ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, February 1, 1999

[Translation]

• 1536

The Chairman (The Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I have a few announcements to make before we begin.

[English]

With the help of the clerk, it has been possible to organize a lunch for next Monday. The lunch is intended to inform interested members of the committee about a meeting on a biosafety protocol, which will take place in Colombia at the end of the month. The protocol is the object of negotiation between governments in order to regulate the transboundary movement of genetically modified substances.

We were very lucky to get at the last moment John Herity, who is the Director of the Biodiversity Convention Office of Environment Canada. In addition to him is Richard Ballhorn, the Director General of the International Environmental Bureau of Foreign Affairs, and then representing another Canadian negotiator is Tim Hodges.

I'm bringing you this invitation for a lunch under the auspices of this committee because there are members of the committee who are very interested in this question of genetically modified substances. It will be held in the parliamentary restaurant. It will take place on a Monday. I'm sorry, je m'excuse, but it couldn't be done otherwise. It is on short notice. Those of you who can come, please come, and those who can't, well, just take it from there.

I hope you will applaud your chair for this fine initiative.

An hon. member: Well done.

The Chairman: Thank you.

I think there is material you may want to read before that meeting, and I believe that information is on the Internet. We stumbled on it just by accident, I believe. It is an infernally complex subject, but nevertheless it is an extremely important one. It has implications for Canada's exports to Europe, amongst other things. As anyone who is familiar with canola probably already knows, canola is going down the drain in Europe these days because of this issue.

The next item is that the clerk has prepared a motion to extend the contract with John Moffet, who is advising this committee on Bill C-32. I will ask him to read it and we will see whether there is consensus to approve it.

The Clerk of the Committee: The motion reads:

That, with regard to clause by clause study of Bill C-32, the Committee further extend its October 1, 1998, contract with Resource Futures International for a period beginning February 1, 1999 and terminating no later than March 31, 1999, with a maximum amount of $15,600 for the extended period.

The terms of reference are included, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Are there any questions or comments? Could we have a mover?

• 1540

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Today we are very fortunate to have representatives of the aquaculture industry. We welcome you, ladies and gentlemen. We would like to hear your views and have the benefit of your comments on the bill or, if not on the bill, on some suggested amendments.

From the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance we have Pierre Stang; from the New Brunswick Salmon Growers Association, Bill Thompson; and from the British Columbia Salmon Farmers Association, Anne McMullin. Then we have Mr. Cross from the British Columbia Salmon Growers Association.

Mr. Stephen F. Cross (President, Aquametrix Research Limited): No.

The Chairman: Would you please help us out?

Mr. Stephen F. Cross: I'm from Aquametrix Research Limited. I'm a private industry consultant.

The Chairman: Where are you located?

Mr. Stephen F. Cross: We're located in Sidney, British Columbia.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We also have with us Mr. Smith, who will come up later, apparently.

To the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, would you like to introduce yourself and your colleagues, Mr. Gravel?

Dr. André Gravel (Acting Vice-President, Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to be here this afternoon. My name is André Gravel. I'm the Vice-President of Programs for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. With me at the table today is Linda Morrison. Ms. Morrison deals with the feed file in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. We also have Mr. Stephen Stephen, who is sitting in the back. He is the agency's focal point for agriculture. That's about it in terms of our presence here.

The Chairman: Fine. The floor is yours, ladies and gentlemen. Please divide the time available in a manner so as to permit a good exchange by way of questions and answers.

I gather from your nodding that you are the first, Mr. Stang. The floor is yours. Welcome to the committee.

Mr. Pierre Stang (Acting Executive Director, Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Members of the committee, thank you very much for providing the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance the opportunity to appear before this committee. The Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance is the national body regrouping the regional and sectoral associations, representing both the finfish and shellfish producers of Canada.

The proposed amendments with regard to nutrients contained in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Bill C-32, are of critical importance to aquaculturalists. In order to address the issues and provide sound scientific and technical information to the committee, we have assembled a team of experienced practitioners, who will present the aquaculture industry's case. It is therefore my pleasure to introduce them to you, beginning on the west coast with Ms. Anne McMullin, the Executive Director of the British Columbia Salmon Farmers Association; Dr. Stephen Cross, President of Aquametrix Research Limited; from the east coast, Mr. Bill Thompson, the General Manager of the New Brunswick Salmon Growers Association; Dr. James Smith of Washburn & Gillis Associates Ltd; as well as Dr. Myron Roth, who is the Acting Executive Director of the Salmon Health Consortium.

Without further ado, Mr. Chairman, I'll turn the floor over to Ms. McMullin.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. Anne McMullin (Executive Director, British Columbia Salmon Farmers Association): Thank you very much for this opportunity.

Our delegation is here today because the amendments that have been proposed in Bill C-32 would place an undue and unnecessary burden on the aquaculture industry and could limit it from operating in Canada. It could bankrupt dozens of Canadian companies and discourage hundreds of millions of dollars of potential future investment in this country.

As you know, federal and provincial governments have identified aquaculture as one of Canada's brightest economic development opportunities. This belief is supported by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, which found in its recent review of the state of world aquaculture that:

...it is widely acknowledged that fish supplies from traditional marine and inland capture fisheries are unlikely to increase substantially and that the projected shortfalls in fish supply will probably be met mainly from expansion within the aquaculture sector.

• 1545

In fact, more than one-quarter of the world's supply of food fish is provided by aquaculture today, and this ratio will only increase over time.

In terms of the future growth of aquaculture activity and production, this country is envied around the world for its natural advantages. These include healthy marine environments and a generally stable regulatory structure, which leads to a strong investment climate in Canada.

This is what we are striving for as Canadians. The proposed amendments could jeopardize this developing economic opportunity. Certainly this tremendous opportunity that aquaculture represents is recognized by the Government of Canada. Recently, in appointing the new Commissioner for Aquaculture Development, Fisheries Minister David Anderson stated:

The creation of this position is a clear recognition of the growing importance of this sector to Canada...

I would like to provide you with some economic statistics on this growing and vibrant industry. Currently the aquaculture industry supports 2,700 full-time, year-round jobs in the province of British Columbia, 1,200 full-time, year-round jobs in the province of New Brunswick, and 500 full-time, year-round jobs in other communities in coastal Canada. The vast majority of these jobs are in rural communities.

The industry provides $270 million in annual revenues in B.C. and $120 million in annual revenues in New Brunswick. In B.C., fresh-farmed salmon is the largest agricultural export, and in New Brunswick farmed salmon accounts for the largest agrifood product sector. In both provinces it supports much-needed supply and service sector activity in the marine industries and represents tremendous future investment and growth potential.

I think we should be clear about exactly what the implications are with the amendments to Bill C-32 being contemplated by this committee. In fact, a recent western economic diversification study found that modest expansion of salmon farming activity in B.C. could deliver $890 million in much needed capital investment, a 400% increase in the industry's annual revenues to $1 billion annually and 20,000 new jobs. All of this could be achieved by expanding the industry's footprint to four square kilometres. That's four of the thirteen million square kilometres of near-shore aquatic land available in British Columbia.

In Atlantic Canada, all provinces are seeking alternative employment opportunities in rural coastal communities that have been hard hit by the downturn of the traditional fishery. Aquaculture has been identified as one of the major opportunities.

My colleagues will speak to you in a moment about aquaculture and the environment. They'll also speak to you about the roles and responsibilities of various levels of government in regulating our industry. But before I turn the floor over, I'd like to make a few more observations.

This committee should not be misled into believing that our industry has proceeded in a vacuum of government and public scrutiny. In fact, we are the most heavily regulated agriculture industry in Canada. More importantly, our environmental performance has been under a public and political microscope for most of the past two decades.

In British Columbia this scrutiny peaked in 1997 with the completion of the most comprehensive sector-wide environmental review in B.C. history. The B.C. salmon aquaculture review was launched in 1995 to examine all the environmental issues surrounding salmon farming in B.C., including fish health, fish escapes, waste discharges, interactions between farmed and wild salmon, interactions between salmon farms and marine mammals and other species, and fish farm siting.

After 18 months of study, hundreds of presentations, more than $1 million of taxpayers' money, 1,800 pages of documentation, a panel of six independent scientists found that salmon farming is an environmentally sound and sustainable industry.

We have a copy of the final report of the B.C. salmon aquaculture review for tabling with this committee today.

I make these remarks to indicate that the federal and provincial government agencies responsible for regulating our industry have not forsaken their responsibility, as alleged. One of the presentations you will hear this week will be made by the David Suzuki Foundation, focusing on their report, “Net Loss”. I would just like to point out that the author's contentions were addressed by the B.C. environmental assessment office in the B.C. aquaculture review and have been refuted by independent scientists.

With respect to the proposed amendments, it's the position of CAIA that it is not the role of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to duplicate the duly constituted regulatory authority of the federal government through DFO and relevant agencies of governments to regulate the salmon farming industry.

• 1550

We believe Bill C-32 is not the appropriate vehicle to regulate practices in specific industries. We expect this committee to reject the amendments put forward concerning aquaculture. There is simply too much at stake for Canadian companies and Canadian workers for you to do otherwise.

Thank you for the opportunity to open our presentation. I would now like to turn to Dr. Stephen Cross of Aquametrix, who will address aquaculture and our environment.

Mr. Stephen F. Cross: Thank you, Anne.

Mr. Chairman, members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon. My presentation on aquaculture and our environment has been prepared using data, that is direct measurements, acquired from 76 salmon farming sites in Canada.

Over the past 12 years I have completed scientific investigations of the environmental effects of marine net cage culture for the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, the B.C. Ministry of Fisheries, the DFO habitat management branch here in Ottawa, DFO Pacific Yukon region, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and for the British Columbian, Washington State, and Chilean salmon farming industries. Our in-house environmental data archive includes information on water and sediment quality, ecological effects related to farm operations, benthic, or bottom recovery rates, physical oceanographic properties considered optimal for farm siting, phytoplankton dynamics in the vicinity of farm structures, and many other aspects of farm environment interactions.

Fish feed can be considered the raw material for the fish farming industry. The feed comprises natural ingredients with variable proportions of protein, carbohydrates, and fatty acids. The wastes that are released from a farm operation include fish species as well as incidental feed that passes through the net cage and is released as uneaten feed pellets. The loss of waste for marine net cage operations results in a localized organic enrichment of the benthic environment. This effect is confined primarily to the area directly beneath the farm structures, as shown by the solid red area on this slide. The magnitude of the environmental effects beneath the farm structures is influenced by depth, site circulation dynamics such as the tidal current area of the site, and of course by the loading or the amount of waste material released to the environment.

The perimeter of the farm may receive waste materials under some oceanographic conditions, but the associated effects are considerably less than those observed beneath the net cages themselves. In any event, detection of benthic environmental effects are limited to within 10 to 30 metres of the farm perimeter. As concluded by the west coast salmon aquaculture review, which supports the conclusions I have drawn from our 12 years of data, these impacts represent a low overall risk to the environment.

Once a farm has been removed from a site or discontinues production where the site is part of a farm management strategy, complete recovery of the benthic environment will occur. The rate and process of environmental recovery has been studied and has been shown to occur in zero to 18 months. Of course, the rate of recovery is related to the magnitude of the initial impact, but it is also affected by depth and the physical oceanographic properties of the site. It is important to note that this environmental recovery, due to the composition of the waste materials themselves, occurs through a natural assimilative process and does not require mitigation measures. It also occurs at a rate much faster than measured for other cultural activities, resulting in similar organic waste deposits.

Fish farming operations are uniquely different from other commercial, industrial, and municipal sources of aquatic pollution in that the sustainability and indeed the profitability of fish farming, as with any farming operation, be it terrestrial or aquatic, is directly related to environmental integrity. Given that the primary environmental effects associated with fish farming occur directly beneath the net cages, it is clearly in the best interests of the operator to ensure that a minimal, if any, impact occurs as a result of his operation. The health and survival of the crop depends on it.

As the fish farming industry has developed on both Canadian coasts, many changes have and continue to occur in support of the goal of maintaining environmental integrity. In the example shown on the screen at present, waste material loadings to the environment have declined significantly over the past 10 years, as demonstrated through direct measurements in four government-commissioned studies completed in British Columbia.

These data indicate that in today's industry the actual loss of wastes to the environment is approximately one-third of what it was in the late 1980s. This trend is clear in spite of the fact that the production levels in the industry have increased approximately three times over the same period.

• 1555

The significant reductions seen in the waste material losses over the past 10 years do not reflect changes related to the government regulatory action, but rather reflect the continuing industry efforts to reduce such wastage through improvements to farm positioning, the application of best practices and new technologies, and the ongoing changes to feed quality. Industry is making every effort to protect environmental integrity. Over the past years they have developed and continue to develop an appreciation that what's good for the environment is good for the fish.

Dr. James A. Smith (Senior Project Manager and Scientist, Washburn & Gillis Associates Ltd.): Thank you, Steven.

Mr. Chairman, members, my comments will focus on the existing regulatory regime under which marine cage-based aquaculture in Canada presently operates and how this relates to the proposed amendments to Bill C-32.

I'll start with Fisheries and Oceans Canada. DFO deals with aquaculture through three pieces of legislation—that is, the Fisheries Act, the Oceans Act, and the Navigable Waters Protection Act—and four government branches. The dividing lines between regulatory responsibility and research and development are clearly drawn.

The habitat management branch of DFO has primary responsibility for what we, in my business, call the big stick of the Fisheries Act, and that is sections 35 and 36, which deal with alteration of fish habitat and the deposition of deleterious substances. The power of prosecuting lies with this group. The definition in the Fisheries Act of deleterious substances is broad, and fish feed, if necessary, could be included. To date it has not been necessary.

The science branch of DFO supports habitat with world-class research and development. This ensures that prosecutions are made as necessary and are scientifically defensible.

The aquaculture coordination branch of DFO is the only section that is solely involved with support services to the industry. There is no question over roles and responsibilities in this case.

Finally, the coast guard is the heavy hand in the legislation of industry through the Navigable Waters Protection Act. This dominant legislation ensures that cage farms are sited to allow safe access to navigable waters for all Canadians.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has just recently become a player in our industry. With the inclusion of the Feeds Act and the Fertilizers Act in their mandate, they are now responsible for fish feed. This agency and this legislation essentially covers the amendments you are now considering. I understand that you will hear more from this group later this afternoon.

Also within the federal realm for aquaculture regulation are Environment Canada and Health Canada. Environment Canada, through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, is responsible for some of the most comprehensive EI legislation in the world. DFO and coast guard responsibilities can and have triggered the act. Health Canada has the authority to approve additives to fish feed.

I would like to talk some now about the area of federal and provincial cooperation in aquaculture regulation. Both British Columbia and New Brunswick, the two main aquaculture production provinces, have memoranda of understanding between the jurisdictions. These agreements are mainly in place to streamline the licensing process. Each agreement has a notwithstanding clause. This clause explicitly states that the signing parties retain their legislated responsibilities. The information we have presented today clearly shows that this has been the case. Why has this been the case? Because the legislation is in place to make it happen. The federal legislation to govern the use of fish feed and the federal legislation to govern potential environmental effects of marine cage-based aquaculture are in place and are being enforced.

The proposed amendments do not fit with the intent and structure of Bill C-32. This legislation, I believe, is meant to be residual and to not complicate the application of other legislation. Clearly, this would be the case.

The proposed amendments also do not fit with what I believe are the two cornerstones of the bill: pollution prevention and toxic substances. Pollution prevention is a proactive approach to environmentally sustainable development, which the industry supports and fosters. There are no substances—and certainly not fish feed—that the industry uses today that should be included in the toxic substances section of the bill.

As a technical note, I would like to mention the definition of “nutrient” within the proposed amendments. It is technically not correct. The draft definition describes a nutrient as “any substance that has the potential to harm aquatic environments”. This is not true. Nutrients are necessary to support the functioning of aquatic environments. I would encourage the committee to review the existing version of CEPA for a more accurate definition of nutrient.

• 1600

Finally, I'd like to finish with some comments about legislating specific industries. This presently does not occur within the existing CEPA or Bill C-32. There is no precedent to now include aquaculture. In fact, the Fisheries Act includes regulations that do relate to specific industries. Note that each of these industries—and they are the pulp and paper, mining, meat and poultry, and potato processing industries—is mature from the point of major changes to production processes. Also, the legislation that covers these industries relates to known, specific, well-researched and -documented environmental concerns.

Aquaculture is a food industry. It's clean and an environmentally sound agribusiness. While extensive research and monitoring programs are tracking environmental concerns with aquaculture, to date the regulators have determined that effects are mitigable. Specific legislation is not required.

Thank you.

Mr. Bill Thompson (Executive Director, New Brunswick Salmon Growers Association): Thank you, Jamie.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it's a pleasure to be here today. I'll start by apologizing that I have a cold and I may break up a few times. But we're pleased to be here to try to give you some information and some insight into our industry and how we've been regulated and monitored in the past.

I'd like to start by thanking Mr. Steven Cross from Aquametrix and Dr. Jamie Smith from Washburn & Gillis for their insightful presentations. These are two highly qualified individuals who have been involved in the development of the aquaculture industry for many years. Their expertise has been utilized by many government agencies and departments involved in monitoring the environment, not just for aquaculture but for other industrial sectors.

We've brought them here today so that you, the members of the committee, can ask technical questions of people who are used by the government to monitor us and to monitor other industries. We want to ensure that you feel you've been given access to an independent group.

I'd like to reiterate what Mr. Cross pointed out: that fish feed is made of natural ingredients, that waste materials result in localized organic enrichment of the benthic environment, that complete recovery will occur with fallowing, that the aquaculture industry is directly dependent on the marine environment, and that the fish farming industry is continually improving its practices.

I'd like to point out that in New Brunswick—and I believe in British Columbia it's even shorter—the fish farming industry is not twenty years old yet. It's a rapid growth industry that's been around for a very short period of time in the agri-food world.

You can take Mr. Cross's comments and combine them with Dr. Smith's review of the regulatory structure, where he showed that DFO maintains an active and vital role in regulation of aquaculture; that DFO's legislative responsibilities include the Fisheries Act, Oceans Act and Navigable Waters Protection Act; that other federal involvement includes the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, with its responsibility for fish feed; that the existing and working system of federal-provincial cooperation maintains the legislative responsibility of both parties; that inclusion of fish feed within Bill C-32 is counter to the intent and structure of this important legislation. These findings give us the feeling that we're not headed in the right direction with the amendments.

From these presentations, I trust that the committee is confident that the aquaculture industry is a responsible user of the marine environment, and one that is carefully monitored by numerous federal and provincial government departments and agencies.

The details of our submission are included in a brief that has been submitted to the committee through the clerk of the committee. I believe these have been passed out to everybody.

There have been views put forward by other groups and organizations, such as the New Brunswick Conservation Council, that must be considered. It has long been part of the Canadian system to consider the opinion of other members of our society. However, it is the responsibility of this committee to review the facts and the reality of the situation in front of you before making a decision. Included with our submission is a package of reports and studies relating to salmon aquaculture and the environment. This has been given to the clerk.

Included in our package is an outline of the situation in New Brunswick that has been produced by Washburn & Gillis in order to provide a balance to the submission entitled “After the Gold Rush”. This report is entitled “Governance and the Environment: Status of Marine Cage-Based Aquaculture in Southwest New Brunswick”. I hope everybody has a chance to look at it as well as the report entitled “Net Gain”, which provides an accurate portrayal of fish farming in British Columbia. This is in response to “Net Loss” by the David Suzuki Foundation.

• 1605

I would also like to draw your attention to the British Columbia “Salmon Aquaculture Review”, which was conducted by the environmental assessment office. Ms. McMullin mentioned it earlier. This is one of the most comprehensive reviews of any industrial sector in Canada and presents a responsible assessment of the salmon farming industry.

We trust that the committee will take all the technical information we have made available to you so that you can make an educated and informed decision on the amendments before you.

I would like to draw your attention to a number of other issues.

Key is that fish farmers are the first to feel any environmental effects in the marine environment. They depend on a healthy environment to be competitive.

Duplication of regulation creates a confusing and expensive climate in which to operate. The Canadian public does not look for its legislation to be duplicated, to put undue burden on the taxpayers.

Also, unnecessary regulation creates a weak investment climate for Canada. Canadian producers must compete in a tough international marketplace, where investment dollars know no boundaries and are placed where the best opportunities are available. Our industry looks for and seeks investment from Canadian players and international players. These people are moving to different parts of the world on a constant basis, and Canada must compete.

Also—I am from the east coast—aquaculture is a solid alternative for rural coastal Canada to create employment opportunities. We're in difficult times; 1,200 people work in the aquaculture industry in a county of the province of New Brunswick that still faces unemployment in excess of 15%. Without the industry, which employs one in four people in the county, it would be extremely difficult.

In conclusion, we request that the committee look hard at the scientific evidence available and the existing regulatory regime governing marine aquaculture. Once you look at that, we're asking you not to make the proposed amendments dealing with aquaculture and fish feed part of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Thank you very much. We're available to take any questions.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. Gravel.

Mr. André Gravel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

It's a pleasure for me to be here this afternoon to clarify the role that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency plays in relation to fish feed for use in aquaculture.

Our agency regulates fish feed in Canada through administration of the federal Feeds Act and regulations. This legislation provides authority to regulate the manufacture, sale and import of livestock feed, which includes fish feed. This legislation also provides a framework for the agency to administer a national feed program.

The feed program consists of pre-sale product evaluation and registration as well as post-market inspection and monitoring delivered by our regional staff in all provinces of Canada.

I'd like to elaborate a little bit on the two main components of our program. First of all, on specific pre-sale program activities, the first activity is the evaluation and approval of ingredients for use in livestock feeds, including fish feed again. Each ingredient is subject to a complete safety assessment that verifies the safety to livestock, including fish, to humans via both occupational and food exposure, and to the environment. Approved ingredients may have limitations on their use in fish feeds, including for which stage of growth, rate of inclusion, and standards for contaminants such as heavy metals.

When the data provided for the safety assessment is not complete or does not support safe use, the ingredient is not approved. In fact, a number of ingredients have been denied approval when adequate data on effects and fate in the marine environment were not provided.

• 1610

For instance, we had two submissions to be used as pelleting agents. These are chemicals that are used to harden mixed feed into a pellet so that the feed will not sink or deteriorate in water. Those were not approved. The products, one a polymer and one a mineral, did not supply any data as to their potential for degradation and accumulation in the environment. A third product derived from food seed has not been subjected to long-term toxicity testing in fish. So these are a few examples of ingredients the agency has not registered.

The second component of the pre-market is the establishment of standards and policies in relation to product registration requirements and nutritional criteria for livestock feed, including fish feeds. In 1990 a joint working group, including representation from the Canadian Feed Industry Association and the Expert Committee on Animal Nutrition, established acceptable nutrient ranges in complete feeds for salmonids to reflect standard practices. Feeds containing nutrient levels—calcium, phosphorous, selenium, etc.—within these ranges do not require pre-registration. However, these feeds are still subject to all other requirements of the feeds regulation, including labelling, contaminant level, safety, and efficacy. Feeds providing nutrients outside the acceptable ranges are still required to be registered and are evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Feed industry awareness of the impacts on the environment of nutrient level in their product is increasing. For example, a number of products that increase the availability of phosphorous from plant sources have recently been registered by the feed section. These enzymes contain certain phytases, which relay bound phosphorous from the phytic acid complex found in many vegetable sources of protein, reducing in that way the need for the addition of inorganic phosphorous to feeds and the overall phosphorous level required to promote productivity.

The third aspect of our pre-market program is the evaluation and registration of livestock feeds to verify their compliance with the requirements of the feed regulations. All products must meet the labelling requirements of the feed regulations. This includes the provision of an accurate statement of guaranteed analysis and direction for use in sufficient detail to permit the safe and effective use of the feed for its intended purpose.

Switching to post-market activities, after products have been approved there are basically four components of that program. The first one is random monitoring of fish feed for the presence of residues of chemicals, pesticides, contamination by heavy metals, micro-toxins, and salmonella, and also verifying drug guarantees in feed. In addition to the regular contaminant monitoring program, this fiscal year a special survey to test the levels of PCBs, dioxins, furans, DDT, and mercury in fish oil and meal is under way. The result of this survey will determine the continued use of these ingredients in livestock feeds. The second component is undertaking trace-back investigation in response to detection of contaminants in edible tissue such as fish, meat, milk, or eggs and producer complaints related to feed.

These investigations, conducted at both commercial feed mills and on farms, help to determine the cause of the residues and recommend any change required to manufacturing systems to help prevent recurrence.

Reviewing labels of medicated feeds for accuracy to verify that the proper level of medication is provided and that all applicable directions for use, cautions, and warnings are provided to enable safe use of the feed as directed by Health Canada's Bureau of Veterinarian Drugs is a third component of our post-market.

The fourth component is the reviewing of labels for non-medicated feeds to verify compliance with the labelling requirements of the feed regulations, including the provision of an accurate statement of guaranteed analysis and directions for use that permit the safe and effective use of the feed.

• 1615

To complement these product-related activities, our regional inspection staff also carry out comprehensive inspections at commercial feed mills producing fish feed and on fish farms involved in the production of medicated feeds.

Feeds are not regulated in this comprehensive manner at the provincial level. At the federal level, medicated feeds are jointly regulated by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada. Health Canada is responsible for the review and approval of the medicated ingredients used in feed matter. This includes a stipulation of usage rates and frequencies. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is responsible for regulating the manufacture and use of medicated feeds. At the provincial level, Quebec and B.C. also have regulatory requirements regarding drug use in feeds.

Further to our role in the regulation of fish feed, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is also responsible for the monitoring of contaminants in fish products destined for human consumption. The veterinary biologics and biotechnology section of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency regulates fish vaccines as veterinary biologics under the authority of the Health of Animals Act and regulations. We also collaborate with scientists at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for advice regarding fish health issues pertaining to vaccine licensing. The two organizations have also signed a memorandum of understanding to define each agency's responsibilities.

Other agencies are also involved in the regulation of aquaculture through their respective activities. These include the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the provincial environmental ministries, which are involved in monitoring and conducting site licensing. I also understand that Dr. Doubleday of DFO will be here to brief you on Thursday on their activities related to the regulation of aquaculture.

Once again, thanks very much for the opportunity to discuss the role of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in the regulation of feed for use in the aquaculture industry. I would welcome your questions, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gravel.

[English]

We'll start with the usual round. Mr. Gilmour, followed by Mr. Lincoln.

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

Welcome to our first day of the new session.

My riding is Nanaimo—Alberni, on Vancouver Island. I have several fish farms in the Alberni Canal on the west coast. I've toured a number of them. I've also toured the other half of the industry, the shellfish side.

I'm familiar with the B.C. review. It was an extremely comprehensive review, as you've said, going back to the concerns of about ten years ago, when there were public concerns about the industry. I think this review looked at it in depth. I share your concerns that CEPA isn't the vehicle to be going after some of the areas that may be of concern.

This is an international market. We're competing with Norway and Chile and the U.S. How does the Canadian regulatory system, whether you're dealing with Environment Canada, DFO, Agriculture Canada, federal and provincial agencies, compare to other areas in the world? Are we behind? Are we ahead? Are we even? Because it is an international market, I'd like to know where we are on that scale. I think that's where we can best analyse or best see where the Canadian level is.

Mr. James Smith: I can take that question, Mr. Gilmour.

As part of a project we're involved in with the New Brunswick Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, we're assisting that agency in developing site production guidelines for the ministry in New Brunswick. We've done quite an extensive review of what's going on throughout the world and how other jurisdictions are approaching the regulation of aquaculture from a siting and an environmental carrying capacity point of view. I would say overall that New Brunswick and British Columbia are in very similar processes for the age of their industry in comparison to Norway and Scotland, for example. They are equal if not ahead in their proactive approach to environmental assessment of aquaculture and siting of aquaculture. The industry in Chile is newer than our industry is. They have legislation in place that requires them to do environmental impact assessments, but the technical approach or the scope of those assessments is very weakly defined and is not well adhered to.

• 1620

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Gilmour, I can't tell you about Chile, but I am very familiar with the Norwegian approach. In a nutshell, it can be said that the Norwegian regulatory system is very strict. It is certainly stricter than ours. Whether you are able to compare the two is another matter, because they don't have a federal system as we do. But certainly their approach is very, very severe.

Mr. Cross.

Mr. Stephen F. Cross: In response to Mr. Gilmour's question, from the west coast perspective, I would just like to comment that industry on the west coast has taken an initiative to collect a lot of environmental information on their own behalf. Our firm has been involved with probably two-thirds of the industry in British Columbia in developing farm environmental management plans on behalf of companies. That type of corporate structure for environmental issues is being considered in a more international framework under ISO 14000 at present. They're trying to be proactive in addressing the environmental issues and making themselves competitive in the international markets.

In addition to that, the industry and the provincial government have been discussing west coast regulatory performance-based regulations based on the Washington State model and may be incorporating those types of regulatory approaches in the near future.

Mr. James Smith: To respond to the chairman's comment about comparing Norway and Canada, I do agree with him that they do have a strict system. Their industry went through quite a difficult period a number of years ago, mainly in relation to marketing and getting their product to market. They became very heavily regulated on the amount of fish on the water and the amount of feed that can be used in relation to that. As to how that relates to their environmental planning, which is really what we're dealing with here, it was really a market-driven thing. It was a regulation in a way to get that industry controlled from a production point of view and from a marketing within the EEC point view, not from an environmental point of view.

They are now going through a process of developing environmentally sustainable production levels. Where they are in that process is practically identical to where New Brunswick and British Columbia are.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I view this as quite an opportunity. I guess the B.C. government this month will decide where expansion will be and how much expansion there will be, if any, in the industry.

I'll pause for now, Mr. Chairman. Thanks.

The Chairman: All right, have a pause.

Mr. Lincoln, followed by Mr. Herron.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): I guess the dilemma for us is always the same: To what extent can industrial production be carried out without proper environmental safeguards? It's the whole question of what is sustainable development. I must say, from what I have heard and read so far, I remain to be convinced that the environment is really as well protected as it should be.

Last year we had testimony when we were carrying out an investigation on the enforcement of environmental regulations in Canada. There was a brief before us that quoted from the environmental department in New Brunswick and the monitoring study they did in 1992-93, which was carried out by J.P. Thonney and E. Garnier. It showed that nearly one-quarter of the area covered by sea cages was heavily degraded. At heavily degraded sites, impacts included moderate to heavy gas bubbling, hydrogen sulphide, ammonia, methane, carbon dioxide; the absence of fish, invertebrates, and sediment-dwelling organisms; the accumulation of fish wastes and fish feed on the bottom through a tidal cycle; thick bacterial mats; and in severe cases, anoxia, the absence of oxygen. They quote from the report to say conditions in the remaining area range from “slight enrichment to conditions which limit the use of the sea floor solely to oxygen-tolerant species such as worms”.

• 1625

Then they go on to say in that same brief that there was a more recent monitoring study done over two years, 1995 and 1996, in Lime Kiln Bay, and the results showed bay-wide enrichment and the increasing abundance of low-oxygen-tolerant species. We seem to find this to be a trend because I see that the B.C. government is extremely worried now about the escape of fish feed and the escape of farm salmon, Atlantic salmon, into the main stream, which they say would put them in competition with the steelhead, which is gradually reducing in numbers.

I read also in one of these briefs that there's a danger of salmon anemia, which, according to the statistics, attacks 25% of the farm-cultured fish in New Brunswick. As of February 1998, 202,000 fish had to be slaughtered. The number of fish that have to be killed to produce the fish feed for the aquaculture fish seems to be really massive.

Somebody in your group mentioned the Fisheries Act as the protection, yet I have a letter from the Minister of the Environment to say that—and this might make you happy:

It is not possible at this time to take legal action under Section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act in relation to the introduction of deleterious substances, in the form of food and fecal material that cause bay-wide enrichment. This is because it cannot be attributed to a single party.

So they say that until they can trace the individuals as individuals, it's impossible to carry out because this is a collective enrichment of the bay.

I noticed in your brief you mentioned that CEPA was a residual bill, which I think most of us here, if not all of us, will contest. CEPA is not residual. You mentioned as examples pollution prevention and toxics. That's the very proof that CEPA is not residual because it addresses pollution prevention and toxics very directly.

I was wondering if you could tell me why CEPA is a hindrance to what you do. In what way would it conflict with your sense of environmental protection for your industry, admitting that there is a problem, as there seems to be?

Mr. James Smith: Mr. Lincoln, you did touch on a number of points, and I will defer to my colleagues from the west coast to address in particular the escape of wild salmon in British Columbia.

I'll go back to your comments regarding the Thonney and Garnier study of 1991-92 and the Lime Kiln Bay study of 1995-96, works I'm very familiar with and have reviewed extensively. I'd like to put those into context, as much as anything else. What you have in front of you are descriptions for very localized environments that, in the way they've been described, would give the picture that this is widespread and, if I can use some terms from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, adverse and significant and likely to cause an environmental effect.

I think the actual fact of the matter is that is not the case. Those effects have occurred, and I think it's safe to say those effects continue to occur on a very small scale. But the question is, what is the spatial extent of them? What are the spatial bounds for that assessment? What are the temporal bounds for that assessment? Is that something that's going on all the time? Does it occur during a small part of the year? Is remediation available to correct those situations? I think if you took that information and looked at it in a broader sense, in an ecosystem sense, you would come to the conclusion, as our regulators have, that it's not a serious concern. It's not denying that it's there, but it is putting it into context.

• 1630

With regard to the comment of Environment Canada related to sections 35 and 36 and not being able to attach it to a single body, that's certainly their position, and I have no disagreement with it. As a matter of fact, I agree with it. Our industry in New Brunswick is actually looking at that issue by approaching environmental management from a bay management area perspective, recognizing that a number of farms within a given embayment have to work together for cooperative sustainable development. So that's a very proactive approach that the industry is taking right now.

The final item was with regard to why it's a hindrance to the industry and the question of residual. Perhaps I should apologize for my use of “residual”. It's not the best technical term for what residual legislation is. I'm a biologist, not a legislator or a lawyer. I consider it to be residual because there is other legislation in place that deals with the issues you are trying to deal with in these amendments. It adds another layer and almost an opportunity for conflicts to arise when it's already very clearly in place.

Mr. Bill Thompson: Mr. Chairman, if I could just follow up from an industry perspective, Mr. Lincoln quoted the Thonney study. That was carried out by the Department of Environment for the Province of New Brunswick in 1990, 1991, and 1992. Upon completion of the three-year study, it was decided by the department that the impacts were not significant enough to carry on an ongoing monitoring program by the government. The industry stepped in and created its own monitoring program, and it has carried on every year on every site, with the results turned over to the provincial government's Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

The original results that were found in the study in 1990, 1991, and 1992 were a lot—no question—geared toward husbandry practices, farmers not understanding. But with the results of that study and our ongoing monitoring program, there has been dramatic improvement in even the minimum impact or the minimum results that were found at that time. We carry on this program to date. We will continue to carry it on.

With regard to the pool study of 1995 and 1996 on bay-wide impacts, the industry has reacted to that by creating bay management areas where farmers will come together to work on managing and monitoring their particular bay.

Again, we're an industry. We've only been around, as I said, 20 years. Every time we learn something, we move on. We would hope that we would be given the opportunity to perform within the realm of the existing legislation, which we find onerous as it is. But we're obviously prepared always to improve, because, again, fish farmers are the first ones to feel any impact.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

We'll now hear from Mr. Herron, followed by Mr. Jordan.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What I'd like to do before I proceed with my questioning is to put into perspective this debate we're having today. Last year we heard from Julie Abouchar and the Conservation Council when we were hearing witnesses with regard to environmental enforcement throughout the country. I think the Conservation Council brings something to the table, as it's a very respected NGO.

Having said that, the example they utilized in their hearings focused on one particular industry. Therefore, that's the origin predominantly of these amendments we're talking about right now. So although this is a useful process in terms of having the NGO community and industry come before this committee as we're reviewing CEPA, a case in point is that these amendments were only added to CEPA, as opposed to belonging somewhere else.

Currently, aquaculture is administered under a memorandum of understanding between the Province of New Brunswick and the Province of British Columbia and the federal government. I must say, Mr. Chair, that I'd be a little bit cynical, given the testimony we heard in terms of the government's capacity to enforce its own environmental regulations, if we wanted to give more regulations to the federal government to administer this particular industry.

• 1635

Having said that, I would think, from a jurisdictional perspective, that the provinces, predominately New Brunswick and B.C., should be the ones who should regulate what I'll call their industry, given the fact that they're the people who would be affected the most.

The other standpoint is that CEPA is a piece of legislation for the control and use of toxins. I think it would be inappropriate for us to regulate a specific industry within that body. I would advocate that it would be more prudent, if there were to be federal legislation, to do it as a stand-alone document to regulate the industry as opposed to trying to do it in this... I hate to say haphazard way, but perhaps this way, which is not the best way to do that.

I don't have any fish farms within my particular riding, although I live within very near proximity to them and I've had the privilege of visiting farms on past occasions. My comments really are that given that the industry needs a clean environment to grow their clean product, and given that it's the provinces that are affected for the most part, would the industry feel more comfortable having any regulation pertaining to the fish farming industry done on a provincial basis versus a federal government that really doesn't have a direct personal stake in the industry as the provinces would?

Mr. Bill Thompson: That's a very good question. At the present time we have a fair amount of federal regulation controlling us, as was noted by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency—they deal with feed—and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We've gone through all the different legislation we're controlled by at the federal level.

Provincially we're controlled by another set of legislation. We believe we have sufficient legislation to cover all aspects of our industry now and would hope that as we mature as an industry, as we improve our own understanding of what's going on, and as the government improves its understanding of what happens in the marine environment with fish farming, we'll get a clearer understanding of what the legislative package should be.

Mr. John Herron: Again, when we're looking at administering and—again, looking for another word—perhaps micro-managing a particular industry, the issue is it's not really the industry; it's more what we're looking at with respect to the nutrients. I would think it would probably be more prudent for us to be discussing these issues with the manufacturers of the nutrients, the fish food, more so than the industry in general. It would be similar to asking questions of farmers on the composition of pesticides as opposed to asking questions with respect to the composition of the foods and the nutrients that are utilized for this farming endeavour.

I have two questions. The first is, wouldn't be more prudent for us to be talking to producers of the nutrients? The second thing it brings to mind is that I would think that, from my personal perspective, aquaculture would probably be better served if it were a division of the Department of Agriculture and not a division of DFO.

Mr. Bill Thompson: I think it would be prudent of the committee to consider listening to the Canadian Feed Industry Association. They are the people who are mainly involved with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency with respect to the ingredients and application of feed. That would be a worthwhile endeavour.

The second question I wouldn't touch, because we've been touching on this now for years and it's obviously a federal government prerogative to decide what department we're in. We would love to be included in the Department of Agriculture's programs, as we are farmers, but we are also involved with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, as we operate in the marine environment. We're here, we're there. We'd like to be somewhere.

• 1640

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

The Chairman: We now have Mr. Jordan, suivi de Madame Girard-Bujold, followed by Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Thanks very much. I have a couple of quick questions, and my first is to Mr. Gravel.

In your brief you allude to I think three examples where applications for fish food were not approved based on the fact that they would clearly violate our objectives in terms of protecting the environment. Were those applications domestic or were they from companies that were producing and using these products in other countries, or is this something somebody thought up domestically and applied for approval?

Dr. André Gravel: It is very difficult for us to determine whether we're dealing here with a local domestic application or an import, because in the majority of cases these companies are multinational and it's very hard to tell whether we're dealing with a clearly domestic application or an imported one.

Mr. Joe Jordan: The criteria they would provide wouldn't indicate that this was being used elsewhere.

Were those three examples, or were they the only three?

Dr. André Gravel: There were three examples that we chose to put in the submission today to demonstrate that in fact the agency is, in those cases, in a position to take action for limiting the entry into the environment of ingredients that we don't consider meet the requirements.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Sure. But it also indicates that there are certain forces in the industry that don't care about the environment, because they're putting forth this type of product for approval.

My second question is a general one. I'm just trying to get a sense of this, because I realize it's a moving target, that the industry has taken action on a number of fronts, and by the time some of these studies are released the industry may have made the adjustment. It's a new and growing industry.

Just in very general terms, is it your opinion that the amendments being proposed are too strict, or is it your opinion that the amendments being proposed are redundant because they're duplicating existing regulation? Could you just allude to some specifics there, because that's the one point I'm having trouble with.

Mr. Bill Thompson: I think our main position is that there is duplication.

First I'd like to clarify something you mentioned to Mr. Gravel about people in our industry not caring because they applied to sell feed that had ingredients... People who try to sell to us are not part of our industry.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay.

Mr. Bill Thompson: We're dealing with all kinds of people who have all kinds of ideas as to what we should be doing. So I'd like to start by clarifying that.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Fair enough.

Mr. Bill Thompson: We're here today to talk about legislation that would require permitting for the application of fish feed. We believe this is an area that is covered in other legislation. Duplication of legislation in Canada is a major problem. We're now going through a BIT, a business impact test, with Industry Canada because we found a tremendous amount of legislation dealing with aquaculture that costs us money.

We're a new industry. We get caught up in existing legislation. We believe there's sufficient legislation on the table to protect the environment. There's sufficient legislation on the table to deal with fish feed, and these amendments would be redundant.

Ms. Anne McMullin: I'd like to make a comment, Mr. Chair.

I think also with this bill, as Bill just pointed out, we are being singled out as an industry, as though we somehow are being positioned as the worst polluters. I think Steve Cross demonstrated and certainly the salmon aquaculture review found that after so much study and examining all of the issues, it's a low overall risk to the environment, and after fallowing or removal of a farm site, in anywhere from zero to 18 months there's no impact whatsoever.

I don't want to single out other industries, but I don't think any other industry in the marine environment or any other industry can make that sort of a claim. Certainly, we all have an impact, whether it's ecotourism or any other industry, and I think what we are most opposed to is the aquaculture industry being singled out.

• 1645

This industry has been exhaustively studied. Certainly Mr. Lincoln brought up a number of issues that we don't have the opportunity necessarily to go through because what we're dealing with here in this committee is fish feed. But we do have performance-based standards, certainly in British Columbia and across the country, and we are impact-minimal; it's how we manage those impacts. As I said, once a farm is fallowed or removed, the impact is removed in anywhere from zero to 18 months. As I said, to single us out as somehow the worst polluters, frankly, is wrong.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I don't get a sense that that is what is happening, though. If you look at the section of the act dealing with cleaning products, nutrients, and water conditioners and the fact that your industry is adding something directly to the water... it's going to come under those regulations. You could make the argument that perhaps, in a biodiversity sense, so does agriculture, but that's an argument for another day. I don't think someone said let's throw a wrench into the aqua industry here. It's just that by the nature of your industry you're making fundamental changes, or potentially making fundamental changes, to ecosystems because of the nature of your industry. I think that's the reason.

Ms. Anne McMullin: Right, and as I said, I think there are many industries that do deposit materials into the marine environment that aren't singled out in this act, and that's the concern as well.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Jordan.

Madame Girard-Bujold, followed by Mr. Stoffer, Madam Kraft Sloan, Mr. Pratt, and the chair.

[Translation]

Please proceed, Mrs. Girard-Bujold.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You'll forgive me, but I'm losing my voice.

I come from the Lac Saint-Jean region in Quebec which has a thriving aquaculture industry. As you know, Quebec has already adopted its own wildlife conservation and development regulations, further to federal-provincial framework agreements. Since each level of government has already clearly defined its responsibilities, don't you think similar negotiations are warranted today?

You stated that the aquaculture industry was undergoing a period of growth and expansion. Do you agree with me that current regulations are outdated? Do you think that we should negotiate a federal-provincial memorandum of understanding instead of looking to resolve this issue by adopting the provisions of Bill C-32 which are currently under consideration?

[English]

Mr. Bill Thompson: Yes, there is a memorandum of understanding between the federal government and the provincial governments of Quebec, New Brunswick, and British Columbia that weighs out the areas of responsibility that each will take on in aquaculture. As it evolves, I believe they're identifying different steps to be taken. I always believe a negotiated settlement or agreement between two parties is much better than each acting independently.

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Like Ms. McMullin, I don't feel the bill is the appropriate mechanism. Federal and provincial responsibilities are clearly defined. Quebec, like the federal government, has six areas of responsibility.

I have also observed that Quebec and British Columbia enforce their own regulations governing the addition of drugs in animal feed, and that their actions appear consistent with the memorandum of understanding concluded with the federal government. Are you not concerned that if roundabout action is taken and unsuitable legislation is passed, disputes could arise in the field of aquaculture, which, as you pointed out, is experiencing considerable growth?

Earlier, you stated that a study had shown that modest expansion and an investment of $850 million could result in a 400 per cent increase in revenues for the industry. In your view, was this study conclusive and in light of the phenomenal growth in this industry, do you feel that the regulations should be updated?

[English]

Ms. Anne McMullin: Are you saying these regulations should be taken?

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I'm asking if you think the regulations should be updated?

[English]

Ms. Anne McMullin: That's right.

• 1650

Mr. Bill Thompson: Ms. McMullin just mentioned she only got part of your question. Basically, yes, these regulations would slow down the investment opportunity that would be created in British Columbia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Newfoundland, and Nova Scotia. It's a new industry. It's a tough industry. We're chasing investment dollars that are mobile. We've got to come forward and be able to show that we're an industry that's capable of moving ahead regulatory-wise as fast as we are technology-wise.

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Girard-Bujold.

[English]

Mr. Stoffer, followed by Madame Kraft-Sloan, Mr. Pratt, Madame Carroll, and the chair.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. McMullin, the letter dated November 27 to the clerk of the committee outlines your concerns about our chair's amendments to the CEPA bill. I have some questions for you. When you say you're one of the most heavily regulated industries... I guess if we had a group of foresters, miners, or truckers here they would say the same thing about being overregulated in their industries.

My concern has always been for the protection of the environment, and you have even admitted yourself that you're a fairly new industry. I've always thought that if the government could proceed with caution with long-term scientific advice, that would be the best way to go.

You mentioned specifically in your letter the 2,700 jobs that coastal communities... Coming from Nova Scotia I know full well the devastation of coastal communities and what happened to our wild fish stocks—the cod—the salmon on the west coast, and of course the concerns up north as well.

When you write a letter about a concern and relate it to the coastal communities... I know a lot of these coastal communities would rather fish for wild salmon than turn into farmers.

Ms. Anne McMullin: I don't think that's fair.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm just saying this because I've been speaking to a lot of mussel farmers and oyster farmers and they really enjoy what they do. A lot of people are new to the industry. These aren't displaced fishermen coming into it. That's why I made that point.

What would your objection be? What is the biggest objection to the closed-pen system?

Ms. Anne McMullin: I don't necessarily think it's an objection to the closed pen system. The closed-pen system is certainly still in its research and development stage.

There's a company called Future Sea out of Nanaimo that is investigating the system. They're members of our association. We have been in joint ventures with Future Sea. Currently, it's unproven in the marine environment. They've had a number of failures. They are testing it and we have supported it. Right now it's not operating and it can't operate in a marine environment.

It's not an opposition to the research or an opposition to the research of the technology, but certainly to try to impose that on the industry right now would be like saying that the auto industry can't make any new cars until they perfect the battery-operated car. It is something we're promoting. This industry is an industry that is always looking at new and innovative ways of doing business. That's one system we are looking at.

Unfortunately, over the last few years they haven't had any success with it. Who's to say they won't. We certainly have been supporting it financially, scientifically, and with staff as well.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

Recently the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced there will be no krill fishing in the Bay of Fundy for a certain period of time. I believe it's just for a one-year period. There is great opposition to any krill fishing, period. We understood there was great support and great lobbying for the aquaculture of New Brunswick getting the krill fishery.

I'm just saying the information I've received is that there is great lobbying on the minister's part to allow the krill fishery to happen. There are many people in coastal communities and those in the environmental movement who wanted a more permanent ban on the krill fishery and not just this year-to-year thing. I would like your comments on that, please, if possible.

Mr. Bill Thompson: If I could, I am very familiar with the issue. There was an application by a traditional fisherman to pursue krill on his plan to market it as a colouring agent to the aquaculture industries, but there was no support from the major feed manufacturers for his application. I believe if you check the record with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, it was a traditional fisherman pursuing an opportunity that he identified, that he had discussed with an operator of a small local feed plant in Grand Manan, who is no longer in business. His route or his pursuit of this opportunity is not in keeping with the salmon aquaculture industry's plan anywhere in the world.

• 1655

Mr. Peter Stoffer: So are you saying, Mr. Thompson, that there was no pressure or questioning from the aquaculture industry itself for the krill fishery?

Mr. Bill Thompson: Not that I represent, sir.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We'll now turn to Madam Kraft Sloan, followed by Mr. Pratt.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Thank you very much.

Earlier another member of the committee asked if you are concerned that the amendments are too stringent or duplicating other legislation or regulations. You talked about duplication.

I'm just taking a look at the brief that André Gravel has given us, which says that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency regulates fish feeds in Canada through the administration of the federal Feeds Act and regulations. I am just wondering if I could have clarification on how fish feed is regulated and monitored through this act. Perhaps you can help me with that, please.

Dr. André Gravel: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In answer to the question, fish feed is regulated in the same way we regulate any other types of feed product in that, as I mentioned, we do conduct pre-market activities regarding, as an example, the registration of feed, whether it's fish feed or actually livestock feed, if it is outside the ranges that appear in the regulations with regard to nutrient content.

There is also the issue of medicated feed. Whether it's fish or livestock feed, we do monitoring at the feed mill level to make sure the level of drug that is supposed to be in the feed is actually there and that feed that is not supposed to be medicated is not in fact medicated.

The intervention then gets us to doing monitoring of the feed itself and also taking corrective action if we find cases where deficiencies are observed with any feed, whether it's medicated or non-medicated feed.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Who sets the level for the nutrient content as well as the type of drug or the content of drug within that feed itself?

Dr. André Gravel: With regard to the nutrient content, basically, the agency considers that within a certain range this is a sort of seller-buyer transaction with regard to the majority of nutrients. If it goes beyond that, then we need to register that.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Who sets the range where the numbers come in?

Dr. André Gravel: We do. The agency does.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: How do you set that?

Dr. André Gravel: Perhaps I could come back to that after I answer the second part of your question, which was who decides what medication is in the feed. That's the Health Canada Bureau of Veterinary Drugs, which actually reviews any antibiotics, whether they're used in feed or in any other means for animals or fish.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Are they the same standards as for cows and other types of land animals in terms of the medicine content?

Dr. André Gravel: I'm sorry, I'm not an expert on the subject. All I know is that much fewer antibiotics are licensed for use in fish feed than are licensed for regular livestock feed.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: What about pesticides and things like that?

Dr. André Gravel: Do you mean pesticide residues?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes.

Dr. André Gravel: Again, pesticide registration is administered by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, which is under the Ministry of Health.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: What about treatments for sea lice and things like that? How are they treated?

Dr. André Gravel: Again, it's the Pest Management Regulatory Agency that deals with the approval of those products.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Now, you were going to tell me how the nutrient levels are set.

Dr. André Gravel: Yes. I'd like, if you don't mind, Linda Morrison to answer that more technical question.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Sure.

• 1700

Ms. Linda Morrison (Associate Director, Feed Section, Animal Health and Production Division, Animal Products Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): We set the nutrient standards based on published literature. We work with the Expert Committee on Animal Nutrition and the Canadian Feed Industry Association when we establish standards, as well as with whatever a company wishes to submit in support of a change of nutrient.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: How do those standards compare with, say, Norway?

Ms. Linda Morrison: We use the nutrient requirement of the NRC, the National Research Council, as a base, which is recognized worldwide.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Your agency has a very important role in setting policy and some of these levels of what's allowable in fish feed. You also do an important amount of work in monitoring and investigating, and I'm just wondering how many inspectors or investigators you have, for example, for the east coast fish farms, the west coast fish farms, as well as anything that might be going on in the more landlocked areas of the country. How many inspectors do you have in each region as well as in total?

Dr. André Gravel: Mr. Chair, I don't have the information at my fingertips in terms of the number of inspectors we have in these areas, but perhaps I could make a comment on the subject. The inspectors the agency uses to administer the Feeds Act are not necessarily used to administer only fish feed inspection activities. Our inspectors are more broad based in terms of the types of activity they do. But we don't actually have a “fish feed” inspector as opposed to a “livestock feed” inspector. If we're doing an investigation at the fish farm level, then obviously, it's a little more focused. But if we're investigating large industrial feed manufacturers, then these people will be manufacturing feed not only for fish but also for livestock.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So who does the monitoring of the pens? Does your agency itself do the monitoring of the pens to see where the fish feed is floating down to the bottom and how it's dissipating through the ecosystem?

There was a discussion here that the time it's in the environment is not significant and that the space is not significant, but a bay is a bay is a bay. How big is a bay and what other way... We're talking about aquatic ecosystems. I'm not a biologist by any stretch of the imagination, but it seems to me that aquatic ecosystems don't have concrete boundaries around them that restrict the flow of different kinds of substances.

You said that your people inspect the places where feed is manufactured. Do they also inspect the sea pens and things like this?

Dr. André Gravel: Mr. Chairman, the inspectors the agency uses to do feed inspection are not conducting any type of environmental activity related only to fish farming. This is a file that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans at the federal level and the provincial departments of environment share. Our agency is not actually doing any monitoring of the disbursement of feed. We would be on those farms if the fish farmers were mixing medicated feed ingredients. Then we would be on the premises.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: How do you know they're mixing medication with the fish feed? Do they phone you up and tell you they're going to mix some medication with feed and you send an inspector out, or is it done on an intermittent basis to see if they're doing this? How is this done?

Dr. André Gravel: It's a monitoring program. As far as the large feed mill operations are concerned, our inspection is targeted. We know they're mixing and all that. As far as farmers that have on-farm mixing equipment are concerned, they're subject to monitoring.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But it is possible for a fish farmer to mix medication in with the feed and your agency doesn't know about it.

Mr. Bill Thompson: No. Madam, just a point of correction—

• 1705

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Could I just get an answer from Mr. Gravel first, please?

Dr. André Gravel: Yes. The distribution of drugs used to mix with feed normally comes from the large feed mills, and these concentrated drugs are subject to control measures. The agency can be advised of the transfer of these drugs to fish farmers.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So the drugs are mixed with the feed at the feed mill. They're not mixed by the farmer.

Dr. André Gravel: Both.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: They can be mixed both on the site where the aquaculture farmers are operating or they can be mixed at the feed mill site.

Dr. André Gravel: That's correct.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So there is no real way of knowing how much medication is being mixed with the fish feed.

Dr. André Gravel: There are two possibilities. The first one is purchasing medicated feed from a feed mill, in which case the control is taking place at that level. The second one is if a farmer wishes to use medicated feed, he can have the prescription done by a veterinarian, in which case that is an added control measure in terms of prescriptions.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But are those records kept by your agency?

Dr. André Gravel: No.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Is there a central collection of this data then?

Dr. André Gravel: The records are kept at the farm level, and we can have access to those when we actually go there to do our reviews.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: How often do you go to each farm to do your reviews?

Dr. André Gravel: It's random. It's on the basis of level of risk.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Thompson, did you—

The Chairman: Thank you. Let's conclude now, please. Mr. Thompson, briefly.

Mr. Bill Thompson: It's just a point of clarification on the committee member's question. All medication used in our industry is issued only under strict veterinarian control. We cannot obtain any medicated feed or any medication to go in the feed without going through a veterinarian.

On the east coast all feeds are mixed by the mills because of the location of our industry, which is close to shore. On the west coast there is some minimal mixing at the site, but only under the strict guidance and control of a veterinarian.

The Chairman: Thank you, Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Pratt, Madame Carroll, the chair.

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question follows on questions asked by Mr. Herron and Madame Girard-Bujold. It concerns the effectiveness of the memoranda of understanding on aquaculture with the various provinces.

We had a situation in the Ottawa area in terms of aquaculture. It was in the news within the last couple of years. It was related to a fish farming operation around Heney Lake, which is near Mont Sainte-Marie. In order to foster an industry in that area, which is economically depressed, the Quebec government provided substantial grants, I think in the millions of dollars, if my memory serves me correctly, and some of the details on this are a little hazy because it was a few years ago.

Within about two years of that operation, the cottagers on the lake—and this is a lake that would be maybe 10 kilometres long, a kilometre to 1.5 kilometres wide—began complaining about the quality of the water. It really got quite disgusting in that particular lake in terms of the green slime that was developing. They went to the provincial authorities, it seems to me, without much satisfaction provided by the Quebec ministry of the environment officials. It reached the point, as a matter of fact, where the cottagers on the lake had to seek redress through the common law in terms of their ownership rights on the lake and the damage to their quality of life on the lake. It seems to me they were successful in finally getting the operation shut down.

• 1710

Given that sort of experience in Quebec, can you provide some comments on the efficacy of these memoranda of understanding? In terms of my riding, which is Nepean—Carleton, I'm quite a distance from the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts. But there just seemed to be a laissez-fair attitude in this particular case.

Mr. Bill Thompson: I can't comment on that particular case. I've heard about it. I'm not familiar with the intricate details. I think the thing that stands out most of all is that it was on a lake. It was fresh water, and the federal government has no jurisdiction on freshwater lakes in Canada, so any memorandum of understanding wouldn't deal with that particular aspect.

In the case of New Brunswick and British Columbia, the memoranda of understanding, and I know they exist in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland—there is no memorandum in Prince Edward Island because the federal government controls all aspects—deal with, as Dr. Smith pointed out, division of responsibility, but always with a notwithstanding clause. In New Brunswick the division of responsibility is really going to licensing, not with giving up of jurisdiction of a legislative or regulatory nature.

Mr. James Smith: If I could add to what Mr. Thompson was saying, and with all due respect to Mr. Thompson, there's a slight correction to his comment. The Fisheries Act does pertain to fresh waters in relation to fish habitat and the use of fish by man.

The Chairman: Including lakes, Mr. Smith?

Mr. James Smith: Including lakes—including freshwater lakes, that is correct.

The Chairman: I was just wondering for a moment whether the Constitution had been rewritten this afternoon.

Mr. James Smith: I will put that comment into context, though, in relation to the marine environment. In the freshwater environment you do get into a federal-provincial sparring match sometimes about who has the biggest stick or who doesn't have the biggest stick. In marine waters that's not the case.

The Chairman: Madame Carroll, followed by the chair, and then a quick second round.

Madame Carroll, please.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Smith, like everyone, I'm listening very closely to all the information that's being shared today, and I was very interested in your remark, following the chair's, with regard to Norway.

I notice you have a doctorate. Do you mind telling me just what your doctorate is in? Is it oceanography?

Mr. James Smith: No. I did my Ph.D. at the University of Stirling in Scotland at the Institute of Aquaculture. My specific area—I wish I could even quote my thesis title to you, but it has been so long that I can't now. I looked at the environmental interactions between rearing salmon in freshwater cages. I looked at the feeding relationships of the fish, the nutrient relationships, the zooplankton relationships, how that affected the growth and survival of the fish. My background is very solidly placed in this field.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Certainly, and indeed with environmental dimensions to the specific work of your doctorate.

I understand you work as a consultant in New Brunswick for the industry.

Mr. James Smith: That's correct. My firm is called Washburn & Gillis Associates Ltd. We're a firm of engineers, scientists, biologists, archeologists, technicians. We specialize in environmental impact assessment services for industry and government. We do work in relation to mining, pulp and paper, food processing, harbour developments, aquaculture—the list goes on. We're a group of about 60 full-time people.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: One last question, Dr. Smith.

Obviously you've read the proposed amendments?

Mr. James Smith: Yes.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Given your background, do you find them to be overly restrictive? I'm really not concerned for the moment about the federal-provincial foray.

Mr. James Smith: My position is not in the restrictive sense. My position is on the redundant side of the discussion. I feel, particularly in the environmental protection end of it, there is enough legislation in place right now to cover the concerns that are being addressed by the amendments. The concern is, where does this fish feed go and how does it affect the environment? That's the ultimate concern. It's my opinion that there is legislation in place that adequately covers that question.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: My concern then is if it is, as I thought it was, a question of redundancy rather than overregulation, and if, given your environmental background academically and professionally and your concerns therein, in fact one level of government is not providing the safeguarding, what do you see our role to be? We have examples where that indeed is the case.

• 1715

Dr. James Smith: Right. I'm going to answer your question with perhaps not a direct answer, so I apologize in advance.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: That's what people tell us we do.

Dr. James Smith: The situation as it stands right now is that the environmental effects of aquaculture are being heavily investigated and monitored on both coasts within the jurisdiction of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans under the Fisheries Act, and to date it has not been established that the effect is of such condition that application of and prosecution under the Fisheries Act is required. So the point is that up until now it has not been by law a problem. That doesn't mean it's not being investigated and doesn't need further investigation, but up until now everything is okay.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: For many of the reasons you mentioned and being a Maritimer by birth, I have considerable sympathy with the comment, Mr. Thompson, that we look to these sorts of new industries, while fledgling and innovative, to create employment opportunities. I was in Newfoundland last summer, and that is what's being experimented with in Trinity, Newfoundland. My concern is that there is no memorandum of understanding with the Newfoundland government. It is a fledgling industry and perhaps most innovative of all of the experiences described around the table. So where would we look to protect one of the most beautiful harbours in Canada, that is, Trinity Harbour?

Dr. James Smith: The history of the MOU within New Brunswick, which I can speak of most clearly, is that it was developed because there was an identified historical overlap in that the Province of New Brunswick had historically been involved in fisheries management, in promoting and also, I guess, in regulating to a certain degree fisheries management. So the federal government and the province got together and said okay, this is how we're going to draw the lines, but there's a notwithstanding clause that says that the signing parties retain their legislative responsibilities. So that's how it came about.

In Newfoundland to date it hasn't come about. I suspect that's because the industry has not developed to the point where those questions have been asked. I suspect that as the industry does develop, as it hopes it would, these MOUs will be developed. They are very valuable tools.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you, Doctor.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Carroll.

I'd like to ask a couple of questions from here, if you don't mind.

Mr. Gravel, could you please provide this committee with some precise figures on the budget available to you when it comes to inspecting, monitoring, and enforcing this particular activity? If monitoring is not included in your activities, would you please mention it now so that I will pursue the question of monitoring with the other witnesses? I don't expect you to give us an answer immediately, but we need to know what is the availability of funds for you to perform the role you described earlier. Can you do that?

Dr. André Gravel: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure, and I will provide the committee with that information.

The Chairman: Does it include monitoring as well?

Dr. André Gravel: Yes, indeed.

The Chairman: Are you saying that the industry is monitored by your agency?

Dr. André Gravel: That's correct.

The Chairman: Are you also saying that in addition to that, the industry monitors itself?

Dr. André Gravel: That's correct, too.

The Chairman: Would you be able to tell us how many people you have in the field?

Dr. André Gravel: The agency has approximately 4,500 staff from coast to coast.

The Chairman: No, I mean in the field doing the monitoring, inspecting, and enforcing in the area of aquaculture.

Dr. André Gravel: I will provide that information as well, Mr. Chairman. I don't have it at my disposal at the present time.

The Chairman: You don't have it available now.

Dr. André Gravel: No.

The Chairman: All right. Thank you.

To perhaps Mr. Smith, Mr. Thompson, Ms. McMullin, or Mr. Cross—I don't know which—maybe we could approach this issue for a moment from the perspective of infestation. Here you have a fairly large number of units living in restricted spaces. Some people have described it as overcrowded spaces. Therefore, the possibility exists—and it has happened on a few occasions—that some infestation will occur. When infestation takes place, what substances do you use to combat it?

Mr. Bill Thompson: Mr. Chairman, are you asking about sea lice infestation?

The Chairman: That could be one.

• 1720

Mr. Bill Thompson: Each challenge we face is met with the appropriate product that's approved by the Canadian government. In the case of sea lice we use a product called Salmosan, which has been approved by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency.

The Chairman: Is that a chemical substance?

Mr. Bill Thompson: Yes.

The Chairman: This bill covers chemical substances. Are you aware of that fact?

Mr. Bill Thompson: It covers which?

The Chairman: Bill C-32 deals with chemical substances. Are you aware of that fact?

Mr. Bill Thompson: Not directly, no.

The Chairman: Then I'm informing you that this bill deals with the use and approval of chemical substances. Therefore, in the case of infestation, if the industry is using chemical substances, then it is perfectly legitimate for this bill to cover chemical substances that are used in the case of infestation in your industry. Would you disagree with that?

Mr. Bill Thompson: I can't comment on the bill, Mr. Chairman. I know that when we deal with infestation—

The Chairman: You can't comment on the bill, but earlier you said that this bill should not deal with this industry, and yet this industry uses chemical substances in the case of infestation.

Mr. Bill Thompson: Mr. Chairman, when we're dealing with the infestation question, we are dealing with the acts of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' Fisheries Act with regard to the application of deleterious substances. Those are all stages we have to go through before any product is approved.

The Chairman: This committee has been made aware of the application by some members of your industry to obtain approval for cypermethrin. Are you familiar with cypermethrin, and would you like to comment on it?

Mr. Bill Thompson: It's a product that's used throughout the world in the treatment of sea lice and in particular in the state of Maine, which is what borders us. An application has been filed with the PMRA for approval. It has been over two years now since the application has been filed, and it's going through the process of approval as required by Health Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, and Environment.

The Chairman: A decision is expected by the end of February, apparently. Are you familiar with the fact that scientists have described cypermethrin as highly toxic to insects and fish and extremely toxic to some forms of aquatic life?

Mr. Bill Thompson: I've heard and read all kinds of different comments from different scientists. I know that the product cypermethrin is being used in Norway, Scotland, the state of Maine in the United States, and in Chile. I look to their regulatory agencies, as I do to ours, to go through the information that's available and to come up with the best recommendation. That's why I see the Canadian system that's in place today as being more than sufficient to deal with the issues coming before our industry.

The Chairman: What was the substance you mentioned earlier in the case of sea lice?

Mr. Bill Thompson: It's a product called Salmosan. It's an Azamethiphos product.

The Chairman: When was that approved?

Mr. Bill Thompson: It was approved on a one-year basis in—I can't remember—1996 or 1997. It has been renewed twice. There's an ongoing research program that we're involved with.

The Chairman: So it is a substance that is in question as to whether it is desirable as to its use, or why is it being approved only from year to year? Is it because the fish are unhappy or happy with it?

Mr. Bill Thompson: I took it, Mr. Chairman, as just part of the Canadian system of not stepping out too quickly but really taking a hard look at it and keeping us to the challenge of ensuring that all the research is done and all the data are collected and submitted, and there is a constant review before final approval is given.

The Chairman: We will certainly have to do some more digging on cypermethrin. There's no doubt about that.

Some members of this committee read in the October issue of Science an article by four authors, whose names I will spare you, but nevertheless they are attached to Stanford University, the University of Stirling in Scotland, the Stockholm University, Oregon State University, and the International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management.

• 1725

In that article, which is dated October 1998, by Naylor, Goldburg, Mooney, Beveridge, Clay, Folke, Kautsky, Lubchenco, Primvera, and Williams, the case is made—and I wonder whether you have seen and read this article and whether you would like to comment—that the degradation of coastal waters through discharge of nutrients and chemicals is a result of the aquatic aquaculture; that coastal ecosystems are disrupted by the introduction of exotic species, which has also been covered recently by articles in newspapers, in the Globe and Mail; that the ocean capacity to assimilate wastes and maintain viable fish population is being challenged; that in the case of salmon farming, the approach is one of using dilution as a way of resolving water pollution; that the salmon farming industry discharges substantial quantities of nitrogen and phosphorous and they are related by way of a formula, which I will not burden you with. And finally, they are dealing also with interbreeding, stating that since 1994 over 9,000 Atlantic salmon have been recovered from coastal waters between Washington and Alaska, leading the writers of that report to conclude that there is a serious development here in the retention of the strength of the wild species.

Do you have any comments to make on that report?

Mr. Bill Thompson: Go ahead, Anne.

Ms. Anne McMullin: I don't know if you've had the opportunity to read the entire report.

Mr. Bill Thompson: Mr. Chairman, this is the first time I've seen this report. In speaking to my colleague, Ms. McMullin, it's the first time she's seen the report as well.

Ms. Anne McMullin: Certainly there are issues we can address as far as interbreeding of Atlantic salmon. Steve Cross can certainly talk about the impacts for some of these issues we have addressed.

I'm not sure specifically... They're saying they found 9,000 cases of interbreeding? Is that what you were saying?

Mr. Bill Thompson: No, this is wild fish. There are farm fish escapees.

The Chairman: Since you are not familiar with it, maybe it would be fairer for you to make a comment in writing if you like, commenting on the content of the report for the benefit of the members of this committee.

Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Since it is just being presented now, I hope this is being given as well to the people who are coming before us on Thursday so they have the time to look at it. It's only fair, if you're going to hand somebody some research, that you give them some time.

The Chairman: That's a very good suggestion. Thank you.

Ms. Anne McMullin: Mr. Chairman, since you were talking about interbreeding, I am interested only because I have never... There certainly haven't been cases of that on the west coast with Atlantic salmon breeding with Pacific salmon. So I'm not sure what you were referring to.

The Chairman: That item was probably picked up by Paul Willcocks in Victoria on January 29 of this year. I think their article has been distributed, am I right?

The Clerk: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Anne McMullin: I don't know if that's interbreeding, though, is it?

The Chairman: Yes.

Ms. Anne McMullin: From what I understand of the situation in British Columbia, there have been a number of studies done on the Tsitika River and certainly of rivers throughout British Columbia, monitoring the river for steelhead and a number of other fish. There was a discovery of what they believe to be eight Atlantic salmon that were spawned from two farmed Atlantic salmon. It was not interbreeding.

The Chairman: If you look at the clipping, I think it would facilitate our exchange.

Ms. Anne McMullin: I suppose what we should be discussing...

The Chairman: The reference is to 1994 in the article. You can see it on the second page of the article at the top of the central column. If you wish to mull it over and let us have your comments, it would be very important and very helpful to us.

• 1730

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm not sure that the articles that were handed out earlier in the meeting were actually given to the witnesses.

The Chairman: Yes, they were.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Well, they don't seem to have them. The other two newspaper articles were not given out to the witnesses.

The Chairman: Fine, we will do it again. Perhaps it was incomplete distribution, although that was the original intent.

Mr. Bill Thompson: If I could, Mr. Chairman, I'd go to the last sentence in the article you've passed out and just note that it says: “But reorientating national policies immediately towards an ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable view of aquaculture is both feasible and necessary.” I take it that there are always going to be questions raised about any industry, especially in its infancy, but these people seem to be feeling that regardless of the challenges, aquaculture is something worth pursuing.

Getting back to Bill C-32 and the question of interaction between farmed fish and wild fish, I guess we're a bit lost. We didn't come prepared, really, to deal with that issue. We're here to deal with the amendments that are proposed.

The Chairman: Fine, that's fair enough, Mr. Thompson.

Referring to the term “infancy”, which you have used frequently this afternoon, if you have sons or daughters aged twenty, I wonder how they would react if you were to describe them as infants.

Mr. Bill Thompson: Infants?

The Chairman: Yes. The industry is in its infancy twenty years later. I wonder how your sons or daughters would react if you were to describe them as infants if they are in their twenties.

Mr. Thompson, my final question has to do with the lice treatment substance that you mentioned earlier that is presently used. Is that used as part of feed, or is that used as a separate item?

Mr. Bill Thompson: It's used as a bath treatment. It's applied in a contained tarp to the fish in the cages.

The Chairman: So it's not part of the feed.

Mr. Bill Thompson: No.

Mr. Chairman, when we talk about infancy, it's because of the fact that we're twenty years old, in comparison to the chicken industry or the cattle industry, which are well into their hundreds. That's how our comparative aspect is looked at.

The Chairman: They are already seniors.

Mr. Bill Thompson: Yes. Middle-aged.

The Chairman: The second round will be Mr. Herron, Mr. Lincoln, and Mr. Laliberte. Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: One of the questions I had was with respect to the pesticide issue that was raised earlier. For the most part, aren't pesticides approved by Health Canada, and that wouldn't be done under CEPA in the first place?

The Chairman: The lead agency is Health Canada.

Mr. John Herron: I am concerned about the concerns that were expressed in the proposed amendments. One that has been stated by the witnesses is they see them as being redundant in nature.

Also, I made some comments a little earlier that the leadership from these industries predominantly has come more from a provincial basis. Having said that, the concern I have is that the Province of New Brunswick has recently announced they are piloting a $145,000 project that would address potential environmental concerns to help augment the industry as it continues to modernize. When it comes to an environmental perspective, is the federal government doing anything to help work in parallel with you in your industries?

Mr. Bill Thompson: On that very point, those projects you allude to are the priority list from the Aquaculture Environment Coordinating Committee, which is part of the MOU. The Aquaculture Environment Coordinating Committee is made up of representatives of the federal Department of Environment, the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, from both the habitat protection and the science branches, the provincial Department of Environment, provincial Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and some industry players.

We meet basically on an every-other-month basis. We've established the priorities, and funding is being made available to pursue those priorities that have been established by the committee. That's the provincial contribution. The federal contribution is largely through manpower supplied by their scientists, moneys from the A-base of DFO, moneys from the high-priority funding program at DFO, and moneys from the Department of Environment. George's group is enforcement.

• 1735

Mr. James Smith: George's is conservation and protection.

Mr. Bill Thompson: Conservation and protection division of the federal Department of Environment.

We work on these cooperatively. The industry supplies manpower, some funding, and obviously lots of cooperation to pursue what the group collectively believes are the priorities.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Lincoln, please.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I was wondering if you could tell me when the industry in New Brunswick was given the mandate to monitor, instead of the government itself. The aquaculture industry produces monitoring reports to the Ministry of Fisheries of New Brunswick annually. Are these reports public? From the information that was given to us last year, these reports are confidential. In other words, nobody knows what's in there, and they are not accessible under access to information. Is that correct?

Mr. Bill Thompson: How it came about, Mr. Lincoln, was after the provincial government study of the early 1990s decided that there was no environmental or long-term impact concern, the industry met with the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, worked out a monitoring program at that time, and laid down the guidelines of how it would be undertaken.

One of the aspects was that there would be a contractor hired to do the entire industry. The contractor would provide a report to the government and a report to the farmer and an overall industry report. The overall industry report is available to the public.

I guess when the agreement was negotiated in 1995 with respect to the program, there was no concern or issue with respect to public access. Since it has become an issue in the last year, the industry has gone back with the government and started to renegotiate the way the program is undertaken so that information can be made available to the public. Again, it was something that was done at the time without any issue with that. There is a public report that comes out annually, and we're working toward creating a much more transparent and readily available program.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: So are you saying now that the monitoring reports will be available to the public in the future?

Mr. Bill Thompson: We are undertaking the development of an entirely new monitoring program, based on what Dr. Smith described as work he's doing with the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture with respect to developing a method of determining the number of fish that should be on site or the biomass that should be on site. From that will come forward a new monitoring program. One of the key aspects of it will be public disclosure.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: When I asked questions in the first round I referred to this anemia virus. The figure we had was that over 200,000 fish had been slaughtered because of anemia and that anemia was potentially attacking something like nearly a quarter of the fish population and that there might be potentially a million fish that would have to be slaughtered, given the expense of the industry. This again was referring to New Brunswick.

Can you tell me how significant the anemia virus is? Is it under control? Is it something that continues? And how do you determine the virus versus the fish that are set out for the retail trade in restaurants and so forth? What are the chances of anemia spreading out?

Mr. Bill Thompson: The issue you refer to is a fish disease called infectious salmon anemia, which was first identified in Europe in 1984 and has been identified in Norway, Scotland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and quite possibly Chile.

The question of human health is not an issue. We had it reviewed by a company called CanTox. They did an extensive research project on this and could find no correlation between a virus, which is what this is, being transferred from a marine fish to a human... They came back and told us that there was no chance for a human health issue.

• 1740

The issue of infectious salmon anemia is new to us in Canada. It's basically quite new to the salmon farming industry. As I say, it was found in Norway in 1984, but for the rest of the world it has become prevalent only in the last two years. We did suffer extensive losses. We now have a vaccine, which has been developed by a Canadian company and approved by the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs, that will be used in the fish that are entering the water in the spring of 1999. Our losses did exceed one million fish, sir.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: The way to treat anemia is to slaughter the fish that are affected. There's no possibility of recovery or anything, so you slaughter the fish.

Mr. Bill Thompson: To put it in perspective, it's a virus, much the same as a cold or a flu is, and we have no antibiotics that can deal with it. So the most effective way from an overall industry perspective has been the eradication. We follow a program in New Brunswick where, if the disease is identified in a cage, the entire cage is removed immediately to prevent movement to other cages or other parts of the farm or other farms.

Since this program has been followed—it was put together cooperatively with the provincial and federal governments—the spread of the disease has declined dramatically. Our economic losses have been... I would want to say reduced or not quite eliminated, but our major loss was suffered last year. We're not seeing the same degree of spread or movement this year. We're feeling confident that it will become an issue that we can manage.

The Chairman: Mr. Cross, you wanted to say something.

Mr. Stephen F. Cross: I'm a little bit off topic here, Mr. Chairman, on Mr. Lincoln's comment about monitoring programs.

I just wanted to make a comment regarding the west coast of Canada. Our industry has currently completed the environmental assessment review, and one of the recommendations of the EAR was that a regulatory program be put in place for the industry regarding the waste issues that we're talking about today.

I have been in discussion with our B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, who are responsible under the Waste Management Act for the control of waste materials, excess feed and fecal materials in the environment, in helping them consider various approaches for developing this type of environmental compliance program for industry. It's a bit premature to make an announcement on the province's behalf at this point in time, but they have considered a lot of the technical issues that this committee has concerns about and I hope they will be addressing those in the near future in a compliance program. That program will require third-party monitoring and reporting to government.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: And then making the reports public?

Mr. Stephen F. Cross: I can't speak for the province. I have no specifics.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I just wanted to follow up with a couple of points that Mr. Lincoln was referring to.

In 1997, 1.8 million tonnes of wild fish were used for feed to produce 644,000 metric tonnes of Atlantic salmon. This is a marine support area for feed estimated at 40,000 to 50,000 times the surface area of cultivation. This paper, which is the Science article, suggests that it's equivalent to about 90% of the primary production of the fishing area in the North Sea.

So when you talk about the impact of fish farming to be quite minimal, you're referring to the sea pens as being quite minimal. But if you have a disease like the disease that Mr. Lincoln was referring to and you have to destroy all of those fish, those fish are not used then for human consumption, and yet they have led to the use of an incredible amount of wild fish.

• 1745

Anyway, I just wanted to put that on the record. When we talk about the area of impact, particularly when we're talking about disease and the effect of disease throughout the whole ecosystem, I think there's a very limited understanding of how that's occurring.

I wanted to ask about the kinds of medicines that are mixed with feedstocks. I was wondering if you could tell me exactly what they are.

Mr. Bill Thompson: Madam Committee Member, we'll call on Dr. Myron Roth, who works with Salmon Health Consortium, to get into detail with respect to the particular medication. But I'd like to point out one thing on the fish meal issue, which is what you were talking about, the tonnes of wild fish that are rendered down or reduced down to make the fish feed that is fed to the salmon.

The salmon aquaculture industry is a very minor player when it comes to the consumption of fish meal. Fish meals are used for beef cattle, pigs, poultry, any number of different animals, including dogs and cats. We're a very minor player. Fish meal includes also the utilization of species that have not found a market for human consumption. Most of it is coming from South America—that being anchovies.

But the salmon aquaculture industry is very aware of this and is pursuing other options for its protein base. There's work under way now with respect to trying to use canola and different grains as the basis for our fish meal.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: First of all, this is from 1997, so that's only two years old. This is the European salmon farming industry, so it is referring to salmon farming. Whether or not you feel that a large number of those fish have no use to humans, they certainly have an importance to the overall ecosystem.

Mr. Bill Thompson: Madam, I'm just commenting on the fact that we're a minor user of fish meal. The fish meal we buy comes largely from South America, and those countries have identified the species as not having a major use in the food chain. We're also working on alternate sources of protein for our fish feed. I can't justify anything else.

Also, that issue is a big issue. It's an issue that we're trying to deal with. The feed companies are dealing with it through the pursuit of alternate sources.

I now turn it over to Dr. Roth from Salmon Health Consortium to comment on the therapeutic issue.

Dr. Myron Roth (Acting Executive Director, Salmon Health Consortium): Hello. My name is Dr. Myron Roth.

Just to address the comments on medications, were you referring to medications in feed?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes.

Dr. Myron Roth: Presently only four medications are approved by Health Canada, the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs, and are permitted for use in aquaculture feeds. All these compounds are subject to extensive health and safety evaluations by Health Canada. All those compounds are either used under a veterinary prescription or prescribed by Health Canada, under the medicated ingredients brochure, for how they are used.

What that means is that for all the medications that are used, the amounts in the feed are determined by scientists and Health Canada—that is, the dose rates, for what indications, and how long the fish have to be held before slaughter to ensure that there are no hazardous residues above safe limits, again as prescribed by Health Canada. So the number is actually very, very small.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I was asking you what kind of medication is used.

Dr. Myron Roth: Okay. There are four antibiotics. Do you want to know the specific names?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, I'd like to know the specific names.

Dr. Myron Roth: The current antibiotics licensed for use in aquaculture include a compound called florfenicol and another compound called oxytetracycline. These are chemical names. There are two potentiated sulphonamide compounds. The trade names are Romet and tribrissen, and they have quite long chemical names if you want to hear those as well.

• 1750

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Read them into the record, please.

Dr. Myron Roth: Of the four compounds, the first is basically oxytetracycline. That's what the compound is. The second compound is florfenicol. That's what the compound is. The third compound is a mixture of sulphadimethoxine and ormetoprim, which is a potentiated sulphonamide, which is an anti-microbial. The fourth compound is sulfadiazine and trimethoprim, which is a combination potentiated sulphonamide. All four of those compounds are commonly used in other veterinary applications for food animals.

They all have maximum residue limits that are prescribed for use in fish, as for all other agricultural animals.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I guess whenever I've bought fish, I haven't seen a listing saying that medicines or antibiotics have been used.

Dr. Myron Roth: There is no requirement for that, and neither is there such a requirement for any other agricultural food animal. You'd have a long list for some of the other animals.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I don't eat the other animals, thank you very much.

The Chairman: Are there any further questions? Y a-t-il d'autres questions? Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): At the outset, you said this was a very controlled and new industry. Is that a way of defining aquaculture? In light of the many experts you have here, in the traditional fisheries, in my neck of the woods, with the freshwater fishing, we don't have that many experts telling us what's wrong. We're trying to control ducks that eat too many fish and stuff like that. We don't have these resident experts.

This industry seems to be controlled in terms of controlling the price of feed—I guess that's a major concern—inputs and outputs and trying to get your profit margins in place. But on the issue of feed, you seem to be quite adamant about not having it included in CEPA. If you read CEPA, it's environmental protection. This deals with all of Canada. It's not regional; it's not on a community or river basis. It deals with the ecosystem of our country and the future of our country.

So with those interests, that's why we're sitting here. There are concerns from many different regions.

You say you're heavily scrutinized. I guess there are reasons for that. You haven't highlighted these reasons. You've given us the good news of your industry, but I'm sure you're being scrutinized for a reason, and we may hear that from other witnesses, but I'd like to hear it from you as well.

The cumulative effects of farms in regions, of rivers and lakes, might come into play, but there are also species introductions that aren't indigenous to certain rivers. You might go into exotic species that aren't indigenous to this country. You might go into biotech species and the feed designed for those species might be harmful to the natural, indigenous species in the environment in which you're conducting your business or your industry.

I guess there's also a competition between the traditional farmer and aquaculture, because you're dealing with the same markets, and that's a concern.

I'd like to know why you're so adamant in seeing fish feed included in environmental protection, because it is new to me. I'm new to this industry as well, but I never realized there were drugs in fish feed. That raises a lot of hairs on the back of my neck. I thought it was just nutrients we were dealing with. Now we're dealing with drugs and chemicals and all kinds of products that seem to be compounds... creating pellet products. It's opening my eyes.

If you will be honest with us, just tell us the concerns the scrutinizers have when looking at you.

Ms. Anne McMullin: As I think I addressed in the very beginning, like all industries and like every industry should be under an enormous amount of public scrutiny, we are, as are a number of other industries in British Columbia, whether it's ski hills or tourism operators or anything. The public should be involved. I think it's the challenge of industry to live up to public criticism or the issues, and I think this industry can be proud of the fact that we do have a number of people investigating this industry and we do have a lot of scientific data on this industry.

• 1755

As I said in the opening, our industry has been under the most comprehensive environmental review of any industry. These issues have been addressed. We do have regulations in place to deal with this issue. As far as fish feed, I think we have addressed this issue of redundancy, and I think governments can bring in any number of regulations, but I think at some point it does have to stop. I think our industry is heavily regulated, and regulated to ensure that it is environmentally sound and viable, and that's what is happening in British Columbia and in other areas of the country.

To ask why we are under public scrutiny... as I said, all industries should be, and we are, as any other industry is in this country.

Mr. Bill Thompson: Just following up, it's as Ms. McMullin says, we're a new industry, we're in a new location, and there's a new wave of interest in Canada to ensure that everybody does things properly. I have no problem with that. We're an industry that has, let's say, withstood the test of the scrutiny we've been under. We're under any number of different acts and controls, as we pointed out.

You mentioned bringing in exotics. That's not going to happen without the approval of the Canadian government. There's the introduction and transfers act, which restricts the use or movement of any specie to the marine environment. You have to make an application; you have to go through a thorough review. That's not going to happen. It's the same thing with biotechnology. There's already a federal government policy in place with respect to that. That's been looked after.

Our competition with the traditional fishery, from a salmon aquaculture point of view, is really not a big issue today. We're available 12 months of the year. There are certain times of the year when the wild fishery comes on that our market does soften and we move out.

We're farmers. When we talk about feed, it's the same as feeding any other animal. You talk about pelleted food. That's what we make. We serve both a dry feed that would be described as cat food, if you were thinking of something you would see in your every day life—it's the same basic size, the same basic composition. There's also moist feed, which is much softer, more like canned cat food. It has a lot of water in it.

We're just people who farm an animal. We happen to farm it in the marine environment, which is new. That's what's making the people ask us questions. That's where our experts come from. We stay on top of that.

You wonder why we're pushing so hard to keep fish feed regulations out of the act. Well, it happens to be the job of Ms. McMullin and me to ensure that the economic competitiveness of the Canadian industry is not jeopardized. We're afraid that more regulation will cause the people with the money to invest in our industry to look elsewhere, where the regulatory environment is not so strenuous. This becomes especially true when you're hit from two or three different directions at the federal level to deal with the same issue.

Right now, with respect to fish feed and the environment, we're under the control and auspices of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the federal Department of Environment, as well as our provincial agencies. To add another act or bill that we have to comply with, that we have to get a permit for, is going to raise the issue to the investor, “Am I better off 30 miles down the road or on the other side of the continent?” That's what we're really talking about. That's why we're here.

We're not afraid of being looked at. We're not afraid of being regulated. What we're concerned about is being overregulated and put in a position of not being competitive.

As I mentioned, the Department of Industry is looking through the business impact tests, at all the regulations that govern us.

I'm going to give you a prime example of what it's like to be caught in the middle. The oyster industry of Canada was evolving. They had a good product. Then they found a new product that was called the cocktail oyster. The cocktail oyster was a small oyster. It was sweeter and smoother. There was a problem. The farmer planted his seed and grew his crop, but he couldn't harvest the cocktail oyster because the Fisheries Act restricted the harvesting of oysters under a certain size. This made a lot of sense in the wild for reproduction purposes, etc., but on a farm where you plant your seed on a regular basis, it took away an economic opportunity. It took us years to get the regulation changed to allow the farmer to be able to harvest his cocktail oyster. That's what we're afraid of, getting caught in regulations that, while having good intentions, can lead to a situation that controls our industry.

• 1800

The Chairman: Are there any further questions? We'll have the last question from Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: It's more of a statement. I think regulations are there also to protect your industry, your reputation, and the Canadian reputation. Not only the agriculture fish but also the natural fish are protected. Regulations have always been there, and safety is a major part, the safety of our environment. There was a time in hockey when goalies never wore face masks, and today every goalie wears a face mask. There was a time in this country when we had buffalo. Now they're being farmed. We have to protect our natural habitat. I think it's a natural cycle. But as an industry, accept that we are here to protect your industry and the health and safety of millions of people and the species that live amongst us.

Mr. Bill Thompson: We have absolutely no problem with that. That's why we feel the environment is protected through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and their particular acts that are in place. That is where the Canadian government chose to protect the marine environment from specific industries and from specific actions. We're covered, we're monitored, and the environment is protected.

The Chairman: It's perhaps good to conclude with Mr. Laliberte's last question.

As a committee, we look forward to receiving the answers from Mr. Gravel as to the capacity of the agency to do a proper job by way of the budget it has available and the number of people. We certainly have a better insight into the working of the agency than we did before.

We look forward to your comments on that article in Science. If there is a rebuttal, feel free to provide it.

I hope, Mr. Thompson, that you will not want to be interpreted as putting competition ahead of environmental protection, but that you would want to have environmental protection as well as competition and that the two are not in conflict with each other. I would not want to see you misinterpreted by anyone. I will defend you, if necessary, but I would like to go home reassured that you do not see one at the expense of the other.

I would also like to say that in light of what we learned today about infestation and substances to combat infestation, it may be necessary for us to expand the scope of the amendment that is before us, L-15.6.1, so that it deals with additives, medicines, or chemical substances, rather than just dealing with feed.

I hope the witnesses will understand that this committee is examining the bill that regulates the chemical industry, that it deals with a bill intended to prevent pollution, and that therefore it has full and very justifiable reasons for exerting certain jurisdiction over it. If we were to be convinced that the agency is doing the proper job both in terms of science as well as in terms of budget, then we will, of course, examine that aspect of the amendment in that light. Of course, we will be guided by the information that will be coming forth in the next 10 days or so, before we reach that particular clause a little bit down the road.

On behalf of the members of the committee, then, Mr. Smith, Mr. Thompson, Ms. McMullin, Mr. Cross, Mr. Gravel, and Ms. Morrison, we thank you very much for your appearance this afternoon.

This meeting is adjourned till tomorrow morning in the centre block. See you then.