FOPO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, April 26, 2001

• 0911

[English]

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

I have a couple of announcements before we turn to our witnesses this morning. The subcommittee on agenda and procedure met on April 24, and we agreed that the committee should wait a week before proceeding any further on the issue of hygiene aboard the shrimp boats. We're to hear back from the department first. It was the issue raised by Suzanne Tremblay.

We also agreed that the committee would invite the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to speak on the estimates on Tuesday, May 1.

Did we get a response on that yet?

The Clerk of the Committee: We got a response, and no, sir.

The Chair: He's not coming? Why not?

The Clerk: He's already booked.

The Chair: Is May 15 possible?

The Clerk: He's available that day, sir.

The Chair: Okay.

May 15, then, will be the day we'll deal with estimates.

We will still invite the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs. That's still being discussed, I gather.

The Clerk: I have not had a response, so I think it's still in discussion.

But your assistant says otherwise.

The Chair: All right. We'll sort that one out.

The other issue I wanted to mention was that there are fairly grave problems recorded on the Fraser River/Adams River in terms of the salmon run. I talked to Mr. Cummins yesterday about it. What we would like to do is hold a hearing into that to get the specifics and see if there are any recommendations we can make.

From your letter, John, I think your point of view is that it would be better to hold two hearings?

So that will be dealt with, probably as soon as we can put it together, to have some of the people on the west coast who are concerned about the Adams River run, and following that, to have somebody in from DFO to tell us how they're handling that issue. If there's no disagreement on those points, that's how we'll proceed.

The other point I should make is that I think everyone is aware that the committee travel to the east coast to continue our study on aquaculture went through the House yesterday. We will require the names of two Alliance members who will accompany us, one from each of the other parties, and five Liberals.

The procedure will be that a charter aircraft will be going out of Ottawa on Saturday, arriving in Yarmouth Saturday night. There are site hearings in Yarmouth on Sunday. On Monday there is an aquaculture conference, and we'll get that agenda to committee members. Three of us who are on the committee do have to come back to Ottawa for the Canada-U.S. parliamentary association on Monday. That includes me, John Duncan, and Alan Nixon.

So on that Monday, committee members will be observers at the aquaculture conference in Halifax. On Tuesday we will have formal hearings in Halifax on aquaculture in the afternoon, I believe, on the coast guard in the morning, and on the Oceans Act, as related to oil and gas, in the evening.

• 0915

Wednesday we will go to Moncton for a session there, move to Charlottetown Wednesday evening, and do site visits in Charlottetown with Atlantic Veterinary College on Thursday. On Thursday evening we will go to Gander, and on Friday we'll do site visits in Gander. Then the aircraft will return to Ottawa and members will return to wherever they're going.

So that's the agenda for the moment. Are there any questions on any of that before I turn to our witnesses?

Okay. Thank you.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are reviewing the report of the Commissioner for Aquaculture Development on the Legislative and Regulatory Review of Aquaculture in Canada. I think people have that document, dated March 2001.

We have as witnesses today Yves Bastien, Commissioner for Aquaculture Development, and Jack Taylor, executive director in the Office of the Commissioner for Aquaculture Development, with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Welcome, gentlemen. I understand you have a short report and then we'll turn to questions.

Mr. Yves Bastien (Commissioner for Aquaculture Development, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

Good morning, gentlemen.

[English]

It's a pleasure for me to address the members of this committee today. At the chair's request, I have provided the committee with the report on the Legislative and Regulatory Review of Aquaculture, which was prepared for Minister Dhaliwal. My comments this morning will focus mainly on the review.

Before I speak to that, I want to express my congratulations to the committee for its excellent work in studying aquaculture. Over the past year, I'm sure you have obtained a great deal of useful information, although some of it may be confusing, and some is, perhaps, contradictory.

Aquaculture is an industry capable of arousing interest and passion, passion from environmentalists, to be sure, but also passion from the thousands of men and women in communities across this country who are exceedingly proud of their industry. I share this pride. As Commissioner for Aquaculture Development, I'm here today to tell you that, if done right, aquaculture can be a source of wealth in rural and coastal Canada and a model of sustainable development.

That being said, I would like to turn to the results of the legal review. It was initiated a few months after my appointment as commissioner, and the review took place over the course of about one year. Carrying it out was one of the three main priorities I initially set for the office.

The commitment to undertake the review originated in the federal aquaculture development strategy—the FADS—in 1995, which states that the federal government will do the following:

Undertake a comprehensive review of all federal legislation and any accompanying regulations to identify and remove, where appropriate, constraint to aquaculture development.

Work to ensure that all federal legislation and regulations are applied equitably across Canada.

The report you have in hand provides the results and presents the rationale for the 36 recommendations I made to Minister Dhaliwal last June. I won't go into the recommendations in detail, but I want to mention the most important conclusions.

First, the aquaculture industry in Canada needs long-term stability in order to move ahead and keep operating profitably.

Two, the laws and regulations that are currently in force relating to aquaculture were not drafted with aquaculture in mind, which causes some significant problems for both the industry and the regulators.

Finally, in order to operate and be viable, the industry needs clear and transparent rules.

In terms of long-term stability, as the report mentions, it usually takes several years for aquaculture operations to generate a return on the initial investment. These businesses require leases that last for a period relevant to the commercial activity being carried out and rational, transparent regulatory regimes, and yet it is unclear what rights and obligations aquaculturists currently have. It's unclear how their rights and obligations are upheld and enforced.

• 0920

My report presents the results of the first phase of a comprehensive legal review.

[Translation]

Once we had begun our work, we very soon realized that we could not carry out a complete study and present useful recommendations to the minister before the mandate of the government of the time ended.

That is why I decided to undertake what we have referred to as a preliminary legal study. This first stage is concerned primarily with immediate measures which can be taken rapidly and which will contribute to resolving urgent problems for the government and industry with respect to the administration and management of aquaculture in Canada.

That is why most of my recommendations deal with policies rather than regulations and legislation, and many of them can be considered temporary until the more fundamental legal problems have been solved.

In this context, I have recommended that a second stage of the legal study be undertaken to deal with the basic weaknesses identified during the first stage. In order to do so, however, we must begin by clarifying or defining the major policy principles which will apply to aquaculture. This stage is essential before an in-depth reform of the present legislative regime can be carried out.

[English]

Once my findings were provided to the minister, DFO analysed the recommendations and decided that it was not possible to address all of them at the same time. It concentrated on what it considered to be the most important priorities and launched an action plan to address six priority issues.

I understand that Liseanne Forand, the assistant deputy minister, policy, of DFO, spoke to you about these, but I would like to reiterate the following six elements of this action plan: one, clarification of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act process as it applies to aquaculture; two, national guidelines on the application of section 35 of the Fisheries Act to aquaculture; three, a report on the application of section 36 of the Fisheries Act to aquaculture; four, finalization of the introduction and transfer code for aquatic organisms; five, national guidelines for the application of fish management authorities to aquaculture; and six, guidelines for Navigable Waters Protection Act site designs and marking for aquaculture, and a review of the duration of the NWPA approvals.

Currently the department is also addressing the recommendations in my report, numbered 21 to 24, through the national aquatic animal health program Liseanne Forand outlined for you.

I would also like to mention that an important part of the legal review focused on environmental management and protection measures. These were the object of a significant amount of work.

You may have noticed that some of my report's recommendations relating to environmental management and protection measures deal with the same issues that were raised by the Auditor General in his recent report on the effects of salmon farming in B.C. on the management of wild salmon stocks. These issues were also referred to during the appearance of his representatives before this committee.

I fully understand the concerns about the effects on the environment of aquaculture operations, and I agree that these must be addressed. In this regard, both levels of government and the aquaculture industry have made huge progress in recent months in ensuring that aquaculture is carried out in an environmentally sound manner everywhere in Canada.

At the same time, I believe we must invest an important part of our energy in taking advantage of the potential of aquaculture to create good, skilled jobs and economic activity that will be welcomed in our rural and coastal communities.

New aquaculture producers like Norway and Chile have completely changed the ranking of seafood-exporting countries in the world. Canada was always first, but in 1988 the U.S. was number one in the world as a seafood exporter. Canada was second, Norway was seventh, China was tenth, and Chile did not appear in the top ten. In 1997 Norway jumped to first place, China to second, Canada dropped to sixth, and Chile jumped to seventh place. This change is essentially due to the growth in aquaculture production.

• 0925

If Canada wants to recover its top rank as a seafood exporter it must identify aquaculture as a national priority and launch a significant development initiative to ensure that Canada achieves its full potential as an aquaculture producer before opportunities for development are all taken up by the leading producer countries.

The recommendations presented in this first phase of the legal review will hopefully establish the basis of a renewed legal framework that will help the industry achieve this potential in an environmentally sound manner.

[Translation]

To change the subject, I would like to mention that I have provided members of this committee with the copy of a speech which I gave at the annual meeting of the Aquaculture Association of Canada in Victoria in October 1999. I have been frequently quoted since then, but unfortunately often out of context. Recently John Cummins, a member of the committee, has spoken about it during one of your meetings.

I thought that the best way to eliminate any misunderstanding would be to give you the full text of my speech so that you could reach your own conclusions.

[English]

I agree with Mr. Cummins that certain of my words could have been chosen more carefully. But I would like to say that my actual message was, in fact, the opposite of what was reported in the media. In their proper context, the significant quotes are:

We are starting out, however, with a rather ironic handicap—a strong fishing industry and a still abundant supply of marine resources. The very existence of this industry and the abundance of our marine resources naturally give rise to debate. Should we turn to aquaculture? Will aquaculture development not adversely affect the fishing industry and our marine resources?

Some countries do not even ask these questions and invest heavily in aquaculture development because they are convinced that it is the way of the future. Canada, on the other hand, cannot avoid them and, in fact, is currently in the middle of such a debate.

If we are to tap our huge potential and become a world leader in aquaculture, we must quickly develop a strategy that unites the two sectors (fisheries and aquaculture) and that is tailored to the Canadian situation. Canada is not Chile or China.

The second winning condition is to ensure that, from now on, the development of the fisheries and aquaculture sectors is convergent rather than divergent. For that reason, I very much like the theme of this year's meeting, “Aquaculture, a Future in Fisheries”. The harmonious development of these two sectors can only be achieved through integration within a single “Ocean production” approach.

The significant changes currently taking place in the traditional fisheries sectors and the coming of age of aquaculture afford an excellent opportunity for both sectors to develop a common approach.

What I referred to earlier as a handicap, i.e. a large fisheries industry and abundant marine resources that could delay the development of aquaculture in Canada, could very easily be transformed into a competitive advantage.

It is up to us to capitalize on the immense expertise of the fisheries sector and its industrial infrastructure, and to join with them in R&D, industrial partnerships and joint projects that meet the needs of both sectors.

[Translation]

As well, I have spent a large part of my career in aquaculture with the scallop fishermen of the Magdalen Islands to help them develop a program to introduce juvenile scallops on the floor of the Gulf in order to rebuild their fishery. Before becoming occupied full-time with aquaculture, I devoted a considerable part of my work to the transfer of technologies to the fishing industry and to developing new fisheries.

When I was appointed Commissioner, I established three priorities for my office. One was to encourage better co-operation between the fields of aquaculture and fisheries. At the present time my office works with the fishing industries and aquaculture in order to organize a national workshop, or perhaps one on each subject, and the theme would be better co-operation between the two sectors.

[English]

So I would like to convey that far from viewing fisheries as a handicap to aquaculture development, it has been my strongly held belief during all of my career that potential partnerships between the two sectors are essential for Canada to be successful in the seafood sector. I foresee that many fisheries in the future will consist of mixed technologies.

• 0930

Better collaboration between the two sectors will also provide the ground for the integrated approach that is absolutely necessary to properly manage the growing and sometimes competing use of our aquatic resources.

In closing, I would like to thank you for inviting me to address you. It will be a pleasure to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

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

I assume you want to start, Mr. Cummins.

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

As usual, I'm underwhelmed by the presentation of Mr. Bastien. Mr. Bastien is a promoter, not a regulator.

I think as a promoter, Mr. Bastien, you belong on Bay Street or Howe Street, not at DFO.

Mr. Chairman, I had asked about a week ago, or a couple of weeks ago now, for the department to provide us with the EVS consulting report. Just for the information of the committee, DFO has responded that it's not a DFO document, the document is not going to be translated by them, and they're going to rejig the report before it's made available to the committee.

I do have a copy of that report, by the way, Mr. Chairman. It's not translated, so I'm unable to present it, but it's certainly available to any committee member who would like to see it.

Mr. Bastien, in light of the EVS report on knowledge gaps in terms of the impacts of marine and freshwater aquaculture on the environment, and in light of the Auditor General's report outlining his concerns on this topic, how do you propose to address the knowledge gaps he outlined? Will any of the $15 million for research be dedicated to answering these environmental concerns, or will it all go to industry?

The Chair: I assume your question is for Mr. Bastien.

Mr. John Cummins: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Bastien.

Mr. Yves Bastien: First I would like to say that those gaps are not DFO gaps. They are the gaps in a limited database. It's important to remember that there is a difference between that database and the knowledge of DFO scientists.

In fact, in two important subjects that were mentioned in this EVS report, genetics and fish health, Canada and DFO scientists are recognized and are well known internationally as very important leaders.

It's important to understand that the reason for this study was to identify the gaps that were present in a limited database. Even the consultant identified some gaps, and said that maybe it's just a lack of having the reports in the database. So it's important to remember that the gaps identified in that study are not necessarily gaps in DFO knowledge.

But there are some gaps. I will agree with that, no problem. This is why the federal government, as I think Liseanne Forand expressed in her presentation, is investing through DFO an important amount of R and D dollars to fill those gaps, especially in the environmental impact area.

So my answer is, yes, there is a plan to address those gaps. Some of those gaps identified in the EVS study are not necessarily DFO gaps in terms of their scientists.

Mr. John Cummins: You mentioned Liseanne Forand. In her opening statement to this committee, she said that the science and research development portion of this $75 million is a “cost-shared program designed to respond to needs identified by industry”. Those are her words, that it's a cost-shared program designed to respond to needs identified by industry. So it seems that the research, then, will be limited only to the kind of stuff that's going to support industry. Is that a fair assessment?

• 0935

Mr. Yves Bastien: Thank you for your question. It will help me to be more precise.

There are many parts to this $75-million program, but there are two parts to the R and D section. One is the aquaculture collaborative research and development program, called the ACRDP. This one is exactly what you say, a cost-shared program with the industry, where the industry will have to present a proposal to DFO and then there will be cost-shared research on that. This can cover environmental impact projects.

But there is another part to this investment that will deal with only DFO and partnerships with DFO, within universities if necessary, on research that will not involve industry. It will be focused on bridging or filling those gaps in the science we may have. We'll continue to look at the potential impact and we'll work in close collaboration to define what is needed to apply section 35 of the Fisheries Act.

This is currently ongoing. It is not linked with industry. It's DFO researchers, in partnership with universities and AquaNet, for example, which is a centre of excellence in Canada. It was given an important investment from the federal government as a centre of excellence.

A lot of researchers in Canada are looking at those impacts, and this will be done in collaboration with DFO to fill those gaps, if there are some, and to ensure that we know what's going on regarding impacts of aquaculture on the environment.

So there is a portion of that program that is not linked with industry.

Mr. John Cummins: Well, tell us about that portion that's not linked to industry. If it's going to be doing environmental research, what are the proposals, and who's going to do them?

Mr. Yves Bastien: I'm sorry, I don't have the details. This program was announced recently, and it's just getting started. It's moving along. The regions have sent their proposals in. That's what I know.

I may not know the details, but I do know they have done two exercises on both coasts, two important exercises, one on the east coast and one on the west coast. One was done in June 2000 by DFO. There was an important workshop at Dalhousie University, where 40 participants represented scientists from all of Canada and even abroad, and including the Atlantic Salmon Federation. Following those three days of discussion, the delegates identified fifteen project proposals to define research strategies to address the decline in abundance of Atlantic salmon.

So this is an example of where DFO is taking advice from researchers from all over Canada and even abroad to identify what are the research priorities necessary to fill those gaps.

By the way, I would like to underline that of the fifteen proposals that were made, only two focused on aquaculture. Those two aquaculture projects ranked eleventh and fifteenth amongst those proposals in terms of their priority as an essential or important project regarding the decline of Atlantic salmon.

DFO is not the only one defining those gaps. In another recent workshop on the west coast, they analysed the Atlantic Salmon Watch program, and looked at the interaction between farmed and wild salmon. Again, they identified gaps.

So it's a work in progress. Scientists are working, and DFO scientists are currently moving along in terms of finalizing those projects and getting them going.

Mr. John Cummins: We raised this issue with Ms. Forand when she was in here.

The Chair: Three minutes.

Mr. John Cummins: You talk about the workshops, but the fact of the matter is, you're very selective in terms of who you invite to those workshops. I gave her a list of people who may be described as environmentalists, but they're certainly interested in and have raised some real concerns about aquaculture, and they're never invited to these.

You name-dropped here this morning with regard to the Atlantic Salmon Federation. They're not too happy about the way things are going. They've called for a moratorium on new aquaculture sites in Maine.

The fact is, in your discussion this morning, you said that the “laws and regulations that are currently in force relating to aquaculture were not drafted with aquaculture in mind”. Why should the public have confidence that DFO is going to draft appropriate regulations, given their mandate to protect the wild fisheries resource, when you're sitting here as a promoter of aquaculture and DFO's function is as a regulator and a protector of wild fish and wild fish habitat?

• 0940

Mr. Yves Bastien: First, I will not draft regulations. It will be DFO that drafts regulations.

Mr. John Cummins: You are DFO, Mr. Bastien.

Mr. Yves Bastien: Yes, but I'm not the DM of DFO. I'm not involved in the day-to-day administration of aquaculture. If there is a full legal review, it will be DFO that has to do it, to go through the process of consultation with all stakeholders to do any modification. That will be done according to all federal policies and procedures, so everybody will be consulted.

But it's important to remember that DFO is very much focused on its regulatory mandate. From my perspective, I find that it's too much, but it's okay. I mean, as you say, I have a job to promote development. I was hired to be the champion in the federal system, to make sure that we get our act together to provide to this sector an enabling, and a possibility, in terms of development.

DFO will not trade its regulatory responsibilities. I can see that on a daily basis. Each salmon farming project currently is fully assessed environmentally through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. DFO is dealing with each proposal to develop monitoring programs to ensure that there is no alteration of habitat.

So DFO is not trading anything. They are just recognizing that this sector is important for Canada. They are willing to play a balanced role—that is, to develop what is possible in terms of removing constraints when it's appropriate. If it's not appropriate, constraints will not be lifted.

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

John, your time is up.

Monsieur Roy?

Monsieur St-Julien.

[Translation]

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

I am happy that Commissioner Bastien can be with us and I appreciate his leadership. He knows his field and his work, and this is important for Canada.

On page 7, there is a reference to the meeting of the Aquaculture Association of Canada held in Victoria in 1999. You stated:

To take advantage of our immense potential and become a world leader in the field of aquaculture, we must rapidly develop a strategy which will bring together the two sectors (fisheries and aquaculture) and which will be perfectly adapted to the Canadian context. Canada is not Chile, nor is it China.

I have some questions for you. Could you explain this statement? Are there other areas where Canada could learn from the experience of other countries? Can you give us the example of a country which has succeeded in bringing together fisheries and aquaculture? How can we go about meeting this challenge here in Canada?

Mr. Yves Bastien: Thank you for your questions, Mr. St-Julien. They show that you know your subject very well, because there are indeed countries which have managed to integrate the two sectors quite spectacularly. This is an objective I have set myself as Commissioner, because I believe that these two sectors would benefit enormously from establishing partnerships even if it is possible that they will never be completely similar.

The example I would like to cite is that of Norway. In the early 1990s, there were major conflicts between the fisheries and aquaculture sectors in Norway. It was felt that this was a major problem, and the government decided to play a leadership role and to facilitate the integration of the two sectors. It took between eight and ten years.

I met with the executive director of a new federation in Norway when he was in Canada recently. This person now heads up a federation of fisheries and aquaculture industries. As far as private commercial operations are concerned, both sectors have been brought together within a federation that includes fishers, aquaculturists, processors and fish-feed producers. Integration is now complete at the commercial level. The government played a very significant role in this integration by adopting policies that, to a certain point, forced both sectors to work on eliminating their problems and identifying joint projects.

• 0945

For example, the Norwegian government recently issued new cod farming licences, to serve as an incentive. In determining eligibility, priority is given to projects that have an element of integration. This encourages applicants to bring together both industries if they want to obtain a licence for their projects, with the inclusion of fishers or processors; both industries must participate in the project. It is a subtle measure, but it forces the two sectors to integrate, to forget their differences and to find common ground.

I believe that there is work to be done here in Canada to ensure that the two sectors do not keep developing separately. The government has a role to play; it must encourage and assist the industries. I'm not talking about forcing integration, but rather of finding areas where co-operation is possible, and then reinforcing this co-operation. And shellfish would be a good place to start this integration in Canada.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Chairman, I have a second question regarding the resource regions for the commercial fishery.

We all know that Canada and Quebec are huge. I myself am the MP for a territory covering 802,000 square kilometres, the largest riding in the 10 provinces in Canada.

Have you had the chance to discuss aquaculture with the Cree of the James Bay and northern regions and with the Inuit of Nunavik? I know that there are some projects in place in Radisson, in the James Bay area. We should not forget that the federal government has fiduciary responsibility for the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

Have you contacted the people involved? Have you received calls from them on the subject of the James Bay Cree and the Inuit of Nunavik, for example from Pita Aatami, who is the president of the Makivik Corporation, or from John Peters, who is one of the people in charge of the commercial fishery?

Mr. Yves Bastien: I have in fact contacted people in Nunavik, but not necessarily the people you mentioned. The people I spoke with have developed a very interesting project to stock their rivers with Arctic char. When I was in Nunavut attending the last meeting of the National Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers, which took place last year, I met the minister responsible for regional development in Nunavut and I spoke to him about the initiative that had been launched in Nunavik. A connection was then established as a means of transferring technology from one region to another, as a means of developing this potential.

Of course, there is more limited potential in the Far North because of the environmental conditions and the short growing season. However, there are some very specific projects that can be developed. The people of Nunavik, whom you mentioned earlier, have developed a highly interesting stocking program using their own technology, and have set up incubation boxes in their rivers to promote natural production. The objective is to improve the natural stock using aquaculture technologies. The person in charge of this project is a biologist with the Quebec government, with whom I have spoken.

The potential certainly does exist and I am always interested in maintaining relations with those people. A connection has been established between Nunavut and Nunavik for transferring technology because the Quebec people were interested in this initiative.

[English]

The Chair: Last question, Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Yes. You did refer to a study prepared to determine the economic potential of culture-based fisheries and fisheries-based culture or grow-out. As this report been released yet? If not, when do you expect this to happen? Can you give the committee a preview of what to expect from this report?

Mr. Yves Bastien: Well, the report should be released in one or two months, but our initial report has changed. We decided to focus instead on shellfish, on shellfish culture, identifying two species on the East Coast—clam and scallop—and three species on the West Coast, in evaluating the potential for these technologies on both coasts.

The report should be made public very soon, within one or two months. The part dealing with the grow-out of wild species is on the back burner for the time being.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you for your comments. You know your stuff.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. St-Julien.

I'm going to turn to Gerald Keddy, out of the regular order, for one question.

Go ahead.

• 0950

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I have to leave for a 10 o'clock meeting, and I'd like to get in this question.

You make the comment, and we have the comment in our notes, about the aquaculture of specifically carnivorous fish—the salmonoids, the cod, and so on. In here you say that Canada is not Chile, that Canada is not China. I expect that's because of the rules of those countries, and perhaps some of the flexibility of those rules.

I think the point needs to be made, because some pretty harsh statements about aquaculture have been made at this table already, that on the west coast of Canada, and the east coast of Canada, for the last 50 years at least, literally hundreds of thousands of tonnes of fish have been thrown away. So if it takes three pounds of fish to make one pound of salmon, we've been throwing that fish away for the last 50 years, in herring and caplin and other fish resources that we've simply exploited for roe. If we could use that resource to grow other fish, instead of throwing it away, as we've been doing, then I think there's a point to be made there.

I'd like your comment on that.

Mr. Yves Bastien: Thank you for that. If I understand you correctly, you want to know if we could use our current waste in our fisheries in order to feed our carnivorous species in aquaculture.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Why can't we use our herring to make fish food? I mean, we're throwing it away now, hundreds of thousands of tonnes of it.

Mr. Yves Bastien: I'm not a specialist when it comes to fish feed. I would be more than willing to provide you with a specialist's answer. There may be some difficulty in terms of requirements or costs to create fish meal from those fish. The quality of the fish meal has to be very high to meet the requirements of the industry.

So I don't know. Canada is not very developed in terms of fish meal processing plants. I would be more than willing to provide a detailed answer to you. I don't have the answer as to why we're not using it. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it may be a question of markets.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Can you tell us how much herring has been thrown away over the last decade?

Mr. Yves Bastien: Unfortunately, I can't. Maybe some people around this table know.

The Chair: Mr. Bastien will get back to us on that, Gerald, if he can.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Lunney.

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

I'm new to this committee. I appreciate the presence of the aquaculture commissioner today, and our officials.

Some concerns have come to my attention from the west coast regarding the aquaculture industry, particularly with regard to fish farming pens. A number of concerns have been raised about seabed floors and so on, and flushing, and also the use of medication and how that might affect the environment, and so on.

Some of those concerns, I think, are being addressed. The one that particularly concerns me is one that has been raised a number of times in my riding by commercial fishermen. Their big concern is with regard to the use of arc lamps over fish farms at night. It used to be common practice, I understand, years ago, to do pit-lamping. Fish are drawn to light at night.

The concern that's raised is one that, if it's real, needs to be looked into, particularly since some of our west coast channels, which are very good for aquaculture because of good flush and narrow channels, are also the routes that the migrating salmon fry, the wild stocks, have to use. The concern, of course, is that the fry are being attracted at night to these arc lamps and drawn into the cages, providing very excellent food for the farm fish but at the expense of the wild stocks.

It's not only that. It is true, of course, that it is potentially catastrophic for the wild stocks, but predators are also drawn. Because of the abundance of all kinds of species being drawn to the lamps, it makes a smorgasbord for the predators outside the pens. In fact, these are like black holes, where all aquatic life is being drawn toward those pens, which could very seriously deplete wild stocks for all kinds of species.

I've been looking for some answers here. Would you be able to address that for me, please?

• 0955

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lunney. That was certainly a question that was raised, vividly, when we were out west.

Mr. Bastien.

Mr. Yves Bastien: Thank you for your question. It's definitely a legitimate concern. Again, I'm not a specialist on this issue. I know I saw a study on it. I don't remember who did it. It might have been a consultant. But I saw a study looking at this issue of attraction. What I'll do is track down that study to see if it covers your question.

If it wasn't covered, I'm sure it was identified as an issue. I would think that the industry is currently working on it. I know they are concerned about some fish coming in, in their case, and being maybe a source of food for the fish, as you say. They don't appreciate that interaction, so I know they are working on keeping the external small fish from coming in. I don't know what means they are using today.

So I can't provide a more detailed answer to this question. If I find that study, I will send it to the members of this committee. Whatever other information I can find, I'll try to respond more comprehensively to this question.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bastien.

Mr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney: If there is information available, we certainly would like to have access to that. As well, it seems to me it would be something that could be looked into relatively easily to find out if this is indeed happening. It shouldn't take a lot of dollars to find that out. To me, it should be considered as a very high priority, since the primary mandate at DFO, as I understand it, is to protect wild stocks and habitat.

An hon. member: Is it legal to have arc lamps?

Mr. James Lunney: That's a very good question.

Is it in fact legal to use arc lamps at night? Can you provide any light on that one?

Mr. Yves Bastien: I don't have an answer to that. Again, I can find out if it's legal to use those lamps.

Mr. James Lunney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: We're going to have lots of time for questions. We might as well go a full round.

We're going to be okay for time today, John.

Mr. Assadourian.

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

I have two short questions. From the testimonies we were able to receive in our hearings on the west coast last year, it was obvious to me that the environmentalists and aboriginals, on one side, and business people, on the other side, have competing views of the impact of aquaculture on the environment, the community, and what have you.

Can you tell us what is being done to bring those two groups together, to make sure they come in the middle so that everyone can benefit from the system, with the environmentalists and aboriginals on one side and the business people on the other?

As for my other question, you may not be the right person to ask, judging from your title, but you may have some answers for me.

I was overseas two weeks ago. I read an article—I don't have it with me, but it's in my office, and I'll bring it to you if you need it—that there is some form of foot-and-mouth disease for fish. I don't want to be an alarmist, but there was an article in a European newspaper that this may develop. They have to be on guard for this type of thing. Did you hear anything about that?

The Chair: Sarkis, fish don't have feet.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I said some “form” of it. That's the line they used. I appreciate the fact that fish don't have legs or feet or arms, but that's the phrase they used.

Do you have any idea about that?

Mr. Yves Bastien: I'll answer your first question first.

On trying to bring those two groups together, I think it's a really important question. I agree fully with you that if we want to move forward, we have to bring people to the same table. I would suggest that both levels of government are working hard to bring those two groups together. At the provincial level they have a committee, working on managing the sector, where stakeholders are present, from both the industry and the environmental community, to try to make things move in a way that will be respectful from both points of view.

As well, DFO, as I said, recently organized an important workshop to deal with interaction between farmed salmon and wild salmon and to look at the Atlantic Salmon Watch program. All people—from government, academia, first nations, aquaculture industries, and others—were invited there to discuss this.

• 1000

They came to the conclusion...well, no, I won't get into that. I don't have the time to do it. But both levels of government are working to bring those people together.

Personally, it's an important objective of my office. Whatever I can do, I'm doing it to help people get together and try to move on this.

On the second question, unfortunately I don't have that information. I can't tell you. I'm not aware of that concern. If I can, I will look at this article and get back to you with a precise answer.

Mr. Jack Taylor (Executive Director, Office of the Commissioner for Aquaculture Development, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Can I just add something on the first question, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Yes, go ahead, Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Jack Taylor: There is also in British Columbia the development of the BC Seafood Alliance, which is a grouping together of the commercial fishing and aquaculture interests. They are a very interesting organization. They brought together most of the stakeholders in the province. They focused on seafood production. They're looking at environmental impacts. They're looking at economic potential.

This is an experiment—I'm not sure if that's the correct word—or initiative that seems to be working very well. They'll be having an important conference at the end of May in British Columbia to really talk about their experience, I think, and to look ahead at the future. I think this is a very encouraging sign.

The Chair: Thank you.

Sarkis, one more?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: No, I just want to let you know that next week I'll try to bring the article to you, Mr. Chair, and maybe you can pass it around.

The Chair: Thank you, Sarkis.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing today.

Mr. Bastien, your resumé is quite extensive. With your previous life in aquaculture and your experience, I can understand why the government hired you. But I'm a bit taken aback that you don't know if arc lights or lamping at night is legal or not. The regulations for aquaculture come from the federal government. Is it a federal government requirement to have lamps allowed or not? You should be able to answer that question.

Mr. Yves Bastien: Well, in my view, this is under provincial jurisdiction, but I may be wrong. If there is an impact on a fish habitat, then it would be covered under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. If the project is then analysed, this issue would be looked at. If there is a need to put any kind of condition, then that condition would go in through many different possible means. The most obvious one would be a condition to the lease issued by the province or through the Navigable Waters Protection Act. But it's mostly an industry operation and it would be mostly regulated by the provincial government.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Sir, DFO's primary mandate, the reason we spend over a billion dollars a year of taxpayers' money on that department, is the protection of fish and fish habitat. That's what they're supposed to do. It's been proven time and again that you cannot commercially or recreationally fish at night with lights, because when you have a light down there it attracts the wild fish. You even said yourself that the industry is concerned about the fish getting into the pens. You know it's happening; you know it's happening.

So if DFO's primary mandate is for the protection of fish and fish habitat, and you know they're entering the pens, having an effect on the future runs of various salmon, for example, on the west coast, if you know it's happening, why, then, as the commissioner, would you not put a recommendation out today that the use of lamps at night is to be stopped, and they will be seized immediately? Why wouldn't you do that?

If I may say, I've been very critical of the fact that industry—CAIA and others—have their tentacles within DFO, through your department. I believe there's a struggle within DFO between those who want to protect the wild fisheries and those who want to promote aquaculture.

But the department's mandate constitutionally is to protect the wild stocks and their habitat. We know the fish are entering those pens. You even said so yourself. Why wouldn't you put a regulation out today, as commissioner?

• 1005

You could, by the way. Your advice to the minister could do this today. It could stop that practice today. Why wouldn't you do that?

The Chair: I think Mr. Bastien indicated to us that he would get back to us with the study. We actually should as well, Peter, go back and look at some of the notes from our hearings in B.C. Alan and I were trying to determine here whether there is a regulation or not. I don't think there is.

John, do you know?

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): I don't believe there is, but I think there's a sort of industry code of practice.

The Chair: A gentleman's code of practice. It was the same for what they called the banger guns or whatever.

Anyway, Mr. Bastien, go ahead.

Mr. Yves Bastien: Just to explain to you why, as commissioner, I may not know all that is going on in the country, this sector evolves very rapidly. As you said, I've spent a lot of my life in aquaculture, and every year there are new technologies. I'm dealing with very high-level problems. My recommendation on application of section 35 of the Fisheries Act covers that, whether there is an impact.

I mean, my recommendation to develop guidelines on how to apply section 35 of the Fisheries Act to aquaculture should, in principle, cover all those aspects. My recommendation to develop a more comprehensive approach to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act would cover that, specifically in each the aquaculture technologies or sectors in the region, because no project can go on now without an environmental assessment. The people who are doing the environmental assessment are with DFO. It's their responsibility. Those people are specialists in fish habitat, and it's their job on a daily basis to analyse all kinds of impact. So they will surely cover that in their environmental assessments.

The Chair: This is your last question, Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Sir, you're absolutely correct when you say there's a lot of passion in the aquaculture debate. I haven't met an aquaculture farmer yet who wasn't proud of his or her product. But when I've asked a lot of these farmers “If you're so proud of your product, which you should be, why don't you label your product at the stores?”, they've said “Well, we don't know yet”.

As a government official, in the interests of the consumer, who should have the right to know what he or she is purchasing at the supermarket, why wouldn't your department initiate another recommendation to the minister to say very clearly that this farm product, before it is sold, must be labelled so that consumers can make a choice? Why wouldn't your department make that recommendation?

Mr. Yves Bastien: You raise a very interesting point. You're very right in saying that this is an important trend from the consumer's point of view. My view on that is that it's really market trends and market forces.

You're probably aware of eco-labelling. Currently it's part of a huge debate happening all over the world, and in the U.S.A. very much—what is eco-labelling, what do you label, who is under the label. It's really industrial private forces that are at play. I think the industry will have no choice one day, because those market trends are very important. As you say, consumers want to know what they eat. I definitely made a recommendation to the industry saying “You'd better get prepared for labelling, because it's coming fast”.

But for the government to get involved in that, other than agreeing to, or auditing, that kind of labelling, to provoke that or to force it, in my view, is not necessarily the government's role. If the private forces are such that a label is required, then the government could audit and enforce that to make sure the label is followed, and there is a compliance to the label.

For example, in the U.S.A. that's mostly what they do. They don't force the industry to get there, because I think it's a private issue.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bastien.

Mr. Duncan.

• 1010

Mr. John Duncan: I'd just like to make a quick comment that there are regulations that prohibit fishing with lights. These relate to the sports fishery. Those are DFO regulations, so I don't think it's a big deal to implement something if it's appropriate.

I would like to go to this new publication, the Legislative and Regulatory Review of Aquaculture in Canada. It was issued just this week, I believe.

It was sent out this week from your office, correct? On page 11 it talks about the very thing that the Auditor General focused on, which is the constitutional and legal authority for aquaculture.

I'm puzzled by this statement:

In order to maintain the solicitor/client privilege related to the legal advice provided by the Department of Justice, this part of the document will remain confidential.

Who's the client? The very reason I would pick up this book and decide that it was going to be informative would be for this very section. Everything else, in a sense, is chaff, and yet that sentence tells me “Well, we can talk about it, but we're not going to talk about it”.

I'm just curious as to why. What does this mean? What does this statement actually mean? I mean, is it not in the public domain at this point, this whole debate?

Mr. Yves Bastien: This gives me the chance to come back to the legal review, because this was the main subject of this morning's appearance.

Regarding this issue, it was not necessarily an easy decision to make, but we made that decision on the basis of legal advice we received from Justice Canada. I am the client, and it was their advice not to let that section be published.

But I would like to draw your attention to the next paragraph. Really, that paragraph summarizes the content of the whole section, that aquaculture is a shared jurisdiction, and it will require cooperation between both levels of government to move on.

So at this moment, that's really what is the most important. The two levels of government could continue to argue on jurisdiction, but doing so could never resolve the problems that are currently on the table.

But it was under advice, and that's why we did it.

Mr. John Duncan: Further to that, I've pursued legal opinions before on other issues, legal opinions prepared by the Department of Justice, and the Department of Justice will invariably say that they don't want their legal opinion out there. But I have received one legal opinion from one minister, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans at the time, David Anderson. Or was he...? I can't remember if he was in the environment portfolio at the time.

The Chair: A good minister, though, I'd agree with that.

Mr. John Duncan: In any case, my point is that the Department of Justice doesn't have to make that decision. You can make that decision if you are the client.

There's enough talked about in here that I would have thought that would be the most important thing to put out there. Otherwise, we're dealing with something that's not.... I mean, it's hard to grapple with something that you can't quite grab. So I have a bit of a problem with that.

Now, in terms of—

The Chair: I'd like to say something before before we leave that, John. I'll come back to you. You were going to change your line of thought, I think.

Mr. Bastien, are you obligated to go to the Department of Justice because, as Commissioner for Aquaculture Development, you're with DFO, or can you contract out? Government is into contracting out in many fashions, but we always seem to go to the Department of Justice, which—and I'll put it on the record—is not the best legal firm in the country, in my opinion.

• 1015

What are the obligations there?

Mr. Yves Bastien: That's a good point. That was an important one at the beginning of the legal review. We are obligated to contract them, because I'm in the portfolio of DFO. That's the way it is.

I'm sensitive to both of your concerns. During the process I had the same kind of concern, but this is where we are now.

Although this little paragraph afterwards really summarized it, the full legal advice definitely would have provided a more precise definition of jurisdiction. The summary is really that paragraph. Knowing all those aspects, you have to get back to work, taking a collaborative approach. But I'm sensitive to your points.

The Chair: Thank you.

Sorry, John, go ahead.

Mr. John Duncan: On page 16 of that same document, there's a statement with regard to federal authorities related to aquaculture lease approvals. It says:

During the initial lease approval stage, federal authorities may be required to issue authorization for aquaculture activities related to the following:

And the first bullet under there lists “environmental assessments under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act”. The two other bullets there I have no difficulty with, but what does that first bullet mean? Does it mean that in order to trigger an environmental assessment the federal authorities would have to issue a conditional lease? Is that what that's suggesting?

Mr. Yves Bastien: No. What it means is that in the approval process there are some federal authorities that come in. The most important one related to environmental assessment is the Navigable Waters Protection Act. This is an authority that has nothing to do with the provincial lease. This is a federal authority that will apply, whatever happens. If it's the federal government or the provincial government who issued the lease, the Navigable Waters Protection Act does apply, and through that authority there is a trigger to do environmental assessment in most of the projects whenever there is a potential interference to navigation.

So this is just saying which federal authorities can be used during the approval process to potentially issue some authorization—the Navigable Waters Protection Act, section 35 of the Fisheries Act, and the environmental assessment, which is triggered through different federal triggers. One is the Navigable Waters Protection Act, but another one is federal funding. Federal funding would trigger an environmental assessment.

Did I answer your question?

Mr. John Duncan: I understood what you were saying about navigable waters and section 35, but where I'm having difficulty is this: Does this suggest that an environmental assessment could be triggered that would lead to a conditional licence being issued by federal authorities, absent of provincial participation? That's the way I read what's said here, but I'm not sure that's what it means.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Sarkis Assadourian): You have only one minute left.

Mr. Yves Bastien: I'm not sure I get your meaning.

Mr. John Duncan: Normally all of this licensing is provincial. It's the province that actually is the provider of the lease. But this would indicate that there could be a conditional lease approved by strictly the federal authorities. That's the way I read this.

Mr. Yves Bastien: There are different aspects. It's not only the provincial government that issues leases. In P.E.I. the federal government issues leases. Definitely, through the environmental assessment, if there are conditions that are deemed necessary to alleviate any environmental impacts, they could be included as a condition in terms of NWPA permits or provincial leases, or federal leases.

• 1020

There could be some situations where it's only a federal lease, such as in open ocean aquaculture, where it would be clear that there is no provincial jurisdiction in the very open ocean. It would be only federal leasing then, and you could have some conditions there.

Mr. John Duncan: Okay. I understand.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Sarkis Assadourian): Thank you.

Mr. St-Julien, five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you, Mr. Assadourian. You are doing a good job so far.

Mr. Bastien, I want to talk about resource regions. As we know, hydro-electric stations use a large quantity of water because the operator, be it Hydro-Québec or some other company, wants to optimize the use of this water, for example, by building a number of stations on the same waterway or by using the water for several purposes.

I referred to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement reached with the Cree and the Inuit because some members of these communities have aquaculture projects downstream from these dams. We know what is involved. What is the department's position on the thermal discharge from the Robert-Bourassa Powerhouse in the James Bay region, from hydro-electric generating stations, as they affect the development of aquaculture projects?

Mr. Yves Bastien: I would say that the use of industrial thermal discharge certainly has always been considered as offering good potential for development by aquaculturists and by governments, since production costs could in some cases be reduced: since the water is warmer, the production cycles are more profitable. This is an interesting possibility. However, the technology has not yet been refined: thermal discharge is often inconsistent, unstable and does not always provide the same amounts of energy, making it difficult to develop projects. Some projects have failed. But it is an interesting area for study.

Basically, it is up to economic development agencies to provide assistance, when such assistance is available, and our office could help potential promoters identify sources of information or find projects that are operational in this area. We could provide advice and information. These are interesting technological applications that could be developed in the future.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you, Mr. Bastien. The Corporation de développement économique de Radisson is in fact running a project of this nature. It is noteworthy that you mentioned earlier projects.

Could the committee obtain information on projects associated with hydro-electric generating stations in Canada and in Quebec, or information on proposals for such projects, as well as the background on any projects of this type that, as you said, did not work out? Could we get a summary of these projects?

Mr. Yves Bastien: We will try to find information that might help you. I do not know whether there is information dealing specifically with hydro-electric dams, but I do know some that might be relevant. There is a great deal of information on the use of thermal discharge by industry, by commercial enterprises in the manufacturing or other sectors, involving the use of warmer thermal discharge. Some of this might be useful to you. We will try to provide you with some helpful information.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): I have one or two very specific questions. Surely you've undertaken comparisons with most of the other countries, especially with Norway, so I would like to know, concerning regulations, what level Canada is at compared to these other countries in terms of its position in aquaculture. Does Canada rank 10th or 20th? Are we behind or ahead? That's my first question.

Mr. Yves Bastien: That's a very good question. In the context of our legal review, we did actually examine some legal and regulatory frameworks in other countries. What I can tell you is that we're not ahead, but we don't actually rank last thanks to our most recent efforts. I would say that Canada was slow for years but that the recent efforts of both levels of government were very productive. We've taken giant steps recently and I could tell you that we don't rank last even though we have a lot of catching up to do.

• 1025

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Here's my second question. I examined your document and I see that here, in Canada—you also mentioned China, Asia and other countries—in the area of developing the aquaculture industry, we're surely going towards carnivorous fish. I understand that the market actually wants that and that there's a climate where it's perhaps more difficult.

It sort of reaches back to what Mr. Assadourian was saying before. There's a sort of a fear when we talk about carnivorous fish or even other species that we feed with other species of fish and that consume a lot of protein. In Asia, it's quite the contrary. What we're developing is really an aquacultural industry based on fish that consume vegetable protein.

Is there a vision concerning the development of the Canadian aquaculture industry? Are we trying to put more emphasis on fish consuming vegetable protein or are we really going down the path of fish consuming only animal protein?

What we have in agriculture is clear and specific. There's a kind of panic. You can feel it. You talked about consumers. It was mentioned before. The consumers want to know what they're eating. There's a kind of fear when you talk about raising carnivorous fish. As for vegetarian fish, that's an entirely different matter.

Mr. Yves Bastien: As for the vision thing, the industry, my office, DFO and the provinces all certainly have an interest in diversifying our Canadian industry which is essentially based on raising salmon. It's 80% of the game. It's very dangerous for an industry to not be diversified, because as soon as there's a problem... If the Canadian dollar started going up again, the salmon industry would have problems the same as all our other industries, in any case.

There is a vision to diversify our Canadian industry. Because the media concentrate on salmon raising, we tend to forget the whole matter of shellfish culture that's very major. The provinces are putting a lot of effort into developing that sector. We're supporting it vigorously. It's a very promising sector. It's a sector where the organisms consume phytoplankton and organic material already present in the water. It's very different.

There's an effort being made to develop that sector and others also. So, there is in fact a vision, one that consists in trying to get away from the practice of strictly counting on those fish. That doesn't mean that we'll eliminate salmon raising, which is an important element. It simply means that there is a major effort being made to diversify the industry.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: A major effort is being made. Yes, agreed.

One last little question. Do you have a short and medium-term objective? On page 9, the tonnage for carnivorous fish is 68,318 and it's 23,714... So it's unbalanced. It's one third, two thirds. Do you have as your objective not to eliminate carnivorous fish but at least to increase in the short, medium or long term... Do you have any objectives in that matter?

Mr. Yves Bastien: That kind of objective is really in the hands of the industry. The industry has to identify its targets. The role of governments is to put in place the legal, regulatory and political frameworks that will allow the industry to develop but it's really up to the industry to... The industry is already conscious of those problems and it's regularly making major efforts. There's an objective to increase enormously the production of shellfish in all Canadian provinces.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Fine. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Roy.

Before I turn to Mr. Duncan, I would like to ask a question.

When the Auditor General was before the committee, he said, and I quote, “We don't think they”—meaning DFO—“have done enough science to allow them”—meaning the salmon farms—“to be in a position [to expand], and we're calling on them to do more science to be able to do just that.”

He also said that, from his point of view, the missing link is adequate research to help determine whether sections 35 and 36 of the Fisheries Act “are being complied with or not”.

• 1030

Do you deal with those questions in your recommendations? How do we move to overcome that problem of not having enough science, not having enough research to be able to deal constructively under sections 35 and 36 and in terms of making decisions on expansion of salmon farms? It's a big issue. In New Brunswick right now there's been a lot of applications, and, last I knew, only one was approved. I don't know if any more happened in the last couple of weeks.

It's the same on the big B.C. coast. When we were there as a committee the province was doing a major review. I'm not sure exactly where that's at, either, at the moment, but there doesn't seem to be the foundation on which to make decisions.

What's your response?

Mr. Yves Bastien: There are two aspects to your question, I would suggest, the research part and the regulatory part, section 35.

Regarding the research, in this legal review there is no recommendation to do more research. But that recommendation I made since my appointment. I've been insisting that the department launch that $75 million program and make sure that it covers the main aspect of the $75 million program, R and D. It is an important role of government, as we have seen elsewhere in the world, to help the industry to meet the challenge to be environmentally sound and also to meet the upcoming challenges.

I made that recommendation many times, and it's not over. In my view, this $75 million program is a first step. It's a very good first step, but in my view it's just a first step.

There are other elements. As I said, AquaNet is an important contribution. That will help to address the environmental research.

Regarding the regulatory, I'm definitely working very hard to help the department, the provinces to.... My recommendation on developing guidelines for the application of section 35 is currently being applied. It's being done. DFO is working strongly on that to refine the way it will apply section 35 to aquaculture.

Currently, monitoring programs being discussed among DFO, the provinces, and the industry will cover the needs of both the provincial governments and the federal government to have enough warning in advance to make sure that those harmful alterations of habitat do not occur.

So this is currently being applied. That recommendation is currently being worked on very strongly, on both coasts, to develop those guidelines that will ensure that there is no alteration of habitat.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bastien.

Mr. Duncan, Mr. St-Julien, Mr. Stoffer, and then we'll close.

Mr. John Duncan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, once again.

In your presentation this morning, you talked quite a bit about collaboration between the aquaculture and fisheries sectors, and it occurred to me that we also need collaboration between the aquaculture sector and conservation. The specific example I'm thinking of is the whole project on the west coast to re-establish abalone in some areas, through aquaculture techniques, and to create a commercially viable abalone industry.

DFO culture, the institutional culture, really had difficulty with this one, even though their monitoring, their surveillance, and all of their actions since the commercial moratorium, in 1990 I think it was, were going nowhere from the standpoint that the resource was continuing to diminish. So here was a huge opportunity, and it was getting stymied over collection of brood stock—a few animals. This whole project, this enlightened project, was getting stymied just from people digging in their heels in terms of brood stock collection.

So rather than put the whole project at risk, we actually had a brood stock collection. Now there have been charges laid, and yet the project is proceeding.

• 1035

I'm just wondering whether you yourself don't see that as being as important, perhaps, according to the words you use in here, as “collaboration between the aquaculture and fisheries sectors”. Would you see this the same way?

Mr. Yves Bastien: Yes, that's a very important point. As you know, I've been promoting that very much. As you can see from recommendation 34, “Enhancement and sea ranching of public stocks”, it recommends developing the policy programs and even regulatory measures that would be necessary, including fees, to help those programs to exist in Canada. I'm suggesting we start with the shellfish. Your example is a perfect one. This has been done by other countries, and it has been very successful in recreating some commercial fisheries.

So I have a specific recommendation to the department to move on this initiative. It's currently not viewed as number one in the current list of priorities of DFO, but DFO is looking at my other recommendations now, and I will insist, because this is something that I believe in very strongly as being a good way to improve the collaboration between the two sectors.

Mr. John Duncan: Yes, it's more than creating a commercial fishery; it's for actually re-establishing populations as well. I don't need a comment on that, and I thank you for your answer.

I'd like to move another issue, an issue that's been written about very recently—the outbreak of ISA on the east coast. Are you familiar with this? The virus, according to this article, moved from Norway to New Brunswick, and now it's moved to Maine. It is described in here as the foot-and-mouth disease of salmon. To quote from the article, scientists confirm the virus was a variation of the Norwegian ISA. As well, $70 million worth of stock has been liquidated in Canadian waters to try to control this thing. Atlantic Salmon Federation testing indicates that this disease was vertically transmitted, from adults to their offspring.

All of those are very frightening statements. What is your knowledge on this issue, and how are you addressing it?

Mr. Yves Bastien: Again, I'm not a specialist on fish health, but I know enough about this issue to answer your question. You're raising an issue that really concerns everybody on both coasts, especially on the east coast.

What I have gathered from the information I read about it is that the separation between the Norwegian source and the Canadian one did occur a long time ago, and it's not yet clear how it might have come here. It's possible that it came from Norway to Canada, but it's not that clear. What is clear is that if it did come from Norway, it was a long time ago. It may be a question of it coming to Canada at the beginning of this century, so it was present in the wild for a long time, clearly.

That's a reality for fish health, that most of the pathogens that exist essentially exist in the wild, and they are transmitted to farm animals through contact or through the water. There is, of course, some risk, but the Canadian standards for fish health are some of the most stringent in the world. There are some very serious measures to sure that, if there is a disease, it's not transmitted.

• 1040

It's important to remember that many wild fish do currently have a lot of pathogens in them. Some studies in the past have shown that those pathogens, those bugs, present more in wild fish than in farm fish.

But it's a serious issue. The national health program that DFO currently is developing, in collaboration with veterinarians, provinces, and the industry, plans to put in place all the mechanisms to reinforce our regulations on fish health and to make sure those problems are contained and addressed.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bastien.

Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

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

My comment is for Mr. Bastien. I'm impressed by your testimony and your knowledge of the development of aquaculture in Canada and by your frankness in trying to enlighten the members of our committee. I congratulate and thank you for that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yves Bastien: Thank you, Mr. St-Julien.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

Sir, in the papers recently I read about Aqua Bounty, a firm in Prince Edward Island that's doing work in transgenics. The aquaculture industry—we have newspaper quotes going back three or four years—said “We do not use transgenics, we do not want to use transgenics, and we're quite pleased with the products we have now”. In the papers, the representatives for the farmers now are saying “We don't use transgenics, but...”. It almost seems as though there's a change in their position—i.e, “...unless it can be proven safe”. They never said that publicly before, but now they're saying it publicly.

The fear we have, at least those on the commercial side and those who are in on the battle with regard to GMOs and transgenics and the need for labelling, is what is the federal government doing through its aquaculture department? Because to do studies on transgenics, I believe it has to be at least twenty, thirty, or forty years, and they're just in the initial stages of it now. Well, they've been doing it for awhile. But in P.E.I. they're asking for permission to move those eggs into an aquaculture farm in the States, if I'm not mistaken. If they can rapidly grow the fish faster than normal aquaculture practices, it's going to put pressure on the industry in Canada to accept or develop transgenic technology for their own products, which scares the hell out of an awful lot of people.

So my question to you, sir, is, first, are you aware of this, and two, are you prepared to offer any recommendations or studies into this to protect the interests of not only farmers but consumers as well?

Mr. Yves Bastien: That's definitely one of the most important issues currently circulating. There is a lot of misinformation circulating, but definitely you're right in all of what you said.

I'm not sure the industry message did change, but I don't think they would like to close the door to something that maybe ten years down the road they could use for the benefit of everybody, even from the environmental aspect. So they are just keeping a door open, but my understanding of the industry in Canada is that it's very clear that they will not use it until it's proven safe from the perspective of both the environment and the consumer.

In the government, in DFO, there is a lot of science work going on in that area. DFO has a lot of scientists who do research into transgenics. Their research is designed to identify the potential risks and to make recommendations on policies and regulation that could be needed to ensure that those safeguards are in place.

So the industry has, in my view, a sound position at this moment, and the federal government is looking at this issue very seriously, with a lot of expertise inside its own research group. If necessary, the research may come up with some recommendations for policies and regulations that would cover those transgenic aspects. As commissioner, I'm very concerned about that, and I will ensure that all the safeguards are in place to make sure there is no risk for the environment and for the consumer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

My second question, sir, concerns what we heard when we were at aquaculture sites—in Scotland, in New Brunswick, in British Columbia—about the feed itself, the food that they feed the fish. You had mentioned earlier that you're not an expert in that area, but if you can't answer the question, I'm wondering if your department could find the answer.

• 1045

They're moving to a more vegetable-based meal, if I'm not mistaken, because the American ecological society did a report earlier this year that said sometimes they use three to five times the amount of fish for one wild fish.

Now, we heard from the industry when we were there that this is not correct, that they are going to a more vegetable-based meal. With that, and the use of GMOs in various plants now, to the best of your knowledge—if you don't have the answer, you can get it later for the committee—are there any genetically modified derivatives or products in the fish meal being fed to aquaculture fish in Canada today?

Mr. Yves Bastien: As you say, I would not like to give an answer without knowing the facts completely. We'll provide the answer to all members of this committee and you will have your answer to that.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: If the answer is yes—and I don't know if it is—and there are GMOs used in fish meal to feed aquaculture fish, then I go back to my aspect of labelling. If the product is GMO-free, then that's great, but if it's not, the consumer should have the right to know that, if indeed it is correct.

Mr. Yves Bastien: I'll answer the first part of your question and I'll be pleased to answer your question at our next appearance.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bastien and Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Duncan has one more question.

Mr. John Duncan: Yes, I do.

On the subject of ISA, according to some of the statements in this article—they originate from Fred Whoriskey of the Atlantic Salmon Federation—there is probably more we don't know than we do know on a very important subject, which is the ISA. They're actually begging for research money so they can attend to this very serious problem.

You do have a budget that's going to be earmarked for various partnerships. Would that be a likely priority for your collaboration?

Mr. Yves Bastien: I think you're referring to APP, the aquaculture partnership program?

Mr. John Duncan: The $75 million you were talking about earlier today, or a portion of the $75 million.

Mr. Yves Bastien: I see. It's covered through the national aquatic animal health program, which the government is currently establishing in complete partnership with all players in Canada. This will be a very big program, and there may be need for more funding. So this is an issue that will be addressed through that national program. If there is need for more surveillance and more....

But DFO is currently investing a lot of research in fish health and will continue to improve its performance in this field through that national program.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bastien and Mr. Duncan.

Did you want to add another point, Mr. Taylor?

Mr. Jack Taylor: Yes, there is an interesting point I could add in answer to the question.

The industry too has been taking some measures in New Brunswick and the Bay of Fundy, where there is a concentration of aquaculture. The chairman referred to a number of site lease applications that are currently undergoing review. The reason for these site lease applications is to carry out a bay management program to help deal with the effects of ISA in the Bay of Fundy.

One of the problems that occurs when you have a viral infection is that, if you have too much concentration, you can never really rid yourself of the intensity of the virus. Under this bay management program, the industry is looking for additional sites to separate year classes, even- and odd-year classes, and also to allow fallowing so that they can keep the pathogen load as low as possible and therefore reduce the effects, the impacts, of ISA.

• 1050

So that's an important thing the industry is doing with the involvement, I think, of the provincial government, and certainly through DFO, through the CEA reviews that are going on, this is a very important element of ISA treatment, if you like.

Mr. John Duncan: I appreciate that. My thought was that you get better value for money in that kind of research when you're partnering with an organization whose driving philosophy—and large dose of volunteerism—is related to the health and conservation of Atlantic salmon. So why wouldn't you just say yes?

Mr. Yves Bastien: ASF is definitely involved in many processes. The new introduction and transfer code was developed with them at the table, and of course introductions and transfers do relate to fish health. ASF is part of many programs in terms of their participation in and identification of concerns, and finding some solutions.

The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen.

Just so we're clear, I think you've agreed, Mr. Bastien, to get back to the committee on the point that Mr. Keddy raised on waste fish, which at the moment are caught in the wild fishery, as potential feed. You also made reference to getting back to Mr. Stoffer on GMOs in terms of the feed for fish.

I'd just urge a point of caution on that one, because that is a big issue. On the agricultural side, we're still trying to find answers to that. Is it a genetically modified food when it's cooked in canola oil?

Mr. John Duncan: Just as a point of clarification, was the question not related to hormone-enhanced food?

The Chair: No.

Mr. John Duncan: That's what I thought I heard.

The Chair: No, genetically modified.

Mr. Yves Bastien: On the hormone aspect of it, I could answer right now. There are no growth promoters in the feed for fish.

Mr. John Duncan: That's what I thought the question was.

The Chair: No.

Mr. Yves Bastien: No, I thought the question was, are there any genetically modified vegetable elements in the feed given to salmon?

The Chair: Yes. That's a big question.

Anyway, I just raise that. You might want to consider this.

The other point is that you're going to try to locate the study in relation to Mr. Lunney's question.

Mr. Yves Bastien: Yes.

The Chair: Okay, thank you very much.

As well, I would point out to the committee that Mr. Assadourian has tabled a motion that will be considered after proper notice time has expired.

With that, thank you very much, Mr. Bastien and Mr. Taylor. I think we've had a good hearing and a good exchange.

The meeting is adjourned.