ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, February 10, 1999

• 1536

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to this afternoon's meeting.

The purpose of our work remains the same: Bill C-32, An Act Respecting Pollution Prevention and the Protection of the Environment and Human Health in order to contribute to Sustainable Development.

Before introducing our witnesses and the Minister, I must make a few announcements.

[English]

The clerk is distributing a federal aquaculture development strategy. He's also distributing the prior informed consent paper prepared by John Moffet for the members of the committee. It will also be circulated tomorrow to those who are not here. He's distributing the text of the minister's intervention today, which means I just have to introduce him.

[Translation]

Mr. Minister, I am very happy to welcome you on behalf of the committee. You are accompanied by officials that you may perhaps want to introduce to the members of the committee. The floor is yours. We are very happy to have this opportunity to listen to you.

The Hon. Gilbert Normand (Secretary of State (Agriculture and Agrifood) (Fisheries and Oceans) Lib): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I would like to introduce you to the people who are accompanying me. There is Dr. John Davis, who is responsible for science at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans; Ms. Liseanne Forand, who is the Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, at Fisheries and Oceans; and our new Commissioner of Aquaculture, Mr. Yves Bastien.

I would like to thank you for allowing us to appear and also to tell you that I have not come here with the intention of trying to counter or demolish arguments that may have been presented to this committee over the past few days.

Over the weekend, I learned of the various presentations made here last week and I felt that it would be appropriate to present you with a comprehensive and general perspective as well as a political vision of the aquaculture industry as we see it currently in Canada, in comparison with other countries, and to tell you how we are hoping to see it develop in the years that lie ahead.

Because of the time factor, I was, unfortunately, unable to table a prepared text in advance. I do, however, have some notes on which I will try to base my presentation. I don't know how you proceed exactly. I do not know whether you prefer to ask questions as I go along or if you prefer to hold your questions until I am finished.

The Chairman: I would prefer that you make a fifteen-minute presentation, If you'd like, and then we will ask questions. This is how we usually proceed, if you are in agreement.

• 1540

Mr. Gilbert Normand: Fine.

As you know, aquaculture is a very young industry in Canada, starting some time around 1984. This industry has experienced very rapid growth since 1984. This industry, which had sales of approximately $7 million in 1984, is now reporting sales today of nearly $400 million. There has, therefore, been a phenomenal growth over the past 15 years.

Nevertheless, I think that everyone is aware that the aquaculture industry has had its ups and downs, and I would like to broaden the debate so that we are not focussing exclusively on salmon farming. Aquaculture is currently experiencing growth in several farming sectors, including shellfish and white flesh fish, in both fresh and salt water. The activity sectors of this industry are broadening from year to year. We have new species, even in the crustacean sector.

As you know, right now aquaculture is perhaps the most managed and regulated industry. There are currently 17 departments and agencies in both the Government of Canada and the provinces that regulate the aquaculture industry. As we say, it is well monitored.

We want to try to avoid duplication of these regulations, both in our departments and between the federal and provincial governments.

I know that you have focussed a great deal on aquaculture fish food. As we speak, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is in the process of reviewing all of its regulations on this issue, and that includes aquaculture fish food and all farm animal feed.

I think that we should compare aquaculture to agriculture as it was 100 years ago. A hundred years ago, there were hundreds if not millions of buffalo that roamed the prairies of the American and Canadian West. Today, tens of millions of livestock animals have taken their place. This was done to meet the needs of the population.

You know that fish stocks, in both Canada and in several other countries, have suffered a significant collapse. You also know that not only the people here in Canada but those around the world require more and more protein for food and that seafood currently constitutes an important source of protein for the human race. Moreover, over the past few years, many countries have greatly surpassed Canada in developing the aquaculture industry. Countries such as Chile, Japan, Portugal and Greece, to name but a few, have doubled their efforts to develop aquaculture because fishing has declined just about everywhere.

Obviously, we must be concerned about the impact that this industry has on the environment, as we are now doing and as we have been doing on a more in-depth basis over the past two years in the agriculture sector.

As I have already said, the aquaculture industry is young and will be developing. Development is crucial because the survival of the human race depends on it. I do not think that I'm being dramatic by saying that.

Many things come into play in developing aquaculture. There is the environment with respect to the site and with respect to the way that the fish farmers operate. Problems are very different from one sector to the other, depending on whether or not you're dealing with shellfish, salmon, cage farming, pond farming, sea farming or fresh water farming. We are aware of the fact that there may be an impact on the environment and that there is the issue of discharge, but we must not exaggerate.

• 1545

I know that fish food was the subject of some very intense discussion here last week. You heard some presentations from several lobby groups. As I said at the beginning, I do not intend to try to demolish or counter the arguments presented by each and every lobby group. Instead, my objective is to try to understand the interests of the groups represented.

You heard from people who raise money and who, often, try to justify why they are raising money. You heard some scientific presentations, both by the department and by industry representatives, and you also heard presentations from people who want to protect the environment. I don't think that you have an easy role to play. You have to strike a balance. We know that your decisions will determine what direction we take. We will see how much flexibility we will have to enable this new industry to continue developing in harmony with the environment.

There is also the whole issue of genetics, which has not been discussed at great length. There is the problem pertaining to the eggs or exchange of fry.

I would also like to tell you that in this sector, Canada has signed an international agreement. Unfortunately, several of the countries that signed this agreement do not abide by it, but we must also be aware of the fact that every agricultural sector, whether we are talking about horses, cows, dogs or pigs, has always progressed by crossbreeding in order to strengthen the breeds that meet food needs of people, or genetic requirements. Indeed, people look for certain features. I can tell you right now that this will be no different for fish.

For example, in Chile, salmon have been developed by crossbreeding. Eggs from Scotland and the North Shore of Quebec have produced species that are more resistant to temperature change and that grow faster.

I know that you have also discussed the ratio between food and meat production. In the case of meat-producing food, about the only animal that has a ratio of less than 1:1 is the ostrich.

In the case of fish, the ratios are sitting at around 3:1, depending on the fish species involved and the way that the aquaculture is carried out. That means that three kilos of food are required to produce one kilo of meat. However, in several places, and this is the goal of nearly every fish producer, we are getting close to a ratio of 1:1. In France, I even saw a sturgeon farm where the ratio was 0.9:1.

We have some work to do. Scientific research is very important and will become increasingly so. Over the next few years, we want to base ourselves on research that is more and more in-depth and targeted.

You are aware that there has been some disease in aquaculture. Did the wild fish transmit the disease to the domestic fish? I would defy anyone to come up with some evidence. There are some diseases, such as tularaemia, which is transmitted by wild rabbits and there is rabies, which is transmitted by foxes to domestic animals. The same phenomenon occurs in aquaculture. There are sick fish in the wild that may in fact infest the fish farms. This even exists amongst human beings. Aids come from chimpanzees; it does not come from humans.

I think that we have to have a relatively comprehensive vision and—you will pardon the expression—we should refrain from sealing things off too hermetically at this point.

What I can I say to conclude? Nearly eight years ago, Canada was the largest fish exporter in the world. As we speak, Canada is ranked somewhere between 17th and 27th place.

• 1550

A few weeks ago, I went to the London fish market at five o'clock in the morning and the fish vendor told me that eight or ten years ago, 50% of all the fish he sold came from Canada, whereas today, less than 10% comes from Canada because countries such as Norway, Chile, Greece and Spain are exporting their aquaculture production to the markets.

I fully agree with you that we have to be very careful when it comes to the environment, and that is what we're doing. The role of the Commissioner, over the next few months and years, will be to work in close co-operation with the provinces, industry and the Department to see where the problems and solutions lie. At this point, we certainly do not want to find ourselves facing a hierarchy of duplicated regulations that may do more harm than good. When producers face regulatory anarchy, they have more freedom than they do when there is simple, well-formulated regulations.

I will stop here for the time being. Perhaps Mr. Bastien would like to add something.

Mr. Yves Bastien (Commissioner of Aquaculture, Fisheries and Oceans, Canada): No, I think that we can take questions now.

Mr. Gilbert Normand: We would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

As is our custom,

[English]

we'll start with the honourable colleague from the Reform Party.

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, and thanks for your presentation. We've heard two opposite opinions on this industry, one on one end of the spectrum and one on the other, so it's good to have more input.

In your handout you talk about some studies you're doing and some funding that's going toward some of the issues we've heard about. One of them is the effect of drugs and pesticides that are used in aquaculture. I guess we're talking more about aquaculture in the oceans on the coast.

We've heard varying degrees of opinion on the seriousness of this issue, if there is any problem with this issue, and the effects of using these things on wildlife, especially on life on the sea floor. Are these studies ongoing? Is there some good solid data we haven't heard yet on the effects of using pesticides on sea lice?

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Normand: We cannot know in advance what the full impact will be. It's impossible. Certain things were done and we know what the impact has been. I can give you an example. At one point, antibiotics were used that proved to be fatal to a nearby lobster farm. We found out about it when it happened. It is always difficult to foresee everything in this particular sector, as in the human sector. I have only to cite the example of the blood transfusion saga. If people had known, 15 years ago, what the consequences of that situation were to be, they would have... Scientifically, it is impossible to foresee everything. We cannot foresee the unforeseeable, but we can at least try to foresee what is foreseeable, and research is crucial in this sector to find out as much as possible.

Antibiotics are used, but I do not think that they are used in such high dosages as you were led to believe, first of all. In sea farming, more antiseptics than antibiotics are used. I know that some antibiotics were used, but the Canadian Food Inspection Agency already has very tight regulations on this matter. I don't see how additional regulations can add anything to that. However, we could ask the Agency to be more vigilant. I do not know whether or not Mr. Bastien wishes to add anything to what I have said.

• 1555

Mr. Yves Bastien: I can provide some further information.

When I came here as an observer to listen to the debate, at one point there was a discussion about the enforcement of existing legislation. A question was asked as to whether or not Canada's existing legislation, and there are a whole series of laws that I could talk to you about, was in fact being enforced. That was a subject of debate here.

I would like to provide some additional information to what was said. You were given the impression that these acts and regulations were not being enforced to a great extent. I requested some information and I would like to point out to you that in the last issue of Atlantic Fish Farming, the title of an article was as follows:

[English]

“Fish farm in court over pesticide use”.

[Translation]

This was a fish producer who had used an illegal product. He was brought to court and fined.

I also have a letter from a senior project manager who works at the Health Canada Pest Management Regulatory Agency. He confirmed that legal proceedings had been initiated for two cases of illegal actions under the New Brunswick legislation.

This demonstrates that we do have regulations and the means to enforce them in the provinces and in Canada. The officers who work in the provinces or who work for the Canadian public service can enforce the provisions of federal regulations if they have been given this responsibility. This is very possible.

I simply wanted to tell you that this does exist and that the regulations are enforced whenever necessary. Accordingly, I do not think it is necessary to pass new regulations.

That does not mean that the situation is ideal, however. If we are currently experiencing problems in enforcing the regulations somewhere in Canada, we have to find a way to enforce existing legislation properly rather than create new regulations which, in my opinion, would be redundant.

[English]

Mr. Rick Casson: There are a couple of issues, I suppose. One is the amount of fish that is taken out of the oceans to feed in aquaculture. You talked about the ratio of food to protein, and I think fish are one of the highest converters of that. You talked about the buffalo on the prairies and all these things in history, but if the natural fish have been taken out of the oceans to a great degree, why can't you use the source of food they had? I suppose in doing that you would take away from any replacement of that.

Also, on the amount of money being spent to develop this and research it, you talk about the potential for expansion being huge and all the different species you could use. How does that—I don't know if you want to comment on this—weigh up against looking more into restoring what we originally had: the fact that the best solution to this shortage of fish is to replace the wild stocks? Do you have a comment on that? It's more of a personal thing of mine.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Normand: In my opinion, we have to do both. I think that it is absolutely necessary that we do both.

In order to meet Canadian demand, the aquaculture industry could occupy approximately 1% of the shoreline territory. Considering that we have 6,400 kilometres of shoreline, this would mean that approximately 64 kilometres of shoreline could be used for sea farming. However, there are other ways to do aquaculture. We can raise fish in ponds, which are completely inland. There are some salt water fish farming operations, where the operator produces his own salt water which is constantly recycled. These fish farms are not even by the sea.

As for rebuilding fish stocks, I fully agree with you.

• 1600

One of the things I read was that certain comparisons had been made and that it was discovered that fish farms in Vancouver produced as much fecal waste as 500,000 people.

I don't know if you are aware of this, but over the past eight years, the number of seals in the Atlantic Ocean, mainly in Labrador, has jumped from 2 to 6.4 million. If you calculate that a seal produces four times as much fecal matter as a human being, that would mean that the fecal production of the herd alone, is greater than that of the entire Canadian population. We therefore have to be very careful when we make such comparisons.

[English]

Mr. Rick Casson: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Casson.

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold, please.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Welcome, sir. As you know, I represent the Bloc Québécois. I am a Quebec MP, like you, I believe. You know that Quebec has an aquaculture policy, and you also know that there are some truly global federal-provincial agreements so that everyone remains in their proper place.

We have heard representatives from the industry and people disputing what the industry has told us. We have been visited by environmentalists who have told us about some irregularities. I am not a specialist in this and I trust those who seem to make sense. They told us about medicines and garbage on the ocean floor, among many other things which I found disturbing.

The industry is currently experiencing tremendous growth. Even the people in the industry say that they regulations will have to change. They are no longer suited to today's situation. These regulations were made to suit fisheries, in the context of the fisheries strategy.

We must not minimize things, but perhaps it is time to set our regulations in order and bring them up to date in order that both environmentalists and the industry might progress.

I would not reject out of hand what they have told us. I think it gives the aquaculture Commissioner a good area to develop with the provinces. I was not able to attend your whole presentation, but I am pleased to note that you always work in concert with the provinces. That is one way of moving the industry ahead.

I hope you do not minimize the version presented by the environmentalists who came to see us. I have always felt that we must be open... As you say, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find fish at sea. We are going to have to use aquaculture to replace fishing, but it must be done in a healthy environment open to exporting.

I am pleased to have heard your presentation, but I will be keeping close track of you and your aquaculture Commissioner.

Mr. Gilbert Normand: Thank you. I fully agree.

To begin with, I am not here as an environmentalist. I am a physician by training, and practised medicine for 20 years. I was also a mayor for eight years. When Mr. Lincoln was the Environment Minister, I was the first mayor in Quebec assigned to water purification work with his government.

I was also one of the first Quebec mayors to allow water fluoridation, which was quite controversial at the time. A report published last year, 10 years later, indicates that 60% of the young people in the community where I was living have fewer cavities than those in the neighbouring municipalities. There are certainly pros and cons.

As for the Commissioner's work, one of the coming year's priorities will be to work closely with the provinces and with the industry, and to review the regulations to bring them in line with the environmental laws and the needs of industry. We have to do a bit of cleaning up and housekeeping, not necessarily to bend the laws and be more slack but to equip ourselves with regulations that are far easier to follow and to apply.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you.

• 1605

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

[English]

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): I have a question on something I picked up just the other day. The Israelis do a little bit of fish farming on ground. Can you expand on that technology? Is it adaptable to salmon farming?

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Normand: During my visit, I did not look into everything being done in Israel. On the other hand, I can talk about what I saw during a visit to Florida, barely two weeks ago, in Fort Pierce. They practise aquaculture in salt water, but the salt water is man-made. Everything is done in basins using a reclamation system. There are even experimenting with hydroponic vegetables using aquaculture wastes.

That's why I say that there is a tremendous potential, and I am convinced that aquaculture will become increasingly different from traditional fishing and will develop into something more like agriculture.

Mr. Yves Bastien: I can give some additional information, if you wish.

Mr. Gilbert Normand: Yes.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Herron.

Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Gilbert Normand: I think that Mr. Bastien wished to add something.

The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Bastien.

Mr. Yves Bastien: I won't be long. I would just like to add something in reply to Mr. Herron's question. Land-based aquaculture was the subject of a good deal of experimentation throughout the world, in Norway, in Japan especially, and even in North America, during the 1980s to 1990s. There were many efforts to develop major salmon farming projects on land with pumped water, which of course would provide for control over the raising of the fish, environmental waste, etc..

These projects all failed in the end, for one simple reason: because of the difference between the selling price of the salmon and the cost of producing it, there was no profit to be made. When the projects started, the price of salmon was quite high. Then because of the tremendous expansion in world production of salmon, the price declined steadily. At less than $5 per pound for Atlantic salmon, in Canadian dollars, these projects were no longer viable and consequently went under.

At the present time, technology has progressed and there is a resurgence in this kind of project. Japan, among others, is proving that we might be able to produce fish with these new technologies and still make a profit. However, it is always a question of the balance between the cost of production and the price you get for the fish. This applies to all other kids of fish as well as salmon.

Aquaculturists in general would like to get away from the marine environment and the risks involved, for example storms. Ideally they would like to produce within a fully controlled environment, and have control over all their inputs, over the products required for fish farming, and over all the conditions.

This can work provided there is a balance, provided the process is financially viable, and provided that a profit can be made. Other developments are currently emerging, including fish farming in cages in the natural environment. Here the fish are more enclosed than in regular cages. This is currently being developed in Canada. A good deal of research is being done. It may become the technology of the future. For the time being, however, we do not know whether it will be financially viable. For the moment, then, we are continuing to practise fish farming using traditional techniques, which are less costly.

The governments are working primarily on technologies or codes governing practices, on regulations to limit the environmental impact. These things are progressing and might well replace the present technologies one day.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Herron.

Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, my first question is for the Secretary of State. It has to do with the direction taken by this industry, and pertains to what the Commissioner has just said.

• 1610

We heard a Foundation say:

In British Columbia, salmon farming uses an intensive production industrial model, and is detrimental to the natural environment in which it is practised. This type of aquaculture is quite different from the type practised in most of the world's countries. Fully 95 percent of world aquaculture produces non-carnivorous fish in ponds for local markets. Most of the ponds are ecologically integrated with the agricultural, industrial and community surroundings; thus, the wastes become fertilizer rather than pollutants.

I heard the Commissioner's presentation, and I see here, in the Federal Aquaculture Development Strategy, that for the federal government, the development of aquaculture will receive special attention both politically and in terms of development activities, and that the government should establish a climate in which aquaculture can prosper.

According to principle 4, the requirements of the industry in terms of national and international competitiveness must be met.

Under principle 5, the development of aquaculture should be compatible with the responsibilities of the government, in particular health, public safety, navigation and the environment.

So principle 4 concerns competitiveness and principle 5, environment and health. Given the direction that aquaculture in Canada seems to be taking, namely production in cages, in bodies of water or in bays rather than in ponds, do you intend to channel development into what 95.5 percent of countries are doing, namely aquaculture in ponds?

Now is the time to do so. We are in the early stages. Some operations of this type already exist, but we are in the early stages of developing a strategy. Do you really intend to go in the direction of practices considered more environmentally friendly and possibly competitive, using new technologies?

If we have to be competitive with countries that do not respect the environment or have less consideration for it than we do, it will always cost a little more. We must be concerned about competitiveness, without losing sight of the quality of the environment.

Mr. Gilbert Normand: You have raised a number of points, Mr. Charbonneau.

To begin with, the Foundation that you talked about in connection with British Columbia must be the David Suzuki Foundation. I have written to them three times over the past year to ask for a meeting with them. They always replied that they were not ready. They were probably preparing to come and meet with you last week.

This having been said, what is currently being done in B.C. is happening in a number of other countries, in particular Chile, where development is taking place with a Canadian technology. Moreover, nearly 90 percent of the equipment used in Chile is from Canada.

I can tell you that the Chilean industry also has standards. When you talk about competitiveness, you must also have quality assurance, because an industry that is not concerned about the quality of its animals or whether its products are wholesome cannot be competitive. If the products are going to be wholesome when they arrive on the market and the fish in good health...

An industry that is losing 15, 20 or 30 percent of its production cannot be profitable. With time, people refine their techniques to have as few losses as possible, beginning with the egg stage until the animal is ready to be slaughtered.

Some proven technologies have been developed in British Columbia. I have personally visited a number of sites, at least three times, including flights to island sites. A number of B.C. operations have achieved a ratio of nearly 1:1. B.C. even has industries with boats where the fish are taken in cages and brought live to the plant. It takes only nine minutes for the live fish to be processed and packaged. Thus there is little time for contamination to occur. The water is processed, and so on.

• 1615

I'm not saying that everything is done as it should be everywhere, but at the present time, sea farming is the most profitable way of doing it.

In order to keep feed from going out, most of the time the fishermen use nets with cones at the base for recovering the feed not ingested by the fish; the feed is then brought to the surface. Everything is controlled electronically by weight, down to the ounce. Everything is computerized, and they can find out the ratio of fish growth in a basin in relation to the food they receive.

I would recommend a visit to these places one day, if you have never been. Just from the viewpoint of scientific and technological interest, it's fantastic.

However, we certainly will have to develop other methods. In Portugal, they are receiving 60% in subsidization; 45% from the EC and 15% from the country to transform salt marshes into aquaculture sites. These are tremendous marshes where the tide changes the water twice daily. Aquaculture is practised in these basins. When the fish have reached maximum size and are ready to be killed, the water is emptied, the residue is cleaned out with tractors and they are sent for processing.

Thus all the countries are presently organizing things around their environment. Ours is special; here in Canada we have cold water. The water is warmer close to BC, but elsewhere in the country we can raise cold-water fish.

The conditions do not make it easy, as Mr. Bastien pointed out. Producers try to find ideal climatic conditions, to avoid storms and to get ideal environmental conditions. An ideal is something you can aim at, but might not necessarily achieve right away. It can take a good deal of research.

This is what the Canadian government wishes to emphasize. Shared-cost programs, by which the government helps industry, occur primarily in research, as is the case with agriculture. Under NAFTA and other treaties, this is about the only way in which you can help industry.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I have another question, Mr. Chairman.

Judging from your reply, I gather that the developmental prospects you anticipate will enable you to reconcile the needs of competitiveness with environmental concerns because you will be competitive on the basis of respecting the environment and producing quality fish.

One part of the federal strategy is called the Strategic Plan. In section 6.5 of the Plan, you say:

Thus, in order for the industry to develop sustainably, aquaculturists must observe strict environmental standards.

And you add:

Aquaculturists and environmentalists are natural allies in their work to protect the aquatic environment.

“Natural allies,” but in fact there are still a few grey areas to deal with before they can become true allies.

Later on, you say: “The federal government will...”This is followed by five or six undertakings, including “implement a responsive and effective regulatory and policy framework,” “codes of conduct,” “Sustainable development” and “develop a systematic framework for conducting environmental impact assessments, developing risk assessment models and class assessments, pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act”.

I have some experience in past or present relations between environmentalists and business, for example in the management of household, industrial or hazardous wastes.

• 1620

In principle, there should be agreement because you are allies. In practice, there is a good deal of friction. When, for example, a hazardous wastes management company wishes to establish any kind of technology on a given site, the response is often one of failure to understand and defensiveness. There is a good deal of discussion and animosity, and many very valid technological projects fall by the wayside because the community rejects them.

I would like to ask you whether you believe in the establishment of an impact assessment process, with public hearings, when a promoter wishes to choose a given site for his business. Do you not feel that by establishing an impact assessment procedure, with public hearings, we could resolve opposition that might arise between aquaculturists and environmentalists, making them real allies rather than simply allies in principle?

How do we plan to go about establishing such an alliance? I can suggest one way. I don't know whether you would find it acceptable or if you have others in mind.

Mr. Gilbert Normand: I will answer your question in part and will then ask Mr. Bastien to provide the rest of the information.

On your first point, as to whether environmentalists and aquaculturists are allies, I would say yes without hesitation, for the simple reason that it is impossible to produce fish or shell- fish in contaminated water. One of the best examples I know of is in France, in the department of Charente-Maritime, where close to 95% of the oysters eaten in Europe are produced. There is an institute there that monitors water quality daily. The same institute can stop the sale or harvest of shell-fish for a certain period of time when the water quality is poor.

Our most advanced aquaculturists at the moment have to check their water quality regularly, for certain heavy metals, oxygen content, and so on.

There is no doubt that the impact studies would be much more beneficial to aquaculturists than to others, because they should be sure that a particular site is not polluted before they establish their operation. The impact study that you would like to see, one on the real impact that would show whether aquaculture is a source of pollution or not, would have to be done once the operation is in place.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: That means that some rules must be set. As a matter of fact, the federal government seems to say that it will develop some. It says that it will “develop a systematic framework for conducting environmental impact assessments”. So certain rules will be established on the basis of past experience and observations that may be made here and there. It is possible to establish certain assessment criteria.

Of course, companies that are already operating will have to be assessed on an ongoing basis. However, even before they begin operations, there could be friction between the company and the host community. That is where there is trouble.

In any case, in other areas of industry or environmental management, community resistance becomes so strong that the project is not even carried out. An impact study can reassure both sides, can show them what is at stake and help select the best site and reassure people, reassure all those who have some questions about the project. After that, the company has a chance to succeed. At that point, the natural alliance you refer to becomes a concrete alliance.

In environmental matters, the procedure is generally to put the cards on the table; a study is commissioned and is carefully reviewed. The parties appear and comment on the study. Finally, the committee with responsibility for reporting reaches a decision and makes a recommendation. Generally, that allays people's fears, or confirms them, in cases where the project should not go forward in a particular location.

Don't you think an approach of this type could be positive, even for the company? The objective is not to prevent projects, but to ensure that they are carried out completely efficiently—as regards both environmental and economic considerations.

Mr. Gilbert Normand: Look, that is quite possible. The question is whether any such procedure could be established that would not take years. Probably.

• 1625

I would like to tell you a little anecdote. Last year, the Department of the Environment wanted to stop testing the water used in aquaculture operations. At the moment, the department does a sampling and monitoring. The department wanted the producers themselves to do it and to pay the lab fees. There was a dual objective here, because the amount involved was $200,000.

I personally asked the Minister to continue doing these tests, at the request of the producers. If they didn't want any environmental monitoring, they would have been more than happy to see the Department of the Environment withdraw from this activity. It was not just a question of money; I think that they really wanted the Department of the Environment to continue monitoring water quality at their fish farms.

I will let Mr. Bastien give you a more detailed answer.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I am referring particularly to the siting. That is often where problems occur, and the first misunderstandings. Of course, it is quite easy to reach agreement on the mechanisms to be used for ongoing monitoring of the farm. However, in the case of the initial site selection, would there be some way of putting that...

Mr. Gilbert Normand: At the moment, this is a provincial responsibility.

Mr. Yves Bastien: The problem is that it's unclear. It is linked very specifically to the siting question. Consequently, it is often the federal and provincial monitoring programs that guarantee follow-up on the environmental requirements under and around the traps. That already exists. It is already in place.

If British Columbia were ever to lift its moratorium, and we do not yet know whether that will happen, there is already a monitoring project for all new sites that will be authorized to ensure that there is no violation of existing federal or provincial standards. That is in place in New Brunswick and will be put in place in British Columbia.

In addition, the federal government does some follow-up work. Some representatives from Fisheries and Oceans Canada this week said that serious research had been done on impacts of this type. Finally, other studies have also shown that so far, the impacts, generally speaking, were minor. However, they do exist. It is not as though there were no regulations on this; they do exist.

Impact studies done before projects are put in place have a theoretical value, because we don't know exactly how particular sites will react. If a site has good drainage, or where the water changes often or where there are many ocean currents, the toxicity problem would be very different. Some testimony here, from Mr. Doubleday, among others, illustrated that the biological load on the environment caused by feed and faeces is less than the natural load produced by these sites. However, this varies from site to site.

In 1983, I visited a site in Norway located in a fairly closed fjord. This site is becoming self-polluted. It was not the government that changed things. It was the producers who realized that they were located on a site in which there was no water exchange with the ocean. At that time, the government had not issued any standards. The producers themselves were the ones who pointed out that some sites are problematic.

In other words, problems are often solved as a result of serious monitoring that is done once the company begins operations rather than as a result of preliminary impact studies.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I would like you to consider my question, rather than simply giving me an answer that you had in mind on another matter.

I am talking about siting. You tell me there will be ongoing studies, that there will be no problem. We understand each other well; this will be introduced and there will probably be a committee established to review results. The parties involved and the community will take part in the discussion. I am talking about siting. Let me take the example of waste management, the location of a dump site, an incinerator or other types of technologies, cells, etc.. Like you, developers say that they will monitor operations closely and file reports, that the Department of the Environment will have its say, as well as a committee representing the municipality, and that they will follow all this very closely. They guarantee that they will have the best technology that will be able to detect so many parts per million, and that there will be no problem. But before these facilities are put in place, whether we're talking about a cell, a smokestack or whatever else, there are people living around whatever site is chosen. As you say, each site is different. That is why each should be studied.

• 1630

You say this is all theoretical. People reacting to plans to establish a waste elimination system could say the same thing. What is the point in studying these matters? We will see what happens afterward. We will do follow-up work if you want to get the surrounding community on board—and by community I mean the people involved from the municipalities, the environmentalists, all those who have something to say about this, possible investors, and so on—if you want them to go along with your project, you must talk to them beforehand. You must talk to them when you put forward your plans.

If there are 10 possible sites in a region over a distance of one mile, there may be an additional problem. If there is just one site, located 10 miles away from another, that is a different matter. And if there are smells and leaching associated with the project, and so on... All this must be looked at beforehand.

The same goes for incinerators. The composition and direction taken by the columns of smoke is studied. This is all considered beforehand. You don't wait until the incinerator and smokestack are built to start determining how the smoke will move. This is all done before the fact.

I would ask whether you would consider having a procedure that would allow you to review the project together with the community when the site is chosen. I suggest that, because I think it's an excellent way of ensuring that projects succeed, of giving them a chance not to fail. If you know better ways, please tell us about them. I'm not asking you this question to give you a recipe for failure, but rather to help find a recipe for success.

Mr. Gilbert Normand: First, I must tell you that with the exception of Prince Edward Island, at the moment, this matter comes under provincial jurisdiction.

Second, I think you are right; it would be worthwhile to study the impact of such projects. The impact is not limited to the water. You also have to look at how people use the area. Sometimes swimmers or people on seadoos can get caught up in the traps. At the moment, this is a matter of provincial responsibility.

In British Columbia, recommendations similar to yours have been made. I see no objection to that. At the moment, the only place where the federal government issues permits is Prince Edward Island. Everywhere else, the provinces issue the permits.

Mr. Yves Bastien: Sometimes the provinces have set up some very complicated procedures, involving public hearings. All the people involved have a say before operations get under way. This exists in Canada, in the provinces.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Thank you. I think that is what should be done if we want to ensure the success of point 1 of your policy. It becomes a government priority, and so on. You want it to be a success, but there are proven ways of guaranteeing success or failure.

Mr. Yves Bastien: You are absolutely right.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Charbonneau. I will start the second round by asking a few questions myself.

In your opening remarks, Minister, you spoke about co- operation between the industry and the provinces. You did not mention non-governmental organizations. Is there a reason for that?

Mr. Gilbert Normand: No. It was just an omission.

The Chairman: My first questions will be about the strategic plan referred to on page 11 of the English version of the Strategy. It is made up of 12 points. They are no doubt all very important. However, there is no mention of pollution prevention. Throughout the whole Strategy document, I found only one reference to the word “pollution”, on page 13 of the French text, section 5, where there is a reference to “coastal pollution”. I am wondering how we can establish a strategy with no reference to pollution prevention.

• 1635

Mr. Gilbert Normand: I have the answer.

The Chairman: I would refer you to section 6.4, which discusses the “regulatory framework”. I will switch to the other official language to give the interpreters a little break.

[English]

I find it unbelievable to read that the sector is affected by several regulations that were not initially designed for the industry and which introduced necessary cost to operators. What we have learned in this committee in the last few sittings is there are virtually no regulations. This is what is making this committee very nervous.

All of a sudden you read here of a regulatory framework that creates the impression that this industry is under a terrible regulatory burden and that it may affect its international competitiveness. Well, let us see where this regulatory burden is. We would love to know about it. So far we have not been able to discover it.

Earlier Mr. Bastien mentioned a code of practice, and we welcomed hearing that. A moment later he spoke about regulations that are being developed. It would be interesting to know what he means. Is it regulations that are in place, or is it a code of practice that is in place, and if so, since when?

The whole thrust of this strategy may be oriented to development—yes, no doubt, but certainly not sustainable development as it is usually understood. This is because environmental considerations do not emerge in this strategy. I could not find any except, as Mr. Charbonneau has already done, under paragraph 6.5. In there,

[Translation]

there is a reference to coastal pollution.

[English]

Sure, it is harmful to aquaculture development. Then what are we going to do about it? We learned that aquaculturists and environmentalists are natural allies in their work to protect the aquatic environment. That is good news. Perhaps we didn't know that before and we welcome that information.

But where is the substance? Where are the elements that could give assurances that here we are dealing with an industry that is operating in a manner that we will not regret 10, 20, or 30 years from now. It is important to learn from you, as you did tell us, Mr. Minister, that there are studies being carried out.

[Translation]

The Department has conducted some scientific studies and has concluded that the impact was manageable.

[English]

We would very much like to see this study. We would also like to see the studies indicated

[Translation]

on page 2 of your notes. You mention special funds to support research activities. We would like to know how much money has been set aside, what sort of research will be done, and the findings of the second, third, fourth and fifth studies, namely the study on the environmental impact of chemical and organic waste, the study of the nature of organic build-up, the evaluation of the protocols for monitoring environmental impacts and the assessment of toxicity to non-target organisms. These documents could be very important and useful to us in our work.

In closing, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that committee members have been informed that a very strong, dangerous chemical called ivermectin is being used illegally, without a permit. We were also told that the industry had requested permission to use in the water another very dangerous substance called cypermethrin. We would like to know the status of this request.

• 1640

As a result of the Memorandum of Understanding signed in 1985 by the Minister of the Environment at the time and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, does the current Minister of the Environment have the authority to amend regulations made under section 36 of the Fisheries Act? On the basis of this Memorandum of Understanding, could she announce amendments without the approval of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans if she thought such a step were necessary? If the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans were opposed, could he veto such an initiative by the Minister of the Environment?

Mr. Gilbert Normand: Your questions are legal in nature. You want to know whether our Minister can accept regulations that come from the Minister of the Environment. I could not answer such a broad question. I would say that it depends on the regulations to which you are referring. Legally speaking, I don't think the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has such a veto. We would like to see some harmonization among the various regulations.

As I was mentioning earlier, in a number of countries, aquaculture now comes under agriculture rather than fisheries. I won't hide the fact that this possibility is already being discussed here.

I could not tell you whether the Minister of Fisheries would accept the regulations put forward by the Minister of the Environment. I hope that at least these regulations would be submitted to us before being tabled.

The Chairman: Your assistant deputy minister could draft a note to answer this question.

We would also like an answer about the two dangerous chemicals and we would like to hear what Mr. Bastien has to say about a code of practice.

Mr. Gilbert Normand: I would like to know what dangers these two chemicals cause.

The Chairman: They are harmful to the aquatic environment.

Mr. Gilbert Normand: To whom or to what are they a danger?

The Chairman: To fish.

Mr. Gilbert Normand: Do these chemicals make them dizzy or knock them out?

The Chairman: We are talking about cypermethrin and ivermectin, which are highly toxic and very dangerous to aquatic environments.

Mr. Gilbert Normand: Their toxicity always depends on the amounts involved. It's a little bit like fluorine, which is beneficial if properly used, but which could also be toxic.

• 1645

The Chairman: Do you have any comments on this, Mr. Bastien?

Mr. Yves Bastien: I am not a specialist, and I am not very familiar with these substances. We can note the names of these chemicals, do some research and let you know what we find out.

The Chairman: Very well. Mr. Bastien, could you tell us about the code of practice?

Mr. Yves Bastien: Codes of practice can be implemented in two ways: through regulations or through voluntary co-operation by the industry.

The Chairman: Is there a voluntary code of practice?

Mr. Yves Bastien: This is, in fact, a young and rapidly growing industry. For instance, shellfish growers tried to develop a code of good practice, but this cannot be done overnight. There is still much work left to do.

The Chairman: No, we didn't just start yesterday, but rather 10, 15 or 20 years ago. What do you mean by a code of practice? Is this a voluntary code or not?

Mr. Yves Bastien: This will depend on the participants and on the way things will evolve during the coming years.

The Chairman: No, no, if we're talking about a code, it is a serious matter. When the aquacultural Commissioner appeared before the committee and told us that there was a code of practice, he should have been able to explain to us what it was about.

Mr. Yves Bastien: I'll give you two examples of how codes of practice can be applied with completely different results.

You could implement, through regulations, a compulsory code of practice, but you will never find a way to put a policeman behind every wave of the sea in order to enforce a code. You could proceed differently, as many industries do, and convince producers that it is to their advantage to develop good practices because they will be respecting the environment, avoiding problems with the law and they will know the best practices to adopt for a given industry.

The Chairman: Is this a written code?

Mr. Yves Bastien: No.

The Chairman: Is there no code? Is all this merely theoretical?

Mr. Yves Bastien: There are rules that regulate the surveillance of aquaculture operations.

The Chairman: Could you give us those documents?

Mr. Yves Bastien: The Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the provinces follow certain protocols, and we can get them for you. There are documents on this. When I spoke of a code of good practice, I especially meant voluntary initiatives coming from the industry. For instance, producers are legally liable for the quality of their products. If someone falls ill after having consumed a product from an aquaculturist, the aquaculturist is to a certain extent liable for that. Obviously, it will be in the aquaculturist's best interest to develop practices that will allow him to avoid such problems when he markets his products. Following such a code is therefore to the advantage of both the producer and society at large, as both are protected.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bastien. Could you tell us the exact amounts allocated by the Minister to the special funds mentioned on page three of your brief? Further, could you send us the four studies I previously mentioned?

Mr. Gilbert Normand: Yes, we will send them to you. Now I give the floor to Mr. Davis, who will tell you about special funds.

[English]

Dr. John Davis (Assistant Deputy Minister, Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Yes, Mr. Chairman, what we can undertake to do for you is to give you a detailed description of each of these projects. I know several million dollars have been spent or are being spent on the projects, and we can give you those details. We'd be very happy to prepare that for the committee.

The Chairman: Dr. Davis, since you are in charge of science, could you enlighten us for a moment about ivermectin and cypermethrin?

• 1650

Dr. John Davis: Yes. Those substances have been used or contemplated for use with respect to the control of organisms.

The Chairman: Can you deal with them one by one?

Dr. John Davis: Actually, I am not a specialist on those two things. My preference would be to give you a detailed summary of that in writing once I have a chance to go into it. It's something I really don't feel comfortable dealing with in its entirety here.

The Chairman: Have you heard those names before?

Dr. John Davis: Yes, I have.

The Chairman: In what context? Could you elaborate?

Dr. John Davis: There's a proposal to use this type of chemical for the control of parasite animals, sea lice and those organisms that are part of the problem, that attack the salmon in the net cages.

The Chairman: I'm surprised that you're not familiar with cypermethrin. Apparently a decision is to be made on cypermethrin by late January or early February, so it must have reached certain levels within your department. Would this be below your level?

Dr. John Davis: It's certainly there, sir. I'm acting in this capacity, so I'm not fully aware of all the things going on across the country.

The Chairman: At what phase is the cypermethrin application?

Dr. John Davis: I'm not sure, but I certainly would undertake to get back to you with those details.

The Chairman: Can you cast any light on ivermectin?

Dr. John Davis: My comment is the same for both of them.

The Chairman: It is the same? You would like to put it in writing—

Dr. John Davis: Yes, we would, please.

The Chairman: —and also its status.

Dr. John Davis: Yes.

The Chairman: Apparently it is widely used, not so much by farmers, but by veterinarians in their services to fish farm operators.

Dr. John Davis: Yes, and as I understand it, it's something that goes through a prescriptive process of the veterinarians.

The Chairman: May I ask perhaps Ms. Forand, being in charge of policy, have you discussed the role of your department in terms of pollution prevention and the application of the Fisheries Act in aquaculture? What is the position of the department?

Ms. Liseanne Forand (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): There are elements of the Fisheries Act that apply to aquaculture. Obviously, as this committee knows, the Fisheries Act was designed well before aquaculture was practised. However, it has a bearing on aquaculture in several ways: with respect to site leasing, particularly in Prince Edward Island, where we do not have a memorandum of understanding with the province, so the federal government is responsible for leasing sites, and with respect to the habitat provisions of the Fisheries Act that stipulate that it is an offence to introduce a deleterious substance into water.

As such, those provisions of the Fisheries Act both require permitting from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans if you propose to put a deleterious substance to fish into water and also act as a trigger for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

On another side of the legislative basis of the department, the Navigable Waters Protection Act is also a trigger for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and a proposal to introduce a new aquaculture site may give rise to a requirement for an environmental assessment under the NWPA as well.

The Chairman: When it comes to monitoring and enforcement of the legislation under your jurisdiction, how many people can you count on in New Brunswick?

Ms. Liseanne Forand: I believe, as the committee was informed last week, there are over 500 enforcement officers in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans across the country. They have varied duties—fisheries enforcement and other aspects of enforcement. Also, some of the monitoring, as I believe Mr. Bastien or Dr. Normand mentioned earlier, is done by the Department of Environment. As well, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has regulatory requirements and inspection requirements with respect to fish monitoring.

The Chairman: That is a very impressive figure. How many do you have assigned to the aquaculture activities?

Ms. Liseanne Forand: Fishery officers are available for a variety of duties. They are not exclusively assigned. We do not exclusively assign inspectors from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or enforcement officers strictly for aquaculture operations. But again, the Department of Health, the Department of the Environment, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are all responsible for various regulatory requirements that apply to fish farmers.

• 1655

The Chairman: That is certainly very impressive. And over the last five years for which there are records, how many charges have been laid?

Ms. Liseanne Forand: I would have to look that up for you, sir. Again, the charges might not be and most probably would not be made under the Fisheries Act, but under some of the other regulations that apply to aquaculture operators. That's much more likely.

The Chairman: Will you supply the committee members with this information?

Ms. Liseanne Forand: We will make an effort to get the most complete statistics we can on enforcement. Charges that have been laid over the last five years—that's what you're asking for?

The Chairman: The years for which you have statistics. Thank you very much.

Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, I really liked his questions because they were very relevant. I am eager to hear the answers.

The chairman asked you questions about the special funds that you allocated for very specific purposes. When did you allocate these funds? Do these studies have a time line? Many sectors are involved. Coastal oceanography, sustainable development of aquaculture, chemical and organic waste, the protocol for following-up on environmental impact and toxicity to non-targeted organisms. Do you have a deadline to hand in the reports?

[English]

Dr. John Davis: Madam, there are a number of projects listed here. Some of these are ongoing projects. Some are completed and some are certainly planned going into subsequent years.

My understanding is that the total suite of programs here is several millions of dollars. Some of them are federal and some of them are provincial. We have some special funding nationally that we use for high-priority research issues in the country, and that is a fund of about $3 million or $4 million each year, a portion of which goes toward this type of research. So certainly the department is according a high priority to this type of work.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, I would like to answer what Mr. Charbonneau just said regarding infrastructure development.

I see that there are federal-provincial memoranda of agreement and that within these memoranda, the parts that deal with provinces deal with infrastructure development. This is really an exclusively provincial jurisdiction. I fail to see what the federal government has to do with the development of provincial territories. The memorandum of agreement is already there. If development has to go forward, it is important to respect provincial mandates, as was done when the memoranda of agreement were signed.

The other day, when the NGOs came, they said they had been consulted very little if not at all. The environmentalists also said that. You have an advisory committee on seafood inspection policy with the participation of a representative from the aquaculture sector, representatives of industry and other people. Why not allow a representative for those people to sit on that committee as a consultant on aquaculture policy?

Mr. Gilbert Normand: Madam, I addressed three letters to a large foundation, the David-Suzuki Foundation, and they never found time to see me. Are those people really interested in dialogue or do they simply want to push their point of view? That's what it's all about.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I'm very happy to hear you say that, because the other day, when they came, they were very happy to hear me asking them that question.

Mr. Gilbert Normand: I sent letters in the month of... I do not have the dates here.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I am not doubting your word, but they were interested and they understood that they needed to be there. It might be good to tell them that you have done your part and that they have not replied as they would be expected to do.

Mr. Gilbert Normand: I can even tell you that I went to Campbell River, on Vancouver Island, and I offered to meet them right there, during an aquaculture conference.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes, but if you gave them a seat on the advisory committee, things might not be the same. You merely wanted to meet them.

Mr. Gilbert Normand: Well, first we'll have to know whether they are interested or not. Normally, when we want to give someone a committee seat, we must first discuss their objectives with them and determine whether they are interested in sitting on the Committee.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: That is what you say, Mr. Minister, but in view of what they told us when they came here, to the committee, I think that they are interested in everything that has to do with aquaculture. I could see how interested they were. They came to tell us certain things. They showed enough interest to come. I therefore think that you should reinvite them. This is the way I see it.

• 1700

Mr. Gilbert Normand: Personally, I have no objection to reserving a seat for the NGOs. Now, it will be up to them to meet and delegate someone if it ever comes to that.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam. Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: The minister's last answer could involve some fine-tuning of the text we have before us, because this has not really been provided for, specifically in chapter 7 regarding implementation structure.

I'd like to take advantage of your being here to define the role of this new institution called the aquaculture Commissioner within this flow chart. What are his main powers or his main responsibilities regarding this strategy and its implementation?

Mr. Gilbert Normand: The Commissioner has a rank equal to that of a deputy minister and he answers directly to the Minister, as I also do. We will be working very closely together, during the coming months and years, with the provinces, industry and the Department, to ensure the orderly development of this industry. The Commissioner has some independence from the Department, but he answers to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: What role does he play with respect to what we have here, regarding the various intervenors shown in the flow chart? We do not see the Commissioner mentioned here.

Mr. Gilbert Normand: On what page?

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: On page 16 of the French version of your strategy. This structure involves several stakeholders, and, may I remind my colleague Ms. Girard-Bujold, it has provided for close federal provincial co-operation within the respect of their respective mandates.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: This is what I just told you.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Having said that, what role does the Commissioner play in all this?

Mr. Gilbert Normand: First of all, he will be concerned with implementation.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: He is responsible for implementing this whole system.

Mr. Gilbert Normand: The Commissioner is responsible for coordinating all the various stakeholders.

Mr. Yves Bastien: We must remember that this strategy was developed at a time when there was no commissioner. We need this position because there is a need for coordination across Canada and with the provinces so that aquaculture can develop. This industry did not exist at the time when most of the laws were drafted. Since then, several provinces have passed laws on aquaculture and signed agreements for co-operation with the federal government. In the sector of shellfish farming, which is more familiar to me, there are three processes for three different institutions when it comes to closing or opening zones for harvesting or raising shellfish. So, we absolutely must draw up a new way to coordinate this as a whole.

I play no role in the department's decisions. Assistant deputy ministers and the current deputy minister, who answer to Mr. Anderson, still make the decisions. I am the Minister's special consultant. In my mind, I will give him advice to draw up a new framework. I think that Canada will inevitably enact aquaculture laws some day. I do not mean immediately, but, in my mind, this is one of the only ways to create a new form of coordination across Canada and improve coordination with the provinces. This will not necessarily be done right away, but I envisage my role as a transitional one. During the transition, we will go on implementing the laws and regulations and helping industry while at the same time we will set up a new framework. I will have a major role to play in this.

• 1705

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Just now, Mr. Minister, you told us that in other countries aquaculture was the responsibility of agriculture departments. Witnesses told us here that they would like it to be transferred from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to Environment Canada. You said that talks are already underway to have it put under the umbrella of Agriculture.

Why do you think... Why would others like it to be...

Mr. Gilbert Normand: Well, I don't know who told us that.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: The environmentalists.

Mr. Gilbert Normand: Oh, environmentalists.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: You shouldn't take this in a negative way, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Gilbert Normand: I am not taking it in a negative way, but I wonder what environmentalists could be doing with this. Aquaculture is a highly technical, highly scientific matter. As a matter of fact, successful industries are mostly headed by biologists or veterinarians. These people need very specialized training. The success of an aquaculture industry is determined much more by scientific knowledge than by financial power.

Secondly, aquaculture is far more technical. An aquaculturist's training is much more like the training of a farmer than of a fisherman, for instance. A fisherman's mentality is much more like that of a “coureur des bois”—if you will—whereas an aquaculturist, just like a farmer, is far more sedentary. He is used to taking care of animals, raising them to maturity and deriving income from them. He has to provide for the future, unlike the fisherman who takes his catch, brings it back to the wharf where his responsibility ends. The whole philosophy is completely different.

Now, if aquaculture were to be placed under Environment Canada, the Department would have to be expanded and—if you will—outfitted with several sectors which it does not presently have.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I'm very happy to hear you say that. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Madame.

Before we conclude, let me perhaps put this in the form of a general question to you and I suppose to the departmental officials. The strategy is now four years old; it's a 1995 document. So evidently things have evolved since. There have been changes in a variety of ways. When one looks at the strategic plan and at the fourth bullet, the regulatory framework as outlined on page 13, one would like to know exactly what is the regulatory framework, quite frankly. Perhaps you might be able at this stage to provide us with an idea of what it consists of, because at the paragraph 6.4 is a general description, which remains neither here nor there. In doing so I think you would allow us perhaps to understand better how this sector is operating—whether it is under a regulatory regime and the extent of it, and the component parts of a regulatory regime—thus perhaps allaying some of the preoccupations that members of this committee might have.

May I also indicate to you that one of these days the commissioner of sustainable development will be reading this report and probably will have some interesting questions to ask in one of his yearly examinations of departmental performance in terms of sustainable development. But that is en passant. I'll leave it to you to evaluate whether that is to be taken in the form of friendly advice or not.

In any case, we'd better conclude at this stage. It's a good moment to thank you all. The sun is setting and Queen Victoria is smiling, so there is hope for humanity.

Mr. Minister, you've been a breath of fresh air in bringing to us your views in such a spontaneous and straightforward manner. We appreciate very much your style and the content. We thank you very much for having come today and for having taken the initiative of offering your services and your knowledge. We appreciate very much what you have done in enlightening us today. And through you, we want to thank all your officials.

• 1710

We stand adjourned until tomorrow morning in Room 237-C in the Centre Block. Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Normand: [Editor's Note: Inaudible] Under point 6.4, you list the government undertakings. The timeline here takes us to the point where the Commissioner steps on to the stage. Under point 6.5, we read the following:

Therefore, for a viable development of the industry, aquaculturists must follow strict environmental standards.

That is what we intend to do.

The Chairman: We would very much like to receive that. Thank you.

The meeting stands adjourned.