FOPO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 30, 2001

• 0908

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): Could we call the meeting to order, please?

We have with us today David Rideout, with the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance, who's the executive director, and Stephen Chase, who's the vice-president, government affairs, with the Atlantic Salmon Federation. We've asked David and Stephen to come in relative to our review of the report of the Commissioner for Aquaculture and our continuing study on that particular issue.

I would suggest we proceed by having David start and give us his comments—where he sees the industry at the moment—and then turn to Stephen. Then we will open it up to questions.

Welcome, gentlemen. We've been a while juggling this on your part, David. We hardly gave Stephen enough notice. In any event, you're both here, so welcome.

Mr. David Rideout (Executive Director, Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance): Thank you very much.

I'm appreciative of the fact that Stephen and I finally have had a chance to meet, because it has been probably six months since we've had a chance to chat. So I appreciate the committee doing this for us.

I'd like to thank the Standing Committee for this opportunity to present a brief on the Canadian aquaculture industry. I realize I only have ten minutes to speak, and I will therefore skip some of the detail that is found in the brief.

• 0910

The Canadian aquaculture industry has three key areas of focus: food safety, environmental sustainability, and global competitiveness. We are asking you to carefully consider these areas to assist us in providing the tools to achieve the objectives around this agenda. How can government help the aquaculture industry achieve and maintain these objectives of safe food, safe environment, and global competition?

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Mr. Chairman, this gentleman speaks too fast.

Mr. David Rideout: Sorry.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. David Rideout: I will speak more slowly. I'm worried about this ten-minute limit.

The Chair: Don't worry about that. We have two hours. If you go over your ten minutes, we're not going to be too sticky on that, David.

Mr. David Rideout: Clearly, we need the policy and regulatory tools that facilitate sustainable industry growth and thereby create additional coastal and rural wealth from the marine and freshwater aquatic environment.

The tools required are, first, effective government. One of the most important tools that the Canadian government can provide to the aquaculture industry is a well-recognized and effective Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The Canadian aquaculture industry relies heavily on their expertise in areas such as environmental sustainability and food safety.

Questions raised respecting aquaculture inevitably bring into question the capability of the federal and provincial public institutions to ensure that concerns are being met. This is doubly difficult for the aquaculture industry because it is new, and questions that are seen as unimportant for other industries are raised as significant issues in aquaculture.

The Canadian aquaculture industry as well as many other natural resource industries will benefit from world-recognized standards of food safety, environmental sustainability, and animal health.

Second is aquatic animal health. There is a fundamental need for an overriding public policy in support of a national aquatic animal health program similar to what has guided terrestrial animal health over the past century. Aquatic animal farmers are accused of creating problems related to disease, therapeutant use, and pesticide use. The accusations are overstated and are not substantiated by facts.

There is no question that when the industry was in its infancy, mistakes were made. However, we have made significant strides to correct those mistakes. Yet despite the attention brought to aquatic animal health by veterinarians, fish pathologists, and environmentalists, not to mention the industry itself, we remain without a public policy respecting aquatic animal health.

The aquaculture industry has established an elaborate community of professionals and researchers who have shed light on this very complex issue, and we are ready, willing, and able to work with governments, fish professionals, environmental groups, and wild fish interests to make sure a comprehensive program is developed and implemented. We have been encouraged by the process and commitment developed through the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers.

To ensure preventative approaches, the industry has from necessity become expert in aquatic animal husbandry and disease management. Notwithstanding the tremendous work performed in the past number of years, industry efforts alone will not be enough to ensure that farmers have the best, most effective, and most rapid disease response network.

Failure to have comprehensive surveillance, mandatory reporting, and ordered stock destruction represents a fundamental flaw in the overall Canadian strategy respecting aquatic animals. There does not appear to be any question of the importance of maintaining such a program for terrestrial animals, especially when we look at the government's response to BSE or hoof-and-mouth disease. Likewise, we must be able to respond rapidly in the aquatic environment if and when a disease hits a farm.

I should point out here that similar protection needs to be afforded the wild fishery, but, with some exceptions, they do not appear to be as well aware of the risks as are aquaculturists.

I would like to ensure that the standing committee fully understands we are not seeking a crop insurance or a NISA-type program. These types of programs would admittedly have some value for the aquaculture sector, but not at the expense of establishing a national aquatic animal health program.

Our position is simple. We want and need a comprehensive Canadian government program to ensure early detection and mandatory reporting of diseases of concern for farmed aquatic animals. We believe that, as on land, this can only be accomplished through compensation of farmers when ordered stock destruction is necessary. The establishment of such a program is an essential tool in meeting the industry agenda.

• 0915

Third is a comprehensive introductions and transfers code. The Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance was very pleased to see the signing of the introductions and transfers code by the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers during their meeting in Toronto on September 20, 2001. This is an excellent first step in the provision of risk management approaches that might enable the use of different, higher-performing brood stocks. You will note I said “first step”. It is here that the standing committee recommendations would also assist the aquaculture industry.

Let me point out in consultations leading up to the signing of the code there was agreement that the new code would most likely affect about 5% of introductions and transfers, as 95% of the applications for introduction and transfer are deemed to be routine. For the 5%, the code, as currently constructed, considers only scientific results, and there is a recognized need to develop criteria for both social and economic assessment for risk decision-makers.

Further, there is absolutely no restriction on the movement of live fish for food, aquaria fish, or live fish for bait. The controls respecting ballast water are weak at best, and upwards of 90% of world trade by weight and volume is transported by water. This endangers the biosecurity of both aquaculture and wild fisheries alike, and while we applaud the significant first step of intergovernment agreement on a code, there's a great deal more work to be done.

Fourth is a level playing field respecting application to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Virtually every aquaculture operation must undergo an environmental assessment before receiving a permit, and it is now estimated that for salmon farms, the cost is over $100,000. It's approximately $20,000 for shellfish farms. This is without knowing whether the site for which the application applies will be accepted, assuming CEAA approval.

While the aquaculture industry fully understands the value of the CEAA assessments, we are increasingly frustrated by accusations made that the process is flawed. The government needs to strengthen the public's confidence in this process, especially pertaining to aquaculture. I suspect many are unaware of the rigour of this system, as wild fishing interests need not submit to a CEAA assessment and there appears to be a lack of understanding as to just how robust the assessments are.

The Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance fully supports the CEAA approach and believes it should have applicability in other areas of oceans and freshwater management. We believe the process can be streamlined through efforts like model class screening and made more cost-effective for all. However, we shy away from advocating in this area lest we be seen as trying to diminish an important element of our overall environmental sustainability strategy.

Fifth is coastal zone management. There is fear on the part of many aquaculturists that if we engage in discussions on coastal zone management, we will ultimately end up with aquaculture ghettos. I suspect this comes from the fact that we are the new kid on the block and there is a lack of trust respecting resolution when there are competing agendas. It is time to put this behind us and create a system to understand where the best locations for aquaculture and other ocean industries are. It is time we start the planning and discussion process that will get us to conclusions on what the best approaches are.

Our opponents have been very successful in casting doubt in the minds of some residents of coastal and rural communities, and while I believe the doubt is unfounded, it is nevertheless real and must be addressed. A mechanism for addressing community concerns, user overlaps, or conflicts does not exist and should be created under the Oceans Act.

We are told tourists will be offended by farms, yet many tour guides are asking permission to bring tourists to the farms, where they can observe mussel socks or our salmon operations. The comments from these tours are positive, not negative. But I should tell you that while we welcome the activity, we are advised by the veterinarian community to take appropriate biosecurity measures.

I've had farmers tell me about the close relationship developing between them and the wild fishers, and I am pleased to report the relationships are building as both businesses see opportunities for mutual gain.

• 0920

Sixth is protection of the industry. There is another side to the aquaculture industry story that relates to poor operators or quick-buck businesses. The industry is ill-equipped to bring these operators under control, and government regulation or government action in support of industry initiatives such as codes of practice is necessary. When poor operators cause problems, they make headlines, and the whole of the aquaculture industry is seen to be at fault.

For our part, we are working on a national sustainable aquaculture code system in which there will be an arm's-length audit and sanction process.

Government has a role to ensure operations meet a national standard, and we believe it is through compliance to industry codes. We would like the committee to look at the relationship between government activity and operators who are not in compliance with the CCFAM-recognized, industry-operated national code system.

In summary, the industry has set objectives related to safe food, safe environment, and global competitiveness. In order to achieve these objectives, the aquaculture industry needs the tools to get the job done, tools that include an effective DFO and CFIA; public policy in support of a national aquatic animal health program; a comprehensive introductions and transfers code; a level playing field respecting CEAA; coastal zone management; and protection from poor operators.

Support by the standing committee for the issues facing the aquaculture industry will ensure the industry agenda of food safety, environmental sustainability, and global competitiveness is met. More important will be the development and enrichment of coastal and rural Canada by a solid industrial performer in what is recognized as one of the fastest-growing food production sectors in the modern economy.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thanks, David.

The floor is your, Stephen. Welcome.

Mr. Stephen A. Chase (Vice-President, Government Affairs, Atlantic Salmon Federation): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to be here to discuss the subject of aquaculture. The subject of your deliberations is very important to the Atlantic Salmon Federation, just as it is very important to the aquaculture industry.

Briefly, the Atlantic Salmon Federation is a broadly based, non-profit organization concerned with the wise management and conservation of wild Atlantic salmon. My intent is to keep my remarks as short as possible and largely confined to where we stand today, as opposed to where we were one year ago when I last appeared before this committee on the subject of aquaculture and conservation of wild Atlantic salmon.

We're here today again to speak up in support of conservation of native, wild Atlantic salmon populations in Atlantic Canada and Quebec. I'm here to encourage you to make recommendations that strengthen our collective ability to conserve, manage, and protect salmon in the many rivers and watersheds of eastern Canada where thousands of aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians depend on the wild salmon for social, cultural, and economic reasons.

I don't propose to review the several recommendations we made to this committee one year ago, in October 2000. The issues and concerns we outlined then remain acute and in need of serious action. I would encourage you to address them in your report and recommendations.

I'm here today to underscore our belief in the best approach to attaining our conservation goals in the shortest time. We believe that through working together with the salmonid farming aquaculture industry and government the conservation of wild salmon can be achieved without significant adverse impacts on the industry. Joint work is the best way to finding solutions to problems salmonid farming sometimes poses to wild fish populations.

We have seen conservation progress attained with the industry in other sectors, notably forestry and agriculture. There's no good reason we cannot demonstrate similar results with the aquaculture industry. Our goals can be achieved without undue expense in this sector if we have the collective will to do it.

We need to ensure that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and provincial and territorial ministers responsible for fisheries and aquaculture take steps to walk the conservation talk. We need leadership, not lip service, in support of conservation. We need action on the legislative mandate in the Fisheries Act and the international commitments to which Canada is bound through the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization, NASCO, if we are to succeed.

Thousands of Canadians, primarily from rural parts of the country, are depending on both orders of government, assisted by your recommendations, to establish conditions through which we can ensure conservation of native wild fish species.

• 0925

The recreational fishery for wild salmon is worth over $200 million every year in Quebec and Atlantic Canada. This is major economic development by any definition, and we need to do everything we can to sustain and improve it.

Our premise is that this economy should be protected, but protected in a way that need not be at the expense of the salmonid farming aquaculture industry. To do this we need to get things in perspective with the right approach and the right attitude on the part of governments and stakeholders.

Last October I presented a brief to the committee on behalf of ASF when the committee came to St. Andrews to meet with the various parties interested in aquaculture. I'd like to review that approach once again.

The key theme in our brief to the committee and our approach to the industry before last October and since has been the desirability of establishing a partnership to find solutions to the problems posed by salmonid farming for wild salmon. ASF has been prepared so far to steer a moderate course in this matter, notwithstanding the critical and scientifically documented problems that salmon farming can represent for wild salmon populations.

We believe our moderate approach is founded in pragmatism and underpinned by the need to attain environmentally sustainable conservation practices. We agree with the industry that we need to keep the fish in their cages and in the freshwater containment facilities. We agree on the importance of keeping those fish healthy. We may approach these needs from a somewhat different angle, but that does not take away from the common ground we can build upon in addressing these factors.

Evidently, many people in the aquaculture industry and government agree with us on the benefits of working together. Our numerous discussions with the industry representatives have identified the unproductive results of controversy and attack. Conservation activity has not improved, and public confidence in the industry has suffered.

Some progress-oriented industry and government representatives have undertaken to explore ways in which we can work together to generate concrete action and support of conservation, restoration, and management of wild salmon. We sincerely appreciate those people for their preparedness to take action and to seek ways to work with us.

For the most part, however, there is still only limited acceptance in many quarters of the industry and government that the negative interactions between wild and domestic Atlantic salmon are legitimate issues that must be addressed in a serious way. This is a fundamental impediment to moving forward together.

I'm certain these people know that problems exist, because they're intelligent people. I'm concerned that those who fail to acknowledge the programs do so deliberately to avoid anything that might impede industry development or that might cost money, especially in a very highly competitive environment.

The short story on the progress we had hoped for in presenting our last brief is that we've made only limited progress, mainly in the form of discussion, and that concrete results have eluded us to date. In my assessment, the reasons are threefold:

First, the federal and provincial governments are single-focused on developing the aquaculture industry, often at the expense of the environment, and they're doing so in an atmosphere of almost complete secrecy.

Secondly, when ASF raises its conservation concerns and relies on the precautionary approach, to which Canada is a subscriber, we are frequently told there is not enough science to support our concerns. ASF agrees that better science is needed to support fair application of the precautionary principle.

Thirdly, many key members of the industry and governments that support aquaculture appear to be overly sensitive to what they perceive to be criticism when ASF expresses its conservation concerns with salmon farming.

With respect to the first impediment to progress, my sense, having spent considerable time on this file in recent years, is that governments, both federal and provincial, are not managing the aquaculture file in a transparent and accountable manner that's necessary to building public confidence. There is, for example, no meaningful consultation with the public in the site licence approval process. There's no substantive information available on the performance of licence holders once the licence is granted.

A similar lack of transparency and inconsistency of process accompanies the introductions and transfers process that the industry relies on to move fish from site to site. ASF shared this concern with the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance, which led Mr. Rideout and me to prepare a joint submission to the federal and provincial ministers responsible for fisheries.

These are but two examples. Clearly, this need for transparency has to be addressed by governments. The support from within the industry and among all stakeholders for greater transparency and accountability in managing the industry should lead this committee to recommend improvements in this direction. This can, incidentally, be done without violating business confidentiality, which is frequently cited as preventing public disclosure.

• 0930

Our first recommendation is that the regulatory processes associated with aquaculture be reviewed and improved to ensure greater transparency, consistency, and public accountability for all processes.

The second impediment to progress in attaining conservation is the need to improve science related to the implications of the aquaculture industry for wild salmon populations. Based on a considerable base of peer-reviewed science in Canada and internationally and on regular observations, there is ample evidence in support of ASF's concerns regarding the implications of fish escape and fish disease.

We agree, however, that even the best available science may not be good enough, and there's a need to strengthen the base of science that would contribute to the overall environmental sustainability. This would contribute to rational application of the precautionary approach and would avoid its application where it may not need to be invoked.

We also need to research the new technologies that can be introduced and put in place to prevent problems in the first place. Currently, DFO has a program under its aquaculture strategy to strengthen the scientific and technological research. We trust this program will be used to attain a better understanding of what we need to attain and maintain conservation.

We have two recommendations. ASF recommends that DFO ensure that the science research funding component of its aquaculture strategy be used to fund research that contributes to better understanding of the implications of salmonid aquaculture for wild salmon populations and mitigation measures. Also, ASF recommends that the DFO aquaculture strategy should result in improved containment and fish health policy and technologies that prevent adverse interactions between salmon farming and the wild salmon population.

The third important impediment to attaining genuine cooperation is the undue sensitivity by some members—and I emphasize “some” members—of the aquaculture industry to what they perceive as criticism when ASF raises its reasonable conservation concerns. I appreciate the sense of pride many operators take from their accomplishments.

Our sense is that the industry is not standing still in trying to gain control of its environmental problems, and many improvements have been introduced. ASF has taken steps through public presentations and the Atlantic Salmon Journal, our flagship publication, to highlight the achievements of the aquaculture industry. ASF wants to promote better understanding in our constituency and the public of the positive steps the industry is taking to gain control of its environmental problems. At the same time, we need the industry to recognize that it represents an issue for wild salmon survival.

ASF agrees that salmonid aquaculture may not be the leading problem associated with the decline of the wild salmon worldwide, but it is certainly a problem in areas where there is a concentration of aquaculture operations. We need to get to the stage where denial is abandoned and we begin to work together to find solutions to the problems. I would add at this point—it's not in the text—that this requires trust on the part of both parties. We both have to abandon our past history and achieve a relationship based on trust.

At the same time, ASF has a responsibility to maintain public awareness of our legitimate concerns for wild salmon. We are very much aware of the utility of doing so in a manner that does not jeopardize the progress we are attempting to make through partnerships. ASF has conducted itself in the public forum in a fair and reasonable way. We've done our best to walk that balance while not making any substantive progress in working with industry and government.

If the industry is serious about putting controversy behind us, we really have to get past the stage of being unduly sensitive—I think that applies to both parties—to the presentation of reasonable concerns in a reasonable way. We need to move beyond it if we're to make conservation progress.

• 0935

ASF believes we could move forward quickly if government were to demonstrate some leadership by pulling the major stakeholders together in various ways to stimulate working relations that result in concrete improvements. This has not happened to date in a concerted way. There are some isolated examples, and Mr. Rideout has cited a couple of them, where we collaborated on the introductions and transfers policy and the fish health policy. Positive results have emerged from those discussions. But there is no clear sense that government is showing leadership in getting the stakeholders working together. We've done this of our own volition.

Our third recommendation is that the committee propose to governments that serious efforts be made to stimulate cooperative working relations between the aquaculture industry and stakeholders that result in concrete benefits for conservation.

To conclude, Mr. Chairman, the Atlantic Salmon Federation is not opposed to aquaculture. ASF is opposed to fish farming practices that are environmentally harmful and that put the survival of wild salmon at risk. We acknowledge that many of the constituents Mr. Rideout represents also have this interest at heart.

Our challenge is to find ways with industry and government to develop an environmentally responsible, sustainable aquaculture industry. We're hopeful that the committee will make recommendations based on our presentation that will benefit the conservation of wild salmon.

I wish you well in your deliberations, and I thank you again for inviting me to be here today.

The Chair: Thanks, Stephen and David. That is a lot of information in two fairly short briefs.

We're starting with Mr. Cummins.

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

I also want to thank the guests for their presentations this morning.

Mr. Rideout, the industry you represent has not always found favour with the public. There has been considerable concern about some of the practices in the past, and the industry perhaps has not been as forthcoming as it might have been. I give as an example the issue of escapees and the concern that was expressed there. The industry said that on the west coast we shouldn't be alarmed, that they would never establish themselves in the wild, and they have. There was a concern this past summer about sea lice. The department and the industry denied that it was a problem, yet it's a great problem and is recognized as one in Ireland, Norway, and elsewhere.

What I would like to do this morning, though, is to refer to a recent U.S. study. As you know, the U.S. government recently declared wild Atlantic salmon to be an endangered species in eight rivers in the Maritimes. The study was conducted by the U.S. government. It was not done by some environmental flakes. It involved the Department of the Interior, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of Commerce, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Their report contains some very strong comments. I would like to quote from that report, and then I would like to hear your comments.

In the first instance, I would like to deal with the issue of the ISA. They use the term DPS, distinct population segments. When they use that term, as I understand it, they are referring to wild salmon associated with a particular river. Rather than repeating that each time, I'll follow the text and use the term DPS.

They state:

...the Services concluded that the presence of the ISA virus in the geographic range of DPS and the existence of extensive concentrations of net pens create a new and significant risk directly to the DPS adults and indirectly to the rehabilitation program currently supplementing the DPS juvenile population.

Fish diseases have always represented a source of mortality to Atlantic salmon in the wild, though major losses due to disease are generally associated with salmon aquaculture.

An extensive survey of Maine aquaculture operations found no ISA virus present within the United States. The Province of New Brunswick has taken extensive action to control the spread of the virus. But the effectiveness of these actions is not assured and the affected Canadian aquacultural operations are near U.S. pen sites.

• 0940

So there are two concerns there. One is with the spread of the disease from pens to the wild stock, and the second is that the U.S. is not convinced that the actions taken in New Brunswick are effective.

I wonder if you'd mind commenting on those two issues, please.

The Chair: Before David comes on, what's the date on that?

Mr. John Cummins: It's November 2000.

The Chair: David.

Mr. David Rideout: Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Am I limited to ten minutes, or can I go the full two hours?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: You're limited fairly extensively. Go ahead.

Mr. David Rideout: That's a very significant question. I was listening to the end of what Mr. Cummins was saying, and it just reinforces what the Canadian aquaculture industry has been saying about the need for aquatic animal health, public policy in the area of aquatic animal health, and the need to be able to have rapid response and rapid action by both levels of government and the industry. It also speaks to the issue of ensuring that we have any operators who want to subvert that process under control, because that could contribute to any disease manifestation.

I suspect I'll be highly criticized for saying this, but I sometimes wonder if the aquaculture industry, with respect to some diseases, is not sort of the canary in the mine that speaks to issues that have existed in the wild fishery for years. When we have concentrated animals in our farms, we've had problems like ISA.

I think it's been recognized that, with some exceptions, the New Brunswick industry approach to ISA management has been far and above one of the most effective approaches in the world. The recent siting issues that have been raised in New Brunswick over the last year have been related to the industry's need to run single-year class animals, as opposed to mixing year classes.

On the issue of distinct population segments and the impact, it's recognized that something is going on in the ocean environment. We don't know what it is, but it's affecting the wild salmon. We know that there has been extreme industrial development, the building of dams over rivers, etc., in the watersheds in New England. I think they took down a dam, as a result of this act, and they are now starting to see populations return. I think I'm correct there.

The one thing I'm concerned about, frankly, is that if we look at the historical perspective, with respect to salmon enhancement, I would question the distinctness of population segments, in terms of what might have been there 100 years ago and 40 years ago, and what is there today.

From anecdotal information, I understand there were fairly loose rules on movement of fish from the various hatcheries, in terms of salmon enhancement.

I'm sure Mr. Chase could speak more elaborately to that, but I think there are some issues around that, notwithstanding the good work of the U.S. department.

The Chair: If you could sum up fairly quickly....

Mr. David Rideout: If I'm not answering the question, maybe you'd like to put it again.

Mr. John Cummins: You completely avoided the question, but I'd like to take you up on a point you made. You said the aquaculture industry is essentially the canary in the mine. I said I wanted to ask some questions about that previous report, but I would like to remind you of another instance because I think it's pertinent to your comment.

• 0945

A decade ago, sea trout stocks mysteriously disappeared and collapsed in Ireland. All the usual suspects were trotted out by the scientists. They talked about overfishing, forestry practices, predation, the weather, food chain problems, migratory stress, disease, plus this novel idea of a sea lice infestation from salmon farms. After exhaustive studies, they concluded that the only consistent factor in the disappearance of these sea trout was the sea lice from fish farms.

You've been trotting out all of these other issues, yet you're ignoring the key. I'm trying to get at whether there is a relationship or not. Can you defend the charge that there is some legitimate concern about the transference of disease from these farms to wild stocks?

The Chair: David. Then I think Stephen wants in here as well, on the previous one.

Mr. David Rideout: I can't say, in terms of the Irish situation. I can say that the aquaculture industry recognizes the need for public policy on aquatic animal health, and a national aquatic animal health program that deals with both wild and aquaculture stocks.

I also would say that taking a look at the New Brunswick situation is worth while, in the context of the fact that they have significantly resolved the ISA situation. They have it under control, are managing it quite effectively, and are recognized as managing it effectively.

Mr. John Cummins: Well, Mr. Rideout, that's not the opinion of this U.S. government report. They're suggesting effectiveness of the actions in New Brunswick is not assured. I'm disappointed that you can't comment on the Irish situation.

But I'd like to move on, if I could.

The Chair: John, you will have to hold that for another round. The time is up, and Stephen wants to make a point here on the first question.

Mr. Stephen Chase: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with David that we need good public policy that will help safeguard the health of both aquaculture and domestic wild fish populations. I couldn't agree more. We need that very clearly spelled out.

We certainly need better management of poor performers in the industry. There are poor performers, and they're giving black eyes to players who are doing their level best in the industry to do the right thing.

We would commend the industry for the efforts it has made to gain control of things like ISA. They've done a number of right things here, particularly the New Brunswick industry. We think they have done a good job, and we support them very strongly because the wild populations that migrate by those cages would be candidates to attract ISA, if the industry didn't.

So we would like the industry to succeed in this one, and if there were a public policy requirement that could help underpin that, we couldn't support it more strongly.

There is one point I would like to raise. Very frequently we get thrown at us that those fish are not wild, they aren't native populations; years and years of enhancement from hatcheries has detracted from their wild nature. We take strong exception to that.

There are a large number of rivers in eastern Canada where there are demonstrated native wild populations. The scientists have definitions for what is native and what is wild. I'll give you a good example.

Nepisiguit River in northern New Brunswick empties into the Chaleur Bay, and 30 years ago there were no salmon in it because it had been dammed. Fish were reintroduced from the Kedgwick and Restigouche river system, so today the Nepisiguit River supports a vibrant population of salmon that migrate from the river as juveniles up to Greenland, and come back every year. They're big and strong. I know, because I fish it every year.

Successive generations of these fish have spawned on the river, migrated out to the ocean as juveniles, and come back as adults. Are they wild fish? Of course they are. How many generations do you need to prove that?

So the issue of hatchery intervention 30, 50, or 100 years ago is a specious argument. There are rivers that support populations of fish, and if the fish can go out and come back without intervention, they qualify as wild fish.

• 0950

The Chair: Thanks, Stephen.

Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to put some questions to Mr. Chase because Jean-Yves and myself live in a region where salmon fishing is absolutely fantastic. We live in the Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspe region.

There are many interesting things in your brief but I have to ask a question to our Chairman. This gentleman's brief was tabled in October 2000, that is to say under the previous government. What happened to the recommendations made in October 2000?

[English]

The Chair: They're part of our ongoing aquaculture study, once we get around to drafting the report. That is some of the documentation that was provided when we were in St. Andrews just prior to the last election.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: So, they will be included in the report we will prepare this time?

[English]

The Chair: Yes.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: All right. All is not lost, then. We will be able to come back to these recommendations later.

Could you tell me if your recommendations of October 2000 are still relevant today? Would you make the same recommendations today?

Mr. Stephen Chase: Yes, they are still relevant.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: You state that there are some management problems for the industry and for Altlantic wild salmon fishing. Furthermore, you state that those problems are not resolved because people do not want to deal with them. According to you, what is the main problem for your industry and for the aquaculture industry?

[English]

Mr. Stephen Chase: I think the main problem is keeping fish in their cages, and I think the industry would agree with us that this is a problem for them as well.

As I said, we come at the issue from a different angle. Industry wants to keep its fish in the cages because it's a matter of business; our point of view is that it's better to keep the fish in the cages because it minimizes a number of different interactions. Even though we come at it from a different angle, it really doesn't matter. It's a good idea to keep fish in the cages.

The technology to do that has been improving, and some of the practices in managing these basically nylon-net cages has improved, but there are physical and technological limitations to that. That is a very acute area where we need to do some work as to whether in fact we can reduce the number of escapes. I think the industry has reduced overall the number of escapes from what it was 10 or 15 years ago, but we still have room to improve.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: You claim to know the best method to protect salmon in the many rivers and watersheds of Eastern Canada. Would you close some types of aquaculture operations? For example, would you want to close those that operate directly in sea water?

[English]

Mr. Stephen Chase: Yes, we would. There are areas where there is no salmonid aquaculture, principally in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the Miramichi estuary, Chaleur Bay, Gaspé, and the north shore of Quebec. There are some environmental and physical limitations to that. The water freezes, which is a big problem. We really would not wish to see sea-cage aquaculture operations in those areas.

I hope that answers your question.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes, thank you.

[English]

The Chair: David, if you want in here at any time, just yell.

Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: People say that salmon always returns to the river of its birth. However, if it was not born in a river but escaped from a pen, it will not return to any river. So, how could those escapees be a problem?

• 0955

[English]

Mr. Stephen Chase: It's scientifically documented in both North America and in Europe that some of the fish that escape migrate into rivers that support salmon populations. How they get there, we don't know. When fish escape from the cage, we don't know exactly what they do, whether they stay around the cage for a while, how long, or where they go, but there's no question that some of these fish do go up rivers that support salmon populations.

There's monitoring on an ongoing basis in the rivers of the Bay of Fundy and in Maine, which is immediately adjacent. The Magaguadavic River is in southern New Brunswick, between St. Stephen and St. George, and it seems to me that the number of aquaculture escapees going into the river are ten times the wild fish, or more. Last year, I think 28 wild fish came back to that river, and there were over 200 aquaculture escapees that came to the river. This just happens to be next to major aquaculture operations in the Bay of Fundy and the Gulf of Maine.

I can't say whether we found aquaculture fish coming into other rivers—say, rivers of south shore Nova Scotia, which are distant—but I will give you one famous example.

This summer a rainbow trout weighing somewhere in the order of five or eight pounds was found in the Humber River, in Newfoundland. Rainbow trout aquaculture takes place in the Bay d'Espoir on the south coast of Newfoundland, and there has also been some rainbow trout aquaculture in Prince Edward Island and the Bras d'Or Lakes of Nova Scotia. The reports tell us that this rainbow trout came from either Prince Edward Island or Bras d'Or and found its way into the Humber River in Newfoundland. I would emphasize that rainbow trout are not native to Atlantic Canada, but there were some populations transplanted there a hundred years ago by anglers. Where it came from, we don't know. I think the scientists in DFO understand that it came from an aquaculture operation.

The Chair: Mr. Rideout, and then we better move on to the next questioner.

Mr. David Rideout: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The whole issue of containment is a serious and significant one for the aquaculture industry. That is why we developed and worked with the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization to establish a liaison committee between that organization and the North Atlantic salmon farming industry.

In Ottawa, we completed the negotiation of guidelines for containment in February 2001. Those were accepted by NASCO and the North Atlantic salmon farming industry in June 2001, and we are looking to see those guidelines implemented in Canada as part of the overall sustainable aquaculture code system.

So there has been considerable work done. A lot of effort is being made by the industry to resolve the issue, because for the industry it's not only a safe environment issue, but also an economic viability issue.

If I can tell one anecdote, I was having supper with a farmer and asking him a question about 30 days versus 90 days credit on feed. He said he would take the 90-day credit every time, even though it may not be a local feed producer. I asked him why. He said, “Well, my feed bill for the last month was $1.9 million”. This was not an international corporation; this was a local farmer. It's a very huge part of his cashflow. In this case, he does this for anywhere from 12 to 18 months before he starts to sell his product and receive some money back.

The point is that he doesn't want to see those fish escape any more than the conservationists do, for the two reasons: the environmental reason, but also the economic reason.

The Chair: Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentations. I have a few quick questions.

Mr. Rideout, how long has your alliance been around?

• 1000

Mr. David Rideout: The alliance was formed in 1995. It followed on the heels of another organization that was disbanded, and the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance was formed that same day or very soon thereafter.

Mr. Tom Wappel: The reason I ask is in specific reference to point six of your presentation, where you're calling on governments to develop regulations or codes of practice. I don't agree with that. In my view, the industry should develop its codes of practice. What do people in Ottawa know about aquaculture? I'm a little disturbed that six years has gone by and you don't have a code of practice. You say in your presentation that you're working on a national sustainable aquaculture code system. Now, why isn't it finished?

Mr. David Rideout: Well, thank you very much.

First of all, I agree 100%. We don't want government legislation establishing the codes. We want to see an industry-developed and industry-designed code, but we need to have government regulation to help in those areas where there are poor operators, ones who don't want to be signatories to the code.

The Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance was established as a sector council under Human Resources Development Canada and had as its key mandate the development of issues around human resources within the industry. In December of 1999 the alliance determined that it needed to be self-sufficient, to stand alone, and to move away from the HRDC sector council approach. As well, part of the sector council approach was to encourage organizations to be stand-alone. So they embarked on a new approach, and in April of 2000 became a self-sufficient organization.

It was at that point we began to work on many initiatives that deal with the issues facing the industry. In fact, we were in consultation with the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers task group on aquaculture, who were strongly supportive of initiatives to move forward on an industry code for sustainable aquaculture. That's why it has taken so long.

Mr. Tom Wappel: What's your estimate as to when it will be ready?

Mr. David Rideout: I am hoping that by the next time the ministers meet we can present a code to them and say, we would like you to sanction this code. We would like you to recognize this as the national code system for sustainable aquaculture.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Okay, but when is this?

Mr. David Rideout: I believe that they're meeting in August or September of next year.

But I should say, if I may, that the code won't be finished. The code will always be an ongoing process. There are issues. I've been working with some groups on the humane treatment of animals, for example. We see that the development of that code, which will nest into this code, will probably take anywhere from two to three years to be completed.

Mr. Tom Wappel: I would encourage you to get the system done and up and running ASAP.

Mr. Chase, in your presentation you say:

...the federal and provincial governments are single focused on developing the aquaculture industry often at the expense of the environment, and they are doing so in an atmosphere of almost complete secrecy.

That is a mighty broad statement. Have you any examples or any backup for that statement?

Mr. Stephen Chase: Yes, Mr. Wappel. I'll give you an example.

This year there were 16 applications for new sites in the Bay of Fundy made by the New Brunswick aquaculture industry. One of the premises on which they were proposed was to enable the single-year class management system. ASF wrote a letter supporting the approval of those applications. However, we had learned about them through the media. We didn't learn about them.... I guess that's point one. We learned about them inadvertently, if you like.

Anyway, we did write a letter of support for a number of them, but there were four we did oppose. Those four were in an area called Maces Bay. There are two rivers draining into Maces Bay that still support native wild salmon populations. There's the New River and the Pocologan River. We had a number of exchanges back and forth with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, where we were trying to obtain some understanding of just exactly what rules the department was going to apply to ensure that Canada's commitments under NASCO and the precautionary approach....

• 1005

There's a provision—I think it's the Oslo resolution of 1994-95—that says that no new salmonid operations should be approved for operations less than 20 kilometres from the mouth of a salmon-bearing river. We asked the department if it was going to apply that rule. I can't tell you what the department applied or if it took that into consideration at all. Two were rejected. One was a navigable waters—

Mr. Tom Wappel: Excuse me. Did they not answer your letter? Is this what you're saying? You're saying they're doing it in secrecy, yet you're telling me that you're corresponding with them. Are they answering you?

Mr. Stephen Chase: I'm getting responses back from the department, but they really don't clarify.... I still don't know to what extent the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or the New Brunswick Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture has ever taken into account the Oslo resolution's 20-kilometre rule.

Mr. Tom Wappel: But there's a difference between operating in secrecy and answering you with bafflegab. It's not the same thing.

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Chase.

Mr. Stephen Chase: If we had never found out about this, we would never have been able to.... We weren't notified.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Okay, so one of your points is that when there's an application, the interested organization should be notified so they can have input.

Mr. Stephen Chase: Yes.

Mr. Tom Wappel: That makes sense.

You say, Mr. Chase,

...there is no meaningful consultation with the public in the site license approval process, and there is no substantive information available on the performance of license holders once the license is granted.

Mr. Rideout, do you agree with that statement?

Mr. David Rideout: I think that the system for siting in terms of public consultation can be improved. We believe in an open and transparent approach and in a no-surprises policy.

Mr. Tom Wappel: How about not surprising me and answering the question? Do you agree with that statement that was just made?

Mr. David Rideout: No.

Mr. Tom Wappel: You don't agree. Thank you.

Mr. Chase says that:

Based on a considerable base of peer-reviewed science in Canada and internationally, and on regular observations, there is ample evidence in support of ASF's concerns regarding the implications of fish escape and fish disease.

Mr. Rideout, do you agree with that, that there is “ample evidence” concerning the implications of fish escape and fish disease?

Mr. David Rideout: No.

Mr. Tom Wappel: What would you say? There's no evidence, or there's little evidence? What would your position be?

Mr. David Rideout: There is a need for research to resolve the issue, just as there is a lot of speculation on both sides of the issue. I would say that through the kinds of initiatives the government has taken with the centres of excellence for aquaculture in Canada, the AquaNet, the Aquaculture Collaborative Research and Development Project, and the commissioner's aquaculture partnership program, we are seeing research being undertaken, but we need to see more.

There are a number of questions out there that need to be answered. I don't think it's correct to say that those questions have been answered.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Okay, Mr. Chase, I have one last question.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Tom. Stephen wanted in there, and I'll have to give him the opportunity. Then we'll let it go to the other side.

Mr. Tom Wappel: I agree, but I just wanted to direct him if I might, only to ask—

The Chair: Okay, then you get to kill two birds with one stone. Go ahead.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Have you provided this committee with your “peer-reviewed science” and “regular observations” that support your statement? If not, will you?

Mr. Stephen Chase: Yes, we will. I believe we have. An appendix to last year's submission was a Department of Fisheries and Oceans study that talked of the adverse interactions.

• 1010

I would like to come back to the question about the consultations. The New Brunswick government has said that it's prepared to open consultations on the site applications. We've had four false starts this year. I think both industry and ourselves are frustrated about getting that process going.

The other point is that the information available on the performance is treated as an entirely confidential matter between the operator and the government. It's subject to audit but it's available only to the operator and the government. I don't even think the associations that try to manage the operators have access to that information. But I can tell you with certainty that the public does not have access to performance information.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Chase.

On our motion, I have to go back to the Alliance and then I'll be coming to you, Peter, and then Georges, and then Loyola, and then eventually to Mr. Roy.

Mr. John Cummins: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rideout, in your response to my colleague Mr. Wappel's question about disease and escape issues, you noted that there's need for more research to resolve the issue. I raised with you this Irish issue earlier, which is widely known. I might suggest that I think a comment on it would have been more appropriate. I can't believe that you wouldn't have an understanding of it.

But I want to go back to this American issue. The Americans, in declaring wild salmon in Maine endangered, have expressed some concerns about escapees. In fact, they quote some DFO documents to support their contention. The DFO documents have to do with the Magaguadavic River in New Brunswick in the Maine maritime area. The first quote would be this:

Adult salmon of farmed origin have outnumbered wild salmon in that river since 1994 and exceeded 80% for three of the five years between 1994 and 1998.

They say, and again I'm quoting:

Analysis of eggs taken from the Magaguadavic River in 1993 revealed that at least 20% of the redds were constructed by females of farm or cultured origin, and another 35% were of possible cultured origin. In addition, emigrating smolts in 1996 were 51 to 67% farm-origin and those exiting the river in 1998 were 82% farm-origin and cited as evidence of leakage of juveniles from aquaculture facilities on the watershed.

And that's from DFO. Their conclusion is that there's substantial evidence that negative impacts to the DPS can be reasonably anticipated to occur in Maine. That's the U.S. government. They're very concerned and they're quoting DFO documents.

Are you not concerned about the escapees and the impact they're having on wild stock?

Mr. David Rideout: No.

Mr. John Cummins: Why?

Mr. David Rideout: Because I think the industry has moved forward considerably in terms of managing escapes. I think we've worked cooperatively with conservation organizations to get escapes managed and I think we'll see more progress in the future. I don't think we can take wild salmon and aquaculture salmon and use that as the only basis for discussion.

If you were to talk to other people about the Magaguadavic River and the kinds of cooperative arrangements that exist between the local anglers and the industry, I think you would see that there are very positive things happening there. There are other factors that come to play as well, in terms of the impact on wild stocks in the Magaguadavic and other rivers.

Mr. John Cummins: As I said to you before, the Maine and the U.S. governments are not convinced of the effectiveness of actions you've taken.

I'll quote you another conclusion they have about these escapees. They say:

There is substantial documentation that escaped farmed salmon disrupt redds of wild salmon, compete with wild salmon for food and habitat, interbreed with wild salmon, transfer disease or parasites to wild salmon, and/or degrade benthic habitat.

That's a pretty serious charge, and it's not mine, it's the U.S. government's. They're concerned about the way you conduct your business.

• 1015

The Chair: Mr. Rideout.

Mr. David Rideout: You're not going to like my answer, but I'll give it anyway. We need to have a strong, effective DFO to counter some of these concerns.

Mr. John Cummins: I was reporting DFO reports, Mr. Rideout.

The Chair: Your time's up.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I apologize for being late this morning.

I couldn't help but notice that in Mr. Chase's report and in Mr. Rideout's report they both say there is a need for a mechanism of addressing community concerns and overlaps and conflicts that may exist, and there's really no community consultation or public transparency in building public confidence once it comes to aquaculture. You both say that. We've been saying it for years.

Mr. Rideout, as you've recently known, Northwest Cove in the Aspotogan Peninsula underwent a very furious battle over Roger Hammond's application for a finfish farm. You, sir, have told us in committee many times and privately that the aquaculture industry will not go where they are not welcome. Over 90% of the population of that community said go away and get lost. The difficulty we have is the federal government does the environmental work but it's the province that does the licensing, and therein lies the confusion.

Premier Hamm said, prior to the election, that we will not push communities into something they don't want to do. But we notice in the Bay of Fundy an awful lot of lobster fishermen were very concerned over the rapid growth of the industry in their area. And in Nova Scotia we have the same attitude.

Roger Hammond and Serge Lafrenière of Arichat are not what you would call the poster boys for aquaculture. Yet when I spoke to Marli MacNeil in consultation about the application site, she said they're not part of the industry. But the reality is, if you wish to promote yourself and you want to gain public confidence, you have to speak out against what I would call the non-poster boys of your industry and say very clearly that they do not represent the aquaculture industry and your association. Yet your industry remains silent, and by your silence it only means you okay what they're doing. And I attest to you, sir, as I've said to her, it is going to hurt and damage your industry.

I'll get to my two questions.

In the United States they listed certain rivers and certain salmon stocks in New England as endangered species. If Canada did that to some Bay of Fundy stocks, would you support the legislation to say that certain salmon rivers in New Brunswick have endangered species? I know Mr. Chase would probably support that, but I'll ask him that as well. And if you would support that, what would it do to your industry?

And secondly, Mr. Chase, you had indicated that we need leadership, not lip service. Could you elaborate on that just a bit more, please?

The Chair: We'll start with Mr. Rideout and then go to Mr. Chase.

Mr. David Rideout: If I may, Mr. Chair, I'd like to comment on the poster boy issue.

I do not want to comment on either Mr. Hammond or Mr. Lafrenière, but I will say that in terms of the industry remaining silent, we have put a brief before the standing committee of the House of Commons with respect to poor operators and the need to manage poor operators and the need to find assistance to manage poor operators. I don't believe this is remaining silent. That is a call for action. We recognize that there are problems. We are not going to single out individuals in this process, however.

In terms of whether, under the Species at Risk Act, I'm assuming, certain stocks in the Bay of Fundy were found to be endangered, of course the industry would support that. We support the legislation. We've met before the environment and sustainable development committee to put a brief on the Species at Risk Act. We think that the recovery plan will most likely have to engage the aquaculture industry, just as it will have to engage the wild fish fishery. It's not that the cause of the endangerment is aquaculture; it's that the cause of the endangerment is something going on in the environment. We may all have a part to play in it, and if aquaculture can be part of the solution we want to be there.

• 1020

Mr. Chase and I have been working on those kinds of issues for the last year and a half. It's not as if we want to run away from a problem. Any endangered species is important to this industry, as it's important to all Canadians, I would think.

The Chair: Mr. Chase.

Mr. Stephen Chase: Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Stoffer.

Leadership—not lip service, but leadership—from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and each of the provincial governments to which DFO delegates responsibilities under memoranda of understanding is sadly lacking, and mainly in the area of bringing the parties together. I think there are a number of mutual benefits, for both the aquaculture industry and conservation groups, in working together, even though, as I said, we might come at it from slightly different angles.

I think it's important that the governments take leadership and actually do that. But more particularly and acutely, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has a mandate to conserve wild fish populations. That's its mandate—I would argue that's its primary mandate—but it also has an aquaculture development function that's come up through the system in the last few years. Sometimes, I think, the two collide within the department.

I can only speak from the observed results. Some people in DFO are doing their level best to ensure that conservation is achieved, and sometimes there's a conflict in the mandate that prevents DFO from acting on its mandate. I think that's the kind of leadership....

I need to say something, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Go ahead, quickly though.

Mr. Stephen Chase: I came here today to speak supportively of the need for partnership with the aquaculture industry. I did not come here to take shots at the industry, and I'm a bit concerned that some of the discussion may be headed that way.

Mr. Rideout and I have worked together quite successfully on several things over the last year. We have developed what I think is a pretty good working relationship. I do think, however, that there is some.... We would like to see more progress, but our concern is directed today mainly at getting governments to create the foundation on which we can build these partnerships.

The Chair: Just to comment on that, Stephen, and I know David wants in as well, I think the key question, in terms of what you've both put forward, is how can we, as a committee, ensure...? It was raised earlier, in Mr. Rideout's brief, that there's a failure to have comprehensive surveillance and mandatory reporting, to order stock destruction, etc., and there are a number of other places in his brief where you're suggesting there are some shortcomings in the department.

I guess the key question is what role can we play, as a committee, in ensuring that the minister, the department, and the aquaculture commissioner meet both your industries' needs in moving forward? That's the key. I think there are some good points in your briefs, and we will try to deal with them.

I thank you for your comment.

David, go very quickly. If you can, keep it to 20 seconds; then I have to turn to Georges.

Mr. David Rideout: Thank you very much, and I appreciate your comment.

Aquaculture development versus conservation, from my perspective.... It's impossible for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to be schizophrenic. It can't take on the development role and also meet its conservation objectives. But it can very well facilitate development, through facilitating issues around food safety, environmental sustainability, and industry competitiveness.

If we can get the siting issues resolved, we will resolve a lot of the competitiveness issues. It lies, I think, squarely within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' ability to do it.

I see it more as facilitating development than advocating development.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Rideout.

Mr. Farrah.

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de- la-Madeleine—Pabok, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is more a comment that I want to make since the question I wanted to ask has already been put and partly answered. I would like to come back to Mr. Chase's brief.

• 1025

Last October, you submitted a brief from the Federation in St. Andrews. Since then, unfortunately, things do not seem to have changed very much. You state in your brief that:

Evidently, many people in the aquaculture industry and government agree with us on the benefits of working together.

And then, in the next paragraph:

Some progress-oriented industry and government representatives have undertaken to explore ways in which we can work together to generate concrete action in support of conservation, restoration and management of wild salmon.

This seems to indicate that there is some willingness to act. You also state that there are people willing to help in this process. However, nothing has changed much since October last. How do you explain that? Also, what could we do to move the issue forward? If there are people in the industry and government who are willing to help but nothing changes in the end, what is the real problem?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Chase.

Mr. Stephen Chase: Thank you, Mr. Farrah.

Progress, I guess, is what we consider to be progress. In the last year and a half or so, the Atlantic Salmon Federation has reached out to build working relationships with people like Mr. Rideout and his counterparts, the commissioner of aquaculture, and others. I think you know we have developed very good and constructive working relationships. And we have participated jointly in a number of exercises, such as the introductions and transfer submission to the provincial-territorial-federal ministers, fish health containment. We've done some constructive things, and people in the industry have done some constructive things.

What we would really like, though, is to see some concrete research activity going on. I think the talk is good. You need the talk to create the facilitative environment. But I think we have to demonstrate something you can see in your hand—a joint research project—that will result in some concrete gains for both wild salmon conservation and the aquaculture industry.

We come at this very much trying to find mutual gain. We're interested, in the final analysis, in wild salmon. But we need to have something you can see and hold in your hand as a joint effort. The Magaguadevic project is one that's been cited. We've had a number of people from the aquaculture industry come forward and say “Look, we'd like to help with restocking and that kind of thing, or raising some fish so we can put them back into rivers.” I think that's good.

And that's why I made my remark a minute ago: I'm very concerned. We did not come here to be critical. We came, rather, to facilitate. But we need to do it. Urgency in this matter is important, because wild populations of fish are declining at a significant rate. We don't have years and years. And having said that, I'd make just one more point, Mr. Chair.

We have been very careful publicly and in private to say that aquaculture is only one of many factors that have contributed to the decline of wild salmon. In fact, it's a factor in areas where it exists; clearly, where it does not exist, it's probably minor.

I hope that answers your question, Mr. Farrah.

The Chair: Mr. Farrah, is that it?

[Translation]

Mr. Roy.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is for Mr. Chase.

I would like to ask something about the third recommendation of your brief, which reads as follows:

AFS therefore recommends that the Committee propose to governments that serious efforts be made to stimulate cooperative working relations between the aquaculture industry and stakeholders that result in concrete benefits for conservation.

Could you elaborate on that recommendation? What are you asking government? Do you want government to referee between the Federation and industry? What are you asking the Committee to do in making that recommendation? Do you want us to tell government to go and referee the issues existing between industry and the Federation, between aquaculture operators and the recreation fishery? In fact, your recommendation seems to be rather vague and I would like to have some clarification.

• 1030

[English]

Mr. Stephen Chase: Mr. Roy, I think there are a number of opportunities where the government can bring the parties together to work on conservation projects or research activities. In fact, the aquaculture strategy—the $75 million strategy the minister announced last year—has provision for joint scientific research.

I believe the government wants some of these research projects to come forward, but I haven't really had any discussion with government representatives in this regard. I think those are the kinds of serious concrete, hold-in-your-hand products that come from joint work.

The provinces have a role here too. The provinces, being closer to the action, haven't done a lot to bring the parties together. I think there is some intent on the part of the province of Newfoundland, as one, and New Brunswick has had several false starts in getting its consultative process going. I'm not aware of anything in Nova Scotia.

A more concerted effort to bring people together, fostered by government, is missing and necessary. I think that's today's reality.

The Chair: Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: I have one other question.

Some time in the past, the Committee heard representatives of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans about the Fraser River and the Thompson River, among other things. We were told that there had been a problem with salmon in those rivers for five years but that the Department did not have any data and that they absolutely did not understand what was happening in those two rivers.

In fact, what you are asking is for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to investigate further in order to know more about salmon. However, we all understand that this can only be done on a long term basis, whilst the problem for the aquaculture industry is rather immediate, I believe. How do you resolve this dilemma?

Everyone knows that basic scientific research providing real scientific knowledge may take up to ten years. Of course, if we don't do anything, things will probably change over the next ten years, but probably for the worst. What do you want the Department to do, concretely, to prevent the situation from worsening over the next ten years? It takes many years to obtain scientific knowledge.

[English]

Mr. Stephen Chase: Thank you, Monsieur Roy.

ASF has a major initiative going to try to convince the government—DFO—to augment its research capacity generally, not just in relation to aquaculture. It's a fact that the money DFO puts into its scientific program is a fraction of what it was 10 years ago. Senior scientists have started to retire and are not being replaced. Some people are overworked in the science branch of DFO, and some people can't get the moneys to go out and do the kind of research they really need to do. Aquaculture is but one area.

Some money was put into the program last year, but to answer your question, DFO's ability to conduct science is seriously diminished. There is a major economic reason why we think they should, because a big local rural economy depends on the recreational fishery.

• 1035

We're hopeful that some research we'd like to see vis-à-vis aquaculture will actually be approved and take place through the aquaculture strategy, but at this stage it's very, very preliminary. We have not developed a proposal as yet, although we have had a discussion with an aquaculture organization in New Brunswick about filing a submission to the aquaculture strategy.

The short answer is that DFO needs to put a lot more money into its science program.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Chase.

Mr. Rideout, a very quick comment, and then we'll go to Mr. Hearn.

Mr. David Rideout: Yes, thank you.

If I may speak in support of what Stephen has said, we seem to need strong public institutions, particularly in the area of science. Great benefit can be achieved from the innovation agenda. As well, there could be some real benefits to having coordinated R and D, as opposed to piecemeal R and D. A number of organizations are working on research and development, and it would be good to get some kind of coordination of those efforts.

The Chair: Mr. Hearn.

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me also thank the guests for being here this morning. The last couple of comments are probably getting us closer to what this is all about.

Why are we into aquaculture to begin with? For two reasons: one, to stimulate the economy and create employment opportunities out there; and two, to replace the losses we've sustained in the regular fishery.

I grew up in a small fishing community where our pastime on a summer evening was to stand under the old fence and count the salmon jumping in the harbour, see how many you could count in the space of 10 or 15 minutes. You don't see this any more. We don't have any aquaculture projects around, so we can't blame it on aquaculture. There are just so many other things, from poaching, to perhaps being too conscious about the environment—where we're not allowed to throw fish remains or whatever in the waters any more that attract the salmon, eels, you name it—to a complete disregard for the state of the salmon rivers from a physical point, to observation or protection. There is practically no protection on any of our salmon rivers any more, and poaching has certainly increased.

As our groundfish stocks collapsed, we started to turn to aquaculture to create opportunities. The opportunities are great; however, the complete lack of attention and investment in the field by government really concerns me. When we put all the many billions of dollars into the TAGS program, the only thing we weren't allowed to spend any money on was fishery.

In rural Canada, Atlantic Canada, particularly Newfoundland—and I would suggest in British Columbia—the best job generator is in relation to the fishery, if we invest in research, science, and infrastructure; and if we look at the budget of the department, as we've seen from other avenues such as the coast guard and whatever, it's been cut, cut, cut, cut, cut.

Part of the problem we're experiencing here today is a complete lack of research and investment, not by the individuals who might be involved, but by the governments who have caused the decline of the wild stocks, whether it be salmon or trout or whatever, and the lack of proper investment and scientific research and protection in relation to what might happen or what can happen in the aquaculture industry.

It's the same way with the costs of developing the site. Surely government should know if a site is somewhat suitable, and I would suggest it should carry out the environmental assessments to ascertain suitability. Now it expects somebody to invest maybe $100,000 to be told this site is not appropriate. We're not getting any investment here.

Is a lack of attention and funding one of our major problems? And can we find other ways? Are we getting caught up now in aquaculture as the main concern for our wild stocks and losing sight perhaps of the real reasons—from the poaching to the lack of protection on our rivers, whatever?

• 1040

Have we more or less been distracted from the real issues? How can we get down to rebuilding our stocks, both the wild ones and perhaps I should throw in onshore aquaculture here? In Scotland, when we visited there, many of the successful projects were shore-based operations. Should we be looking more at this, rather than trying to raise product in the wild?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hearn.

We'll start with Mr. Rideout and then go to Mr. Chase.

Mr. David Rideout: Thank you very much for the question.

Is a lack of funding a problem? In some areas it is. I've been a bit concerned about the discussion of aquaculture being focused on salmon. Salmon is a key part of the aquaculture industry in Canada. It's a major contributor to the overall productivity in the aquaculture industry, but there is some significant effort with respect to our shellfish industry and halibut.

Just two weeks ago I attended a coastal-based conference in St. Albans, Newfoundland. We know now that you can take cod and in three to four months double their size from cod grow-out; that's significant. It's a bit limited by their ability to take pelletized feed, but developments are happening in terms of wet feed. And there's tremendous opportunity in terms of egg-to-plate. The need for some focus on getting hatcheries for cod development from egg to plate—particularly in Newfoundland—would be significant.

In terms of salmon, it's great to see the research going on and the money invested in the research, and it's great to see DFO being buttressed, and it would be good to see the CFIA take a more active role in areas like aquatic animal health. Nevertheless, if DFO needs to develop the infrastructure for that, so be it, but the aquaculture industry, with respect to salmon, is not on its knees looking for money, with the one exception: it would be very useful for government to take a look at generic marketing.

We have extreme competition in our marketplace. If we can get the consumers to eat more of our fish products—and not just aquaculture, but Canadian fish products—if we can improve or increase the per capita consumption of fish products, we would make significant inroads in the marketplace and the kinds of competitive issues we are facing now would be diminished. There may be some use in having funding go in this direction.

In terms of finding other ways, this is the one frustration I have in all of the work we're doing. Let me say that from my perspective, the aquaculture industry has been working as long and as hard as it possibly can since I have been involved in it in the last year and a half to try to get issues resolved. But the problem is that the focus seems to be in on aquaculture and not out on the broad spectrum of issues.

If poaching is an issue, let's resolve it. If there's something going on in the ocean environment, let's resolve it. If dams present a problem, let's resolve it. And if aquaculture creates a problem, then let's fix it. Let's do it not just as Mr. Chase and myself and a few others, but as a collective community. Let's become community-oriented in this and get it resolved.

We have such tremendous potential with this industry, it's incredible, in terms of resolving coastal community economic development—if we do it right. That's why we're so hopeful this committee will take a strong look at the recommendations we're making and see if we can't build on them.

The Chair: Mr. Chase, a quick comment, and then I have to go to Mr. Lunney and Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Stephen Chase: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Hearn.

The Atlantic Salmon Federation was involved years ago in helping develop the aquaculture industry. We had a genetics research program based in St. Andrews that in large part contributed to the genesis of the industry there. We're quite proud of that. In part, when the numbers of fish started to decline in the commercial salmon fishery, we saw aquaculture as one way to offset this loss from the commercial fishery.

• 1045

I think the question was, could DFO be doing more across the board? I've already noted the need to augment their science program, but all their programs—protection, management, habitat, restoration, and assessment—are seriously wanting as well. That's part of our initiative.

One question is what's going on in the ocean? We know that a number of factors have contributed to the decline of the Atlantic salmon in our rivers and watersheds—dams, predation, pollution, and so on. But we don't know what's going on in the ocean.

In fact, some steps have been taken in that direction. Canada has joined an international fund set up to review the ocean-related issues that scientists have agreed need to be addressed as priorities. We're looking for Canada to contribute to that program, along with the European Community, the U.S., and others.

As for the decline of salmon, as I've said, aquaculture is only one of several factors that have contributed—and it's probably well down the list. But we need research right across the board to find out all the problems, and to start to deal with them.

I don't know if that gets at your question.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Chase.

Mr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): I'd like to pick up on that line of questioning. I just came from Tofino yesterday, on the far west coast of Canada, and the community was involved in a festival celebrating the return of the salmon. We were out watching the returning chum and coho coming upstream.

A lot has gone into restoring the damage to the fish habitat that was done by forestry. We had to acknowledge that as a factor in stock declines. Communities got involved in unplugging those streams, streamkeepers got involved, local hatchery operations—a lot of community-driven effort. It's been amazing to see that some streams that just a few years ago had as few as fifty salmon in them now have thousands coming back.

So there's certainly a lot of interest in saving our wild stocks. A lot needs to be done in that area, and a lot of good stuff is happening. But the community is still most concerned about the developing aquaculture industry—particularly the issue of siting.

Today, for the first time, I heard a reference to the Oslo agreement—that's the matter of 20 kilometres from the mouth of the stream. It seems to me that raises some very important issues about the sites interfering with our salmon going in and out of the streams. I wonder if you could comment on that and expand on it. What's happening with siting agreements? Is that a recognized standard? Has Canada made any advance in looking at that?

Mr. Stephen Chase: I'll try. The Oslo resolution was taken by NASCO, and it pertains to Atlantic salmon in and around the periphery of the North Atlantic. To the best of my understanding, it does not apply to Pacific salmon populations.

Has Canada done anything vis-à-vis the Oslo resolution? I really don't know. Canada is a signatory to the NASCO treaty, along with the EU, the United States, Spain, France, Russia, and so on. Those countries are all part of NASCO, and I'm really not sure to what extent Canada has implemented its NASCO obligations. Are they guidelines, or hard and fast rules? I don't know. This is one of the questions that we would pose to the government.

The other thing I want to add is that it's good that there's a “return of the salmon” festival. In British Columbia, Canada has contributed $400 million to the restoration of salmon populations. And $100 million of that was supposed to go to fostering community groups, so that all the stakeholder—the forestry industry, the aquaculture industry, and the aboriginal communities—can work together to restore the salmon. We don't have that for the salmon populations on the east coast, and we desperately need it.

The Chair: Mr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney: Going back to the Oslo resolution, if they were concerned about siting these things near the mouths of streams, there had to be a reason for that. Can you comment on that, Mr. Chase or Mr. Rideout? Do you have anything to say about the effect of aquaculture sites near the mouths of salmon streams?

• 1050

Mr. Stephen Chase: From the peer-reviewed science we've seen, I can only comment that the closer an aquaculture operation is located to the mouth of a river where fish migrate, the greater the likelihood of any interaction—whether from a health point of view, or escape.

The underpinnings of the resolution would be there. I'm sure there are technical documents that would back up the resolution—it could be had through NASCO, through DFO. I suggest you go to the NASCO website. It's a good site, and all these resolutions are available there.

Mr. James Lunney: Mr. Rideout, do you have anything to add?

Mr. David Rideout: As I understand it, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans would report annually on its implementation of the Oslo resolution. With respect to the resolution itself, I'm not sure that the aquaculture industry was consulted; it was sort of a fait accompli before the aquaculture issue was engaged. I may be incorrect, but I believe that's the case.

With respect to what's going on in British Columbia, I think it's very encouraging that the efforts to restore habitat and stocks are working. I would like to point out that each province approaches the siting process differently. In British Columbia it has three levels: there's the environmental assessment approach, involving DFO; then there's the provincial decision-making process; and then there's the community process.

Some aquaculture farms have gone through the first two steps with no problems, but have then run into issues at the community level: the community did not want to have the industry in that area or at that particular site. That's frustrating for the industry. Nevertheless, it speaks to the need to get everyone involved up front, to tackle these issues from the beginning, and see if we can get them resolved.

Mr. James Lunney: One final quick question on the use of arc lamps in aquaculture for photo-adaptation. I've heard different stories about this. Particularly if a site is near the mouth of a river, some commercial fishermen have raised big alarms about the effect of arc lamps on the wild stocks. Apparently they're drawn to the nets by the light, and then attacked by predators. Could you comment on that?

Mr. David Rideout: From what I understand, this is a new technique, and there's conflicting evidence. That's another issue where it would be good to have some focused research.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lunney, Mr. Rideout.

Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing.

I think it should be made clear that for the most part, this committee supports the aquaculture industry. It's unfortunate that we haven't been able to conclude our studies on aquaculture, but I guess a number of things have come forward this morning, such as the notions of transparency and accountability. Those two terms were used many times.

When we have none of those factors, or only limited amounts, then obviously there's some reason for concern. The general public is concerned, and certainly the industry is—on both sides, the wild fish industry and the aquaculture industry.

When I look at DFO's record, I see that in the cod industry the signs pointed toward a decline in cod populations many years ago. Information based on traditional knowledge basically said that cod stocks were coming down. So there were signs, but when it came to interpreting them, who enforces that? And my concern is we seem to be responding to the results of good science gone wrong.

How do we get to that issue? This morning we talked about not having adequate science, or perhaps not enough cooperation between our science and American-based science—because our species do move about. How can we better interpret and how can we better make the public aware of the kind of science that's out there, so that the science that we have becomes useful science rather than redundant?

• 1055

Mr. Stephen Chase: I'll try that for starters and then give Dave a chance.

Science is an iterative process. The best approach is developed through research applied, and then you look for the results. Vis-à-vis science, DFO doesn't do too bad a job of it. Once a scientific project is completed or underway, public reports are made periodically about what the project has revealed.

I don't think the issue of transparency and accountability is that pertinent for the science. It's mainly around the regulatory and approvals processes. We share that concern. That's why we filed a joint submission on the introductions and transfers process. The submission said this is inconsistent from province to province. The reasons are not revealed as to why a transfer is approved or not. It's simply an example of another regulatory process where if people were more forthcoming and we understood what was going on, some of the concerns we have might be set aside. The absence of information gives rise to more questions than the availability of information.

The Chair: Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I believe it was Mr. Rideout who alluded to one of the areas where there had been recommendations. I do know something in the area of freshwater, which I happen to represent. I'm not as familiar with the Pacific and the Atlantic coastal areas in terms of their fisheries. Certainly one of the areas you mentioned was the area of ballast water.

We do know that within the Great Lakes system there has been an inherent problem of a number of species coming there by virtue of ballast water. Recommendations have been made by this committee to deal with that. To my knowledge, there has been no response. We already know the science, because the results would have taken place over a good many years going back to the 1920s, perhaps even before that. Yet we seemingly haven't learned from that lesson or that experiment.

When will we learn from—and I guess that's my reason for that question—the science or the evidence? As Mr. Chase has just said, we have to look at the results and then measure that against something.

The Chair: Mr. Rideout.

Mr. David Rideout: I hope very soon, especially on the ballast water issue.

It may not be appropriate for me to say this, Mr. Chair, but I'll say it anyway.

My father used to say that if you give a dog a bad name, he'll live up to it. I think it's time to back away from the DFO issue. They're not the bogeyman. What DFO needs is to have the tools to be able to do the job. That's what this industry wants to see. They're starting to get that, and I think that's important. They have good science, but they need better science. They need to do more. We understand that.

To get to your original question, who's the interpreter of the science, that comes down to this whole issue of risk management. The risk manager has to have the tools in order to make the right decisions, and we would argue strongly that those tools include science, social and economic considerations. There are some areas, for example in the area of food safety, where the social and economic don't impact. But there are other areas where you could have a low-risk science situation but a high-risk social or economic situation so that you would say no, we're not going to make that decision.

Those things aren't taken into consideration. That's why I'm encouraged that the centre of excellence, the AquaNet, has called for research by social scientists in Canada on social and economic criteria for risk management decision-making. But the answer I think comes down to the risk management approach. Who are the risk managers, and what tools do they have to make their decisions? When we give them the right tools, I think they will make the right decisions.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Rideout.

Sorry, Peter, we're out of time. I have about four or five questions myself that we're not going to get to.

In any event, I just want to make mention of one. In recommendation three on page five of your presentation, Mr. Chase, you recommend that

...the committee propose to governments that serious efforts be made to stimulate cooperative working relations between the aquaculture industry and stakeholders that result in concrete benefits for conservation.

• 1100

I think you can go further than that, to economic development, etc. Do you have any specific proposals, Stephen, that tie into that, to enforce it?

I would like to say I congratulate you both, Mr. Chase and Mr. Rideout, on your efforts to work personally together. I think the presentation this morning shows your efforts in working together to enhance not only the wild salmon fishery and recreational fishing, but also aquaculture. It shows a great effort, and it's the way we should be moving, broadening that base to DFO and some of the key players in the industry. So I congratulate you on that. But how do we get governments, and provincial and federal industry players, to come as far as you two gentlemen have come? That relates in part to your third recommendation.

Mr. Stephen Chase: I think David and I would agree that in some cases we have to drag the governments along, both federal and provincial. If we can demonstrate we're able to work together, the governments will come along with us.

To give you precise examples, I think the government needs to be more inclusive of the conservation organizations in the fora it has made available to industry. There are some examples of this, but I think we could do a more consistent and better job of including people who have a legitimate interest, as opposed to a frivolous interest, in working together. We need a clear message that the government really wants us working together. I think they do, but we need a really clear understanding that this is what they see as the road to the future.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Peter, we're over our time. We went overtime last time, and it was a problem.

I would say to the committee that basically, with the exception of a possible tour of aquaculture in central Canada, which is still on the drawing board, this is the last hearing we intend to hold on aquaculture. We now hope to start drafting the report, which will put some meat on the bones.

Thank you both, Mr. Rideout and Mr. Chase.

The meeting is adjourned.