ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 4, 1999

• 0910

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): We continue our study of Bill C-32, an Act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development.

Our committee's research officers inform me that a conference on the environment is slated to be held on March 12 at the University of Sherbrooke. A number of topics will be discussed at this one-day conference. This brochure that will be circulated will fill you in on the specifics. Anyone who is interested in attending should contact the clerk. Naturally, the proceedings will be in French. This will be an excellent opportunity to rub shoulders with francophone experts, technicians and academics. That's about all I have to tell you about this annual conference. Thank you.

[English]

We welcome three witness this morning: from the Conservation Council of New Brunswick, Inka Milewski; from the David Suzuki Foundation, a former colleague and member of Parliament for Skeena—if I remember his riding correctly—Mr. Jim Fulton; and from the Biological Sciences Directorate of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Dr. William Doubleday. We will proceed in that order if it's all right with the witnesses.

Consistent with his parliamentary reputation, Mr. Fulton wants to raise a point.

Mr. Jim Fulton (Executive Director, David Suzuki Foundation): Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise a brief procedural matter, because it comes from evidence given by the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association earlier this week. They referred to the document upon which my evidence is going to be given today, and that is a report called Net Loss, by the David Suzuki Foundation. It's a report written by a professional fisheries consultant, Mr. David Ellis, and by a medical doctor. It was reviewed by five PhD-level experts: Dr. Rebecca Goldberg, Dr. Gordon Bell, Dr. Gordon Hartman, Dr. Parzival Copes, and Dr. Gale Bellward. They are, respectively, retired senior federal government marine biologists and, in the case of Dr. Bellward, a professor of pharmacology at the University of B.C.

The report was presented to the salmon aquaculture review, but I refer to the evidence given by the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association on Monday:

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 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.

That statement is false. It is misleading, but whether or not it is deliberately misleading is something I think the committee would have to determine. Nonetheless, I think it's a very serious matter, and it's an offence against Parliament for a witness to come here and to make false statements, particularly when another witness isn't present. They can produce no such report. No such report exists or has ever been made public. No group of independent scientists has ever said this report is refuted. The report is very carefully documented in terms of federal and provincial government documents. It's almost 200 pages in length.

I must say this isn't new. The B.C. Salmon Farmers Association recently has taken to making deliberately false and misleading statements to the public. I flag this for the committee.

The Chairman: Mr. Fulton, that is hardly a procedural point. However, you made your point and, as usual, did so quite effectively. It is on record now. We will now have to see what the witnesses on Monday will say, possibly in writing, so that we will get their reply to your point of procedure on record for the benefit of the committee and everybody else.

Ms. Milewski, I assume you don't have a point of procedure to raise, but you do want to go into the subject matter. Welcome. If you would like to start, I would ask that you keep it to ten minutes, possibly.

• 0915

Ms. Inka Milewski (Past President, Conservation Council of New Brunswick): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll just give you a little bit of background. My name is Inka Milewski and I'm the past president of the Conservation Council of New Brunswick, an organization that has been in existence since 1969. We are a non-profit organization. We are governed by a board of twenty citizens from around the province and we have contributed a lot over the last thirty years to improving environmental quality and sustainable development in New Brunswick and nationally and internationally.

I am a marine biologist. For the last 22 years I've held positions in governmental and non-governmental organizations. As president of the organization, I am a volunteer. I'm here as a volunteer for the organization.

I would like to thank the House of Commons standing committee for making it possible for us to appear before the committee today. I trust you have all had an opportunity to review the information we have prepared in our submissions. Those include “After the Gold Rush: The Status and Future of Salmon Aquaculture in New Brunswick”; “Enforcement of Federal Environmental Legislation in Salmon Aquaculture in New Brunswick”, a brief prepared by Janice Harvey; “A Supplementary Brief on Salmon Aquaculture Waste/Nutrients”, prepared by myself; and “A Brief to the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Committee on Pest Management and Pesticides”. As well, we hope to have a document come today that we prepared for the World Wildlife Fund called “Pesticide Use in Salmon Aquaculture in Southwest New Brunswick.”

Before I make our formal statement I would like to comment on two statements made by representatives of the aquaculture industry on Monday, February 1. The first statement concerns comments made by Mr. Bill Thompson of the New Brunswick Salmon Growers Association regarding the reason the New Brunswick Department of Environment gave up environmental monitoring of salmon farms. In two instances during Mr. Thompson's testimony he suggested that the Department of Environment decided that “the impacts were not significant enough to carry on a monitoring program”, and he suggested that the industry stepped in to conduct the monitoring. This explanation is inaccurate.

In fact, the funding to the Department of the Environment for the monitoring program was not renewed and the responsibility for monitoring was handed to the New Brunswick Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, which in turn handed the responsibility and the cost for that program to industry.

Since the monitoring was now being paid by industry under provisions of the Right to Information Act in New Brunswick, the government does not own this information and this information is now inaccessible to the public.

This type of, and I quote, “partnering” between industry and government is rampant as government seeks to download regulatory and enforcement costs onto industry and as a result a great deal of information is now no longer available to the public for scrutiny.

The second statement I would like to comment on was made by Dr. Myron Roth of Salmon Health. Dr. Roth in his response to Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan said that veterinary drugs are subject to extensive health and safety evaluations by Health Canada. Well, at least that's the theory.

In reality, throughout the sea lice crisis provincial politicians as well as the New Brunswick Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture put extreme pressure on the Pest Management Regulatory Agency to fast-track the registration process for Salmosan—that was the pesticide you heard talked about on Monday—in order to get legal and affordable tools in the hands of the salmon growers. Although new chemical products can take from three to five years to get through the registration process, Salmosan was pushed through in a record eight months, using environmental data provided by manufacturers based on testing done in Europe. Notably, approval was given just two months after a PMRA official wrote:

The request for emergency registration for azamethiphos (Salmosan) by the Province of New Brunswick cannot be processed because the active ingredient has not been previously registered in Canada [and] there is insufficient time to conduct a review of information to allow for the use of this product for emergency situations.

• 0920

No Canadian testing was done prior to Salmosan's approval. For more details on Salmosan and the other chemical treatments discussed on Monday, I refer you to the brief we prepared for the federal-provincial-territorial committee on pest management and pesticides. Further details will be provided, hopefully, in the document the World Wildlife Fund sends today.

In order to make meaningful progress in addressing the important public policy issues before us today, it is important that everybody move beyond the tired rhetoric conjured up by the aquaculture industry that suggests that groups such as the Conservation Council are out to destroy jobs. This position is self-serving, not constructive, and inaccurate.

We brought forward the issue of waste discharges from salmon aquaculture precisely because jobs and the environment that supports those jobs are on the line, and they're being threatened. The voice of the traditional fishermen will not be heard here today, but members of the herring, lobster, clam, and scallop fisheries have been vocal about the impact and encroachment of salmon farms on traditional fishing grounds since the late 1980s. These fishermen know that all the commercial fish stocks they catch use the coastal marine environment at some point in their life cycle, whether as spawning or nursery areas or as juvenile or adult grow-out areas. The health of those stocks depends on healthy and functioning ecosystems.

Despite downturns in the Atlantic fish stocks, the value of the traditional fishery in southwest New Brunswick alone is equal to or more than the value of the province's aquaculture industry, and it employs more people. According to DFO, wild marine commercial fisheries in Canada had approximately $3.2 billion in production in 1994. The Atlantic fishery, despite all you've heard about the downturn in the wild stocks, had a total production of more than $2.1 billion in 1994 and employed 45,000 active fishers and another 61,000 workers in processing plants. Contrary to the views of many people, the wild fisheries are not dead.

Fishermen in southwest New Brunswick have reported lost fishing areas, pollution problems caused by the accumulation of fish feed on the sea bottom, and the release of salmon processing waste. Coastal residents have also reported greasy coatings on beach rocks, smelly deposits on clam flats, and an increased presence of algae in the water, making the shore unappealing and unattractive to residents and tourists alike.

Collectively, these environmental disturbances had not been reported prior to the sudden appearance and rapid growth of the salmon aquaculture industry. The numerous scientific reports and studies referred to in our supplementary brief have served only to confirm the astute observations made by fishermen and coastal residents about the environmental impact of aquaculture.

We must all keep in mind that the goods and ecological services provided by the marine environment are intended for the benefit of everyone, not just the aquaculture industry. It is the responsibility of government to manage public resources for the benefit of everyone. Given this public policy imperative and the thousands of tonnes of waste discharged annually from sea farms, remarkably there are no federal regulations that set environmental performance standards for the aquaculture industry. This means that the release of toxic substances and excess nutrients and the damage to fish habitat, all of which fall within the federal purview to regulate under either the Fisheries Act or CEPA, are not regulated.

The industry may argue that there are regulations on pesticide and drug use, on feed manufacturing, on the number of fish per cage, and on how many farms you can have on a site. This is true, but there are no restrictions on the release of approved pesticides or drugs into the marine environment. For example, the most common treatment for sea lice is a bath treatment where a tarpaulin is used to enclose a sea cage to better contain the pesticides. Once the treatment is complete, the bath solution containing the pesticide is simply removed, so the pesticide just dissipates into the environment. There is no regulation for that. There are many more examples. This is also true for approved drugs used in fish feed. Uneaten fish feed containing antibiotics or various other drugs simply settles to the bottom or is eaten by non-target fish. There are no controls on that. Once fish feed is fed to the fish, there are no regulations setting environmental standards for the impact of fish feed.

• 0925

The only explicit environmental obligation for the salmon farm licensee in New Brunswick is to conduct an annual environmental monitoring program and to report the results to the minister. There are no specific triggers that would cause the provincial minister to require changes in operations shown to have a negative impact based on the monitoring. Furthermore, it is widely acknowledged, even by local Department of Fisheries and Oceans officials, that provincial licensing conditions are continually being violated. There have been no charges ever laid against any operator for violating the terms of their licence, nor has Canada laid any charge under the Fisheries Act against any salmon farmer for their operations.

How is it that the issue of waste discharges from salmon farms has been neglected in public policy formulation? I suggest that the federal and provincial governments have deferred to the aquaculture industry's insistence that the maintenance of a healthy marine environment is critical to their industry's survival and have essentially relied on the industry to self-regulate and monitor.

Industry has aptly shown us over the years that it can operate in poor water quality conditions and with a high incidence of disease. The New Brunswick Department of Environment's environmental monitoring reports describe moderate to high environmental impacts for 37 of 48 sea farm sites they monitored in 1991. Disease outbreaks in farmed salmon have been a frequent occurrence in southwest New Brunswick. Outbreaks of furunculosis, which is a bacterial disease, occurred in 1985, 1988, 1990, 1993, and 1994. Outbreaks of Hitra, another bacterial disease, occurred in 1989, 1993, and 1994. Sea lice infestations occurred in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998. The 1997 outbreak of infectious salmon anemia, which was discussed on Monday, in the most densely stocked and salmon-waste-enriched area of southwest New Brunswick, L'Etang Inlet, has resulted in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of fish and tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money being paid out as compensation to the farmers.

It has taken a crisis, the ISA outbreak, of immense ecological and economic proportions in southwest New Brunswick in 1997 and 1998 to force the provincial government to act. The New Brunswick Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture's director of aquaculture admitted in September 1997 in a newspaper article that his department's approach to date had been to allow industry to write its own regulations. Now he says:

If anyone in the past doubted that the effluent from the [salmon] processing plants were having an effect on the fish...there is no doubt left now... Obviously now we have to look at tighter controls.

Much of the L'Etang Inlet has now been cleared out of salmon in an attempt to allow the environment to recover. The tighter controls mentioned by the director of aquaculture have yet to be announced.

The policies and lack of regulations developed to support marine finfish aquaculture have failed the industry, the public, and the environment. It is obvious from the disastrous scenario in southwest New Brunswick that no one is a winner when the federal and/or provincial governments walk away from their responsibility to provide environmental regulations, monitoring, and enforcement for public resources.

Numerous scientific and government reports have called for enforceable regulations for the salmon aquaculture industry, including the much-quoted by the salmon industry B.C. Environmental Assessment Panel report. Its recommendations are explicit. Recommendation 8 calls for existing farms to be assessed to determine if the farms are causing significant negative impacts that need to be corrected. Recommendation 10 calls for the development and enforcement of water quality standards for dissolved waste discharges for lake cage operations. Recommendation 24 calls for the development of a regulation under the Waste Management Act that implements a performance-based waste management model. Recommendation 25 calls for testing criteria for the development of benthic sediment standards.

• 0930

Marine waters are under federal jurisdiction. It is therefore appropriate that the federal government take the initiative to regulate the discharge of fish farm wastes in the marine environment. The Conservation Council urges the standing committee to support the proposed amendments to division 1, “Nutrients”, of Bill C-32. Without these regulations, already high levels of waste discharges will be even higher as industry positions itself for expansion, not only in salmon, but there are other marine fish species that are being looked at.

More fish production means more waste production. The aquaculture industry has indicated it is using the most efficient methods available to feed their stock and remain interested in new methods that propose greater efficiencies. But according to scientists, there is now considerably less room for reduction of waste output in the future.

Past experience suggests that environmental regulations drive technological change and the adoption and development of new approaches and technology. The value of environmental regulation is not to punish environmentally responsible industry but to bring along the laggards. Indeed, if fish farms are performing as claimed, they will have no problems meeting any environmental performance standard regulated by CEPA.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Milewski.

Mr. Fulton.

Mr. Jim Fulton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too would like to congratulate the committee for doing good work in relation to water quality issues in relation to nutrients and toxics.

It's quite clear, in terms of the B.C. salmon farming industry, for example, that hey're placing into the water bodies around Vancouver Island and along the B.C. coast the same amount of sewage per day as a city of 500,000. This includes feed, drugs—many of which are toxic—and pathogens related to diseases, which can, in fact, be transmitted to wild stocks.

As we've just heard from the previous witness, Ms. Milewski, it's clearly the responsibility, the duty of Parliament in terms of coastal waters, to regulate to make sure that the waters are treated properly. The reason the Department of Fisheries and Oceans isn't doing it under sections 35 and 36 is something I'd like to come to, because members should be aware that the federal aquaculture development strategy produced by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in 1995—so the clerk can get you copies, it's DFO/5066, reprinted in 1995—makes it clear how the federal government came to be involved. Prime Minister Mulroney led this in 1984 and directed that DFO would be the federal agency responsible for aquaculture. DFO has been a very active proponent out there in the field for this industry, and they find themselves in a conflict of interest when it comes to dealing with issues of pollution. Clearly there have been all kinds of opportunities, both in Atlantic and Pacific Canada, where they have not responded to pollution issues, because they are a proponent by government policy.

The salmon farming industry on both coasts have gladly taken on all of the benefits, millions of dollars in taxpayers' money, legions of federal scientists and DFO personnel, the Office of Western Economic Diversification, and other departments working around the clock for the salmon farming industry. But when it comes to this committee, I direct members to look at page 13. It says “The federal government will....” This is after listing all the things the federal government will do to support the salmon farming industry to make them more profitable. It says:

The federal government will...develop a systematic framework for conducting environmental impact assessments, developing risk assessment models and class assessments, pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

This committee is doing precisely what the salmon farmers have always known was going to be required. This was a promise made four years ago, and this committee is now charged quite appropriately with doing what the federal government and the salmon farmers have always known had to be done.

The Chairman: What is the page number?

Mr. Jim Fulton: It's page 13.

The Chairman: From...?

• 0935

Mr. Jim Fulton: It's the federal aquaculture development strategy.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Jim Fulton: So it's very clear that they've known all along that this was coming, that these amendments were going to be coming, and that they were going to deal with toxics, they were going to deal with nutrients, they were going to deal with environmental impact assessments, something I've confirmed in writing with Canada's Minister of the Environment in the last couple of months.

The salmon farmers, at least in B.C.—

The Chairman: Do you have any spare copies of that particular report?

Mr. Jim Fulton: I don't, Mr. Chairman. They're actually very difficult to get a hold of. I'm not quite sure why. I'll give the clerk the ISBN because they are still in—

The Chairman: We'll circulate here the one we have at the table.

Mr. Jim Fulton: When the environmental assessment office of B.C.—

The Chairman: This is from page 13, right?

Mr. Jim Fulton: Page 13.

When the environmental assessment office in B.C. completed their salmon aquaculture review on August 26, 1997, they released a one-page statement, and it says in paragraph 3:

The recommendations to ministers

—and this refers to federal and provincial ministers—

represent a shift to a regulatory system of clear, objective and enforceable standards which will be more effective in preventing or reducing potential adverse environmental impacts and conflicts with other resource users. Currently, salmon farmers are subject to very few enforceable standards.

That was the conclusion—

The Chairman: Can you give us the document title and the page again?

Mr. Jim Fulton: Yes. I'll leave this with the clerk so that it can be....

The Chairman: What is the title?

Mr. Jim Fulton: It's the B.C. environmental assessment office. It's the release on August 26, 1997, by the environmental assessment review. I'll leave this with the clerk, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Jim Fulton: It's very clear, and of course this was attempted to be contradicted by the salmon farmers from both coasts when they were here on Monday, suggesting that they're just enforced and regulated to death, that their lives are just impossible.

But the salmon aquaculture review also found, and I quote from page 82, paragraph 2:

The management system for addressing escapes has little or no enforcement, and no incentives or disincentives to prevent escapes other than the economic incentive for farmers to avoid the loss of stock. In total, there have been over one million reported salmon escapes into the wild from B.C. farms. The economic self-interest of salmon farm operators and existing management regulations and policies regarding escapes are not sufficiently effective in addressing this issue.

They describe it as the most lengthy environmental assessment ever done. These are the principal conclusions, that they're subject to very few enforceable standards. We already know in British Columbia and in New Brunswick that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is the proponent of the industry and finds itself in a conflict of interest to do anything about escapes, even where we find the Tsitika, the Atlantics, actually invading the fresh water systems in British Columbia. We find the senior scientists there, like Mr. Noakes in B.C., saying oh well, it's no big deal. In terms of the nutrients that are building up on the ocean floor, which I'd like to come to, they said, well, you know, it's no big deal.

One of the witnesses who was here on Monday, Mr. Stephen Cross, when he was giving evidence, said that detection of benthic environmental effects are limited to within ten to thirty metres of the farm perimeter. Mr. Cross was abundantly aware—and I challenge his testimony. He knows it took us four months under Access to Information in B.C., along with the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, to get the data report on sediment by John Deniseger, a professional biologist, and Lloyd Erickson—a June 1998 B.C. government study, which found, Mr. Chairman, toxic sediments from beneath salmon farms up to a hundred metres from a farm's perimeter.

They're always talking about this little teeny footprint. That's not what's borne out by studies that the government and the industry have been trying to bury. You have evidence here of “ten to thirty metres”; it's a hundred.

They talk about this little teeny footprint up above. They say it's just a couple of kilometres of licensing we're after. You've already had evidence from that publication in Science you circulated on Monday to all committee members that the size is 40,000 to 50,000 times as large as the surface area of the farm. That's how much ocean area has to be harvested to get wild fish to come and dump and funnel into...and that's why I gave committee members these sheets, to give you some sense.

This is one of the only industries I know of that actually is a net reducer of protein for human consumption. You actually take large volumes of high-quality human-consumable wild fish, such as mackerel, from protein-starved people, such as in South America, and divert it from their tables so that it can go into salmon farms here in Canada, so that it can go to high-end restaurants in New York, Los Angeles, and Denver. That's a moral question that has to be addressed.

• 0940

The Chairman: Mr. Fulton, since you made reference to the four charts, I wonder if you could take the committee through them, because we have very little written text of what you are saying and this would perhaps illustrate the point you are making.

Mr. Jim Fulton: Yes, I'd be glad to, Mr. Chairman.

Let me just point out one other very important and substantive error from Monday's evidence from Mr. Cross. He ends that paragraph by saying that the rate and process of environmental recovery has been studied and been shown to occur in zero to 18 months. Well, Mr. Cross's own study, which he did for the B.C. government and which I'll leave with you, Mr. Chairman, concludes:

A preliminary investigation into benthic recovery following salmon farming in British Columbia is as yet inconclusive (Anderson, 1992). Results of the study indicate that complete benthic recovery may take one to five years after cessation of impact at sites in British Columbia.

Well, how can a witness produce a report for the B.C. government that says it takes one to five years and then appear before a committee of Parliament and say it could take zero to 18 months? At no point did he conclude it took zero. At no point did he conclude it took 18 months. It took one to five years.

I would urge that a researcher go through the evidence given on Monday, including that of Dr. Gravel. I was incensed that a senior federal public servant on the payroll of the people of Canada would give evidence like that. It was preposterous.

If members could look at the environmental impacts one, you'll see an image of an open net cage and what the problems are in this situation. We have Atlantic salmon eggs being imported, which is contrary to article 8(h) of the Rio Convention, as you probably know, Mr. Chairman. Canada is in violation of the Rio Convention in continuing to allowing this. The eggs that are being brought into Canada, when they are brought in, in fact can have both bacterial and viral infections inside. At the moment only surface disinfectants are used, and there is no surface disinfectant approved for use in Canada.

You may be aware that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, in July 1997, by order in council and without public hearings, amended the importation regulations so that eggs from diseased locations could be imported into Canada. This was according to the Privy Council document done to increase the profitability of the farming industry.

There are many things that we need to be concerned about in terms of eggs, exotics—it's contrary to the Rio Convention—drugs. I'm going to come to drugs in my evidence today, because I have correspondence now from the Minister of Agriculture and from the Minister of Health regarding some of the toxic drugs that are being used by this industry that are not approved by Canada but are continuing to be used in an off-label form. We have drugs going into the environment, going into our wild stocks. Wild fish have been caught outside of open net cages with levels of drugs higher than is safe for human consumption.

Let me make that clear again. These are open net cages. The drugs are simply dumped in. Fish can only take between 5% and 10% of drugs that are in their feed or are placed in there, and 90% of the drugs go out into the wild environment. They're picked up by wild stocks. Sport, aboriginal, and commercial fishermen can catch those fish outside of the open net cages. This is without any escapes. This is with the drugs escaping into the environment. Fish have been caught outside of net cages with levels of drugs above the safe level for human consumption.

This clearly falls under the mandate of this committee. It clearly has to fall under CEPA. The amendments in relation to nutrients and drugs and toxics have to be placed there, because, as I said, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, by decree of the Prime Minister in 1984, and never reversed and never rescinded—my friend, Mr. Doubleday here is required by his boss and by his department to be a proponent for the industry. This committee has a very special responsibility in terms of the environment, in terms of wild stocks, and in terms of human health.

You'll see that 90% of the drugs and toxics are simply going down below. As we've seen from the sediment study, the pathogens and the sewage—and remember, in B.C. this is the same amount of sewage as a city of 500,000. Name me a hog farmer, a chicken farmer, or a beef producer anywhere in Canada that can dump all the sewage from their facilities into the ocean or into a river. You can't. This industry are dreaming in technicolour all around the world if they think they can continue to dump at those volumes. So you've got exotic diseases to local fish, you've got pathogens, and you've got drugs. You've got exotic, potentially invasive species being brought in contrary to Canada's signing in 1992 in Rio of the convention.

• 0945

The second page is simply a map of the locations of the salmon farms in B.C. You might have thought that this is sort of a Ma and Pa Kettle kind of a series of operations, just your Saskatchewan kinds of farmers out there kicking their feet up and growing some stock. The fact is, we learned when we did our study, there are only 36 companies that are involved. I'd like to give you evidence given by a Norwegian delegation before the environment committee in 1990, when they warned the House of Commons about who it was that was coming from Norway and why they were coming to Canada. They were being regulated in Norway and they were coming here because there weren't any regulations. And frankly, Mr. Chairman, there still aren't any regulations in Canada.

Net loss of protein is the next one. This is a very important thing for the committee to consider, because in fact these anchovies, these mackerel that are being diverted at very large volumes from off the coast of South America are dearly required in the human protein chain already, and this is simply a diversion.

The other one just gives you an idea of where the feed comes from, where the eggs are coming from, and where the final product goes.

The Chairman: I'll ask you now to wind up your remarks.

Mr. Jim Fulton: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll sizzle along here.

I'd like to refer you to the evidence given by the Norwegian delegation, page 53:26, before the environment committee 12/9/1990, and just a couple of quotes.

First from Mr. Blankenborg:

...this is maybe the main ecological problem in Norway these days, the most concrete we are facing.

This is referring to salmon farming and the problems they had found.

The number we mention I think is almost correct, that we see this parasite in about 70 of our Norwegian rivers.

The Parliament in Norway right as we speak is considering the complete poisoning of 17 more rivers in Norway because of parasites related to the salmon farming industry. They dump rotenone, a very powerful pesticide, into the headwaters of the rivers and they poison entire rivers.

Now, for members from New Brunswick or Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland or Quebec or British Columbia, the Yukon and Northwest Territories, you tell me how you would like to appear before a public meeting in New Brunswick or in B.C. or in Quebec and say “Well, we're here because we're going to dump poison into the headwaters of 17 rivers because of disease epidemics that have gotten loose thanks to unregulated salmon farming.”

This is real. This is going on in Norway. Parliament has already spent more than $100 million trying to deal with infectious disease problems as a result of salmon farming. We've just dumped $10 million in New Brunswick. It has had to come from the national relief fund, so Parliament is paying for this.

Let me just give you one more quote from that parliamentary delegation. Again from Mr. Blankenborg:

The situation is getting so critical in many Norwegian rivers...that we have to act. ... We cannot sit around tables debating while the salmon just die in the rivers.

The final comment is from Ms. Harkestad, who said:

We have a concession law. One has to have a concession to be a fish farmer. We are very strict about the quality and the environment questions. Therefore, some of the fish farmers went to Canada. They said we want bigger fish farms; we can do as we like. That is a very hot subject, I think.

Ms. Harkestad finished by saying:

We have been very strict as far as the law is concerned, but maybe we are not strict enough. We have to be very observant and very strict both in Norway and in Canada, everywhere.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• 0950

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Fulton.

Dr. Doubleday.

Dr. William G. Doubleday (Director General, Fisheries and Oceans Science Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to give a brief presentation, giving DFO's perspective on the proposed amendment to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to list fish feed as a nutrient.

For a number of reasons, we do not believe it's necessary or appropriate to regulate fish feed as a nutrient under CEPA.

I have a slide deck that was distributed to members. I hope everyone has a copy in front of them.

The Chairman: Yes, we do.

Dr. William Doubleday: My first point, Mr. Chairman, is that fish feed is a natural item, largely made from products that are found in the marine environment; for example, herring and other small fish species, fish meal, and fish oils. In New Brunswick, for example, herring from the Bay of Fundy and Scotian Shelf can be a major component of fish feed.

The presence of waste from the herring fishery is not new. Prior to the aquaculture industry, there were a substantial number of carcasses from the herring roe fishery, which were disposed of through ocean dumping permits. So there was a substantial amount of this material already entering the marine environment. There's also a rather large population of herring in the Bay of Fundy and the adjacent Scotian Shelf area that is subject to natural mortality. Given the size of that population, the annual deaths from natural causes would be in the order of about 80,000 tonnes or so, which is more than the amount entering the marine ecosystem from fish farms.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that fish farming is a highly competitive business. It is influenced by steadily declining world prices, which put a lot of pressure on farmers to become more efficient. Fish feed is a major element of the costs of fish farming, perhaps 40% to 70% of the cost of operating a fish farm. Because of this, there have been steady improvements in terms of reducing the amount of fish feed necessary to produce a kilogram of salmon.

The current feed conversion ratio is about 1.15 kilograms of dry fish feed to produce one kilogram of salmon. This is more than three times as efficient as the practice in the 1970s, when fish farming in Canada was first starting up. While the biggest gains in efficiency have been made, there's reason to believe that these conversion ratios will continue to improve and will be less than one by the 2010.

There's a graph, Mr. Chairman, that draws on data from Canada and Norway, which shows the steady improvement in the fish feed conversion ratios from 1975 to 1998. Some of the analyses about the extent of nutrients entering the marine environment that the committee may have been made aware of draw on data reflecting the practices of the 1970s and 1980s, when more fish feed was used to produce the same amount of production than is the case today.

The nutrient content of fish feed and its composition has been changing and continues to change. Salmon and aquaculture are now fed high-energy diets that are geared to the age, size, and of course the species of the fish. The diet composition influences the growth rate. Healthy fish that are fed a diet that stimulates growth have healthy appetites, which means less waste, less fecal output, and continuing healthy fish.

• 0955

There have been changes in the feeding of fish that have reduced environmental impacts. The nutritive composition of fish feed has improved so that it's more digestible; less is wasted. This is part of a gain in efficiency. They've also been manufactured in ways that make them sink more slowly, so that fish in marine cages have a better chance of capturing them before they settle out below the cage.

There is also underwater monitoring of feeding activity, and the feed broadcasting techniques—the way the feed is spread in the cages—have also improved so that it reaches all parts of the cage and is not overly concentrated in some part.

There's also research underway to consider new types of net pens, and in particular new bag technologies, which, instead of having an open net pen, would have a closed plastic bag. These are prototypes at this point and are not in commercial use.

Mr. Chairman, when the issue of fish feed as a source of eutrophication in the marine environment came up, we did look at the question within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and we've come to the conclusion that studies in the Bay of Fundy and in British Columbia don't support the view that fisheries are a significant cause of algal blooms or a significant source of nutrients, certainly detectable. Approximately 20 times more natural nitrogen and 40 times more natural phosphorus comes into the Bay of Fundy with the tide than comes from aquaculture. In British Columbia and the Strait of Georgia, over 300 times as much nitrogen is added from oceanic, river, and human sources than comes from aquaculture.

The main limiting factor for plankton growth in the Bay of Fundy area, as we understand it, is the turbidity of the water, the availability of light for plant growth. The second factor that is significant is the cold water temperatures there. We don't consider that nutrients are a limiting factor, at least not a significant one, in the Bay of Fundy area or in the Strait of Georgia.

With respect to the impacts of fish feed, our understanding is that the main impact is accumulation of unconsumed feed and fish feces under cages. The zone of impact typically ranges from 10 to 30 metres from the area immediately under the cage, but occasionally impacts can be detectable up to 150 metres.

With respect to the recovery of sites, experience at one New Brunswick cage site, which was moved because of conflicts with navigation and the lobster fishery...there was recovery to pre-cage conditions in about six months. We understand that typically recovery to pre-farm conditions would take 18 months or less. However, in low-energy locations and heavily impacted sites, the recovery could take longer, up to perhaps four years.

Changes in practice over the last decade are significant. Knowledge and experience has grown with respect to siting requirements and impacts. Sites are now monitored in New Brunswick and British Columbia. This is normally done by video, where possible, and it's accompanied by sediment sampling. The B.C. salmon aquaculture review considered this issue and concluded that sediment deposited below sea cages had declined by about 50% at optionally sited and monitored farms.

I'd also like to point out that aquaculture technology is playing a role in protecting vulnerable species. As you're probably aware, there are some populations of Pacific and Atlantic salmon that are at very low levels. They're in danger of extirpation. We have taken some individuals from these stocks and have raised them in sea pens in order to maintain their genetic diversity, so the aquaculture technology is playing a positive role in recovery of some vulnerable stocks.

• 1000

There are a number of acts and regulations that address environmental impacts of aquaculture, such as the habitat provision of the Fisheries Act. There are regulations for site management under the New Brunswick Aquaculture Act, regulations under the Nova Scotia Aquaculture Act, and aquaculture waste control regulations under the B.C. Waste Management Act. There are also other acts that deal with other aspects of aquaculture, pest control, food and drugs and so on that are not directly related to the nutrient question.

We consider that better siting criteria, which are steadily evolving, will mean fewer problems from aquaculture waste in the future. We consider that existing regulations allow for impacts to be dealt with and mitigated where necessary. Regular monitoring means that site performance will be tracked, and fallowing sites will occur to allow for recovery to pre-cage status. And better feeding techniques now mean less food escaping from net pens than in the past.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, while we recognize that fish feed potentially could be a nutrient, we don't consider that it is a significant nutrient in the marine environment at the present time, or that it will be in the near future. The Fisheries Act provides for action to limit or prohibit the discharge of any substance found to be deleterious to fish habitat. Provincial regulations address aquaculture site management, and we consider that further regulations under CEPA are not needed.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We'll now start a round of questions, as is customary, beginning with Mr. Gilmour, followed by Madam Kraft Sloan, Madam Carroll, and Mr. Charbonneau.

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

Welcome, gentlemen, Miss Milewski.

Mr. Fulton, I must say that you opened up with a barrage on the people who were here a couple of days ago, calling their testimony preposterous in some cases. Well, I must say that I find your testimony preposterous in some cases. You show up here with very little documentation, four shiny pictures, and accusations all over the place. I would suggest, sir, that if the industry were in such a sad state as you would say now, your colleagues in the NDP government in B.C. would have shut the industry down long ago. But this month, in fact, they are looking at either leaving the industry as it is or at expanding the industry.

I must say this alarmist rhetoric that we have been presented with today does not help the case of salmon farming on either coast. There was very little that was pointed toward Bill C-32, which is the bill we are looking at today. I must say I did not appreciate the way your testimony was geared. In fact, you took shots at Dr. Doubleday here on three occasions, saying that he was in a conflict of interest.

I would therefore like to ask a question of Dr. Doubleday. As the director of science for DFO, do you feel you are in fact in a conflict of interest?

Dr. William Doubleday: The Department of Fisheries and Oceans plays two roles with respect to aquaculture. Basically, we're in the sustainable development business. I would say that a major part of our work is protecting the marine environment from any kind of human activity. A major part of our effort is to prevent the introduction and spread of fish diseases and to protect fish habitat from whatever threats it faces.

I don't consider that we're in a conflict of interest. I consider that we have to take a balanced position, and a position based on fact in dealing with these issues. We don't hesitate to take action to protect fish habitat when it's necessary and to limit the introduction and movement of fish and fish eggs if there's a possibility of introduction of diseases.

• 1005

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no further questions.

Mr. Jim Fulton: May I respond to a point raised by Mr. Gilmour?

The Chairman: Yes, certainly.

Mr. Jim Fulton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, in relation to Mr. Doubleday, I'm sure Mr. Doubleday is aware of the federal aquaculture development strategy. It's a DFO document. It's the policy document under which he's been working for the last four years. Let me just quote again. It says:

The federal government will...develop a systematic framework for conducting environmental impact assessments, developing risk assessment models and class assessments, pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

We just heard Mr. Doubleday give evidence—approved by his minister, I take it—where he says that no amendments to CEPA are appropriate. This is in direct contradiction with federal government policy that came directly from the Prime Minister's Office.

In terms of Mr. Gilmour's other points, I've quoted specifically from published documents that will be left with the committee.

In terms of alarmist statements, I would direct Mr. Gilmour to take a look at some of the things that have been said by Mr. Noakes and by Mr. Davis from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in B.C. These are statements regarding the Tsitika and other issues surrounding the salmon farming industry. Have a look for yourself and see who is promoting the most likely scientific evidence.

The Chairman: Mr. Fulton, would you address the chair?

Mr. Jim Fulton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: We have now Madam Kraft-Sloan.

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

I have an article that was in Science Magazine in October 1998. Some of the authors of this article come from Stanford University, the University of Stirling in Scotland, the Institute of Aquaculture, Stockholm University, the department of zoology in Oregon State University, and the International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management in Manila, Philippines. So these are researchers from fairly credible institutions from around the world. They say that in 1997 the wild fish feed ratio to farmed fish result, the feed conversion ratio, was 2.8:1, not 1.15:1. I'm just wondering where the discrepancy lies with this figure.

Dr. William Doubleday: Mr. Chair, may I respond to that?

The Chairman: Of course.

Dr. William Doubleday: My understanding is that those authors are referring to the live weight of the fish captured. The figures I quoted are the dry weight of the fish feed. In going from raw fish to dry fish feed, there's quite a significant amount of water that's removed.

I can't say whether the ratio that is presented in that paper is exact or not, but it's pretty reasonable. About 80% of the fish that goes into fish meal is water, and most of that water is removed in processing. So the apparent contradiction is due to the difference between dry fish feed and raw fish.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So when you're measuring the one kilogram of fish that comes out of the fish farm, is that a dried, dehydrated fish as well?

Dr. William Doubleday: No. The trend I showed you on the graph is valid, because the amount of fish feed in each case is dry, but the fish produced is wet.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So it has a little bit of water in the fish, then.

Dr. William Doubleday: Oh yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So we're not really comparing apples to oranges then, are we?

Dr. William Doubleday: The trend is a valid trend. It takes less than one-third as much dry fish feed to produce a kilogram of product than it did in the 1970s.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But you're not disputing the fact that there was a 2.8:1 ratio of fish that goes into the production of a farmed fish.

Dr. William Doubleday: I'm not disputing that it's somewhere in that neighbourhood.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay.

Mr. Fulton, you're....

Mr. Jim Fulton: I think you've raised a very important question. You're quite correct that the conventionally agreed upon figures are the ones found in Science Magazine, because those are in fact the same figures used by Worldwatch, by World Resources Institute, by FAO, by the UN, and so on.

• 1010

It's interesting that this is the same dog and pony show that the salmon farmers use, and that Mr. Doubleday is using, attempting to practically show you that one pound of wild fish produces one pound of farm fish. It simply isn't true, and it's misleading to the public.

In fact there are other recent studies, such as the one by Carl Folke and Nils Kautsky—and I'll leave copies of it for the committee—which points out the following:

Cage-farming requires fish-food inputs, and it has been estimated that to support one ton of harvested cage-farmed salmon requires about 5.3 tons of fish, needing about one square kilometre surface area of primary production in the Baltic Sea or in the North Sea. The surface area of primary production would thus correspond to 40,000 to 50,000 times the surface area of the cages.

That's an important point to add.

There's a second one in terms of the CEPA amendments to which we're addressing ourselves today, and it also comes from the same study:

Wild fish are attracted by the increased food abundance in the vicinity of the cages and have been observed to graze directly on farm waste, and may therefore, along with other wild organisms which consume medical feed waste, become pools for new and more resistant pathogenic bacteria.

Let's not forget that 90% of the drugs that are in the medicated feed simply go on down below the net cages into the wild environment, where vertebrates and invertebrates come, consume it and move it off. As I said earlier, fish have been caught outside of these open net catches with levels of drugs above what's safe for human consumption.

Also in the same article, it points out:

In addition, vitamins used in fish food such as biotin have been implicated in the toxicity of a red tide dinoflagellate.

So in these amendments this committee has to address itself not only to what the nutrients are, but to what the drugs are, because you weren't given the complete information on drugs. I'd be glad to tell you, sometime during the evidence today, what all the drugs are this industry is actually using, including drugs that are not approved by Health Canada, drugs that are extremely potent and toxic.

There is the issue of the toxic impacts that they can actually generate, but it also goes on to say that the outbreaks of Hitra, “...caused by a bacteria of the genus Vibrio, are due to the self-polluted nutrient-enriched fish-farm environment”.

So in terms of diseases, toxic blooms in the wild environment, and impacts on wild stocks and human health, this is not being regulated by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. This is what was found by the salmon aquaculture review in B.C. So there are some very important reasons why CEPA should be used.

This is very important. If Mr. Doubleday won't explain it, perhaps the Minister of Fisheries is going to have to explain why his own department has been providing all these goodies for the last four years—cash, direct subsidies, tax breaks, staff, scientific studies.

If you want to know where the nutrient work is being done in Canada, I refer you to the work being done by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans at the West Vancouver laboratory. They are the ones who are actually.... Let me just quote you the study so that you have it for the record. It's called “Nutritional Strategies for Cost-Effective Salmon Production”, by Dave Higgs, Department of Fisheries and Oceans science branch. I didn't get this from the department, Mr. Chairman. It's from the proceedings of the first Korea-Canada joint symposium in aquatic biosciences, and here's what it says on the front page:

During the past decade, five main nutritional research strategies have been undertaken at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans West Vancouver Laboratory to enhance the profitability of salmon farming.

Mr. Doubleday's department is out there working flat out, with public money, finding five main nutritional research strategies for the industry. Let me just give you—

The Chairman: That's enough, Mr. Fulton.

Thank you, Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Herron, followed by Madam Carroll.

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

Perhaps I'll take a different approach from my colleague from the extreme right, who is not here at the moment.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): And how would you describe him?

• 1015

Mr. John Herron: In terms of the roles of NGOs, in terms of your appearance here at the committee, it's my opinion that they have to form a role to actually push the envelope in terms of developing public policy. I think you need perspectives from both sides, from that big ministry and from NGOs. Sometimes I think it's more constructive that we turn down the rhetoric from time to time—and both sides are occasionally guilty of that kind of thing.

Having said that, obviously I don't think anybody has anything against anybody on a personal basis for the approach they are taking.

Ms. Inka Milewski: Could I just make one comment with respect to this perception of non-governmental organizations?

Mr. John Herron: Sure.

Ms. Inka Milewski: It has been our experience in New Brunswick that aquaculture committees that have been struck by government have never had representation from what I would call non-governmental organizations, or public non-governmental organizations versus industry-based organizations, like the Salmon Health Consortium, for example. Fishermen's organizations have never sat on any kind of policy development committee. In fact, we have applied to the province to get access to information on aquaculture development, but the names of government officials or government employees who sit on those committees are blacked out when the reports come back to us. These are people who are paid by the taxpayers, but we're not allowed to know who sits on these committees.

Mr. John Herron: I think that might be a nice segue in terms of where I want to go with my line of questioning, as well.

The way I see it, I'm not in support of the amendments to CEPA that we see before us. There are a number of reasons, and I'd like to maybe discuss this particular issue. I do believe that for the roles of the fishers who are affected who fish wild species, the NGOs have a role in terms of developing public policy, as does industry as well.

Having said that, in some of your testimony you spoke about the need to develop a systematic framework to address the industry. In its origins, CEPA was not intended to regulate any one particular industry. We actually talked a little bit about the environmental record of Mr. Mulroney when he was prime minister in terms of the green plan that was developed, in terms of addressing effluents with respect to pulp and paper. Regulations played a role in terms of development in order to ensure that we had more modernized regulations and legislation to address pulp and paper.

I think it would be imprudent for us to be able to use CEPA, which is the bill to control the use of toxins, as opposed to doing it on more of a stand-alone basis, as opposed to actually undertaking a comprehensive review that includes NGOs, industry, fishers and DFO, and also our provincial partners.

My question is this: As opposed to using CEPA from this perspective, wouldn't you think it more prudent for us to be able to look at the industry on a stand-alone basis? CEPA's role is not to regulate any one specific industry. Essentially, the origins of these hearings that we're having are doing just that.

Ms. Inka Milewski: If we had to do it all over again, if aquaculture was an idea on the table and we were going to look at the full implications, then we would go that route. We would design specific legislation to deal with the impacts of aquaculture on the marine environment. But I guess that's not an option we have right now.

There is an imperative, because the industry is lobbying the government very hard to open this up to more development. You have heard the numbers about how many billions of dollars could be made, along with thousands of jobs. This is the tool that we have available to us, and I think it is appropriate that it come under CEPA. These are toxic substances that are released into the environment. They are bound to fish feed. That's one way to control them, so I don't personally see that we have any choice but to go the CEPA route right now.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, can I continue?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. John Herron: Okay, thank you.

• 1020

Having said that, in terms of which jurisdiction of government would be the best fit to address this particular issue, when Julie appeared before the committee we were studying the government's inability to enforce its own regulations with respect to the environment. At that time, Julie chose to use the industry of aquaculture as a case in point, in her opinion.

I might be a little bit cynical when I say I don't know if the federal government has the capacity—from a department that was once about the seventh in size in the federal government down to about the twenty-first in size currently—to actually engage in this role in terms of enforcing additional regulations.

Also, as a New Brunswicker and someone who has a riding that actually touches the Fundy coast, if this were done right and under a new memorandum of understanding—or even the existing one—we would be able to bring those stakeholders I spoke about earlier to play on a provincial basis, because at the end of the day those are the provinces that have the most to win or lose because it is with respect to their environment.

Predominantly speaking, at the moment when it comes to fish farming, and particularly salmon, although the oceans belong to all of us, it's still very much a British Columbia and New Brunswick issue. I would be more comfortable if I were able to say this is something that belongs in the provincial jurisdiction, and CEPA would be out of place. It's more important for us to address this issue as public policy by having a more comprehensive issue, but probably led by the provinces.

Ms. Inka Milewski: In response to that, the New Brunswick Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the Honourable Danny Gay, has admitted the province's limitation in environmental regulation and enforcement. A May 28 Telegraph Journal article, in response to the release of your committee's report, reported the minister as saying that the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture should not be the lead ministry when it comes to watching over the environmental performance of the industry. The minister is reported as saying:

We have often been criticized as being both a promoter of an industry and an enforcer of environmental criteria. It's not really our jurisdiction to be the main enforcer. That should really be done by an environmental department, whether it be federal or provincial. I have no problem with either, providing a good job is done.

I think it speaks to what Jim Fulton said earlier about the Department of Fisheries and Oceans being really caught in a bind. It is an aggressive promoter of the industry, and at the same time it has to be the enforcer. If the provincial minister understands that conflict, it has to be sent to some other federal or provincial department. I'm sure the province would say they don't have the money to do it, but I think CEPA would be perfect because there's nothing at stake. They're not promoting the industry.

Mr. John Herron: You made a comment about the farm crisis they had with respect to losing a species, and under the national relief fund moneys were allocated to the fish farmers for their loss of species.

Ms. Inka Milewski: By the way, it's not the first time they were bailed out.

Mr. John Herron: I don't have a problem with that, as a fiscal conservative. This is a farm product, and when you look at it from that perspective, with other farmed products, whether they be cattle or hogs, when other farmers end up losing species en mass, there are farm income programs to address those kinds of catastrophic situations.

I made a comment the other day that I believe some of the jurisdictions of aquaculture, to some degree, belong in the department of agriculture. So that's more of a comment, and you can comment on that as well.

• 1025

I'm not as scared from the taxpayers' perspective in that regard, but there's one comment I would like to have an answer on. I'm a little fearful about a comment Mr. Fulton made. I don't really have an opinion on this; I would like to have some more information.

There was a comment made that drugs are used in fish farming that aren't approved by Health Canada whatsoever. You're saying we put drugs into our environment—that we as Canadians import these drugs and put them in without any kind of regulations whatsoever.

When I hear that kind of thing, I'm apprehensive that maybe it's not just fish farming. Are you saying we have a massive problem in terms of importing drugs we don't have any kinds of governmental approvals on? I wouldn't mind a comment from you on that, and perhaps Mr. Doubleday. Thank you.

Ms. Inka Milewski: Just speaking to the farm comment, I notice that Mr. Thompson from the Salmon Growers Association says he would like fish farming to be considered as farm income under the Department of Agriculture. Let me tell you that the New Brunswick Department of Agriculture has come up with the new Agricultural Operation Practices Act, and I don't think the fish farm industry could meet the standards that are being set for waste management in that industry.

You need to have an emergency plan for potential spills of stored waste. The investment the farmer now has to put into managing livestock waste is enormous. The fish farm industry doesn't want to do that, and that's why they're opposed to CEPA.

Mr. Jim Fulton: I thank the member for the question.

I refer committee members to two things. One, a news story ran just over a year ago with the headline “Farm-raised fish can lead to infection in humans”. I spotted this and thought I should have a quick look into it. I refer members to an article in The New England Journal of Medicine. It's a study that was led by Dr. Low, a very well known Canadian medical expert on infectious disease. He pointed out something in relation to invasive infections, in particular streptococcus iniae. I won't bore the members with all of the facts about this, but Dr. Low had one patient who nearly died as a result of this infection that was picked up from farm fish. But it also involves salmon. I just urge members to have a look at it. It's in The New England Journal of Medicine, volume 337, number 9, page 589, and it follows from there.

In terms of drugs, the member asked a very important question. You heard evidence that the salmon farmers have four approved drugs they're using. We had a medical doctor look into this for us, in net loss, and it was reviewed by Dr. Gale Bellward, who's a professor of pharmacology at the University of British Columbia. Here's a list of the medications used: oxytetracycline, betryl, erythromycin, gallomycin, ivomec, ivermectin, tribrysin, aquaflor, phleurophenocol, romet-30, memec—

Mr. John Herron: Have they been approved by Health Canada?

Mr. Jim Fulton: No, I'm going to come to that. I have a letter from the Minister of Health, Mr. Rock, dated last month.

They are using anesthetics TMS-222, marinyl, and tricaine. Disinfectants are used—an obvious one is bleach, which you might think is not all that heavy, but in the marine environment it is—ovodine, kilfor, chloromine-T, formaldehyde, oruine, dustbane and iodifor. That's a list of just some of the ones they're using.

Let me give you an example that I think should alarm members of this committee. Under access to information, and after a long and strenuous fight, we discovered that the salmon farming industry had used more than 100 kilograms of ivermectin in salmon farms in this country. This came to the attention of Dr. Bill Bowie, who is the past president of the Infectious Disease Society for doctors in Canada. He's now the head of infectious diseases at the Vancouver General Hospital. He attempted to get information from the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association and was denied. If Dr. Bowie wanted to use less than a fraction of a gram of ivermectin—this is a very powerful drug and the drug of last resort for people who have used all known antibiotics to fight an infection—at the Vancouver General Hospital to save someone's life from something like flesh-eating disease—something that affected a former member of this House, Mr. Bouchard—he would have to get direct contact and authorization from either the Deputy Minister of Health or Health Canada. That's for a medical doctor to use a fraction of a gram to save a human's life.

• 1030

This industry is flagrantly using this drug in the marine environment. It's toxic. It's almost non-biodegradable. Once it's in there it's a silver bullet that kills and kills and kills. It's one of the most powerful pesticides on the face of the earth.

So I thought I would track it down, and six months ago I wrote to our Minister of Fisheries. I then got a letter back from the Minister of Agriculture, who said:

I would like to respond to your letter of June 25, 1998, to the Honourable David Anderson, regarding the use of Ivermectin by salmon farmers in British Columbia. As you know, Mr. Anderson forwarded a copy of your letter to me for consideration.

He goes on to talk about the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the Animal Health and Production Division, the Feeds Act, and so on. And here's the crunch:

In addition, the Fish, Seafood and Products Division of the CFIA enforces the regulations pursuant to the Fish Inspection Act, which governs the unloading, holding, handling, transporting, processing and labelling of fish and fish products, including aquaculture products destined for interprovincial and international export.

Let's keep in mind that this involves the feed and the testing of the fish and the meat prior to human consumption or export. This also includes testing aquaculture products for therapeutic drug and pesticide residues to ensure they do not exceed maximum limits set by Health Canada. And being the kind fellow that the Minister of Agriculture is, he said it's the responsibility of Health Canada and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency to approve the use of drugs and pesticides effectively. So he shoots me over to Mr. Rock.

Mr. Rock kindly wrote me back a very nice letter dated January 5 of this year, which I'll leave for the committee:

Dear Mr. Fulton:

Thank you for your letter regarding the use of Ivermectin as a pesticide by British Columbia salmon farmers. I regret that I was unable to reply earlier. ... However, it has not been approved for use in aquaculture.

Let me say that again: “...it has not been approved for use in aquaculture.”

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), which reports to Parliament through the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, is responsible for monitoring the presence of Ivermectin residues in aquaculture. I am, therefore, forwarding a copy of our correspondence to the Honourable Lyle Vanclief....

So he sends it. I write. It takes six months for the Minister of Fisheries to send it to the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture writes me and tells me it's the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health writes me back and says it's the Minister of Agriculture. Meanwhile, the most powerful antibiotic used to save human life in Canada.... The evidence was refused by the B.C. salmon farmers to the past president of the Canadian Infectious Disease Society.

Let's have a look at this industry. Let's have a look.

And they say don't use CEPA. Only CEPA can deal with a toxin like this. It's dangerous. It's irresponsible. And I'm glad to quote from other doctors who are enraged by what DFO and this industry are doing in terms of human health—people like the head of microbiology at UBC.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Herron.

Mr. Doubleday, would you like to comment?

Dr. William Doubleday: The administration of therapeutants in fish farms is done by veterinarians who are generally provincially regulated.

My understanding is—these letters are correct—that the federal agencies inspect fish that's going for human consumption and ensure that residues from any therapeutants are below acceptable levels. But the administration of therapeutants on fish farms is normally done through a veterinarian, and these are provincially regulated professionals.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Carroll, please.

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

I'll have to bring my head back to where I was when I asked to get on the list.

I want to ask Ms. Milewski and Mr. Fulton to help me off the horns of a dilemma here.

Listening as I did to the comment from Mr. Gilmour about alarmist rhetoric—he comes from a strong tradition—and his inability to come to terms with the Government of British Columbia is no surprise. I don't think I'll live long enough to see a balance there. But at the same time, a balance is what I have to look for this morning, because it is not our task to promote or to toll the death knell to an industry. It is our task to be looking at legislation that is indeed enforcing environmental protection. So to bring us back to the task at hand, that is, to deal with some amendments that have been brought forward to CEPA, at this point I'm asking whether or not in your view they are sufficient to address your concerns.

• 1035

I'm looking at page 4 of your brief. In looking at that paragraph and I'm asking you again, are the proposed amendments sufficient to remedy your concerns?

Ms. Inka Milewski: As the amendment stands now, my understanding is that it applies just to fish feed. I personally would like to see that expanded to fish wastes, which would include feces, the discharge of feces.

In my supplementary brief I did some calculations. You have uneaten fish feed that is going into the environment, but these fish are eating it and they're excreting it. The volumes of their excrement, their manure, if you want to call it that, to use the terrestrial analogy, is equal to, if not in fact greater than, the volume of the uneaten feed itself.

So if I were in a perfect world, I would extend this to not only fish feed but to feces and all the chemical additives that are applied to fish feed. I would expand it more than it is now.

There is a reason for that. Dr. Doubleday talked about how much nitrogen comes from other sources, but I would draw your attention to a study that was done by DFO in the early 1990s that looked at how much nitrogen, phosphorus, and carbon is actually coming from other sources: the sewage plant, the fish plant, the runoff, atmospheric, whatever. You can see by the data that was shown that the volume of nitrogen, carbon, and phosphorus, which are the nutrients and which are detrimental, causing local enrichment, are enormous from aquaculture.

We can pinpoint them. We can identify what the source is in a particular environment, and they are not insignificant, so we need to begin to take some controls on these discharges from the aquaculture side.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you.

Mr. Jim Fulton, obviously you've brought forward a lot of information and grave concern about the industry per se, but you too have come to Ottawa today to talk about the proposed amendments—at least I'm assuming you have. So what is your view?

Mr. Jim Fulton: My views are very similar to those you've just heard. I think the committee would be wise to look at the amendments you presently have before you as a minimum threshold and have some advice on wording from the learned counsel that Parliament can make available to you to make sure that the language is as holistic as the original intention of CEPA was.

If you look back, the question raised by Mr. Herron is an important one and was touched on by the chair on Monday, which is that the constitutional powerhead in relation to this issue is clearly federal. It's very deeply embedded. One of the first acts Parliament ever passed was the Fisheries Act. It has rarely been amended since that time, and certainly if one looks where the memoranda of understanding are on the aquaculture issue, it involves all of the saltwater provinces in maritime and Pacific Canada and both of the territories. Clearly in this case such sections as sections 35 and 36 of the Fisheries Act have been muted, probably directly by order of the deputy minister, in order to remain in compliance with the federal aquaculture policy.

CEPA is obviously the appropriate arm. This was identified many years ago by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. They had always intended that this committee do what you are doing, and you're on very good grounds to do it, constitutionally, in terms of maintaining a level playing field so that the industry can be fairly competitive among all the jurisdictions in Canada. Otherwise, you will get a drive to the bottom. You'll find provinces that will continue to lower the water quality and sedimentation and nutrient issues lower and lower to attract the industry into their waters of jurisdiction, which are Canadian. These are Canadian waters and always will be.

• 1040

Some provinces will long argue that there are jurisdictions, sub-seabed issues and so on. Even British Columbia is arguing this crazy one between Vancouver Island and the mainland. But Canadians generally, and I believe this is true for people from coast to coast to coast, feel that the protection of the water column and the protection of the wild creatures that live there are a federal jurisdiction. This is the case particularly in salt water but also, as the chairman pointed out, constitutionally this is case for rivers and lakes as well.

It's a federal jurisdiction, it's a federal responsibility, and it's one of those where often only Parliament is large enough and at enough distance to take the kind of lobbying impact that industries can often bring when they demand that the solution to pollution is dilution, that they can go and dump their debris wherever and in whatever toxic levels they would like.

This is a toxic industry. They don't want to call it that. They're the only one in Canada allowed to relentlessly, every day, dump the same amount of sewage as perhaps a million or more Canadians. No other agricultural industry can do it. Quite different from a feed lot where you have cattle or chickens or hogs or whatever, this is in the marine environment. I would urge you to go further and produce some subamendments to make it clear that it's holistic, that the introduction of everything from cradle to cradle in terms of eggs, to fry, to maturing fish, to fish as they're taken out; in terms of pathogens, both viral and bacterial; in terms of nutrients both that are taken from other areas of the world... I'd urge you to look at Scientific American. Prions, amyloid proteins, have been found in the brains of spawning salmon at Alert Bay.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Just a second, I want to just direct it a little more. Mr. Fulton, you made reference to Norway, to comparisons between regulations in Norway and Canada, one being much easier from your perspective, and therefore to an exodus out of Norway into Canada. That reference was to 1990.

I believe Dr. Smith is the gentleman's name—I came without my notes—who spoke to us earlier in the week. He has considerable academic and professional experience in the area. Norway is described as very regulated, and perhaps that's because it's nine years later, which is why I highlighted the 1990 to 1999 timeframe. He maintained that the regulations there pertain to a number of aspects of the industry but are not primarily environmentally driven.

Would you agree with that? Do you think that's the situation in Norway?

Mr. Jim Fulton: I haven't done a specific analysis. I'm probably not the right person for you to ask on that.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: You say that companies have fled Norway and come to Canada, but they have not done so, from Dr. Smith's perspective, because they're being environmentally controlled but rather because they're being regulated in other aspects. So I have a little bit of trouble there.

Mr. Jim Fulton: If you read all of the evidence from that day, you'll see that was an all-party delegation from the Norwegian Parliament that appeared before the environment committee. They basically wanted to warn us that there was an exodus of some of the large salmon farming operations from Norway into Canada because the concession law was being brought in and they were being required to keep their farms a certain distance away from migratory routes, estuaries, and river systems. Norway by then was already voting moneys to stop poisoning river systems as a result of the outbreaks of disease in relation to this industry.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you.

One last question, Mr. Doubleday. You come with a lot of experience. You've heard a lot of alarm expressed. If I might just say in addition to what we have heard, myself for the first time, I hear again this concern expressed by one of the provinces, by the minister responsible for this area, that the onus is not theirs, that they do not have the resources, that they are not meeting the bar. They want to see federal activity here. They want to see a sense of ownership from the federal level. Could you tell me your views on that?

Dr. William Doubleday: I think the acts that are in place can be applied to deal with any real issues that arise from the environmental effects of aquaculture.

• 1045

I think it would be more appropriate, if it were desired, to place additional restrictions on pesticides or therapeutants, or impacts on fish habitat, to use the legislation that is aimed at those specific activities rather than to create new regulations under a different act.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: But would you feel comfortable in calling up Mr. Danny Gay and saying there are no worries about CEPA—“I'm calling you from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and we have all the regulations necessary to come in and enforce your particular problems in New Brunswick.”

Dr. William Doubleday: My understanding of the quote from Minister Gay was it was about who actually enforces rather than what the law is. And I think I should point out that in the case of deleterious substances, substances that are toxic to fish, it's actually the Department of Environment that enforces that part of the Fisheries Act.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: It's the Department of the Environment that enforces that part of the Fisheries Act?

Dr. William Doubleday: That's right.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Is it the Department of the Environment that is the first team in on that?

Dr. William Doubleday: Yes.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: So they don't need to sit back in the instance to which you're referring and wait for the whole series of events Mr. Fulton described to take place before they respond.

Dr. William Doubleday: That's correct.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you, Mr. Doubleday.

I don't have any more questions, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We have Mr. Laliberte, Mr. Charbonneau and Mr. Jordan, followed by the chair, unless there are other members, and then we'll go for a second round. Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Caccia.

I want to direct you back to the amendments. They have been designed and struck in a way whereby fish feed is the main point here. And if you read into it, it's fed to the fish, so it deals with nutrients, as opposed to administered to the fish, which deals with drugs. It misses this whole opportunity of the administration of medicines or drugs or chemicals to control this industry. Then it goes on to say that existing nutrients promote an aquatic ecosystem, but in this amendment it also says interferes with the aquatic ecosystem. So that's what we have for amendments here. And the concerns you're raising, the environmental and health concerns, are not addressed in this, are they? These amendments don't deal with your presentation. You're challenging us to go beyond this amendment because you're discussing toxins, you're discussing drug applications, and in no way can you see that in the amendments that are being addressed before us. There is no consideration for that.

So what would you suggest we include here? I don't know if you'd have time before we get back into the clause-by-clause on the specifics to either respond now or in writing.

Also, to refer to my home province, in terms of aquaculture and this situation of proponents and regulation conflict that DFO might have here, in our province aquaculture falls under agriculture because it's an industry of farmers, of people who control it. They're also an advocacy group to promote the industry, to protect the industry, to protect the interests of farmers. But the regulatory falls under CERM, which is environmental and resource management. Maybe that's a lesson we could take here, maybe split the responsibilities of what we have. Aquaculture falls under DFO's strategy. I haven't seen the document yet; I was waiting for it to slide across over here. But that seems to be a situation here, and we stumbled in on it with CEPA—this whole industry debate.

I'm very concerned that we're not dealing with the toxics issue and the drugs issue in the existing amendments here. We do have a relationship under CEPA, environmental regulations, as you referred to it, with DFO regulations as well. We have it in writing. But some of the statements that you made as well—that you have a good record, that we don't hesitate to take action.... Maybe, Dr. Doubleday, at some point in time you can give us some examples of action you did take in the aquaculture regulation.

• 1050

Dr. William Doubleday: Mr. Chairman, what I'm most familiar with is the movement of fish, fish health protection regulations. I've personally not allowed some transfers of fish eggs because of the potential to introduce disease in the location they're being transferred to.

With respect to aquaculture operations, I understand we recently notified one salmon farm that they're not in compliance with the requirements of their licence, and when we receive their reply we'll be considering what further action we should take on it.

I think the main reason there hasn't been decisive action taken with respect to fish feed as a nutrient is that there really isn't any convincing evidence that there's a significant problem to fix at this point in time. You can show, theoretically, that fish feed can be a nutrient, and you can demonstrate experimentally that fish feed can lead to production of algae, but there's really not much evidence that it's a significant issue at this point in time. And unless there is a significant threat to fish and fish habitat, then we don't have a basis for taking action.

The Chairman: If Mr. Keizer wishes to add his comments, by all means he should feel free to do so.

Mr. Paul Keizer (Manager, Marine Environmental Sciences, Maritimes Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I would just add that we do conduct a fair amount of environmental-based studies, in southwestern New Brunswick in particular. That's the area I'm familiar with. For example, with respect to nutrients, as Ms. Milewski has already mentioned, we have conducted studies there, and we continue to do so. So we're not idle with respect to addressing the concerns relating to environmental impacts of the industry. We're not entirely pro-development.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. Inka Milewski: I might just comment on a number of things that both Paul Keizer and Bill Doubleday raised. One is that in the study I referred to, which was done by DFO scientists in the L'Etang Inlet, one of the conclusions in that report, where they identified the contribution of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorous nutrients into the L'Etang Inlet, was that because they were so substantial they questioned an imminent decision on the part of the New Brunswick government to allow more new farm sites. They felt that if these additional farms were to be approved, then this would have serious consequences for the L'Etang Inlet. And they'd showed foresight. They were right. It was done.

In terms of the recommendation they made in the study to give serious consideration to the fact that no new sites should be put in the L'Etang Inlet, six years later that site is now empty because of the nutrification problems, the enrichment problems in the L'Etang Inlet. The L'Etang Inlet has been cleared of most salmon cages now.

So here is an example where even government scientists give advice and nobody follows it. Another example of that is the eight sites this aquaculture committee, which is federal-provincial, brought forward for approval. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans said seven of those sites were not suitable. The New Brunswick government overruled that, and all eight sites were approved. So we have a situation where we must ask, who's in charge? It is a Department of Fisheries and Oceans responsibility. There is a notwithstanding clause in the MOU, which should have overridden the decision of the New Brunswick government. Presumably the decision DFO made about those sites was that it was either deleterious to fish habitat.... And if that's the case, they should have stepped forward, and they did not.

• 1055

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Charbonneau is next, followed by Mr. Jordan and by the chair.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, the committee is considering draft amendments respecting nutrients used in aquaculture, pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Judging from the discussions we have had, any problems that may exist are far more significant than the problem of nutrients. One problem encountered is the site chosen for salmon farming projects or container fish farming. Waste treatment is another of the many problems that were noted.

There are those who argue, on one hand, that CEPA should not concern itself with the question of nutrients. On the other hand, we realize that the release of nutrients is just one of the problems with which we are dealing.

I have a question for you. When a business wishes to establish a container salmon farming operation at a given location, must an impact assessment be carried out, with public hearings, either pursuant to CEPA, to the Fisheries Act, or to some other legislation? Is such a process mandatory? What is the status of the legislation with regard to impact assessments?

[English]

Dr. William Doubleday: In the case of New Brunswick, my understanding is that under the province's lead, there is an environmental assessment of any new site for aquaculture. I don't think it ordinarily goes to a panel, and I don't know the extent to which there are public hearings.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: You're talking about the situation in New Brunswick. What about British Columbia or Quebec? When an aquaculture project is in the planning stages, must it go through the environmental assessment process, with public hearings and so forth? I would be reassured to hear you tell me that projects like this must go through an assessment process. This gives everyone involved an opportunity to consider all facets of the proposal and to make an enlightened decision. What is the procedure? Let's say that I wanted to establish a salmon farming operation in a Quebec river or bay. What rules apply to me? Would there be some lobbying or some public hearings?

[English]

The Chairman: We need brief answers now, because we are running out of time.

[Translation]

Mr. William Doubleday: British Columbia declared a moratorium on new aquaculture operations a number of years ago. The province recently concluded an extensive study on the environmental effects of aquaculture.

In Quebec, aquaculture permits are issued by provincial departments. I can't give you all of the details today, but if you'd like, I can send you a written response to your question.

[English]

Mr. Jim Fulton: The honourable member's question is dead on the money. The problem in all the Pacific and Atlantic maritime jurisdictions is that there is not a proper environmental assessment process. I keep coming back to this document, but it says “The federal government will develop a systematic framework for conducting environmental impact assessments”. It's not being done by DFO.

The Chairman: Will you identify the document again, please?

Mr. Jim Fulton: The document is “The Federal Aquaculture Development Strategy of Canada”, Department of Fisheries and Oceans document 5066, 1995.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Milewski.

Ms. Inka Milewski: What we do know about the site review process is that when an applicant comes forward with a proposal to site an aquaculture facility, it's very interesting that this whole process is not open to public scrutiny. We have had to apply under the Access to Information Act to get the minutes from those committee reports, and there is information that is blacked out on them.

• 1100

The other thing I would say is that there are no standards set. You have to understand what a farm is. It's 200,000 to 300,000 fish. So if somebody comes in and says they'd like to grow 200,000 to 300,000 fish, what are the standards against which the federal or the provincial governments are measuring to say “Gee, I don't know, with 200,000 to 300,000 fish in this area, with this ability for the environment to absorb those wastes, I don't think we can go”?

There are no standards. Even though they say there is a process, against what are they evaluating those requests for farms, against which environmental standards? These don't exist.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I have a second question for Fisheries and Oceans officials.

What means do you have available to enforce the laws and regulations for which you are responsible? How do you monitor the situation? Have charges been laid in some instances? From what you've said, there have been some problems here and there. Have any charges been laid? Have any fines been levied? How do you go about enforcing your regulations? Do you have more or fewer means at your disposal to do your job, or is everything running smoothly?

Mr. William Doubleday: We have conducted several studies on the environmental effects of fish farming, but thus far, these studies have not indicated that decisive action is warranted. The Fisheries Act gives us the means to intervene when a reduction in fish habitat is noted. To date, we haven't had to take action.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Therefore, it isn't too [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

The Chairman: Is that the correct translation in English?

[English]

This is your last question.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Why didn't you take further action when you noted some anomalies or violations? Why didn't you take legal action to force these individuals to explain their actions in court?

Mr. William Doubleday: Occasionally, we have received some complaints or people have reported some unusual occurrences to us. We have conducted some investigations and looked into these matters, but further action pursuant to the legislation was never warranted.

[English]

The Chairman: Answer very briefly, please.

Ms. Inka Milewski: In 1991, when the New Brunswick Department of the Environment did monitoring of cage sites, farm sites, it found under eight cage site areas moderate to heavy gas bubbling. This is methane gas, sulphate gasses. It found accumulations of fish feed and feces. These are clearly poor water quality conditions. I don't know what other kind of indicator the Department of Fisheries and Oceans needed to either clear that area out or reduce the number of fish there, but to me, that clearly would have been a trigger for the department to have done something.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Jordan is next, and then Madame Girard-Bujold, the chair, and if time permits on a second round, Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to put a question to Dr. Doubleday.

In response to a question by Mr. Herron, you spoke about the balance your department has to be constantly striving for. I guess on one side of that balance you have your mandate, for lack of a better term, to protect the biodiversity of waterways.

• 1105

Your slide 4 talks about the increasing competitiveness in the industry. Perhaps it's fair to say that regulation is accompanied by increasing costs in the industry, and you would want to evaluate increased regulation based on the economic impacts on the industry. Perhaps that's consistent with that balance you're pushing for.

In the last slide your argument against CEPA even addressing this is that existing acts are in place to take care of the problems. Mr. Fulton spoke in a rather dramatic form, but still, there was some substance to what he said about the discharge of this potentially highly toxic antibiotic. It says that the Fisheries Act provides for action to limit or prohibit the discharge of any substance into the fish habitat. Your response was that this is the venue of provincial veterinarians.

When you say that further regulations under CEPA are not needed, what side of the scale are you coming from? Are you coming from the economic scale there, or are you coming from the environmental scale? Is there anything in that particular instance Mr. Fulton described today, including the letters from the ministers, that would trigger any action from DFO? Do you plan on doing anything about that?

Dr. William Doubleday: I can't respond in detail, Mr. Chairman, to the specifics—

Mr. Joe Jordan: That is a response.

Dr. William Doubleday: —of ivermectin use. If it were found to be deleterious to fish and to be having a deleterious effect on fish habitat, then charges could be laid under the Fisheries Act.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay, but take me through that. Who's going to check?

Dr. William Doubleday: Normally, someone would bring the issue to the attention of the department, and there would be an investigation. In the case of a toxic substance, the investigation would normally be carried out by Environment Canada. If the facts justified it, then action would be taken under the act.

When I was talking about existing acts dealing with these issues, I wasn't saying that the present system is perfect, but if the issue is one of enforcement of existing regulations, then perhaps better enforcement would be the appropriate response, rather than additional regulations under another act that might also have some difficulties in being enforced.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Jordan.

Madame Girard-Bujold.

Mr. Jim Fulton: Mr. Chairman, could I just put one sentence on the record?

The Chairman: Very briefly, yes.

Mr. Jim Fulton: It's from the Environmental Assessment Office Salmon Aquaculture Review I referred to earlier, in the recommendation to ministers. It concluded, and let me read it into the record again, “Currently, salmon farmers are subject to very few enforceable standards”. That's exactly what this ivermectin issue is all about.

Dr. Doubleday knows that this is not going to be investigated by DFO, even though it's a complaint that has been lodged before Parliament itself. They'll continue using ivermectin.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mrs. Girard-Bujold.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I beg to differ with Dr. Doubleday who stated earlier that current regulations were adequate enough to counter any problems. I disagree with that. NGOs testified about some very troubling things that are currently taking place and I really believe that there is a need for regulations that are more in keeping with the times. Some people have not caught up to 1999. They do not use current fish farming methods. As we heard from the witnesses yesterday, this industry is thriving. I've even read that aquaculture experts in Canada want sound regulations geared to their industry and they further maintain that existing regulations are outdated. I don't believe the solution lies in adding new responsibilities under CEPA.

In 1998, a new aquaculture development commissioner reporting to Fisheries and Oceans Canada was appointed. What is the role of this commissioner? Is he responsible for updating the regulations to make them more acceptable?

• 1110

I also wonder why NGOs don't sit on the federal government's Seafood Inspection Policy Advisory Committee? Why is that?

Those are my three questions.

Mr. William Doubleday: They are rather complex questions, but nevertheless I will try to answer them.

Our concern is for sustainable aquaculture development. My department deals with environmental protection issues, particularly fish habitats. We also focus on minimizing or eliminating the possibility of new diseases being introduced into the environment. That is an important component of our mandate.

The role of the new aquaculture commissioner is to promote the aquaculture industry and to ensure that it is given the means with which to thrive, like any other industry in Canada.

At the federal level, fish inspection measures are such that the public can safely eat salmon without fear of pesticide residues.

Is the legislation enforced to the full extent possible? That is debatable, but in my opinion, if there were any shortcomings, it would be preferable to amend the regulations arising from existing legislation rather than put in place entirely new regulations flowing from new legislation.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Is that within the commissioner's mandate? You indicated that he was appointed to promote the industry and its development.

Mr. William Doubleday: That's correct. At the federal level...

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Before promoting and ensuring the growth of the industry, the focus should be on resolving problems. Judging from what the NGOs have told us, these do exist.

Mr. William Doubleday: Yes. At the federal level, several departments are responsible for aquaculture issues: Health Canada, the Food Inspection Agency, Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada, and others. Each department has a specific role to play. The aquaculture commissioner was appointed to promote sustainable development in aquaculture.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I have one final question. Why couldn't an NGO serve on the committee, as I suggested? We are talking about partnerships between representatives of the aquaculture industry, the advisory committee and departments. Why couldn't an NGO representative serve on this committee?

Mr. William Doubleday: I can't answer that question directly. The committee was set up some time ago and I don't recall why we made this decision regarding the makeup of the committee.

[English]

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. Given that we have the commissioner in the room, would it be perhaps appropriate to invite him to the table to respond to that particular question?

The Chairman: If the commissioner is willing to come to the table, by all means.

• 1115

Let me take advantage of this point of order to indicate that a second round of questions is possible, compliments of our colleague, Mr. Guy St-Julien, who has kindly made arrangements to move his meeting, which was scheduled for this room at 11 o'clock, to another committee room. Therefore we can have a full second round.

The commissioner is Monsieur Bastien. Welcome to the committee. Perhaps you would like to answer the questions.

Do we have a point of order now?

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Based on your last comments, can we get some idea of when we're going to break?

The Chairman: It will be as soon as we complete the second round of questions, which could be 20 minutes.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Welcome to our committee. Would you care to answer Mrs. Girard-Bujold's question.

[English]

Mr. Yves Bastien (Commissioner for Aquaculture Development): I was not prepared, so I will answer in French, if you don't mind.

[Translation]

To answer your question, I was only recently appointed, on January 25 in fact. Clearly, my role will evolve as actions are taken. I'm an ecologist and I do have some experience in aquaculture development. I've worked for Canada's National Park Service and I was also a resources manager for the Quebec government when the province had jurisdiction over Quebec fisheries. I'm very pleased to live in a country dedicated to environmental protection and to ensuring that this cause remains a societal concern.

Obviously, from my experience with aquaculture and in fisheries management, I will be working to strike a balance between environmental effects and the development of an industry which, in my view, is very respectful of the environment. One of my personal priorities, which is also a goal of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, is to develop a legal framework, that is a legislative and regulatory framework for this sector, to promote its development. That is one of my priorities.

Quite possibly, draft legislation on aquaculture will one day be tabled in Parliament, legislation which will combine the various regulatory and legislative provisions that we now have, such as each the Fisheries Act. The result could be an aquaculture act.

The Chairman: Do you have a question?

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Are you bound by the memorandum of understanding signed with the provinces?

Mr. Yves Bastien: Fisheries and Oceans Canada has signed memorandum of understanding with each province and these agreements will of course be respected. We will work within the federal legislative framework and bear in mind provincial jurisdictions which are very important.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bastien.

[English]

Make just a brief comment, please, because we want to wind up.

Mr. Jim Fulton: It's very short, Mr. Chairman. It flows from the question raised by the honourable member.

I think members would be well advised to look at the history of CEPA as it was used in relation to pulp mills in this country. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans responded over the years to the problems of organochlorine and dioxin by simply closing hundreds of square miles of beaches to shellfish harvest in British Columbia. Similarly, they closed fisheries in maritime Canada.

CEPA has been very effective if one looks at the health alerts that were given about the danger of cancer to humans from dioxins from pulp mills. One of the things you'll recall, Mr. Chairman, that brought about some of the evolution of CEPA is that CEPA studied it, and then regulations were brought in that were national in scope, and we've seen the dramatic reduction in dioxin down to a level where we are now reopening shellfish areas and areas for crustaceans, crab, and so on in many areas of Canada.

CEPA can be a very useful instrument, particularly where sections of the Fisheries Act such as sections 33, 35, and 36 lie moot, because in relation to federal policy the deputy minister orders officials from top to bottom not to enforce but to promote. That's what is happening in this industry. It's much like the pulp industry and dioxin. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is promoting an industry that they know is polluting, that they know is allowing for the transmission of disease into wild stocks, and so on. And CEPA truly is, as the honourable member knows....

• 1120

I welcome the new commissioner to a very tough job.

The Chairman: Ms. Milewski, very briefly, please.

Ms. Inka Milewski: I would just like to respond to the honourable member's question to DFO—and I would say to the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and to the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs—regarding non-governmental organizations. I make a distinction here between what I call, as the Conservation Council, a non-governmental organization.... Salmon Health, which is an industry organization, calls itself a non-governmental organization as well. So you've got this distinction between consumer, health, conservation groups, non-governmental groups, and these industry groups—the pulp and paper industry, the salmon growers.

Now, when the federal government or the province calls together non-governmental groups, it calls together industry associations, and we are rarely brought to the table. I would like to enter into evidence a document that is now being circulated by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, a draft document for integrated pest management for sea lice. That committee had no representatives from what I would call consumer, health, conservation groups. It had industry groups. The document is profoundly deficient in how it portrays the sea lice problem.

The Chairman: It will be circulated. Thank you very much.

We can very soon start the second round, consisting of Madam Kraft Sloan, Mr. Herron, Madam Carroll, and Mr. Laliberte, but allow the chair to ask a couple of questions too. They are mainly addressed to Mr. Doubleday, who I would like to congratulate for his succinct and lucid summary of his presentation this morning.

Under the heading “Alleviating Environmental Concerns”, Dr. Doubleday, you are making a reference to regular monitoring. Could you indicate who is in charge of this monitoring?

Dr. William Doubleday: My understanding is that monitoring is carried out both at the provincial and the federal level. And as I pointed out earlier in testimony—

The Chairman: By which departments?

Dr. William Doubleday: The Department of Fisheries and Oceans does some monitoring, and in the case of New Brunswick it's the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture that controls the monitoring, which is in fact carried out by industry in New Brunswick.

The Chairman: At the federal level, how many inspectors are in charge of monitoring?

Dr. William Doubleday: The monitoring we've done, Mr. Chairman, has been through the science part of the department, rather than by a fishery officer.

The Chairman: That means your department?

Dr. William Doubleday: Yes. And we've had a number of studies each year monitoring the environmental impacts of aquaculture—

The Chairman: Yes, but I'm asking how many inspectors you have in the field.

Dr. William Doubleday: I can just give you a rough indication of the number of scientific personnel involved in these projects nationally. I would say there are probably something in the neighbourhood of twenty or so.

The Chairman: These are scientists.

Dr. William Doubleday: Scientists and technicians, yes.

The Chairman: And in the field?

Dr. William Doubleday: That's in the field.

The Chairman: And they visit the industries?

Dr. William Doubleday: They visit the sites, yes.

The Chairman: And what is the budget that is available for that purpose?

Dr. William Doubleday: The total expenditures in this area are significant. You have to add up a number of projects to get the total. I would guess it's something in the order of $3 million a year.

• 1125

The Chairman: Do these inspectors have powers that go beyond visiting? Can they stop practices if they find them undesirable?

Dr. William Doubleday: No. If they found some undesirable practice, it would have to be referred to a fisheries officer—someone who has power under the Fisheries Act to lay a charge.

The Chairman: Who then would do what?

Dr. William Doubleday: They would investigate, and if the facts justified it they could lay a charge under the Fisheries Act.

The Chairman: So there would be two investigations carried out, one by your scientist and subsequently one by a fisheries inspector.

Dr. William Doubleday: Yes. This is really a hypothetical question, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: What is the time lag between the two visits?

Dr. William Doubleday: I'm afraid that's a hypothetical question I can't really answer. It would depend on the nature of the problem and the other issues affecting fisheries at the same time.

The Chairman: Is there a report indicating whether and how many times your scientists have reported unlawful activities to fisheries inspectors, by year, over the last ten years?

Dr. William Doubleday: I haven't seen such a report.

The Chairman: Is there a requirement to produce such a report?

Dr. William Doubleday: No.

The Chairman: Why isn't there one?

Dr. William Doubleday: We're more concerned with delivering the programs and taking appropriate action than enumerating reports on the contacts that have taken place.

The Chairman: You wouldn't want to look at statistics, in other words. As a scientist, do you think it is good practice to not want to look at statistics?

Dr. William Doubleday: I can't reply in detail with respect to the reporting system for fisheries officers, but there is a system whereby fisheries officers record how they spend their time.

The Chairman: Do you know where those are published?

Dr. William Doubleday: I have not seen the published reports, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: In reply to Ms. Carroll earlier, Dr. Doubleday, you said acts can be applied. Do you think they are adequately applied?

Dr. William Doubleday: That's something that certainly could be debated.

The Chairman: We don't want to debate it. I think we would like an answer to the question—possibly a straight answer.

Dr. William Doubleday: I can't give a definitive answer to that. I haven't personally seen evidence of substantial problems with respect to fish habitat from aquaculture and in my consultations with colleagues in habitat management.

The Chairman: You chose to say “acts can be applied” instead of saying “acts are applied.” Why would you choose to say “can be applied?”

Dr. William Doubleday: The reason for that choice of words is the information we have indicates these problems are potential problems, but they have not manifested themselves as significant real problems requiring action.

The Chairman: In light of what was said this morning in this room, do you believe these are potential problems and not actual?

Dr. William Doubleday: With respect to fish feed as a nutrient in the marine environment, I think what I said this morning still stands. It's the result of considerable research within my department and review of literature. With respect to therapeutants and pesticides, I'm not in a position to comment today.

The Chairman: When would you be able to comment?

• 1130

Dr. William Doubleday: These are issues that are part of the mandate of other agencies.

The Chairman: Such as...?

Dr. William Doubleday: Therapeutants and pest management essentially fall under Health Canada, so I would refer the committee to Health Canada with respect to questions on the use of therapeutants and pesticides.

The Chairman: In reply to Madame Girard-Bujold, Dr. Doubleday, you said perhaps better enforcement would be better. Can you elaborate on that observation?

Dr. William Doubleday: I was speaking in general terms. To the extent that the regulatory system for aquaculture could be improved, such improvements might best be through existing legislation and the enforcement of existing regulations. I didn't have specific examples in mind.

The Chairman: This is consistent with what you've been saying this morning. Are you of the opinion that you are adequately funded for enforcement purposes?

Dr. William Doubleday: That's rather an interesting question. This is my opportunity to ask for more money, I suppose.

We make best use of the resources we have by allocating them on a priority basis. If we had more resources, we could do more enforcement.

The Chairman: Has that point been raised with your superiors?

Dr. William Doubleday: I'm not responsible for enforcement myself, but I know the efficient use of our enforcement resources is a continuing issue, and management in the department is continually trying to improve the effectiveness of the enforcement effort.

The Chairman: What does that mean? Don't you think you're already fully effective, considering the cuts that have been applied to you? Are you not being asked all the time to do more with less?

Dr. William Doubleday: We have retained about 500 to 550 fisheries officers, so we have substantial enforcement staff in the field.

The Chairman: So are you satisfied that the number is adequate?

Dr. William Doubleday: I can only say we try to make best use of the resources we have available.

The Chairman: Fair enough. Thank you very much.

Brief comments, please, because we want to start a second round.

Mr. Jim Fulton: Just for the record, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has been in possession of the document I referred to earlier this morning on salmon aquaculture and the Broughton Archipelago sediment sampling program. It concluded there was acknowledgement by government that fish farm waste is accumulating at a rate faster than decomposition; that is, they are polluting.

Consider that 10% of the farms exhibited anoxic benthic conditions up to 50 metres from the farm; 20% of the farms sampled exhibited unsafe sediment concentrations of zinc; one farm exhibited high concentrations of zinc beyond the perimeter of the farm—that is, greater than 50 metres; and the list goes on. All of these are violations of sections 33, 34, 35 and 36 of the Fisheries Act. No enforcement people have gone there and done anything about it. No charges have been laid.

I discussed this with my colleague here. We're not aware that the department has gone there and investigated, laid any charges, or enforced any of the laws that are presently available under one of Canada's most powerful environmental acts, the Fisheries Act, in the last twenty years in relation to this industry. It's preposterous.

The Chairman: Is this new information to you, Dr. Doubleday?

Dr. William Doubleday: I'm not aware of this report.

Mr. Jim Fulton: They've been in possession of it since the salmon aquaculture review two years ago.

The Chairman: Would you undertake to examine it and let this committee have the benefit of your conclusions?

Dr. William Doubleday: I can provide a written response from the department after reviewing the report.

The Chairman: That would be helpful.

In the second round, we will now go to Mrs. Kraft Sloan, please.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much.

• 1135

Mr. Doubleday, you have told the chair that you have about twenty scientists in the field who go around visiting sites. What types of information are they gathering at these sites?

Dr. William Doubleday: The information depends on the project. Mr. Keizer can give more detail with respect to what he's familiar with.

Mr. Paul Keizer: The scientists are generally examining the processes that are occurring and are effecting the buildup of materials under the cages, and the impacts of those materials. The types of studies vary considerably, from measuring nutrient concentrations in the water to looking at the extent of buildup of materials under the cages. Some of the studies Mr. Fulton referred to are continuing studies within the department. A very wide range of aspects of the impact of the industry are being looked at.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Are these scientists undergoing inspection for compliance, or are they just taking samples?

Mr. Paul Keizer: It is not a compliance operation, no.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It's not a compliance operation. So if the scientists feel there's a problem with a site, they contact an inspection officer.

Mr. Paul Keizer: Yes, they would contact the management side of our operation. It could be fisheries management or habitat management.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: In all the years of operation, have there been no sites that are not under compliance?

Mr. Paul Keizer: This gets very complicated.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm not quite sure why it's complicated. I thought my question was a fairly simple question. Have all these sites been compliant according to the regulations? It's a yes or no question.

Mr. Paul Keizer: In New Brunswick we've dealt with this through a body called the New Brunswick Aquaculture Environmental Coordinating Committee.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: And who is that?

Mr. Paul Keizer: That is NBDFA—the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture—the Department of the Environment, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We discuss the problems, and we recommend remediation action for the sites that are having difficulties.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: And if the site is having difficulty, does that mean to say it's not compliant or it is compliant?

Mr. Paul Keizer: As Ms. Milewski and Jim Fulton pointed out, there are no definitive standards for what is compliant or is not compliant.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: And is that your estimation as well?

Mr. Paul Keizer: Yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So the question under discussion is whether we should regulate an aspect of an activity that has to do with fish feed, but the argument has been put forward that there's no need to do it because it's taken care of by other acts. However, I'm hearing that there is some concern around standards and whether sites are compliant or not compliant because we're not sure of standards. Am I correct in my assumptions?

Mr. Paul Keizer: I'm trying not to get too complicated here. There is a lot of natural variability in the systems, so you have to digest this information in the context of that natural variability. If the number exceeds this, then it's no longer compliant. The setting makes interpretation difficult.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But when one is operating a pulp and paper mill and one is allowing effluent or releases into natural ecosystems, one would think you would have a similar sort of situation. You have all kinds of natural occurrences going on, but one can determine that certain pulp and paper mills are in compliance or not in compliance. Are you telling me that we have no real way of understanding whether these fish farms are in compliance or not in compliance?

• 1140

Dr. William Doubleday: In the case of pulp mills, there are specific regulations under the Fisheries Act. Specific tests are carried out. If those same tests were carried out at fish farms, they would be found to be compliant, but the test is not very relevant. Basically, at a pulp mill you check to see if the effluent kills fish immediately, and that's really not what the issues raised have been.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But don't you have regulations for fish farms?

Dr. William Doubleday: No.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: You have no regulations for fish farms.

Dr. William Doubleday: They could be put in place under the Fisheries Act, but there are none.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So you have no regulations for fish farms, but you think it's not necessary for CEPA to legislate in this area in order to enable regulations that are strictly geared to environmental and human health protection, as opposed to some consideration around a department that I was told is pro-development. And I'm really happy to know that you're not entirely that way, as it gives me some level of concern when I hear comments like this.

You're telling me that there are no regulations. Is that why we can't find people not in compliance? Maybe the issue isn't so much enforcement as it is the fact that there is no way to actually enforce anything.

Dr. William Doubleday: There are few sets of regulations under the Fisheries Act that deal with specific industries. There are regulations for mining and for pulp mills. Those are the ones I'm aware of; I'm not aware of any others.

The act allows action to be taken if any deleterious substance is put into a fish habitat or if there is physical destruction of fish habitat, but there's no specific regulation required to take action. However, it is necessary to show that a substance is deleterious or that fish habitat has been reduced or lost as a result of whatever the activity is.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But no action has been taken.

Mr. Chair, after two days of testimony, and after a day of testimony with the industry, I find it hard to believe questions have not been raised about the fact that substances that are going into these fish pens and are escaping into the environment are not exactly non-toxic or are substances that won't cause a deleterious effect.

I would like to know what kinds of tests are made on shellfish and other fish that are outside of the pen. Is there testing for pesticide residue or testing for other kinds of medicants that are put into the fish feed? Are these the kinds of tests that your department is pursuing currently?

Dr. William Doubleday: When azamethiphos was applied for sea lice a couple of years ago, we carried out a study at the same time. That study exposed invertebrates. I think there were shrimp and lobster in the immediate vicinity of the place where the treatment was being applied. We were seeking information on whether azamethiphos would kill any of these animals, but it didn't.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Are there regular tests? It didn't kill any, but my question was whether or not there are tests that take a look at the tissue of shellfish and others that are outside of the pen, first of all to see if there's any residue of pesticides and other kinds of things that are used in the fish feed. Are these tests done on a regular basis? Is there any genetic testing to see what kinds of changes occur in offspring of wild fish and other shellfish that are outside of the pens?

Dr. William Doubleday: There are actually two projects under way right now to address these questions.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: You don't have regular ongoing testing.

Dr. William Doubleday: No.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

The Chairman: Very briefly, Ms. Milewski has just a very brief comment.

Ms. Inka Milewski: Yes, it is very brief.

The Chairman: We would like to complete this meeting by noon.

• 1145

Ms. Inka Milewski: It relates to the question of azamethiphos studies. There were two studies done in about 1995-96, by both DFO and the Huntsman Marine Science Centre. Here are the results. One study in 1995 involved two field trials looking at acute mortality of non-target invertebrates, adult lobsters, adult shrimp, scallops and soft-shelled clams held in cages near cages treated with azamethiphos. All lobsters kept within the cages died in both trials, but the other animals suffered no mortalities. Outside the cage, five to 120 shrimp died during the trials.

Mr. Jim Fulton: I have just one more bit for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to focus on. It's the same study I referred to, and it's only two years old:

...amphipod toxicity bioassays indicated that 68% of the sites sampled at only 24 of the 30 farms were toxic. 10% of the toxic samples were up to 100 meters away from the farm footprint.

There are people who harvest clams and shellfish in zones that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is aware are toxically contaminated.

The Chairman: Mr. Herron, followed by Madam Carroll.

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

Again, I'd like to thank the witnesses for coming today. I think this has been very informative. I also would like to point out that if we took a highlighter to the Hansard of this discussion after this is over, about 85% of the dialogue we've had back and forth for the last little while would not relate to the amendment we spoke about.

My next comment would be that our objective here is to develop good public policy, as opposed to a piecemeal approach. We have had some very interesting comments that have a fair amount of credibility with respect to the issue of enforcement of environmental regulations. These amendments wouldn't really engage that particular issue.

We've had some comments in terms of testing in regard to other invertebrates and shellfish that would be outside the fish cages. These amendments would not address that particular issue. There were even comments made with respect to some of the pesticides. I think they are valid and should be looked at, but again the comment was made that perhaps we should look at the pesticide act.

Before I came in here I had an opinion that in terms of sound public policy the best way to address these concerns is, in general, as a stand-alone piece of legislation, or to perhaps do it under provincial regulations. That's what I would be advocating for us to do.

I have another comment. I asked a question in question period with respect to environmental assessments for a shellfish farm that's being proposed for the Tatamagouche waters. I asked that question on behalf of a colleague, the member for Cumberland—Colchester. For the citizens who live in the area, shellfish are a new deal for fish farming. This is also one of the largest fish farms around. The citizens of the area wanted to have an environmental assessment: tell us the impacts, and how this affects us in terms of what we currently do and in terms of beach-front properties. They needed some public education.

Ultimately, what I'm more convinced of today is that we need to address the issue on a stand-alone basis or under provincial jurisdiction, versus going this route individually with respect to CEPA.

There's another comment I'd like to make. The industry realizes that it does need a clean environment to grow a clean product. We've heard that a couple of times before. Having said that, I think the environmental NGOs have brought to the table some things that have to be addressed. You do need to be at the table with both the environmental NGOs and industry NGOs when we're developing sound public policy. If you feel excluded from that perspective, I think you have good reason.

• 1150

There are other issues we spoke of as well. On the L'Etang Inlet, the fact is that it was overdevelopment that probably caused that problem, or perhaps did cause the problem. These amendments would not address the overdevelopment issue. So my perspective on this is that—

The Chairman: Mr. Herron, this is a beautiful summary, which the chair of this committee would envy. Would you mind asking your question?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: He just wanted to check if they agree with him.

Mr. John Herron: Exactly.

The issue is that I think it's important that the NGOs also bring to the table—and I'd like to have your comments on this—that there are permits of standards for every operation that begins now, in terms of the size of the operation they're allowed to use, how big it's supposed to be. In that permit they also address the fact of the depth of the tidal waters as well, which is very important for the New Brunswick perspective. So I think it's constructive for the NGOs to say that this is a product and industry that needs to grow. But you need to work with industry as well from that standpoint. So that's my comment, that we do need to not attack the industry outright. Thank you.

Ms. Inka Milewski: I would just like to table for the members the Saturday, January 30, issue of the New Brunswick Telegraph Journal, just to respond, Mr. Herron, to your last comment, where Mr. Keizer, who is sitting at the table today, says the reality is that in every province the aquaculture industry, and I quote, “is near saturation”.

So this notion that the aquaculture industry in Canada is a competitor on the world market is erroneous. Norway anticipates producing in ten years a million tonnes of farmed salmon. In eastern Canada we are producing 18,000 tonnes. We are not competing with the world.

I have said this to industry representatives before. It boggles my mind why industry doesn't realize that it has to redesign itself as a competitive industry, and that is to market itself as an organic fish product. That means going to more environmentally sustainable practices, which is onshore cage culture, which is reduction of pesticide and antibiotic use. That is how they're going to get their dollar back out of the fish they grow.

Mr. John Herron: I'll segue into that. I think it would be prudent for us if we had a comprehensive public policy, an actual act addressing this issue. Wouldn't you think it would be for the country, for Canada, to actually talk to the other fish-farming nations—Norway, Ireland, Chile—to ensure that we have the same environmental standards so that we don't have degradation of our oceans from anywhere? I think that working in conjunction with our partners so we have a level playing field would be good. Thank you.

The Chairman: Why don't you organize a conference in your riding on all of this? It may be very useful.

Madam Carroll, followed by Mr. Laliberte and by the chair.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Doubleday, I don't know whether you need more money for enforcement, but I'm sure they should pay you a lot of money to come riding in here alone on a horse, let me tell you.

I think it's interesting, and it's very nice to have Monsieur Bastien here with us, because I misunderstood his role when I just read briefly that he was commissioner of aquaculture. I misunderstood that. I thought—and I should have checked it out—that it was within the realm of our commissioner of sustainable development within the Auditor General's office, and of course it's not.

I read just quickly here la fiche d'information, which is the job description. It talks about

[Translation]

Enhance the profile of aquaculture, promote industry interests, foster the development of new aquaculture products, encourage research and development to assist marketing, etc.

[English]

And there isn't another aspect that I can determine. There's one other:

[Translation]

identify impediments to the development of the industry.

[English]

Perhaps, as I have learned today, you have had the opportunity to learn as well that it would appear there are some. And they are within the environmental setting.

I'm going to wrap it up and not take the same role Mr. Herron did.

• 1155

For twenty years we've had this industry in place, as we learned from the industry representatives, who came and said “Give us a break. We've only had twenty years. We're just getting this thing started.”

As a former maritimer who, along with the rest of Canadians, has witnessed what the lack of management on the parts of government and industry participants, including the fisher people, has produced on all our coasts and what it has done, the destruction we have seen of our natural fishing industry, I looked to this aquaculture as a wonderful, innovative route that was going to see us come in and supplement what has been lost while we recuperated, and while we applied new legislation that would never let us again do to the oceans what we have done.

What I have learned in the couple of days of sitting here is we have some problems. That's not to say that I in any way want to see this industry shut down or in any way have its hands tied, but I do want the balance. I mentioned at the beginning, I do want the ability on the part of the federal government to have legislation in place that compels enforcement to a bar that prohibits a new industry in our oceans doing what the old industries did.

Whether we do it in one department or another.... Mr. Doubleday, the onus does not fall on your shoulders alone, and probably not at all. But to listen to a concern by a group of people asking for assistance when they are observing what is happening to the natural environment and to see them write to department after department after department is not at all enthralling on my part.

As I said at the outset, we asked you to come and we asked industry to come to help us create the best public policy, to create a CEPA that will in effect provide the kinds of regulations we need to have a good industry and to assist in producing a product that does not harm the environment in the process.

I guess I don't have a question. I guess I've done what Mr. Herron did, I've summed up.

The Chairman: Mr. Fulton.

Mr. Jim Fulton: I would love to respond, because I think the member has really struck the quick of the issue, which is that what's required is balance.

The ecological and economic subsidy that's presently being provided by Canadians to this industry is immense. I'd urge that your researchers provide to this committee the actual quantum of the economic subsidy, because clearly within DFO we're talking tens and perhaps $100 million or something. We've got scientists working full-time on finding new feed and new vaccines and genetic alterations and so on. I'd like to just give you an example of how far off the track DFO is in bringing balance to it.

I would urge you to have a look at Privy Council 1997-1080, passed July 25, 1997, by his excellency the Governor in Council. The regulatory impact analysis says, and I'll just quote a few words of it:

Under the current Regulations, live cultured eggs and fish and eggs of wild fish cannot be imported into Canada or transferred between provinces if any disease or disease agent set out in Schedule II to the Regulations is detected in the source facility.

So what's being done here is that the regulations are being amended to allow local fish health officers to approve the importation of eggs of fish from a facility where a disease or a disease agent of concern is present. Now, down at the bottom it's important to note that there are no chemicals registered in Canada for disinfection of salmonid eggs.

Under the impact analysis that's required of the Privy Council under the new structure of the Privy Council, they have to list benefits. Let me just tell you what they list as the prime benefit:

...facilities where bacterial or parasite disease agents of concern were previously detected (and hence they could not be “certified” under the current Regulations) could now become sources of eggs for export to Canada or for shipment between provinces. This could create new business opportunities for some private sector salmonid aquaculturists.

Now either we're all mad, or this department is out of control. They have passed regulations to allow diseased eggs to be brought into Canada. There is no disinfectant approved in Canada for disinfecting the eggs. The reason the Privy Council Office and Department of Fisheries and Oceans, who produced this, say this is a good idea is it will create business opportunities for salmon aquaculturists to bring disease into Canada and between our provinces. It's extraordinary.

• 1200

The Chairman: Monsieur Bastien asked to intervene and comment, but I see Dr. Doubleday wants to comment on this.

Dr. William Doubleday: I would just make one point, which Mr. Fulton didn't bring out in his intervention. The introduction of fish eggs is only permitted between locations of the same fish health status. In other words, if this particular disease is already present where the fish are being moved to, then the importation is permitted under the revised regulations.

So it's not a question of bringing a new disease or spreading a disease into an area where it didn't exist before. It allows transfer between sites of similar status.

The Chairman: Mr. Bastien.

Mr. Yves Bastien: First I would just like to give a little point of view concerning my job description. You did not go through it completely, because the first part of it is saying that I have a leadership role for the seventeen organizations in the federal government that have some services or some regulations concerning aquaculture. So definitely I have a leadership role in the federal government, and it goes over more than just DFO, definitely. That's written in the paper you were just reading.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Which I just got a few minutes ago.

Mr. Yves Bastien: There's just one point I would like to make. We have been discussing more recently the policing of regulations, but I would just like to ask the members of this committee who will police the amendments that are in front of this committee. It will definitely be the Ministry of Environment. Does the Ministry of Environment have any bigger budget to enforce the regulations than DFO or other federal government departments? It will be the same problem. So you won't solve the problem in doing new regulations in another piece of law, unless you don't enforce it correctly. Regulations exist.

Finally, I would just like to say that there was a case mentioned here concerning furunculosis. Well, furunculosis is endemic to all parts of Canada, and it was there a long time before aquaculture was there. So it's not correct to say that aquaculture is responsible for that.

Ms. Inka Milewski: I didn't say it was responsible. I said that there were outbreaks in salmon farms and they cost the salmon farmers a lot of money. And we know why furunculosis breaks out: it is found in areas with a lot of organic material.

Mr. Yves Bastien: And there are outbreaks in rivers every year, natural rivers.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bastien.

Madam Carroll, briefly, please.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Mr. Bastien, indeed, as I said, I just had the fiche d'information passed to me here today.

First of all, I'm delighted to hear that you will umbrella seventeen agencies. It is exactly that kind of coordination that at least I look for. I'm very pleased that you are going to have the authority to provide that.

Secondly, I agree as well on the lunacy of passing any legislation that cannot be enforced, be it a bylaw at a municipal level, when I was a municipal politician, or be it at any point after that. Indeed, you might find that this committee has addressed that issue very well in a report on enforcement, where we felt very strongly that we do not have sufficient resources to enforce what is already on the books.

Nevertheless, the onus is on us to continue in the pursuit of good public policy, to continue to try to put the best on the books that we can, and at the same time, in a parallel course as politicians, push to get the resources available to make them work.

I thank you for your views.

Mr. Jim Fulton: Could I just comment on the furunculosis, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, followed by the chair and then we'll conclude.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: First of all, to Mr. Doubleday, and I suppose the commissioner as well, this strategy is what binds you and sets direction, right?

Mr. Yves Bastien: Do you want me to answer?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just want to highlight.

Regulations introduce costs to operators. That's what we heard from the operators. This is an economic question. Then it says the federal government will identify and remove, where appropriate, constraints to aquaculture development—this is under the regulatory framework—and then facilitate increased access to private sector capital by putting in place a regulatory and policy framework that is more conducive to attracting investment.

• 1205

So it's an investment—suppressing regulation to increase investment opportunities. And if that's the situation.... We have a lack of regulations from DFO. Their recommendation is that CEPA is not needed for further regulations.

It's only dealing with fish feed. We're not yet dealing with the drugs and chemicals that are induced into these fish farms. But we had a challenge to the lack of documentation in Mr. Fulton's presentation. Would we allow him to document something in writing on his recommendation on this? We're dealing with fish feed here, but with his previous experience with CEPA development in this country, he may have an opportunity to recommend what should be drafted into this section.

It's clause 116 in part 7 we're dealing with. That's the only opening we have, as I understand it. But if there's anything specific that should be drafted.... We have proponents of the industry and the government department itself saying we don't need anything. They say to take the amendments out. But I'm just challenging Mr. Fulton to put in writing what we should include if we should draft anything in here.

The Chairman: Well, just a moment. Mr. Fulton already made an intervention speaking of desirable subamendments. Anyone who appears before this committee is more than welcome to put forward proposals for the committee to consider, which would include Mr. Fulton's idea as to what the subamendment should be about.

Would you like to comment?

Mr. Jim Fulton: Yes. Rather than attempting to draft—I never was very good at drafting the legal wording, as you know, Mr. Chairman—I would urge that the committee get one of the able parliamentary counsels to draft a subamendment that reflects the evidence that was placed before the committee today—which was not contested, in my view, by either the evidence given by the industry earlier or by DFO—that there is an absence of regulation.

In this situation, it clearly seems the holistic approach needs to be taken. As I said earlier, it needs to take the definition of cradle-to-cradle for the stock, for all indigenous stocks. That's from egg to adulthood to harvest. It needs to deal with the disease vectors, and it needs to deal with the diseases, because as we just heard, the furunculosis issue is important. The reason there's a moratorium in B.C. is that there was an outbreak of triple-antibiotic-resistant furunculosis. This was not found in indigenous or resident stocks. It was the application of antibiotics that changed the disease. So the diseases and the vectors need to be looked at, the nutrients and their impacts on the wild and resident systems have to be looked at, and the drugs also have to be looked at, because some of them are toxic.

I think if a legislative scribe simply took that approach and provided a subamendment to the committee, so the committee could look at it, so it was a holistic amendment much as the amendments that were originally drafted in relation to CEPA on dioxin and organochlorines....

And as a flag to the industry, this kind of regulatory push coming from CEPA is good for the industry. It provides a level playing field in all of our saltwater maritime jurisdictions. In terms of what it did in the pulp industry, they screamed. They said it would cost them billions and they'd all be bankrupted if they stopped placing carcinogenic materials into our environment. They are now just as competitive and in fact they are able to sell much of their product as being dioxin- and organochlorine-free.

So there are good things that come in the marketplace from intelligent and wisely drafted amendments that protect wild stocks, as we heard from Ms. Carroll, which is very important. It protects the wild, natural environment but allows the industry to operate in a known regulatory environment.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any final comments? Dr. Doubleday or Mr. Keizer?

Dr. William Doubleday: No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Inka Milewski: Well, my only comment is that it is appropriate that CEPA does look at waste discharges, and I would broaden that definition to fish feed, because it is so site-specific. There is a smoking gun. You can assess the impact and have standards by which you assess the impact of fish feed and fish waste that are going to a fish farm. That is clear. And my understanding is that's what CEPA does. So I think it's totally appropriate that it come under CEPA and be taken out of the hands of DFO, which clearly has been unable to enforce, develop, or regulate any environmental standards.

• 1210

The Chairman: All right. Before expressing the committee's thanks to the witnesses, I would like to say that this morning has been quite a lively one. It has also produced, unexpectedly and in person, the new commissioner of aquaculture, whom we welcome and whom we wish well in his endeavour to coordinate not one, not two, not ten, but seventeen agencies, which will certainly test all his skills, diplomatic abilities, and patience. We are glad of the appointment that has been made and to have had an opportunity to see you in person.

I find the fact that emerged as a result of Madam Kraft Sloan's question rather revealing: that there seem not to be any regulations for fish farming—municipal, provincial, or federal—and therefore we do not know what makes a farm compliant.

I find the statement on alleviating the environmental concerns, the third bullet on page 14, rather baffling. It says “regular monitoring means we will be tracking site performance and fallowing sites to allow for recovery to pre-cage status”. I ask myself, what does “to allow for recovery” mean? Who is to allow and how is this going to be achieved in such a vacuum, so to say? It is a very, very cryptic bullet, because it raises an enormous number of questions, which could take up a few hours of our time.

We are all grateful to the witnesses for having included in their comments the amendment that is before the committee. It became clear on Monday that this amendment was inadequate. Today it has become even more so, for a number of reasons. We certainly look forward to the input and suggestions on how to improve that amendment, from industry, NGOs, and departments. Whoever cares to give us a hand, it will certainly be welcome.

We are seeing here an emerging issue the size of which we never dreamt. We never thought it would be so complex and so far-reaching. So it has been a steep learning curve for all of us. In that sense, in that spirit, I would like to thank you, Ms. Milewski, Mr. Fulton, Dr. Doubleday, and Mr. Keizer, for your appearance—and you, Mr. Bastien. We'll review the blues and make good use of the information you've left with us this morning.

It's now pretty late—time for lunch. Thank you very much. The members of the committee will see each other again on Monday, when we have a lunch with the negotiators of the biosafety convention. This has been carefully organized by our clerk, and he will be very sad and disappointed if you do not show up.

Having said that, this meeting stands adjourned for the time being.