FOPO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 23, 2000

• 0904

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): Today we're here to hear about aquaculture.

• 0905

We have with us this morning a number of witnesses from the department, who are here to give us a briefing on aquaculture. I'll introduce Dr. John Davis, Assistant Deputy Minister, Science; Liseanne Forand, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy; and Iola Price, Director, Aquaculture and Oceans Science Branch.

Is there one more to come?

Ms. Liseanne Forand (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Michel Leclerc was going to come, but I don't think he can make it after all.

The Chair: Okay. That's fine.

I think you know the procedure. I believe you have a presentation. We'll go through that, and then we'll go to questions.

Welcome. Thank you for coming. The floor is yours.

Ms. Liseanne Forand: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If it's satisfactory to you and the committee, I will give a brief presentation first, and Dr. Davis will then speak on the issue of science.

First of all, I'd like to thank you and the committee for providing me and my colleague with the opportunity to speak to you today about aquaculture and to provide you with a briefing in between your Pacific travels and your visit to the east coast.

[Translation]

This morning, I would like to let you know about some of the work under way at Fisheries and Oceans Canada that has an impact on the activities of the aquaculture sector. This work falls well within the mandate of the department and is being undertaken in a manner that is consistent with the other aspects of our mandate: conservation and sustainable use of aquatic resources; marine safety and environmental protection; and scientific excellence.

[English]

What I'd like to do this morning is to let you know about some of the work that's underway at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that has an impact on the activities of this sector. I'd like to begin by providing some background on roles, responsibilities, and organization, and then briefly describe our current priorities in the area.

The responsibility for overseeing aquaculture in Canada is shared between the federal government and the provinces and territories. The provinces, with the exception of Prince Edward Island, have the responsibility for the majority of approvals of aquaculture sites and for overseeing the industry's day-to-day operations.

In the 1980s a series of memoranda of understanding on aquaculture were reached with the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, British Columbia, and the Yukon and Northwest Territories. These MOUs are tailored to meet the needs of the aquaculture industry in each province or territory, and they have been used over the years for the administration of the industry.

Signature of the MOUs was followed in 1995 by the release of the federal aquaculture development strategy, which provides a framework for federal initiatives in support of industry development. The strategy confirmed Fisheries and Oceans Canada as the lead department for aquaculture within the federal government.

As you probably know, there are 17 federal departments and agencies that have responsibilities related to aquaculture. For matters that require consultation and discussion among the various federal players, an interdepartmental aquaculture steering committee was established some time ago with DFO in the chair.

I've left copies of the federal aquaculture development strategy with the clerk of the committee in the event you'd like to consult it in greater detail.

In December 1998 the first-ever federal commissioner for aquaculture development was appointed for a four-year term, which will fill the commitment made during the 1997 election campaign. At the same time, within Fisheries and Oceans Canada it became obvious that a better focus was needed with regard to the development of policy related to aquaculture. In April 1999 the Aquaculture, Restructuring and Adjustment Directorate was established at DFO to consolidate the department's policy and program approaches to aquaculture, in cooperation with the newly appointed commissioner, Yves Bastien.

In that regard, within the department we've taken a step-wise approach. In the first instance, last year we undertook broad and wide-ranging consultations to confirm the nature and objectives of the federal government's role in aquaculture. With a view to establishing an open dialogue between industry and governments regarding policy issues affecting the sector, we've established policy advisory committees for the Atlantic and Pacific regions, and we're working with existing consultative bodies in the province of Quebec.

Establishing a consultative mechanism in the central part of the country is proving to be a challenge because of the large geographical area involved and the size and diversity of the industry, but we're exploring technological solutions, such as the use of Internet and other fora, to address this challenge.

• 0910

Secondly, the creation of a directorate for aquaculture at DFO has meant that consultation with other federal organizations involved in aquaculture has been more frequent through the Interdepartmental aquaculture steering committee. It has also meant that a more consistent approach has been taken to deal with issues that must be considered by the federal organizations with interests in aquaculture.

Finally, last June the department held two round tables, one with stakeholders and one with provinces and territories, to review the current state of the aquaculture industry in Canada and to determine whether the federal aquaculture development strategy was still relevant. At the round tables, provincial governments and the industry confirmed that the strategy still represents an appropriate approach for the federal government to take and urged the federal government to implement the strategy without any further delay.

As a result of these consultations, we've adopted a four-pronged approach to the sustainable growth of aquaculture in Canada. First, within the department we're working across regions and programs to put in place an updated policy framework for operational decision making. This will enable DFO staff all across the country to respond with certainty and predictability to the needs and requests of both the aquaculture sector and the department's other stakeholders.

Second, under the leadership of the Commissioner for Aquaculture Development, a review of the legislation and regulations relating to aquaculture has been undertaken to ensure that a consistent regulatory framework is in place to provide both a level playing field for the aquaculture sector and the degree of protection required by the Canadian public.

In light of the importance of effective federal-provincial-territorial cooperation to the success of aquaculture in the Canadian jurisdictional context, the third component of our approach is the development of a sound mechanism for intergovernmental cooperation and information sharing.

A task group, which is co-chaired by Canada and the Province of B.C., has been established under the auspices of the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers. The council provided the task group with a four-point work plan: to develop recommendations for appropriate approaches to help foster an environmentally sustainable aquaculture industry; to establish a priority-setting mechanism for research and development for approval by ministers; to identify mutually agreeable initiatives in the area of technology transfer, training and development, and performance measurement; and to identify mechanisms for resolving issues related to resource use that involve more than one jurisdiction and/or the aquaculture industry. The task group is to report back to the council in August of this year, when the council meets in Iqaluit. The task group has met several times already, and I'd characterize its deliberations as productive and being conducted in a spirit of collaboration and commitment.

Finally, as a department we're committed to making strategic investments in the federal capacity to support and promote the federal aquaculture development strategy. The establishment of the new DFO directorate was a first step in that direction, and we're continuing to seek ways to fund the kind of practical, in-the-field investments that are required both to increase public confidence in the safety of the aquaculture sector and to enable the aquaculture industry itself to meet its full potential in a sustainable manner.

In closing, I'd like to stress that while the development of an environmentally sustainable and economically viable aquaculture sector is a clear priority for DFO, the department is not focusing on aquaculture in isolation of its other responsibilities, which include conservation of wild fish species, protection of fish habitat, ensuring marine and navigational safety, and carrying out integrated oceans management.

Our priority is to ensure that through our legislation and regulations, through our policies and programs, and in our relations with other federal agencies and other levels of government, we recognize the legitimacy of the aquaculture sector as a user of aquatic resources and at the same time help to create the conditions that will enable the sector to reach its full potential.

Thank you for your attention this morning.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Forand.

Mr. Davis, you have a paper as well. Fire away.

Dr. John Davis (Assistant Deputy Minister, Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning. It's a pleasure to be here and to provide you with a brief overview of DFO's science activities in aquaculture. You've travelled to the west coast and heard from a wide variety of interests, and I understand that you'll be travelling to the east coast soon, so one of our purposes here is to—

An hon. member: We'll be travelling much later.

Dr. John Davis: Much later, but one of these days.

• 0915

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): When this mandate concludes.

Dr. John Davis: I see.

Anyway, we'd like to give you information that may be helpful in your travels and in your further deliberations in this area.

As Liseanne Forand has explained, the federal aquaculture development strategy of 1995 set a new course for federal activities in aquaculture. As I will explain later, though, DFO has been involved in the science aspects of aquaculture for many years. Some might say that the first Atlantic and Pacific hatcheries were perhaps our introduction to aquaculture.

In spite of an undertaking to implement the strategy with no new resources, and in the face of program review that has severely taxed our ability to deliver programs, we can report progress over the past five years. The science sector has conducted an analysis of our activities within the department, measured against the goals outlined in the strategy. I would be happy to provide the committee with a copy of that when it has been translated. We do have a review of what has been going on relative to the delivery of the aquaculture strategy.

I'd like to explain a little bit about what science does nationally. DFO has aquaculture research and fish health programs in all six of the regions across Canada. You've heard testimony from people who work at the Pacific Biological Station in Nanaimo. We also conduct aquaculture-related work at the Institute of Ocean Sciences in Sidney, British Columbia, and at the West Vancouver Laboratory. Genetics, physiology, nutrition and traditional species development, brood stock development, environmental interactions research, fish disease research, and regional administration of the fish health protection regulations are some of the activities that we conduct at these three sites in B.C.

In Winnipeg, at the Freshwater Institute, our aquaculture focus is on fish health.

At the Maurice Lamontagne Institute, in the Laurentian region, our research on cod and other marine finfish physiology has had direct applications to aquaculture. Although we do the work to understand issues relating to wild stock fluctuations, we're also working on understanding things that are important to the aquaculture industry, such as oxygen requirements and those sorts of things that are important to understanding the survival of cod. And we're also working with harvesters of wild scallops on a large project involving the enhancement of new and traditional scallop beds.

You will visit St. Andrews, the home of our biological station and the site of Canada's first marine research station—it's over a hundred years old—but apparently you won't have time to visit our other New Brunswick site, the Gulf Fisheries Centre, in Moncton. We have consolidated our finfish aquaculture research and development in St. Andrews, and our finfish and shellfish health research and regional administration of the fish health protection regulations in Moncton.

At both locations, we conduct aquaculture research on mussels, scallops, clams and sea urchins. Much of our work on these species grew out of and is still related to our R and D in these species in the wild; however, it has applications for aquaculture. The same general kinds of finfish aquaculture projects that I described for B.C. are conducted in St. Andrews: nutrition work, physiology, brood stock development, and the increasing survival of eggs and young fish under culture conditions.

I have copies of the 1998 report on activities in the Atlantic zone here, and I understand that you have copies of it as part of your package. You may find it to be a very useful document prior to your visit to the east coast. It describes the structure of how we coordinate aquaculture activities, and all the different programs going on. It would give you a good insight as to the breadth of things, and perhaps give you some ideas about areas you want to investigate.

In Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, our scientists work on aquaculture-related topics such as scallop genetics and culture technology. We're using DNA analysis to differentiate populations of marine fish, a technique that can also be used to determine parentage of individual fish in culture. Armed with that type of information, one can select the best parents from which to develop brood stock.

In St. John's, Newfoundland, at the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Centre, we have people working on mollusc and salmon culture, as well as on traditional wild salmon issues.

As to the resources, we have about 85 full-time-equivalent staff working nationally in the six DFO regions, plus the national capital region. They're working on aquaculture and fish health programs. The total national A-base resources allocated are about $6.2 million, of which $1.6 million is available in operating funds. Our scientists supplement that money with other funds, with approximately $2 million a year coming from B-base, or various projects that we can fund from different sources. Those B-base funds are almost always tied to specific projects of about one year's to three years' duration.

• 0920

Science works in partnership with the provinces, universities, and industry—for example, established companies and entrepreneurs with ideas. That helps augment our scientific expertise and facilities with outside financial and human resources.

Since the creation of the oceans sector at DFO, the habitat management and environmental science groups have moved from the science sector to oceans. They're not part of my responsibility; they're in the ocean sector. This means that traditional science sector work on environmental interactions is now being reported through the oceans sector. There is and will continue to be close cooperation between the two sectors in conducting and planning this work.

We have also used our science strategic fund to support a number of projects on aquaculture and environmental work over the past few years. If you would like me to, I will have the list of those things sent to the clerk, summarizing the aquaculture environment work. There's a similar fund for high-priority projects in the oceans sector, and we have a list of high-priority funded projects on aquaculture environment activities in recent years. That has been submitted to the clerk, so there's quite a bit of work that you can reference there.

I mentioned that aquaculture-related activities have a long history in what is now DFO. The first Atlantic salmon hatchery was built prior to Confederation, and over the years DFO and its predecessor organizations built a large body of knowledge on salmon, both Pacific and Atlantic. The first oyster culture R and D was carried out by DFO in Prince Edward Island in the 1930s, and we have been developing knowledge-related aquaculture for some time in Canada and in the department.

On work on new and traditional species, I mentioned our strong use of partnerships and how we've developed our research priorities in consultation and consensus with other federal agencies. On the east coast, our coordination mechanism is the Atlantic Zone Aquaculture Science Committee, and it's referenced in the handouts that you have. On the west coast, we're working with our partners there to implement the recommendations from the environmental assessment of aquaculture, as well as conducting new and traditional species culture work and fish health research.

Our activities across Canada may be broadly grouped into the following categories, although there's considerable spillover from one category to another: learning how to culture the new candidate finfish and shellfish species in captivity—for example, sablefish, halibut or flounder; improving the performance of the traditional species, such as salmon, mussels and oysters; fish and shellfish health research; and administering the fish health protection regulations. We conduct nutrition work because improving the quality and palatability of feeds means more weight gained per kilogram of food ingested. Less food is wasted because the fish like it better and the feed is more digestible.

By seeking ways to substitute Canadian-grown grains such as canola, we're lowering the quantity of expensive imported fish meal and fish oil used in salmon feed. The work also has important value for our Pacific salmonid enhancement program. And just to flag that, around the world there is a growing shortage of food available for the food supply for the aquaculture industry, so this is an important issue.

We're also working to develop brood stocks and to develop DNA technologies. That's very important, as I mentioned earlier.

We don't know all the answers. Some of the new species work is focused on early life history, on what the bottlenecks are to getting fish or shellfish from egg to market size. Some of our physiology and culture condition work is directed at determining the best water temperature, tank size, number of fish or scallops per cubic metre of water, salinity, and light.

For invertebrates such as mussels, scallops, clams and sea urchins, we are conducting field and laboratory studies to determine carrying capacity. How many mussels should one try to grow in a given body of water? Can we effectively enhance existing wild populations or create new scallop or clam beds? You'll hear much more about these when you travel to the east coast.

• 0925

Finally, Mr. Chairman, on fish health, the objective of Canada's fish health protection regulations is to minimize risk of introduction of diseases or disease agents into a province or into Canada. We have been successful in this regard. There has been no known introduction of a disease agent into Canada or into a province resulting from an approved movement of live salmonids, their eggs, or milt.

We are working on major amendments to the regulations to include all finfish and not just salmonids, as is now the case. These amendments will enhance Canada's ability to meet new, internationally developing fish health norms, and to meet the challenges of an aquaculture industry that is seeking to expand beyond salmon, trout, mussels and oysters, and into species such as cod, halibut and sablefish.

We are also working on a parallel set of health protection regulations for shellfish, in order to minimize the risks of introducing disease when shellfish species are moved from one location to another.

Our fish health research on both coasts is directed at understanding when and why fish and shellfish diseases occur, at how to detect them early, and at developing strategies to minimize their impacts. Like our other research, this work is conducted in partnership with other agencies, such as the Institute of Marine Biosciences—that's an NRC facility—the provincial veterinarians in every province, fish health specialists like those at the New Brunswick Research and Productivity Council, the many aquaculturalists who provide samples, and university researchers like those at the Atlantic Veterinary College.

In summary, we have a wide range of activities conducted in partnership with the aquaculture industry, other federal agencies, the provinces and the universities. In the coming months and years, we hope to be able to do a lot more. That will depend on seeking and obtaining new resources for these many vital tasks. I certainly don't wish to indicate that we have even scratched the surface in many of these areas. There's a lot more work to be done, and a lot more understanding is needed.

Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, for your time and your patience.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Davis. Is that the end of the presentation? If it is, let's go to questions now.

Dr. John Davis: Yes, it is, sir.

The Chair: Okay. Before I turn to John, I think it's fair to say we certainly believe there's a tremendous amount of potential in the aquacultural industry, and we want to do our best to see that it moves ahead in the right direction.

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Thank you.

In your presentation you indicated that DFO is the lead agency for aquaculture, and that this was established through some protocols and memoranda. Is that established legislatively? There seems to be a weakness there.

Ms. Liseanne Forand: Mr. Chairman, it was established through the 1995 federal aquaculture development strategy—which itself was the result of a cabinet decision—so it was a governmental decision. Given the breadth of involvement of a number of agencies, it was important to establish a lead agency within the federal government. As I mentioned, there are seventeen agencies, in a variety of roles, that either have regulations or legislation or policies that affect the aquaculture sector. Given that very horizontal nature of the activity at the federal level, it was important to establish a lead agency, and that lead agency was chosen to be the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in 1995.

Mr. John Duncan: Right. Nevertheless, it has never been made clear legislatively, and at times that's problematical. Is there any initiative to do anything in that direction, as far as you know?

Ms. Liseanne Forand: In that regard, Mr. Chairman, I guess I'd mention the review of legislation and regulations that the Commissioner for Aquaculture Development is leading. I won't pretend to speak on his behalf, but we're very closely involved in that initiative.

The commissioner began with an inventory of all federal and provincial legislation and regulations that affect aquaculture. In fact, this follows on work that was done by the industry itself a few years ago. The commissioner has identified all of this, and as part of his review he's now at the stage of identifying some scenarios for how you might be able to streamline that legislative and regulatory framework. It's my understanding that as part of that work he will be considering the possibility of somehow enshrining in legislation roles, responsibilities, mission statements, and objectives with respect to aquaculture.

• 0930

So I would say that there is a significant effort underway to look at the legislative and regulatory framework that surrounds aquaculture to see whether it's appropriate, and to see whether it does in fact establish the legitimacy of the industry and the sector and the activity to the extent that's required.

Mr. John Duncan: On the west coast, for example, certainly there's a large segment of the shellfish industry, for example people trying to develop an abalone industry, who are viewing the DFO as entrepreneur-unfriendly. The impediments don't really seem to be at the field level; they seem to be at the region or somewhere else.

We have some incredible opportunities. We have other nations that have forged well ahead of us when we have the essential building block, the natural environment, to make these industries really go at a critical time for many small communities in British Columbia.

The pettiness and the incredible impediments to doing business are a great frustration, because people do not know where to turn when this happens to them. Is there a way to elevate these things in a non-political way within your organization that people can utilize? It's a huge frustration.

The Chair: Ms. Forand.

Ms. Liseanne Forand: Mr. Chairman, we're aware of the tremendous appetite for development, especially in the shellfish industry, that exists in British Columbia. Recent changes to the provincial policy with respect to shellfish development have resulted in a tremendous interest in expanding shellfish aquaculture in B.C. In fact, a number of proposals have already gone to the province and from there have been referred to DFO for approval. We are working very closely with the provincial government in cooperation with them.

For example, when I believe it was 70 proposals came in all at once, the provincial government organized a meeting with stakeholders from the industry as well as other government departments and the federal government and provincial government and first nations representatives to have a first look at these proposals and determine how we could take a coordinated approach. Since then we've made special efforts in DFO in these unusual circumstances of reviewing these proposals all at once.

We have a responsibility under the Fisheries Act to ascertain whether an environmental assessment is required or a permit is required under section 35. As well, under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, we have a responsibility to see whether there's a risk to safe navigation and whether a permit is required in that regard.

As well, with respect to our fisheries management policies, we must ascertain whether or not there will be an impact on harvesters of wild resources or adjoining communities, in particular first nations, for example, who may have land claims or who may have a traditional fishery in the area.

We have fast-tracked those approvals to the extent possible and are in a position to work very closely with the province on that and hope to be able to give them all the information they need.

We discovered through this process that the industry isn't always well informed in terms of the information we need to make our decisions. So we're going to put together some guidelines for them so that it can speed the process up as well.

In addition, in Pacific region in particular, as part of some changes that have taken place there at the management level, all of the approvals for aquaculture have been located now in one office. There is someone in the habitat branch who is responsible for coordinating the approvals with respect to aquaculture proposals and we expect that will facilitate speedy approvals as well.

That's practical in the field activity that's going on right now, Mr. Chairman. But to a certain extent, we need to organize ourselves better, as the member of the committee suggested, at higher levels. That's the initiative I mentioned in my presentation of developing a policy framework for operational decision-making.

We are going to do that a nation-wide level, which doesn't mean a uniform approach all across the country but a consistent approach so that an aquaculture producer who puts in a proposal in B.C. will know that he or she will not suffer vagaries of a particular approach in B.C. that may not be appropriate for his industry, or in Nova Scotia or wherever, but that there will be some criteria and a solid framework across the country in that regard. We recognize that this won't be ready next week, so with respect to the shellfish expansion, for example, that is happening now, we are taking interim measures to put in place an interim process to get that work done in a timely fashion.

• 0935

Mr. John Duncan: My question wasn't really specific to the fact that there's expansion and new provincial policy. I'm really referring to industries like the abalone industry, which we're trying to get off the ground. There's an admitted problem there with the resource. The resource is at complete risk, and there's nothing but an upside to creating an aquaculture business surrounding that. The province is not the problem; there's no problem with the province. The problem is in the federal bureaucracy, which is continuing to put impediments in the way of making that a business that can thrive in British Columbia.

The people who have been trying to get that thing off the ground have been doing so for an extended period of time. They now have $250,000—from DFO, admittedly—and they can do something with it. But they can't do something with it if it gets frittered away in phantom boxing, if you know what I mean.

That's the kind of entepreneur-unfriendly concern that I have. I have that on the table now. I don't really expect an answer, and I don't want to use up that time. I'll pass at this point.

The Chair: I would say, John, that maybe following the meeting you and Ms. Forand could get together for ten minutes and you could give her the specifics. I've sat down with those people as well. It is a case that should have been able to have been overcome some time ago. Maybe you could sit down, get the specifics, and see if it can be resolved.

Mr. Gilmour, you have about two minutes and then I'll go to Mr. Sekora.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the wild fishery on the west coast we've had the aboriginal fishing strategy for about six or seven years. On the east coast we've just had the Marshall decision, which is putting an aboriginal component into a number of the fisheries. Is there any move afoot within the department in aquaculture to designate any portion or any particular areas strictly toward aquaculture in the aboriginal community?

Ms. Liseanne Forand: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't say there's a move afoot to designate special access or sections for aboriginal access. However, in terms of elements of our response, for example, to the Marshall decision, where we talk about capacity-building in aboriginal communities and through other government programs, either through the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs or other activities the department may be involved in in B.C., certainly capacity-building in aboriginal communities with respect to aquaculture development is a positive element. There has not been extensive work in that area, but it is an area of economic potential activity for aboriginal communities. But I would say no to your specific question.

The Chair: Mr. Sekora.

Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.): Ma'am, on your page 6 you have there “for the aquaculture sector and the degree of protection...”. That wording bothers me very much, because as we travel I hear about different diseases and everything else, and you say a “degree of protection”. That's not a very strong wording. That is a very weak word. What am I expecting of that “degree of protection?”

Ms. Liseanne Forand: I would answer, a high degree of protection.

Mr. Lou Sekora: So why was that not in here? That would read much better for me if it were “high degree of protection”, because when you say a “degree of protection” from one to ten, is it a one or a two or is it a ten? Those are things I would expect to see. If I'm talking to people from British Columbia, I want to know what to tell them—that the degree of protection is very high, that's it's not a number two from one to ten.

• 0940

Ms. Liseanne Forand: Mr. Chairman, the qualification in my statement that I put on the degree of protection was required by the Canadian public, and I would say the Canadian public requires the degree of protection very close to the number ten that the member of the committee has suggested.

Mr. Lou Sekora: My second question is something I asked about as we travelled through British Columbia, and I'm going to ask about it here. We have the provincial and the federal government and DFO. And I'll tell you something: to me, after being 28 years in politics, bureaucracy sometimes creates a nightmare, overlapping bureaucracy and everything else, and it seems to be a must that these things exist. Is there anything you people can do with the provincial government where you can maybe step aside a wee bit and have the provincial government take over? Is there anywhere the provincial government can step aside and take it over from you? That's one question. I have another one.

Ms. Liseanne Forand: With respect to the provincial government, and I'll use B.C. as an example, there is a memorandum of understanding on aquaculture and it does set out the different roles and responsibilities of the individual governments.

Obviously the aquaculture sector, the industry, has changed over the years. We must remain flexible in terms of our activities. We try to work together as much as possible. As I described, with the shellfish expansion situation where we had an unusual situation of a number of proposals coming in at the same time—and we expect many more—we recognized right away that we had to alter our processes, to change our processes to work more closely with the province and ensure that we could do this in a streamlined fashion.

In addition, in terms of the work that's being done under the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers, we're looking in particular through that mechanism to see whether there are areas—and I'll use a word that isn't necessarily agreed on all around the table—for harmonizing our approaches with the individual provinces. And it won't be the same in every province, probably. The experience we've had as a federal government in the environment area with provinces suggests that if you set out a framework for harmonization and cooperation then you can tailor it to each province in terms of what the conditions are there and how much capacity that province has to take on some issues.

Generally speaking, I would say that we're working toward that with the provinces in the context of the aquaculture task group and bilaterally through our memoranda of understanding.

Mr. Lou Sekora: I have to agree with John Duncan when he said that there's some confusion in British Columbia. There is. The fact is the overlapping is just horrendous. The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing, and it goes on. These are the things I have been asked about by my constituents, who say “Lou, why don't you have the bureaucrats go through the same thing you do every four years to get re-elected, to where they're responsible for their actions?” And I'll tell you, I'm not saying this to be smart or anything else, but the fact is that there is confusion in British Columbia between the federal and provincial bureaucrats. For the people who want to go into aquaculture, it's a nightmare in there.

Ms. Liseanne Forand: If I could comment on that briefly, again, the situation in British Columbia is a little different from other places because they had a moratorium for a number of years. The provincial government was not really in a position to do very much with respect to aquaculture development because of the moratorium, and that may have contributed somewhat to the confusion that was created. But on our side as well we have different elements of our mandate. We are responsible for habitat protection. We're responsible for fish health, for example, as Dr. Davis has set out. We have responsibilities delivered by the coast guard with respect to navigable waters as well as fisheries management.

From our perspective, we also have to do a better job of dealing with all these responsibilities in a coordinated, well-planned way. When we do that, it will be much easier for us to convey to our partners in the province and in industry to tell them clearly exactly how they should approach us. We're doing that work now.

Mr. Lou Sekora: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Lou.

Just off that, one of the problems I've often talked about with a number of people is where should aquaculture really be, and I wonder are we making progress in that. There are some who view that aquaculture should be under agriculture, not under DFO, because aquaculture is like concentrated farming. It's feeding, it's nutrition, it's disease control, concentrated housing, etc. For DFO, on the other hand, basically its original mandate was to put in regulations and enforcement measures and police the fishing in the wild fishery. Is that still a problem? I know this is one thing that's raised with me, and I expect with other committee members, quite often. Should aquaculture be moved? What's your view on that, so we have your perspective on it, Liseanne?

• 0945

Ms. Liseanne Forand: Mr. Chairman, I recognize that this is a question that's been debated for a long time. I wasn't involved in the development of the federal aquaculture development strategy, but I assume it must have been debated at that time as well, before the decision was made to establish the lead for the issue in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

From a policy perspective within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, I would say that the rationale for maintaining DFO as the lead agency with respect to aquaculture has been made even stronger with the Oceans Act. The Oceans Act also establishes responsibilities for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to integrate coastal zone management, to integrate activities with respect to the oceans. This doesn't touch as much the fresh water aquaculture industry, but a significant portion of the aquaculture industry in Canada is in ocean space.

From that perspective, in terms of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans' responsibility to manage the oceans in an integrated fashion consistent with the precautionary approach and in a manner that is consistent with sustainable development, in our opinion, the aquaculture industry fits squarely within the mandate of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. That does not remove the fact that there are other agencies that are involved and it's our responsibility, as it is under the Oceans Act with other matters, to work on a horizontal basis with those other agencies.

I'd also say that it doesn't deny the fact either that when you look at pieces of legislation like the Fisheries Act, which is still substantively in the form it was when it was drafted in the 1860s, there is room for improvement in terms of the legislative and regulatory framework.

The Chair: Thank you. We hope to get to that in some session of Parliament.

Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Iles-de-la-Madeleine— Pabok, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Welcome, Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: First of all, I would like to apologize to the witnesses and to members. I know that spring has arrived, but even though I was up very early this morning, I still had trouble getting a taxi, maybe because it was rush hour. In any event, I'm here now.

I may not have caught the end of your sentence, Mr. Chairman, but I did catch the drift of Ms. Forand's statement. For once, you're not listening to me. Fine then. I'll say directly to Ms. Forand that I share her views. On paper, the Oceans Act seems quite logical, but I look forward to the day when we enforce its provisions properly.

Secondly, I also agree with Ms. Forand when she says that Fisheries and Oceans should have responsibility for overseeing aquaculture. I think fishers would be horrified to see their industry lumped in with agriculture. There are major philosophical differences between the two sectors, which lends Ms. Forand's position even more credence.

As I said, I missed the beginning of your statement because of my transportation woes, but I did nevertheless have time to read the documents you supplied to us. First of all, you referred in your statement to a four-pronged approach to sustainable aquaculture growth and I'm intrigued by this. You talk about an “updated policy framework for operational decision-making”, which I find quite interesting, about a “consistent regulatory framework to provide [...] a level playing field”, a critical element, and about the “development of a sound mechanism for intergovernmental cooperation and information sharing”.

What I didn't catch is whether you have set a timetable for all of this. When should we expect you to complete this process?

Ms. Liseanne Forand: Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say that we are in the process of developing a policy framework. I acknowledged earlier that this wouldn't be accomplished overnight. This task requires cooperation, consultation and sometimes making compromises on various program components and the department's mandate. Our goal is to devise a framework for our regional staff working directly with the industry and to set down criteria which will help them make coherent, broad-based decisions on a national scale.

• 0950

We initiated this process in the hopes of completing our work this year. Personally, I believe that through the hard work of our dedicated staff and the cooperation of all parties, we will be able to complete the task within the next six months, that is by the fall.

Perhaps we will have to proceed in stages. First, we need to develop a general framework, even if this means having to set down the details and identify specific program criteria later. Moreover, we know that our staff want such a framework and specific criteria to help it do its work with greater confidence.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Then you're hoping to have an updated policy framework for decision-making in place by the fall of 2000?

Ms. Liseanne Forand: That's right.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: And what about the other two components of your approach?

Ms. Liseanne Forand: The Commissioner has been working on developing a regulatory and legislative framework since June of last year and should be ready to make some recommendations to the minister shortly. These recommendations would set out different possible approaches with a view not only to streamlining the framework, but also to making it more coherent.

The matter will then go to the minister, then on to Cabinet and then subsequently, to government for approval, As to when we can go forward with this initiative... As you well know, regulatory and legislative changes always take a certain amount of time, particularly in a case like the Fisheries Act which has such broad implications.

We are already well on our way to developing a mechanism for intergovernmental cooperation. We are working on program components assigned to us by the ministers last September. The group is set to report back to the council of ministers in August of this year. Deliberations are being conducted in a spirit of collaboration. Various provinces have drafted papers on subjects to be addressed. Of course, we not expecting revolutionary results, but we should have something to report in August in Iqaluit at the next council meeting.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: You failed to mention a timetable for the completion of the regulatory framework. I realize that this is a lengthy process, but has a target completion date been set? Are you aiming for the fall of 2000? What about the spring of 2001? My concern is that we won't see any preliminary results before the next elections. The work being done is very important. I know that the elections shouldn't factor into this, but...

Ms. Liseanne Forand: The Commissioner's firm goal was to submit his recommendations to the minister in the spring of 2000 and I'm confident that he will meet this target date.

However, we should not make any assumptions as to when the minister will decide to follow through with some of the recommendations. In terms of the work that remains to be done, we hope to have some solid proposals in place by the spring of 2001, in view of the major changes that may need to be made.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Fine. Do I have time for one last brief question, or should I wait for the next round?

[English]

The Chair: Your short questions are sometimes long, Yvan, but go ahead. Make it very short.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I'm sorry. My question will be brief, but I can't guarantee the same for the answer. It is directed to Mr. Davis and concerns something he noted on page 2 of his statement. I will put the question to him and if you think it's too long, he can answer it during the second round.

It's very interesting that you mentioned to us two research institutes that are important to Fisheries and Oceans and to the fishing community in general. In your statement, you mentioned the Maurice Lamontagne Institute and the biological station in St. Andrews. You note that the research being carried out at the Maurice Lamontagne Institute on cod physiology has direct applications to aquaculture. Meanwhile, at the St. Andrews facility, research is being done on fish health.

I realize the question is a little long, but could you explain to me the different types of research being done? Since we are scheduled to visit these two institutes, I'd appreciate it if you could enlighten me a little on the subject.

You can take the question under advisement if you wish.

[English]

The Chair: That was very short.

Mr. Davis.

Dr. John Davis: A short answer or a long one, sir?

The Chair: A short answer.

• 0955

Dr. John Davis: The work at IML, monsieur, is focused more on the kinds of conditions that are important for the survival of cod—for example, their resistance to various temperatures, oxygen in the water, and things like that. We need that information to understand and hopefully try to unravel what's happening to our cod stocks and why they're not recovering. I know that's a huge concern for the committee, so we're trying to do that work. But it's also very useful for aquaculture to know those types of things about the physiology and growing conditions of animals like cod. So that's the sort of work done at IML.

St. Andrews is a much broader program. In the information we've given out, you'll see they're working on a wide variety of species—salmon and shellfish—and doing work on fish health and that sort of thing. So it's indeed a much wider program.

In the documentation you have there's a good overview of the nature of the work that's done in the Atlantic. I think that would help you in your preparations for your travel.

That's a very short answer.

The Chair: I want to thank you very much. Mr. Bernier can read that documentation while he's waiting for the taxi in the morning.

Mr. Assadourian.

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

Most of the presentations we had were to do with the east and west coasts. Somehow we missed in between—Ontario, and especially Manitoba. Would you elaborate a little bit about inland or freshwater fisheries aquaculture, in Ontario and Manitoba, especially?

A voice: We're the fish in Ottawa.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: On page 7 it says you are making strategic investments and establishing a directorate to follow that up. Would you elaborate on the directorate's activities? How can we get in touch with the person or persons involved in that?

My third question, Dr. Davis—I can't let you go without asking the question—is how much investment does the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have regarding studies of fish that are habitat- or environment-related? When we were on the west coast we had many people express concern that the nets in the farms are a very damaging environmental situation for them. They were very much concerned that the environment is being damaged because of the stationary position of the fish in the nets. Would you elaborate on that, and the overall science and research and development in your department? How much money do you have? Is money going up or down? What can we do to increase the funding for that?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Assadourian. I might point out that part three of the estimates will be out next week, I believe, and a lot of that information will be in there. But Mr. Davis—

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: In relation to the last three to four years, if possible.

Dr. John Davis: Firstly, on freshwater, yes, of course there is freshwater aquaculture work carried on. It's nowhere near as large as what goes on on both coasts. Unfortunately, in recent years, with program review, we've had to cut some of that back. We're interested in working with the provinces, the universities, and others on some of the freshwater species. If you are interested, I'm sure we could provide for the committee a more in-depth review of that, perhaps some information we could bring forward that would be helpful.

In terms of overall budgets, I think it would be better to deal with that at the time of the estimates. I'd have to go back and look specifically at what's being spent on the environmental side. As I mentioned earlier in the presentation, around $6.1 million on aquaculture-related work goes on each year, and we lever that with another approximately $2 million worth of research. But there is applicable spending too in habitat programs of the department that I think perhaps isn't included in those figures. With your permission, I'd like to come back with something more precise for you.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: When you do that, would you also take into consideration the research studies you have on the ocean overall, not just fisheries? I would appreciate that.

Dr. John Davis: In terms of overall science budget spending, you have about $140 million across the country, about $20 million of which is associated with running the vessels, which are essential, and then we can break that down for you by spending on oceans, fisheries, research, aquaculture, and things like that. Maybe the best way to do that is as part of the estimates discussions.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: And my other question....

Ms. Liseanne Forand: With respect to the strategic investments, the directorate is called “Aquaculture Restructuring and Adjustment”. Right now it does not have a director general. There is an acting director general, Lorne Anderson, who can be reached through DFO. That was our first investment last year, to set up a locus, if you will, at DFO here in Ottawa that could attempt to better coordinate our activities in aquaculture, and in particular support the work of the commissioner.

• 1000

What we're looking at in the coming year is to find savings elsewhere in the department, and reallocate on the basis of priorities. In particular, through our discussions with the policy advisory committees over the last year and with the provinces, what we found is that what seems to be a priority for the industry, for the provinces, and for the public is for us to increase our capacity to do things like habitat assessments, Navigable Waters Protection Act assessments, and the Canadian shellfish sanitation program that makes sure the growing water and surrounding waters are safe.

So what we're looking at doing is ensuring that we redirect resources as much as possible toward those kinds of support functions out in the field, in the regions, that we are told by aquaculture producers would make a tremendous difference in their ability to compete, that would make the federal side more efficient in terms of approvals and support and be of tremendous assistance to them in their efforts to be more competitive.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Forand.

Mr. Keddy, I believe you're going to go next.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a couple of questions, and I think they've been hit on mostly. The $6.1 million budget and the $1.6 million that is added to that as an operating budget is a small budget. It's very difficult to try to run any kind of serious aquaculture program on that. I'm just wondering if you have any idea, because DFO is a lead agency, what the other agencies put into it on a provincial scale. I realize that's a difficult question to answer off the top of your head.

Some provinces.... On the east coast, New Brunswick has a very serious aquaculture program. They grow a lot of salmon and shellfish. Nova Scotia's program is much behind New Brunswick's, although we're coming on a bit better.

In relation to that, as a reaction to Yvan's question, there is a lot of discomfort and suspicion, I guess, among the traditional fishing industry, the traditional users of DFO science, and those same fishermen and aquaculturalists now being dependent mostly upon the departments of agriculture on the provincial side. But there's good reason for that, Yvan, because the Department of Agriculture has tremendous resources to put into it. They're used to working with the equation of seed to kilos of product, or in this specific case, fish, or kilos of chicken, beef, or pork.

We have transferred a lot of our areas already, because all of our fish plant inspections are done by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which is under the venue of the Department of Agriculture. So we've already stepped in that direction a fair amount.

I would argue—and I want to know your opinion on this—that as a cost-cutting measure, if we're going to have some dovetailing between departments and we're going to have DFO taking the lead as the lead operator and if we're going to cut costs on a federal scale and integrate as well with provincial organizations, then somehow along the line you have to have fewer players in there and one player taking the lead role.

Is that the way you guys have seen this? And what are we going to do about your budget? These guys need to help you out a little.

Dr. John Davis: Mr. Keddy, we don't have a clear idea of the total expenditures in this area. I think the department has been trying to find out what the provincial expenditures are and pull this all together. That would be very useful to know.

You're absolutely right, $6.1 million is not a lot of money, and indeed we could do with more. There certainly is a need for research in a lot of these areas, particularly things like genetics, so there's no question. I'm hopeful that with the improving economic climate we find ourselves in in Canada there will be availability of resources for the future to augment this area.

• 1005

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have one more quick question.

When I was reading through your brief, there was a fair amount of talk about antibiotics, ivermectin and the different antibiotics you use. They've been used on the farm for years, but they haven't been used in freshwater and saltwater environments. They've been used, but we're not sure of all the results of that.

Do we have some clear results on what's happening to wild shellfish, wild scallops, wild oysters in that fish farm location? There's tremendous fear and suspicion there, on behalf of fishermen, that this is a major problem.

The Chair: Ms. Price.

Ms. Iola Price (Director, Aquaculture and Oceans Science Branch, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): If I understand your question correctly, you're asking if the organisms in and around aquaculture cages are picking up residues from products used.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Absolutely.

Ms. Iola Price: Generally speaking, some of the shellfish do, but they are not harvested unless someone goes in without permission, in most cases, to harvest. There is, of course, some concern that species that move through may inadvertently pick up something. But residue analyses done by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency show that with very few exceptions there are no major problems in terms of a human health concern.

All the materials that are used for medicating fish in fish cages are registered by the Department of Health, through the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs, for use in the aquaculture industry, or for use in one other food-producing animal. So the residue analyses by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency show that Canadian health is well protected.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Price.

Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): I have a number of questions. One is related—and we may get that next week when they get into estimates.

This country has a large geography, and given the size of the freshwater fishery in Canada, when you have less than $9 million for total aquaculture work in Canada, obviously there won't be much for the freshwater fishery. I hope we can get those numbers next week and perhaps elaborate a little more on that. But I'm concerned about that, because the freshwater fisheries in Canada have not been given their due.

A voice: Right.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Somehow, as a freshwater supporter because I come from that region, I need to put forward an effort to see that there is a greater emphasis, because we probably have the greatest fishery in Canada. I don't think there's an argument about that. We'll leave that one.

In your science, have you been able to determine how the fallout of toxic chemicals in our environment has impacted, particularly in the freshwater area? I realize there hasn't been much work done there, so you probably don't have much data on that. Has there been any indication that PCBs have been noted, and how has that affected the freshwater aquaculture industry? Do you have any data on that? Is there any indication that the chemicals, because of fallout from the environment, are impacting on our freshwater fishery? Because of our Kyoto agreement and what we have committed to, and how that might.... Anyway, that's a big question.

Again, on home-grown grains, we talked about canola. With our biotech today and GMOs, canola has moved a long way from what it used to be. We used to call it rape, now it's canola, and things have transpired in the interim. Given that much of our product is exported, and some of the product may be exported to countries where there may be a somewhat different attitude toward GMOs, has there been some thought given to that? Obviously there has, I would think, but I would like your comments on that.

Then further—

The Chair: Paul, we'll give you time for another question.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I need to put this one in here—

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Paul Steckle: —because it relates to feed. It's just a short one.

We talk about bycatch from time to time, and the shortage of food supply for our aquaculture industry. Are we utilizing bycatch in any way? Can we bring it back to shore and utilize it as feed in our aquaculture industry?

The Chair: Thank you, Paul.

Mr. Paul Steckle: That's an important question.

The Chair: There are quite a number of questions there.

Go ahead, Mr. Davis.

Dr. John Davis: The PCB question is a huge one, in terms of what's being done across the country on those sorts of levels. Yes, there are many programs that have monitored PCBs in different sites and trends over time—things like that. I think there's a fair literature that could be brought to bear to summarize that for you. Certainly that's been done in the freshwater area.

With respect to the status of the Great Lakes and places like that, there's been a huge amount of work on the contaminant levels in the lakes, the trends over time, and things like that.

• 1010

Generally, progress has been made, in terms of reducing the amount of PCBs in the environment over time, because of the protocols that are associated with the handling of PCB-containing materials, but there are still concerns. You see those concerns particularly in northern Canada, where very high levels of those types of organic contaminants are found in the animals, and consequently in people. Animals such as seals, whales, and others accumulate these types of substances in the fatty tissues. When northern peoples consume them, they end up with very high levels relative to the rest of the population in Canada. So we need to be much more vigilant on these things and work hard on them.

There are site-specific pollution-related problems in a number of freshwater areas. There are a number of high activity areas in the Great Lakes, for example, where there are action plans being developed under international agreements, such as the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, aimed at addressing those sorts of things.

In terms of your question about canola, I'm not aware of genetically modified canola work, but the canola industry in Canada is potentially a really important one, in terms of the aquaculture food supply issue. Around the world, because we know that most of the world's marine fisheries are being fully exploited—in fact some are starting to decline—there's an increasing emphasis on the need for food to feed the global population in the future, and aquaculture will be an important component of that food supply.

The problem is that we're using a lot of protein-based foods. We're taking fish meal and things like that and making these pellets that are used in the industry. So we're taking high-value protein that might otherwise be used for human food, and feeding it to fish.

We've done a lot of work on the development of vegetable-based diets—canola-based diets—that are really useful, in terms of exploiting a Canadian industry and then developing a high-value, highly nutritious diet that can be used to feed fish.

The trials with these types of diets have been very successful. We've tested them on the west coast, starting with trout and now moving to salmon. They hold their nutritional value over time. We see a natural parallel here between addressing the problem of the industry in providing a nutritious and reasonable source of food and also addressing the diminishing supply of animal-based proteins that could be used in food.

Aquaculture uses fish that are often fed to people. It uses 10% of the world's fish meal and fish oil production, so you can see there's a big niche here in terms of vegetable-based diets. It's one I think our research is really important for.

Mr. Paul Steckle: On my last question on the bycatch, has there been some utilization of that product?

Dr. John Davis: Certainly some of the products that go into these protein bases for existing fish meals come from herring and other sorts of things. I don't think there's a uniform application of bycatch to this; it's more a targeted type of approach. It's something that might be helped in the future. The whole bycatch problem is an important one and really needs to be looked into.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to our folks from DFO.

I just handed you a copy of an e-mail from Bill Mott, who attended the March 2 Simon Fraser University....

Mr. Davis, how long have you been in the science branch of DFO?

Dr. John Davis: I've been working in the science branch for 29 years.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay. You don't have to answer this now, because you may want to read it beforehand, but Mart Gross mentioned several times that if senior scientist officials hadn't prevented the research he proposed in Clayoquot Sound on the impact of Atlantic salmon five years ago, we would now have the answers. John Volpe, who's done research on spawning Atlantics, agrees with that statement as well.

Is anybody from DFO doing the research Mr. Volpe had done on the spawning of Atlantic salmon?

Dr. John Davis: Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Why is that?

Dr. John Davis: I think it's something we should be doing. Instead of that, Mr. Stoffer, we've had an Atlantic salmon watch program in B.C., where we've looked into the incidence of escaped Atlantics appearing in river systems. We've worked on trying to make sure we keep track of these things.

We have also worked with the province on some incidents, such as the one we've recently heard about in a couple of systems, where juvenile fish are showing up, which indicates there might be some spawning starting to occur. We're asking for those fish to be destroyed.

• 1015

In terms of the statements here about prevention of this work, I'd like to look into it.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Sure. That's understandable.

Dr. John Davis: I think Mr. Volpe did some of his work at our Cultus Lake facility, so he at least was involved with some of the things that were going on. But I would like to investigate the other thing.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Sure, that would be great.

Also, last year David Anderson, the minister, put a year's prohibition on the krill fishery because a lot of the aquaculture industry wanted to have access to krill and zooplankton in order to feed their farms. We demanded that Mr. Anderson put a permanent ban on what we call the beginning of the food chain because it would have a devastating effect on all others. You had mentioned that the food supply for the aquaculture farms is diminishing and that you're looking at other things, such as canola. Is your department encouraging the government to put a permanent ban on the krill and zooplankton fishery?

Dr. John Davis: We haven't encouraged a permanent ban, but I certainly can tell you that we're very restrictive on allowing those sorts of things to occur. As you suggest, we see the basis of the food chain as being very important for providing support for the other organisms in the system. Our approach to allowing operations to harvest krill in coastal regions of British Columbia, for example, has been very conservative. We are aware that there are concerns about fishing down the food chain, and this is something we would keep a very close watch on.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay. A lot of people have mentioned to me that industry is the tail that wags the dog, the DFO. On page 10 of your book it says:

Aquaculture is a private sector initiative. The principal responsibility for commercial development will rest with the industry.

Then you go on to say:

Aquaculture development must be driven by the dictates of industry competitiveness in domestic and international markets.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a certain country is not abiding by strict environmental standards or is doing something and they are able to sell their farm finfish a lot cheaper than Canada because they have a lower cost advantage, would that not also dictate that we in Canada could also relax some of our regulations in order to compete with those other countries?

Dr. John Davis: I think it's very important that we have a strong regulatory approach in terms of sustainable aquaculture. That's essential. We would want to look always at making sure things are done in a sound and safe manner.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Lastly, it says:

Aquaculture is a legitimate user of land and water; consequently, industry deserves

—I love this word “deserves”—

equitable access to the aquatic resource base.

My problem is that in Nova Scotia there are certain communities that don't want a finfish farm anywhere near their site. I've spoken to Anne McMullin and Mr. Rideout, and they said that they want to be good corporate citizens; they want to be able to work with communities. Now, there are some communities that would welcome a finfish farm in their area on the presumption that jobs will follow, which is fine.

If they deserve equitable access to the aquatic resource base, there could be a bit of a conflict. For example, in Northwest Cove near St. Margaret Bay there's a finfish farm there right now, and they want to have another one by a place called Horse Islands, which is just off there. The lobster fishermen are saying that the lobster fishing outside the cove is very good but that for the last two years the lobster fishing inside has rapidly and seriously declined. They don't have evidence, but they suspect it could be from the farm.

If you're operating on the precautionary principle and a community says we don't want any further expansion of this farm, wouldn't you encourage the industry to respect the wishes of that community and then do the necessary research to see if indeed that farm has an effect on the lobster fishery in that area, or in other areas, for that matter?

Dr. John Davis: I would say that the solution to a lot of these potential use conflicts is really a kind of dialogue at the community level so that you can bring to bear scientific knowledge and make decisions, and people therefore have the opportunity to have a say in the placement of facilities. In British Columbia, for example, Minister Streifel mentioned that there was talk about relocating some of the actual farm sites and that a process would be followed whereby there would be consultation with people. This to me seems the most sensible kind of approach in terms of how we deal with these sorts of things.

• 1020

Vis-à-vis the question about the impact on lobsters, there's often a situation—and the committee will hear this many times—where it's suspected that aquaculture has an impact, but it's not proven. I think we need to do a lot more work to unearth those sorts of things. Lobsters—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Duncan): You're over your time, Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I have just one last thing.

If that's correct, if you don't have the science to back up the evidence that it may or may not affect, wouldn't the precautionary principle—which, madam, you mentioned—apply, and there would be no further expansion or new development of an aquaculture open-net-cage finfish farm until you have the evidence to say to these people, yes, it does, or no, it doesn't have an impact? Wouldn't the precautionary principle apply in this case?

Dr. John Davis: There are many ways of looking at how you apply that. I think the situation is whether there is a strong likelihood of risk associated with that. You have to do a site-specific risk assessment.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: My question is, wouldn't you want to do that before granting any licences, which I know is mostly a provincial matter, allowing the authorization of further expansion of finfish farms or new sites in areas where you don't have the evidence? You just said you need to do further research.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Duncan): That's your final question.

Ms. Liseanne Forand: Mr. Chairman, if I might just comment on this line of questioning, it is obviously a key question with regard to the establishment of aquaculture sites. In fact that's why one of the four work items for the intergovernmental aquaculture task group that has been set up under the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers is to look at how you address conflicts of resource use among users.

I did refer to the Oceans Act, and in my opinion we should address all of these sorts of issues in the context of the principles that are set out in the Oceans Act, which include the precautionary approach and sustainable development, which takes in environmental, social, and economic approaches, and perhaps most importantly talks about integrated coastal zone management. It's an issue, as you said, Mr. Stoffer, the industry itself had commented on as well.

I believe, as Dr. Davis suggested, that really the best approach is to look at mechanisms, approaches, and fora to enable all those interested in a community, including provincial government, federal government, industry, and community organizations, to look at what the benefits and impacts are going to be on their community and to determine whether or not they're comfortable with this development taking place. That's the approach we've taken, as well as the statutory obligations with regard to safe navigation, fish habitat, etc. There's no simple answer to this. The views, opinions, and interests of a wide variety of people have to be brought to bear.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Duncan): Thank you.

Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When we were on the west coast we had one of the witnesses describe a closed-pen system. Unfortunately, the committee didn't have the opportunity to go down to the biological station in Nanaimo, which is in my riding. I went down there a week later. You're probably familiar with it, across from the station. It's private enterprise. They've been doing particularly well. They have a huge expansion going into Chile. They appear to have solved a number of issues, such as problems with escapements and underneath the pen, that are paramount to the whole aquaculture issue.

Is there any appetite within DFO either to close pens or to land-base pens? How far along is this in your thinking?

Dr. John Davis: That's a very good question, sir. The whole approach to new technology I think is a most important one. As you know from your travels and from what you've heard, there are many issues here about escaped fish, disease, waste, and things like that. If new technologies can be brought to bear that address those kinds of issues, everyone will be better off, and it's a very important thing to pursue.

The issue right now is one of economics. Can these types of procedures be made to be cost-effective from an industry perspective? Continued research is needed to look into these types of applications. We certainly encourage that. I know that the minister as well is very interested in this area.

In our research we would like to emphasize more of a technological approach to things, both types of containment systems in the sea as well as having a look at land-based.

• 1025

Land-based culture activities are quite expensive. You have to build a big infrastructure. We have gone to other locations in the world and had a look at some of the land-based culture procedures. As a perfect example, if you ever get a chance to travel to parts of Asia, you will see in Korea some tremendous land-based culture investments.

There's one large volcanic island, Cheju Island, to the south of Korea, that has over 200 major land-based flounder-producing operations on it. It's a volcanic island. They sink the water intakes down through the volcanic rock, which can be used as a filter to filter out any kinds of planktonic organisms that might cause problems. They can draw the water from depth and therefore regulate the temperature for rearing in the raceways for the fish.

They are producing flounder species that are very highly valued, and they're sold live into the market. The reason that works is they sell them live and they're a premium fish, and the restaurants you go to, the high-end restaurants, advertise that they have these wonderful fish. They sell for between $25 and $50 each in the market. That pays for the land-based type of culture activity.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: To get back to the question, is there a flavour within DFO to regulate in that direction? How far along is the department in their thinking?

Dr. John Davis: It's exploratory at this time, not in the regulatory sense now, but really in that we would like to foster work in this area, so that if these types of techniques can be developed for the future, that would help us approach it more from encouraging that type of introduction of technology in the future.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Okay.

A short one?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Duncan): A short one, yes.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: We've just touched on a number of issues. What do you see as your biggest challenge in the aquaculture area? Is it genetic diversity? Is it the pens? Where do you see the biggest challenge?

Dr. John Davis: It's in answering some of these huge questions—genetic diversity is certainly one of them—and in doing those sorts of work experiments. They're large-scale, they're expensive, and they're difficult. Focusing on that one is a very major challenge.

The second one is having adequate people doing the work and resources to do the work. That's very important as well.

A third challenge is in getting a good source of information out so that the public and everyone can make intelligent decisions. You'll hear so many opinions on these issues that it's very hard for members of the public, first nations groups and others, to decide what's truth or myth. We really do need fora that bring all this information out and allow us to make intelligent, risk-based decisions for the future and have an orderly development of aquaculture in a sustainable way so that we can stand up and be proud that we're protecting the environment and the wild resources.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Duncan): Thank you.

Nancy.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): My question is not directly related to aquaculture, but I want to take this opportunity, when we have someone here from science, to ask this question.

Yesterday there was an article in the Toronto Star, and there was another one in I believe the Globe and Mail this week, about the amount of toxic chemicals found in the population of the north. I look at your research tabled, and none of the research at all is taking place up north. I represent the riding of Nunavut, and we have had many requests from our Wildlife Management Board asking for more research to be done in the Arctic, partly because of the links between PCBs, toxic waste, and the food chain.

My question is, why isn't any research being done in the Arctic regarding the food chain and the fish population in the north? Is this table you have trying to concentrate more on aquaculture and not so much on environment? That is what I want to think, because as I said, I don't see any moneys dedicated to research in the Arctic whatsoever. This is a very serious concern that affects my riding.

The table in the Globe and Mail, I believe it was, showed the different species that were affected. A lot of species that affect people in my riding were on that list. It's a real danger for us. So any insight you could give me on that would be appreciated.

Thank you.

• 1030

Dr. John Davis: Thank you. Yes, that is an important question, and that's why I mentioned it earlier. This table we produced here, because the focus of this session was on aquaculture, was an attempt to capture just the expenditures on aquaculture. Indeed there is other work going on, in terms of contaminants in the north and things like that, that could be brought out and information provided in that area, not only work that—

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Could you supply me with that information?

Dr. John Davis: Yes, we can provide you with whatever DFO has. I think the Department of the Environment too would have information. It may be broader than just DFO, and it would be important to look at all sources of information.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: All right. Thank you.

I know aquaculture is not an avenue we have looked at yet in the north, but like all areas of Canada that are very economically challenged, we do look for any opportunities. Is there any possibility of any aquaculture happening in our far north?

Dr. John Davis: Just to supplement your last question, Iola Price has reminded me that DIAND also has a lot of information on the contaminants issue.

As for aquaculture in the north, generally in cold climates, fish and other organisms grow a lot more slowly, so whether or not we could have an economically based aquaculture industry in the north is a serious question. It's probably difficult to imagine that this is possible, unless there are places where there are sources of heat or energy or something that could provide for warming of the water. They generally do better in warmer-water areas, in terms of the rate of growth and the cost benefits of actually producing something. This is actually a problem even in places such as Newfoundland, where the water is generally cold. It's hard to produce an aquaculture species.

So I would be a bit pessimistic about the possibilities, but maybe with new technologies in the future, or if there are any energy sources, that might be possible.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Duncan): Thanks, Nancy.

Yvan, you had a question?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I will try to follow the lead of my colleague from Newfoundland and be brief.

Since I enjoyed the last part of Peter's question, I have two short questions for the witnesses. Could either Mr. Davis or Ms. Forand tell me whether Fisheries and Oceans funds research into closed systems as opposed to open nets. It would appear that the biggest stumbling block is the existence of only one prototype. Therefore, it isn't clear whether closed systems work. I'd like to know if the department has funded any research in this area.

Why do I want to know? Because many concerned environmentalists in British Columbia have been critical of open systems which can pollute or harm the environment. I would imagine this falls under your responsibility. How does the quality of the water in the vicinity of open systems compare? Has any research been done in this area?

I have another, rather blunt question. I find it rather odd that as we question the advisability of having open systems, the city of Victoria is being allowed to dump its sewage effluent offshore, into the ocean, the theory being that oxygen levels and water flow will break down the effluent naturally. I'd appreciate a scientific explanation, because this practice seems rather odd to me.

On the one hand, a municipality is allowed to redirect its sewage effluent to a particular location, while on the other hand... Is there any scientific basis to this?

Is there a scientific paper that I should read on the subject that will tell me what the oxygen level in seawater must be so that waste effluent can break down naturally?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Duncan): Just for clarification, what Yvan is referring to is the sewage outfall from the city of Victoria.

• 1035

Dr. John Davis: There are several questions there, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, we would encourage work on developing new technologies, as I mentioned to Mr. Gilmour. I would like to see more work go into evaluating different types of technologies, the closed systems and things like that, because they would offer far greater protection against escapes and things like that. The question is whether they can be made to be cost-effective and therefore something practical for the industry to embrace.

In terms of impacts of the wastes on the seabed around open pen systems, there have been studies done on those sorts of things, as you'll see in some of the material we've handed out. Generally, they're very site-specific. If you have a fish farm that's located in a well-flushed area with strong tidal currents, the actual impact you can see on the bottom, in terms of the coverage of any waste materials and impacts on the species diversity there, is quite small. If you have it in a closed, poorly circulated little bay, then there might be a much larger impact in terms of the footprint underneath that particular pen. There have been studies carried out of the seabed, the animals that live there, and also the level of materials that are coming out of the farms.

Because fish food is such a large proportion of the expenditure of running a net pen operation—it's somewhere around 40% to 60% of the actual operating costs—it's not in the farmer's interest to feed excessive amounts of food to the fish and have a lot of waste and things like that. In recent years, from some of the studies we've seen, the actual amount of food that's converted to fish as opposed to being lost and wasted and having that type of impact on the seabed is going down. The farms are practising better husbandry practices that really help the situation and therefore the impact is reduced.

In addition, as people have learned from experience, there has been a move to locate a lot of the pen sites in much better, well-flushed areas as opposed to closed kinds of embayments where you get that type of problem becoming acute. Over time there definitely have been improvements in that area too. There are various studies that have been carried out, as some of the documentation summarizes.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Duncan): I'd like to thank the witnesses very much and I'd just like to add a little summary of my own, seeing as how I seem to have that opportunity.

I think we all recognize that every organization is going to have its critics and supporters, but when we were on the west coast, there was a witness who came before the committee from Canada's largest diversified hatchery. They have an R and D budget of about $1 million, 28 employees, 4 major research projects. They're a major supplier for all of the shellfish and smolt producing businesses in British Columbia.

The president expressed a great deal of concern with the DFO bureaucracy. He talked about the large group of fishermen ready to invest but stymied by resistance to change of attitude within DFO and he made the statement that it's pretty clear that DFO does not support aquaculture. He talked about the fact that it took him one year to collect 900 fish because the head of groundfish wouldn't return calls. He talked about the fact that they're dealing with fisheries managers who are not aquaculture managers.

He talked about the frustration of the sea urchin fishermen who are not allowed to reseed sea urchins, which from a sustainability standpoint is the only thing that makes sense. He talked about the frustration with the coast guard, for example, demanding a four-nautical-mile corridor. Basically that insistence knocks out scallop culture. He talked about how he had great success working with the Pacific Biological Station and their molecular biology and disease people but that as soon as it moved over to the fishery managers, it all fell apart.

He basically summarized it by saying this is not a biological or economic question at this point, it's a political question. It's a question of political will.

• 1040

When we hear concerns being expressed by someone who is that attached to the industry, all we can say, as the visitors, is that there has to be a problem. I'm sure you recognize that there are some inertia problems within your organization. We would really like to see some changes, so we wish you well with all of that.

Thank you very much for coming before the committee.

Dr. John Davis: Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Duncan): We've had a request to take a two-minute break and then go in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]