and the pred-net will help hold the tarps in place. That's another benefit of the tarps. There's significant flotation in the new systems, so we believe we've solved that issue.

We're also working on new diffusers that help oxygenate as well as move the water. One thing I wanted to point out is that it's not dead water. You're trying to bring up clean water that's plankton-free from below the depths of the tarps. Yes, some areas have low oxygen in the fall. That's a naturally occurring phenomenon in B.C., but for the most part during blooms it's not oxygen crashes. But we do need to move clean water up into the tarps that's plankton-free, from below the tarp depth.

On the second point on Saranac, because we're going to have all the systems in new cages by the end of the year, we've actually had all of our systems re-engineered. They were concerns about the loads compared to the new weights of the cages. All that has been taken into account.

To put it into perspective, to anchor an old cage system used to cost us around $90,000. To anchor a Cat Cage it costs about $250,000 to build in the extra anchoring and we have to, in some cases, move to high-hold anchors. We've just completed a sonar survey of all the bottoms to measure the depth of the muds and stuff so we can deploy high-hold anchors.

The Chair: I wish we could—

Mr. John Cummins: What do you do with the waste you collect from the cones you have in those new systems?

Mr. Kevin Onclin: Phase one was to get those operable. Phase two is to work on new ways of dealing with that. They are actually working far more efficiently than we had first anticipated, so right now the waste is still going back to depth under the pens, but we have header pipes in place that.... So that's phase two.

The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your expertise in the industry.

We'll call forward Mr. Paone, from the Friends of Clayoquot Sound; and Ms. Rothenbush with the Raincoast Conservation Society. Our apologies for being so late.

¼ (1840)

Dr. Sergio Paone (Representative, Friends of Clayoquot Sound): Thank you.

I'm going to be dealing with the human health issues of salmon farming. I have a PhD in chemistry, and I've been looking at a few aspects of salmon farming for about four years. I make my way through the scientific literature and try to summarize it. I work as an environmental consultant for various groups doing that.

I'm from the same riding as Mr. Lunney. The previous speakers mentioned some of the employment statistics for Tofino, and it's true a lot of people in Tofino are employed in the salmon farming industry. I just want to make it clear, though, that Tofino is by no means united in support of the way the industry is currently being conducted.

I'm also a Tofino district councillor. When I ran for council, it was no secret what my position was on the issue, yet I was elected. I got a lot of support, and I speak to my constituents on this issue quite a bit. A lot of people in Tofino are very concerned about the way the industry is currently run. They're not necessarily opposed to the industry, but they want to see changes.

A comment was made in the previous presentation that a lot of the criticism that relates to the industry is because of the old technology. That is not the case. This leads to something that wasn't really discussed much today, and that is changes in the industry and the growth of the industry. We haven't really talked much about the fact that the industry is poised to grow.

There's no doubt that the salmon farming industry has made a lot of positive changes in cage technology, as we just heard. Changes are being made in the right direction. But one of the things you have to consider is that when you make positive changes in your technology and grow at the same time, you could just be on a treadmill.

One example of that is the statistic that was quoted earlier this morning about 0.3% of production escaping. It sounds very low. There has been an increase in terms of percent of production, but that figure really doesn't tell us much about environmental impact. It may tell us something about economic impact to the industry. If you improve your method of containing the salmon and reduce the percentage of production that escapes, but at the same time double or triple production, you're on a treadmill, and the same number of salmon are escaping.

So the criticism of the industry is not about the old technology; it has to do with the fact that the industry is expanding, and what may not have been an environmental problem before may turn out to be one, as the industry grows.

You have my two-page brief on this, and I'll just expand on it a little. Then Theresa will speak and we'll open the floor to questions.

Most of the salmon produced now in B.C. is farmed salmon. The main human health risks associated with this are drug residues that may be contained in the farmed salmon heading for market, and also in some of the shellfish and other wild fish near the salmon farm; increases in antibiotic resistance through the use of antibiotics on the farms; changes in the nutritional value of the farm salmon itself; and the net loss of protein due to using more fish input to make farmed salmon output.

These risks can be divided into two categories. One category includes the nutritional value of the salmon. It's a risk that is really a consumer choice, and that's why we need labelling of the fish.

With regard to nutritional value and whether or not there are antibiotic residues, you can decide as a consumer to buy it, to eat it or not. That's one category of human health risk you have choice in as a consumer.

But there's a second category—and things such as antibiotic resistance fall into this—where it doesn't matter if you eat fish or not, in fact it doesn't matter if you're a vegetarian. It's a concern that affects everyone. If you increase antibiotic resistance in the environment, you could be a vegetarian and it would still affect you.

On the issue of drug residues, I'll just tell you where I'm getting my data. The David Suzuki Foundation did a freedom of information study from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. I reviewed the data that was provided, so the data I'll be quoting came from the data provided to us by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. As well, some of the studies I refer to are from peer review journals.

I'll also be giving this to the committee. It's a 14-page review of this issue, co-produced by Dr. Warren Bell, a family physician, and me. He's also with the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, which is a national organization.

On the issue of drug residues, I'll give some specific numbers, because this has come up a few times today. It turns out that in British Columbia, from the analysis the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has done, depending on the year—it varies—between 0.3% to 1.1% of the farmed salmon that head for market have antibiotic residues above what Health Canada recommends, which for most antibiotics is about 0.1 part per million. In New Brunswick it's a bit higher. Depending on the year, it varies between 1.1% and 5.5% of the salmon that go to market.

Now, those sound like very low numbers, especially in B.C., but this is salmon that goes to market with residue levels above the recommended level. It doesn't take into account residues that might be below that. What it translates to is that in B.C., every year between about 200 and 400 metric tonnes of farmed salmon go to market with antibiotic residues above what Health Canada recommends. In New Brunswick, it's between 200 and 1,000 metric tonnes.

That puts a figure on some of the things that came up today. That's how much salmon goes to market every year in B.C. and New Brunswick that have antibiotic levels above what Health Canada recommends for human consumption.

On the issue of antibiotic resistance, there are three ways in which antibiotics can cause problems, in residues especially. People can have allergic reactions to them. There's also a toxic effect from the chemical itself, and there's the development of antibiotic resistance. That's both from the drug use on the farm and from residue levels.

There are two things about antibiotic resistance. One, it's quite well documented in the literature that the bacterial diseases that farm salmon suffer from have been showing an increased incidence of antibiotic resistance. Of course, these diseases are not diseases in humans. However, farmed salmon, like many meats, can contain some types of bacteria, such as E. coli or salmonella, which are a problem for humans. And if you use antibiotics on the salmon—and this is very similar to the other meats that are being provided—you cause an increase in antibiotic resistance in things such as E. coli and salmonella. Now, of course, if the food is prepared properly, that isn't a problem. But every year people do catch these diseases from improperly stored or prepared food.

The other thing is a little more problematic. There's quite a bit of scientific research that shows the bacteria that live underneath and in the environment near the salmon farms have a increasing incidence of antibiotic resistance. For a long time there was this idea that the environmental compartment where salmon farms operate is separate from the environmental compartment where humans operate. There was a study that was published just last year where the researchers actually looked at the antibiotic resistance and the transfer of that resistance between the environmental compartment of salmon farms and humans. They found the two compartments should actually not be treated as separate, but as the same compartment.

¼ (1845)

What this means is that bacteria have an ability to transfer resistance through something called the plasmid. They can transfer genetic material. You can actually find that one bacteria, which was never exposed to antibiotics, could pick up that resistance by having it transferred from another bacteria that had been exposed to antibiotics, and that in this case the environment is basically one compartment, so that what you do to one type of bacteria, you do to all types of bacteria.

This is a quote I found from Stuart B. Levy, director for the Centre of Adaptation Genetics and Drug Resistance at Tufts University School of Medicine. He said:

The exchange of genes is so pervasive that the entire bacterial world can be thought of as one huge multicellular organism in which the cells interchange their genes with ease.

The conclusion from the study from a year ago says basically that the aquaculture and the human compartments of the environment behave as a single compartment.

When I think of this, it makes me think of antibiotics as a non-renewable resource. Basically there is a certain amount of antibiotics that we can use. Every time we use it, we increase the amount of antibiotic resistance that's out there in the environment. We select for those genes, those plasmids, that have the resistance. Every time we use antibiotics, whether on humans, pigs, chickens, or salmon, we increase that incidence of antibiotic resistance in the environment.

There's a limited amount of antibiotics that we as humans can use. So antibiotics are a non-renewable resource when you look at it in that way. There are an increasing number of professionals who think that they should only be used to treat human diseases.

The other two things I quickly want to get to is there has been a lot of talk today also about the conversion ratio of wild fish to farmed salmon. It always surprises me that we still talk about this issue.

Yes, there is research being done into substituting canola and other vegetable sources of protein, but that research is ongoing and today there's still a conversion ratio of about 3:1, not of the feed. The feed is about 1.3:1. The 1.1 that was mentioned by Kevin Onclin is the biological conversion. That means you don't take into account your dead fish, but if fish die and have to be disposed of, that's part of the operating procedure. That means that some of the fish meal is lost in that way.

So the 1.3 figure is dry weight of feed to salmon. The amount of anchovies, jack mackerel, and sardines you have to fish out to convert to salmon currently is about 3:1. Now, it may vary from 2.5 to even higher than 3, but the point is you use up much more wild fish to make the farmed salmon that you send to market. It surprises me that we're still debating this point.

If new technology develops a type of feed where that changes, fine, that solves the problem. But right now we're not there, and I can't believe we're still arguing about this point. The previous speakers were still trying to make it sound like the conversion ratio isn't the problem.

So we're actually losing two kilograms of fish every time we make one kilogram of farmed salmon.

¼ (1850)

Mr. John Cummins: What was the conversion rate?

Dr. Sergio Paone: The feed conversion ratio is about 1.3. We talk about the fish meal, but it's not actually the fish meal that is the problem. It's the fish oil. Fish meal and fish oil go into making the feed, and it's actually the oil that is very intensive in the use of wild fish.

A lot of the reason the fish conversion feed ratio has come down is that they're increasing the fat content—the oil content—so that again is a treadmill effect. Just because the feed conversion ratio goes down doesn't mean the wild fish conversion ratio goes down, because a lot of the times the reason we've gone down to 1.3 from, say, 2 is that we've increased the fish oil content of the feed. That means you have to convert more wild fish anyway. In terms of wild fish—wet wild fish to wet salmon—it's about 3:1. And it hasn't really changed much in the last decade.

The other thing, just quickly and then I'll stop, is the nutritional content. That was mentioned today as well. I can't remember which speaker today mentioned today that you can get your omega-3 fatty acids from eating, say, a 100-gram portion of farmed salmon—I forget the amount—but that a portion of Atlantic salmon contains more omega-3 than most other fish. It's actually not completely true.

A lot of fish are not as fatty. But there are several fish with the same amount of omega-3 fatty acids. Interestingly enough, one is anchovy, which they convert into feed. If you have 100 grams of anchovies, you have about 1.8 grams or 1.8% of omega-3 fatty acids. If you have 100 grams of Atlantic farm salmon, you have about two grams. So there's a tiny bit more in the farm salmon.

But the important thing that wasn't mentioned today is there has been a—

Mr. John Cummins: You're talking too fast.

Dr. Sergio Paone: I'm sorry.

Mr. John Cummins: One hundred grams of anchovies—

Dr. Sergio Paone: I'm trying to fit it all in.

One hundred grams of wild anchovies, Pacific anchovies, have about 1.8 grams of omega-3 fatty acids. One hundred grams of farmed Atlantic salmon have two grams. So there's a tiny bit more—almost 10% more—n the farmed salmon.

However, in terms of human health, the thing not mentioned today is that a large, extensively reviewed body of evidence, of hundreds of papers, has been accumulating for at least the past 10 years showing that it isn't so much the omega-3 acids that you get, but the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 acids. This is because there are competing pathways in the human body for these two essential fatty-acid groups. Omega-6s are very common in vegetable oils, canola, corn oil, and in a lot of grains. A lot of studies have also shown in the last 100 years a trend towards us getting more omega-6s, and less omega-3s. That's because we have gone from a traditional farming method for terrestrial animals, where we let them run free, to a very intensive grain-based diet. This is why you can't really get much of your omega-3s any more from beef. You used to be able to do that. Wild meat, especially, has a lot of omega-3 fatty acids.

The point is that, as the omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acid ratio increases—even though you get the amount of omega-3 you need—the omega-6 actually works against you. The health benefits you get from the omega-3 are countered by the omega-6. So what nutritionists are now saying is you need foods that are high in omega-3s and low in omega-6s. When you look at anchovies, they have an omega-3 to omega-6 ratio of 9:1. In other words, they have a lot of omega-3s and very little omega-6s. Farmed Atlantic salmon is 1:1.

So, yes, you get your omega-3s with them, but you also get a lot of the bad fats as well. So it is not the best choice. In fact the best choice on the list I have—which I'll submit to you—is anchovy, which is used as an oil fish to make feed.

I think I'll leave it at that, because I've been going a little bit too fast and too long. I'll just go to Theresa for now. If there are any questions, I'll be happy to answer those.

¼ (1855)

The Chair: Thank you, and you're going to provide us with a copy of that paper, Mr. Paone?

Dr. Sergio Paone: Yes. I'll also provide you with--I'm not sure if the committee is aware of this--a document produced by Health Canada about a year ago. It reviewed the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and how it deals with the analysis of antibiotic residues in both the feed and the fish.

I will mention quickly, they don't sample all the antibiotics used. In British Columbia in 1998 or 1999, I believe about 33% of antibiotics used were phenocoll. Yet there was no sampling by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for that antibiotic in salmon. So there are some problems in the way the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is handling the analysis of residue in food.

I'd be happy to expand on that if people are interested.

The Chair: We'll get into questions following Ms. Rothenbush.

You're on.

Ms. Theresa Rothenbush (Marine Campaigner, Raincoast Conservation Society): My name is Theresa Rothenbush. I'm here representing the Raincoast Conservation Society, which is based in Sydney, B.C.

I'll make the claim right now that I'm not Alexandra Morton from Raincoast Research. This has been confused a few times today, including when I phoned to confirm my space here.

Raincoast is a non-profit organization that does ecological research on the central and north coast of B.C. We focus on wild salmon systems. It's also a very pristine area. Not much of it has been logged, and there are only a few salmon farms in that area, with a lot of thoughts that expansion will concentrate on that coast.

We're not against aquaculture, as most of the organizations that are represented here on the environmental stance are not. We're concerned with the aspects of this practice that are exemplified by net-cage aquaculture.

I had an original presentation today that I was going to do on overheads, but we don't have an overhead projector. There are some other areas I can concentrate on that might be a little bit more worthwhile for us today.

I'll be doing two things today. The first will be going through just a little bit of background on disease transfer. I have here, which I will submit to the secretary, a series of published scientific papers as well as a review by the Sierra Legal Defence Fund on IHN--I believe, Mr. Cummins, this is one of the sea lice papers you were talking about that reviewed sea lice effects in Norway--and some other things that I think are very important to have on record. So I'll give those to her.

Today I'm going to do two things. First I'm going to walk you through this document, which I hope you all have. It's actually not my document; it's a series of documents from the provincial government, from the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and B.C. Assets and Land, that was garnished from a freedom of information request. This is the freedom of information request. I've summarized the articles that are important in this smaller document. I'm assuming everybody has a copy of this.

½ (1900)

The Chair: Yes, I think it's in here.

Ms. Theresa Rothenbush: It's very important.

The first document is mine, a writing from Raincoast, and the second one is a provincial document.

My apologies to Monsieur Roy. This is not translated and it's probably hard to follow. I'm not sure if you're bilingual.

Today we have been talking a lot about disease transfer. I'll just give a few of the many examples on our coast, including ISA, which was a large concern on the east coast of Canada, sea lice, IHN, and actually, to our surprise as well, about 20 pathogens that are of concern to salmon farms and are recorded. We've noted that they are recorded at one salmon farm at least. They take into account 20 pathogens, including I'm sure all types of fungicides, viruses, bacteria, etc. It's a concern because there is this question of whether they are serving to infect wild populations with disease.

Why blame it on the fish farms? Well, the argument is disease amplification. This is what happens at fish farms. Why does it happen? Fish in fish farms are undergoing stress. They're undergoing stress from handling, increased density, events of predation, perhaps repeated predation, and various other artificial things in their environment. This has been found to produce hormones that decrease the immunity of the individual fish. In the higher densities at the farm, which can be.... In nature it's about 5 kilograms per meter cubed. In some of the more intense farms, it's getting to be 50 kilograms per meter cubed. That's actually in a closed containment where that's happening. Because of these high densities, fast transmission can happen when some individuals contract any disease. The farm amplifies the disease and acts as a marine reservoir in the environment.

How is it transferred? In that set of papers I've submitted, there are papers that outline IHN and studies that have shown it's possible to transmit it by water.

As well, escaped fish can leave the pen and possibly have parasites on them or be infected with a virus. Fish sewage can be a reservoir for disease pathogens as well. For instance, myxozoan hosts are found in the anoxic environments under the farm and are actually an intermediate host for some of the parasites found in the farms.

We also saw this with brood stocks and hatchery smolts on the east coast with ISA. The hatcheries were the source of this virus. Also, there's overseas and within-seas transfer, and direct contact with the fish.

I think there are a lot of things there. There have been a lot of studies on them, and there are still a lot of questions. But it brings into account that maybe we should be looking at the precautionary principle when examining these effects.

I'm going to focus a little bit on IHN. IHN is an endemic disease, which means it's been found on the B.C. coast for as long as we know. It's a concern only in the high-density spawning grounds for Pacific salmon. There's no known marine disease reservoir for this virus. It's hard to get the numbers for how many outbreaks there have been of IHN in B.C., but there was an article just the other day that listed 17 farms that have been affected in some way since September 2001. Upwards of one million fish have been culled, and one farm in particular, the Cliff Bay, chose to cull 1.6 million fish as a precaution against this disease, because they found it at their farm.

I'll just say that I've reviewed this freedom of information request and found a series of things. These are my interpretations of this data. It hasn't been put to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or the provincial governments to get official feedback. I have contacted the provincial governments when trying to interpret what's in here, and there's largely a big question mark. People don't know the answers to my questions, so I don't know if they can be answered.

This is the map the MTTC was using. You can see that Cliff Bay is just in the middle of the right side. Below is Burdwood, used as a following site, which I'll be referring to. The next page is a close-up, and the page after that has some background information--January 28, 2002. There are a couple of pages of background information on the farms for you to read after, if you're interested.

This is the most important document in this set--two pages of e-mail correspondence that occurred after the outbreak and the cull happened. The farm was not required to report the fact that it had an outbreak, nor was it required to report that it had a cull, but it did, and this was the conversation.

If you'll note, on the second one it says:

In response to your e-mail, 1) the site was changed to a smolt entry site in 1999 with a three to four month grow-out cycle; 2) the site was licensed for a production of 160 metric tonnes

--that's the important part--

3) licensed biomass was not exceeded.

The next e-mail simply talks about how the site is a poor site--and the government does comment on this several times within the report. Let's remember the 160 metric tonnes.

In the next one, he says he spoke to Odd and Jennifer of Heritage on February 12.

½ (1905)

They stated that between 1.5 million to 1.6 million fish had to be removed. Their average weight was 158 grams. If you look at my little calculation at the bottom, that works out to 237 tonnes. This is secondhand knowledge, but those were just some of the smolts at the farm. They came out of a number of net pens that were at the farm. So that number of 237 tonnes is compared to 160.

I just put in the next few pages to document. This is probably not against regulations, but I question whether it should be occurring. The site was moved to Burdwood for a couple of months. There are a couple of pages of rhetoric. This confidential page is just listing some of the antibiotics used. It appears here because of the sharp rise in mortality until about April, when they moved the farm because they were getting mortalities. By moving the farm they transferred the fish through the water to another area and made another area infected. I'm not sure if it's against regulations to do that, but they did it and I think it's very questionable.

On the e-mail that says “Erickson, Lloyd” at the top, page 13, there are just a couple of things on the net pens and the gyre. Our evaluations suggest the site is not appropriate for a fish farm. The management plan for this site is for a six- to eight-month growout period for 400,000 Atlantic salmon, which is one-third of what they had called the time before.

The next page is a picture of the gyre that accumulates, just kind of underlying the need for siting.

Another really interesting part I found is on the commercial aquaculture management plan for marine tenures first issued before October 18, 1999. It is the application they submit to the provincial government and get approved, so they may have their tenure. It says here, “At full production the maximum occupied tenure area will be 11,475 m², or 5%”.

On the next page you'll see at the bottom the headings: description, number, and dimensions. Then it shows 12 net cages, 30m x 30m x 15m, with an area of 10,800 m². The next map shows their proposed site. If you count the squares, there are 12. If you turn to the next page and count the squares, there are 14. On the next page, the barge pens you see there are 100 x 100, termed “super pens”. I could find no evidence they had applied for them.

I have a recent picture that was taken on March 18, 2002, that shows 24 plus 13 pens.

½ (1910)

Could we go back now to that letter? I'm sorry if I'm taking a lot of time. I really didn't want to be longwinded since we waited so long. It's dated July 23, 2001, and is just before those two black maps. The first paragraph says:

Thank you for referring this renewal for our review. The management plan indicates that the farm is situated in front of a second order stream in Cliff Bay. No information is provided on fish presence or habitat capability of this stream for salmonids. The Fisheries Information Summary System (FISS) records report chum, pink, and coho salmon, and cutthroat trout in nearby streams in Simoom Sound.

I want to take this opportunity to underline the fact that our organization is putting out a report on salmon, and we've found that during the last decade, habitat monitoring in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has decreased by 47%. Someone can please correct me, but I believe the number is about 70% of streams remain unexamined. We could have coho, which I believe just ended up on the endangered species list, in this stream and we wouldn't know.

½ (1915)

Mr. John Cummins: This is second order.

Ms. Theresa Rothenbush: First order is by magnitude. I believe it's volume that they rate them by, so this is a small stream.

The next paragraph down states that the layout map, which had the 12 squares on it, the drawing, indicates water is obtained from this same stream, and the applicant has applied for a water licence.

Down to the next one, it actually states in this letter:

The operational layout map and Schedule B indicate 12 netcages are being used. However aerial photos (dated August 2000) provided by BCAL show 14 netcages on site and all structures were located far to the right half of the tenure.

Again, on the second page, this comments on the fact that the gyre is an inappropriate place to have this farm, and it should be moved. But as far as I know, no action has been taken for any of these concerns, and to date they are still removing fish that are perishing from IHN on a daily basis, I believe. I'm actually going up to visit the farm in two days' time. I don't have any more information on that.

The Chair: I have a question on those numbers. In the commercial aquacultural management plan for marine tenures first issued before 18 October, 1999, they say that full production, maximum occupied tenure area, will be 11,475 square metres. Is that right?

Ms. Theresa Rothenbush: Yes.

The Chair: Okay, on net cages they have 12 at 10,800 square metres, that would lead me to believe there are somewhere around 130,000 square metres. Is that correct?

Ms. Theresa Rothenbush: Could you repeat that last part again?

The Chair: They have approval for total maximum occupied area of 11,475 square metres.

Ms. Theresa Rothenbush: Correct.

The Chair: On your third page from there, which is 28 June, 2000, you have net cages in here at 12, at 10,800 metres each.

Ms. Theresa Rotherbush: I believe that's total area of the 12.

The Chair: All right. Fine.

Mr. John Cummins: I have just another question. The gyre behind the headland, is that an area of upwelling behind the headland?

Ms. Theresa Rothenbush: It's an area where there are very strong currents, Simoom Sound, but it's an area where the water just eddies and turns and is stagnant to some degree, over the other water in the area.

The Chair: Perhaps you could finish up, Theresa.

½ (1920)

Ms. Theresa Rothenbush: I hope I'm at least interesting.

Stage two; I want to touch on this because there have been a lot of questions today about alternative technologies. I've had the opportunity to organize some tours and take some of the stakeholders, such as commercial fishers, environmental groups, and first nations, out to the farms to see this technology in place.

This document should have “draft” in big letters at the top, because a lot of these things still have to be reviewed a bit more.

Mr. John Cummins: What document are you referring to?

Ms. Theresa Rothenbush: The front part of the big document. You're holding the summary.

Halfway through there's a section called “Alternative Technologies Supported by Canadian Case Studies”. We looked at three farms, one being the Cedar Farm in Nanaimo, which is a land-based system. They use concrete tanks and pump water from about a quarter mile offshore, into the fish, making a current. They grow coho, chinook, and Atlantic. We have our fingers crossed because they're having their first harvest this June. They grow very high densities in the farm in order to recoup the funds that are offset by having to incur expenses for energy and the tanks. Even so, it is such a successful venture for them that they're currently looking at a new site for this farm.

Below, it says that “Improvements are noted in the following areas”, and that improvements need to be addressed to meet the criteria on the first page. You can see that with all three of these, none has met all of the criteria, particularly disease transfer and waste management. Those are two of the big ones.

The next one is the organic aquaculture site. I think there's a lot of room to give input into this type of regulation. This is the first organic farm in all of Canada, and the regulations have been made for it. There are a lot of concerns here. It's probably the most controversial alternative technology for ENGOs because they're still using open-net cages, and there are a lot of issues associated with that.

Finally, there is the PVC bag system for future sea farms. We had a lot of hope for this, and I think there still is a lot of hope, but work needs to be done as, again with this one, waste is being input into the environment, and many of the diseases associated with salmon can be carried in the water.

I hope you will be able to take time out of your busy days to give that a read.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Theresa.

We'll now turn to questions, with no more than five minutes each. Who wants to start?

Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

I'll talk with Dr. Paone first. I found the issue of the omega-3 interesting. I'm not very knowledgeable about that.

One of the documents John Fraser tabled with the Leggatt inquiry said:

On the other hand, industry should not hail plant-based feed as an available alternative. Salmon do not metabolize plant proteins or oils as easily as they do marine sources, especially the marine omega-3 fatty acids, which are essential to health and growth in marine fish.

So it's required that these salmon eat this omega-3 as well. Is that correct?

Dr. Sergio Paone: All animals need omega-3 fatty acids, and omega-6, for that matter, because we don't manufacture them. There are actually different types of omega-3s and omega-6s.

Especially two of them are called essential fatty acids, because we can't make our own. Saturated fats, there's no problem there. If you eat too much sugar, your body converts sugar to saturated fat, and it's the same with monounsaturated fat. Your body can actually manufacture those.

So all animals, humans and every other animal, including fish, need omega-3 fatty acids. As they solve one problem they may create a worse one, or another one, at least. As they solve the problem of the feed conversion, three kilograms of fish to make one kilogram of salmon, by, say, going to canola-based or other vegetable-based proteins, then they are eliminating the omega-3-fatty acids and going to omega-6 mainly, because omega-6s are found in vegetable oils and vegetable sources.

In fact, this has been a trend over the last hundred years. I've looked at several papers that have shown that as humans we evolved on a diet that was about 1:1 to 2:1 omega-6 to omega-3. In other words, we would at most get about two times as much omega-6 as omega-3 and our bodies are working at their optimum when they're at that level.

Currently North American diets have about a 15:1 omega-6 to omega-3 ratio. In other words, we're getting far too many omega-3s, and that's mainly because of the green revolution in vegetable oils, especially in the 1940s and 1950s, which was when we started promoting margarine as opposed to butter, for example, and also when we started feeding our animals in huge feedlots and feeding them grain-based diets as opposed to free range.

And so there has been a consistent increase in how much omega-6s we get compared to omega-3s. If salmon farmers also follow this trend we've followed in agriculture over the last hundred years, and it seems like they're about to do that mainly because of the lack of sources of fish oil, then they'll solve the problem of conversion of wild fish to salmon, but then the fat content of the salmon will have very little omega-3s. It'll be like eating beef or chicken, which used to have a higher omega-3 fatty acids. Beef in the 18th century actually had quite a bit of omega-3 fatty acids in it, because they were mostly fed on a free-range diet.

It's interesting that you can actually get quite a lot of omega-3 fatty acids from free-range chicken eggs, but if they're fed on grain you can't. Eggs are not thought to be a very good source of omega-3 fatty acids, but that's mainly because we produce them from grain-based diets.

If you have a free-range chicken, you can actually get a lot of omega-3 fatty acids from it, and in fact you don't even have to eat meat. You can get a lot of omega-3 fatty acids from flaxseed oil. One tablespoon of flaxseed oil has almost all the omega-3 fatty acid that you need for your daily allowance.

The Chair: Mr. Cummins, one question.

½ (1925)

Mr. John Cummins: The omega-3 you said currently is 15:1 in North America, and it was then—

Dr. Sergio Paone: It's 15:1 omega-6 to omega-3 and a 100 years before it used to closer to 2:1 or 3:1. We evolved on a diet that was closer to 1:1. 2:1, of omega-6. The reason that's important is because too much omega-6, although it's an essential fatty acid as well, interferes with some of the processes for omega-3 use. Omega-3 is good for cardiovascular health, it reduces the incidence of some cancers according to evidence. Omega-6 works against that. It's not that you don't need omega-6, but if you get too much it's a problem. And we have no problem getting omega-6 in our diet, it's the omega-3 that's a problem. And by eliminating fish that are high in omega-3 as a source, which we're doing by converting anchovies into farmed salmon, we actually are.... It's not just a loss of protein when we convert wild fish to farmed salmon, it's also a loss of omega-3 fatty acids. We're putting more omega-3 fatty acids in than we get out.

Mr. John Cummins: Are you concerned, or is it part of your area of concern, about what appears to be a declining anchovy catch in Peru? It seems from the information I've had that targeting anchovies and some of these other small fish for fish meal is having an effect, and they suggest that it's down considerably, I think 1.4 million tonnes over the course of a year. And they've now put in prohibitions on fishing during the spawning season from January to March, so there are some real concerns about that.

Is that an area you're concerned about?

Dr. Sergio Paone: It's a concern for two reasons, and one is social. As a rich country, we're taking away a very cheap protein source from a have-not country in some sense. A lot of the people there traditionally relied on anchovies and sardines as a cheap source of protein.

The other reason it's a great concern is from an ecological point of view, from a marine ecology point of view. What we're doing is really a totally new thing. Atlantic salmon are what I have started called a “virtual predator” in the southern oceans. In other words, it's a predator that isn't actually there. We're taking fish from the southern oceans and giving it to salmon in the northern hemisphere.

The reason that's important is that for all other predators, there's a very important balance in the predator-prey relationship in nature. Although predators are eating a lot of prey, they're also taken out by other predators and by diseases. Here we have something that actually is not susceptible to the checks and balances of the predator-prey relationship in southern oceans, yet it's consuming a lot of the biomass, and that's a totally new thing in nature. That's never existed before.

½ (1930)

The Chair: Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: First, for Mr. Cummins, the shortness of the questioning period was more related to our chairman, who's in a state of omega-3 deprivation.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: A fellow could use a big feed of anchovies right now.

One thing that has recurred today has been a lack of hard evidence, something we can look at, so I really appreciate, Ms. Rothenbush, your very useful presentation here today.

Could you just help me out with one section here? I don't know anything about the routing on the licensing or anything like that, but I'm looking at the correspondence to Daniel Saliken, your page 19 up in the top corner, the correspondence from Arlene Tompkins.

Obviously, there was a request from Daniel Saliken. Why would he be requesting this information? Clearly, this reply identifies the fact that some of the provisions in the licensing have been contravened, surpassed, or whatever. Shouldn't Dr. Tompkins' correspondence trigger some kind of alarm somewhere in the provincial bureaucracy that there is a contravention of the licensing provision and that something should be done about it?

Ms. Theresa Rothenbush: Saliken is associated with the fish farms. He is from Connors Bros. Limited, and Arlene Tompkins is a government employee. I think what happened was that Daniel had submitted the renewal request for their tenure licence. Dr. Tompkins reviewed this, maybe went over some past workings of this site, and voiced concerns.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: But really, it puts nothing at the end because of a lack of regulations or whatever. It doesn't state either that an adjunct to the application is going to have to be forwarded with the increase or that maybe further environmental stuff is needed. She just brings the issues to light, and there's no movement from there.

Ms. Theresa Rothenbush: I get your question now, and it's a very good one. I was talking to Jackie Hunter, the point person at one of the provincial regulatory bodies. If I were to call and make a complaint about a farm, it would be her responsibility to take a team out there and review what's going on, so it's up to her to deem whether it's important enough for something to happen.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner So this correspondence should trigger a review, or at least a—

½ (1935)

Ms. Theresa Rothenbush: Yes. It should trigger a review. But it's one of several expressing concerns. I glossed over several of the other ones, but they were focusing on—

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Do you know if a review did come from this or did evolve from this one?

Ms. Theresa Rothenbush: I got the document up to the very last point when the INH outbreak occurred. Nothing there stated anything.

As I pass the picture around, you'll see there are now 30-odd net pens at the site not included in this at all. That picture was taken a month after this last document here. No tenure application changes were submitted.

The Chair: Is there a timeline on the review? Must it take place, or not?

Ms. Theresa Rothenbush: I don't know the answer to that question.

The Chair: Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

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

My question is for Mr. Paone and this deals with that small document he handed out. At the bottom of the page, you say:

There are gross inadequacies in the current approach that the CFIA takes toward monitoring the safety of farmed salmon. Some of these are:

– test results available only after food has been consumed;

I would like you to elaborate on this because I do not understand. Does it mean the Canadian Food Inspection Agency does a test but that we get the results only once we have eaten the food? I am having some difficulty with such an assertion.

[English]

Dr. Sergio Paone: Yes, that's exactly what it means.

There are two parts to checking antibiotic residues in the food. One is monitoring, seeing how much is there, and then enforcement. Although there are problems with monitoring, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is doing a better job of monitoring than enforcement. It is not doing a very good job at all of enforcement.

Regarding monitoring, in British Columbia in 1999, 33% of all the medicated feed used had florfenicol in it. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency didn't test for that antibiotic at all. So the 200 tonnes of antibiotic-laden fish that went to market were actually full of things like oxitetracycline. In New Brunswick, 38% of the medicated feed in 1999 had a totally new drug in it, called emamectin benzoate. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency did not test for residues of that drug.

The pattern of testing is also wrong sometimes. For example, in March, July, and October 1999 in British Columbia, those three months represented 25% of farm salmon production and 28% of drug use. Yet during those three months, there was no testing whatsover for antibiotic residue of any drug.

With respect to enforcement, it's even worse. I think they should develop better and faster tests. Right now the turnover rate for testing for residue is simply too long. It can be as much as one to two weeks. In the eight different incidents this review looked at, in only two of those cases did they attempt to do a recall. It was actually only an attempt; they were not successful. In most cases, by the time they get the residue tests back, the salmon has gone to market. It has been bought, and mostly consumed.

So we can argue about just how accurate their monitoring is. There's definitely room for improvement in monitoring. But I think that enforcement is not there at all. In all the time I've lived in B.C., I've never once heard of a recall for farm salmon.

We're not talking about some residue. There's a lot more that has some residue. But every year year in British Columbia, at least 200 metric tonnes--and in some years, 400 metric tonnes--of farm salmon goes to market with antibiotic residue levels above 0.1 parts per million. Health Canada considers this level to be a health hazard. This salmon is not recalled. This has to change.

This is a clear example of failure in enforcement.

This leads back to some of the same problems we heard earlier with DFO. There is a conflicting mandate within the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. It has a dual mandate, on the one hand promoting Canadian food, and also being the watchdog for it. In the same fashion as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, that is a conflicting mandate that has to be addressed.

The Chair: Monsieur Roy.

½ (1940)

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: This answers my question. There is another issue. You said that 400,000 tons of salmon had more antibiotic residues than the allowable standard. Is that salmon sold on the domestic or the export market?

[English]

Dr. Sergio Paone: That's actually one of the sad aspects of it. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency monitors the fish processed and sold in Canada from Canadian sources and also tests imported fish from out-of-country sources. We actually do not test the salmon that goes out of country for other markets. So it could be we are selling salmon to the Americans, for example, that might have residue levels that are higher, but they may not know about it.

We test the fish we consume in Canada. Unless this has changed in the last year or two, that's the testing we do. It's set up to protect the food source for Canadians. We test the salmon that goes to the market from within Canada, and also salmon that we consume from outside Canada, but we don't generally test what we export.

The Chair: There are certain protocols with other countries where we have to meet their inspection standards. For instance, in the States we would have to come up to the standards under the protocol they require for consumption of food for their market.

Dr. Sergio Paone: Yes, I agree.

The Chair: Mr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we are coming to the end of our day here. It has been a very interesting day, and a long one.

From my perspective, I'm seeing myself and Dr. Paone as coming from the extreme west coast of Canada, perhaps. The last word from me ought to lead off with a word we hear on the west coast from our aboriginal friends, and that is Hishtukish Ts'awalk, or “all is one”. I think it figures into what we're saying here, that when we're talking about anchovies as part of the food chain, and salmon, and everything we eat, we are cellular beings and we take in what we eat. I would much prefer that we could remain on--or go back perhaps to--a completely biological diet where the food chain works as it has from the beginning of time. We have such big interventions in agriculture, in our grain production, in animal production, and the use of antibiotic residues that you brought up I think is a very significant question. I want to come back to it.

In terms of animal agriculture, antibiotics in poultry and antibiotics and hormones in beef are probably of even bigger concern. Not that we should ignore this, but I believe, Dr. Paone, you made reference to a study--Dr. Warren Bell, I think, was the name I heard, and the Suzuki Foundation, as being involved in it--on the antibiotic residues. Did you say that would be made available to the committee?

Dr. Sergio Paone: The study was not by the Suzuki Foundation or Dr. Warren Bell. The Suzuki Foundation filed a freedom of information request with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency as to how much residue they measured, and I looked at that information.

Dr. Warren Bell's name came up because we put together this document that reviews the human health impact. The study I referred to about the antibiotic resistance is a study in the literature. I didn't do it; Dr. Warren Bell didn't do it; and the David Suzuki Foundation didn't do it. It was published in 2000 in Applied Environmental Microbiology by Rhodes, G. et al. I can provide you with it. It's referenced in here. You can look it up, or else I would be happy to provide you with the actual document.

Mr. James Lunney: I seem to be missing your two-page document. I have a one-page document.

Dr. Sergio Paone: I was told that the brief should be no more than one or two pages, so I did not submit the fourteen-page document. However, I will leave it with the committee. This is available from the Health Canada website, but I'll just leave it with you. It's the study I've also referred to.

When I mention the inadequacies in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, it's actually an internal audit that Health Canada has done. So in some sense they are on this, but there have been no changes. That's the problem. The biggest change they have a problem with, because it has to do with how long it takes tests to come back from the lab, is finding that there are high antibiotic residues after the fish has gone to market. That's a problem they have to contend with and figure out. It's not an easy problem necessarily, because they have to come up with a faster way of doing the lab tests, and that's a challenge they should really put a lot of resources into. Otherwise, what's the point of measuring antibiotic residue levels?

½ (1945)

The Chair: If you could provide us with those documents, Mr. Paone, that would be helpful.

That will end our discussions for today. I need to remind committee members that we start at 8:15 in the morning. We absolutely must be done by 1 o'clock, because Mr. Cummins and I have to leave at that time. So we will be pretty rigorous tomorrow on the questioning.

Madam Rothenbush, you have a last point?

Ms. Theresa Rothenbush: Yes, I just wanted to summarize a few things. I realize as I sit here that I didn't stress a few points.

Please realize that I have not done 80 of these and this is the only interesting information I have found; this is the first one I have personally ever laid eyes on. And I don't know--I can't guess--how many others are having infractions, but it makes me really wonder.

I also want to get on the record, where is DFO in all this? I've talked to provincial and federal government agencies, and they do not know who is responsible for what. There are memorandums of understanding floating around, they're in the process of being made, but the things that are not concrete and aren't on paper are just not being taken care of. They're being ignored, because they're nobody's responsibility and nobody's being paid to take care of them.

On the aspect of alternatives, I want to stress that there has been some really great work done here. I didn't mean to sound negative in saying there are still some things to be taken care of. There are, but so much work has been done by industry on this. I just really question the $75 million that's being spent on aquaculture and on researching things like new species and ways to better increase survival in hatcheries and things like this, and not appropriate funds going into alternative technologies. I think these million-dollar corporations like Stolt-Nielsen, which is the biggest chemical transporter in the world, can be taking care of their own research.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

With that, thank you both once again, and I thank committee members for their endurance, and the interpreters as well.

It's too bad it's close to the evening that Montreal is going to lose the game; it'll disappoint you.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Meeting adjourned.