ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 17, 1998

• 0913

[Translation]

The Chairman (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We have the quorum we need to begin. I would like to welcome everyone here this morning, in particular Mr. Asselin, a former member of this committee who has just come back. We regretted your absence.

Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): You missed me, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Yes.

[English]

Before I welcome our witness, let me bring to your attention this package that arrived this morning in our respective offices. It was produced as a result of questions posed by members of this committee to Environment Canada officials when we met two weeks ago on a number of enforcement-related issues.

The package consists of a training manual as well as intelligence requirements for environmental enforcement reports, so it's very heavy, hot stuff. There are a comparison of Bill C-74 with provincial statutes, stuff for things to go ahead on, and other items.

• 0915

The only reason for bringing this to your attention is that you receive tonnes of material every day and you may want to make sure this does not fall between two chairs, so to say.

We have with us this morning on behalf of the Conservation Council of New Brunswick, Juli Abouchar, who is not new to us. She has appeared on a number of occasions in the past on behalf of the fine organization she is in charge of.

Without further delay, would you like to start in English or in French, whichever you would like. Welcome again.

Ms. Juli Abouchar (Executive Director, Conservation Council of New Brunswick): Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's an honour to be here today to talk about this very important issue.

I think the most important aspect of this issue, even though we're talking about aquaculture, is not the subject matter but the effect of an administrative agreement between New Brunswick and Canada, which is essentially an attempt to harmonize regulations that have to do with aquaculture. Its importance is as an example of a harmonization agreement, of an early administrative agreement.

I'll go through the brief. Since we have time, I'll spend 10 or 15 minutes going through the brief first and then we'll do the questions.

The brief addresses three issues with respect to marine aquaculture in New Brunswick.

The first issue is a lack of environmental regulations specific to the industry. The second issue is a lack of enforcement of the federal pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act, and the third is an issue around jurisdictional responsibility in the industry and in the context of an administrative agreement, specifically the Canada-New Brunswick memorandum of understanding on aquaculture development. At the heart of all these issues is a failure of the federal-provincial agreement, which essentially harmonized the regulation with respect to the aquaculture industry.

To give a small bit of background, the aquaculture industry started in 1979 but was very slow to get going until there were significant funds from grants to licensees from ACOA, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Then from 1984 to 1997 the aquaculture industry grew at an incredible rate and, as the brief shows, with very little regard to environmental considerations.

I'll start talking now about the environmental impacts of the industry.

The Chairman: Excuse me for interrupting for a moment. You are using as a document the one entitled “Enforcement of Federal Environmental Legislation”, is that right?

Ms. Juli Abouchar: Yes.

The Chairman: That document has been distributed to all members, so there's no problem. Please go ahead.

Ms. Juli Abouchar: Shall I assume it's been read and just go—

The Chairman: Go through it.

Ms. Juli Abouchar: Okay. I'll go through it in some, but not excruciating, detail.

On the environmental impacts of the industry, I was surprised the other day to see in the Telegraph-Journal, the New Brunswick paper, in one sentence a reference to the ecological disaster that has occurred around the aquaculture industry in New Brunswick. The statement was attributed to scientists, so it's just not the Conservation Council that considers what happened there an ecological disaster.

The environmental effects include a very heavy layering of mariculture sludge, which is essentially the feces from the fish and the unused feed that accumulates underneath the cages. The accumulations were so bad in 1992-93, which is the date for which we last have data—and I'll explain why in a second—that a quarter of the sites were heavily degraded. That means a heavy blanket of the sludge bubbling up, made up of different gases—hydrogen sulphite, ammonia methane, carbon dioxide, the absence of oxygen. Essentially the only species that could live in these heavily degraded sites is worms.

• 0920

The reason we don't have recent data is that in 1994 environmental monitoring switched from being the responsibility of the Department of Environment to being the responsibility of the industry itself and the data were found to be confidential when we asked for them. In addition, the monitoring reports were asked to be tabled in the House; that was also refused. The public has not seen any environmental monitoring reports since 1992-93 because of the decision of the New Brunswick Department of the Environment to hand over all the monitoring responsibilities to industry.

The biggest concern here is nutrients that are gathering underneath the cages. The effects spread beyond the cages themselves. Nitrogen and phosphorus are of greatest concern. To give you an idea of how much of these nutrients is being deposited in these embayments, based on calculations we've made to date the amount is roughly equivalent to the raw sewage of a population of between 87,000 and 200,000 people. This is compared with the population in Charlotte County of a mere 30,000. So the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus going into these sites is far more than the raw sewage equivalent of the population there. I'm not saying there's raw sewage going in; I'm saying if that were the case, it's far more than that amount.

It's also far greater than any other source such as pulp mills, sewage treatment, run-off precipitation, and even the sardine plant in the area.

A significant amount of nutrients is just being dumped, ending up underneath the cages.

That proves the fallacy of the premise of the entire development of the industry, which was that during the winter months the tides would come in and wash out the sludge and that there would be no effects beyond the cage site. Both of these premises have shown to be false in that we're now seeing embayment-wide ecological destruction in the Bay of Fundy area, where the fish farms are located.

Those are the environmental effects. The effects on the fish themselves are also quite astonishing.

First of all, the fish are not in a very happy atmosphere. They're crowded, and they're competing for the food that is thrown to them. This stresses them. You add to that stress the stress of having all this sludge building up underneath the cages, and the situation is ripe for disease. That in fact is what has happened. The mortality rate in the 1980s was around 5%, and the mortality rate has grown to 20%.

The first outbreak was a bacterial disease called Hitra, and that was in 1993. Since then we've had many more outbreaks. The next year there was an infestation of sea lice, and the cost to the industry was nearly $35 million over two years in lost salmon.

The response to this was for the licensees to lobby the government to approve certain insecticides to deal with the sea lice. Hydrogen peroxide and pyrethrin were approved, but in a very quick, emergency process. Believe it or not, there was was no testing of these insecticides in the marine environment. They're usually used for other purposes, but here they're being thrown into the cages and directly into the waters.

Another pesticide that's routinely used, although illegally—it doesn't have approval—is Cypermethrin. This is an endocrine disrupter and very toxic to fish. It's so toxic that a legal battle has now arisen as a result of the deaths of a lot of lobsters—60,000 lobsters—in a lobster pound near salmon cages. The lobsters were found to have traces of Cypermethrin in the carcasses. So there's evidence here that that Cypermethrin is toxic, and its use has been basically overlooked by DFO and also by the provincial authorities.

• 0925

Just as a note, there has been only one charge under any act with respect to operations in the aquaculture industry, and that was a charge under the provincial Pesticides Control Act. The fine was a mere $500, and it was for illegal use of Cypermethrin.

Most recently we've had another disease, salmon anemia. This is a fatal virus, and is very infectious. It has affected a quarter of the salmon farms. In December 1997 the New Brunswick government ordered a slaughter of all of the 1997 year-class, all of the fish that were a year old in 1997. And as of February this year, roughly 200,000 fish were killed, with another one million waiting to be killed. As is pretty predictable in this situation, the province is now lobbying DFO for a compensation package to support the licensees.

It's pretty clear from this that the quality of the marine environment has been degraded as a result of aquaculture. Specifically, there have been negative impacts on marine species and on fish habitat. How did this happen?

Now I'll turn to the environmental jurisdiction and enforcement issues, which is what we're primarily concerned about today. As we all know, the federal Fisheries Act has pollution prevention provisions that would clearly cover the situation of introduction of deleterious substances into the marine environment. Yet neither the federal fisheries department nor Environment Canada has taken any steps to lay any charges with respect to these occurrences.

The reason they don't lay charges is they point to this administrative agreement, the Canada and New Brunswick memorandum of understanding on aquaculture development. I have a copy of it here if members of the committee would like to see a copy of the agreement itself. I think the agreement is quite instructive, because a lot of what it does is essentially what the harmonization accord does. I'll go through a few of the important provisions to draw out this thesis.

First of all, the MOU doesn't provide DFO with any veto powers. However, it does have a notwithstanding clause, which says “Canada may take measures deemed necessary to protect matters within its jurisdiction”. So although it doesn't have a veto, it does reserve to itself, to the federal government, the power to take measures necessary on matters in its jurisdiction.

In addition, the agreement specifically states that it does not prejudice the parties' respective constitutional and legislative authority. This is similar to what the harmonization accord professes to do: it protects the traditional authorities.

Despite these protections, DFO has played a very hands-off role. Instead of using these protections, it abides by all of the constraints the agreement poses on it. Specifically, the MOU says that “Canada shall continue to carry out and sponsor scientific research and development”. Essentially, that is all the federal government has been doing with respect to aquaculture in the region, focusing on research and development; that's where their resources are going.

On the other hand, the agreement specifically gives to New Brunswick the power to license and lease all of the aquaculture facilities in accordance with its own regulations, but also specifically says “in accordance with all relevant federal regulation”. So in spite of that caveat, that the province is supposed to license in accordance with federal regulation, there are no licensing conditions that have to do with environmental protection or protection of fish habitat or prevention of deleterious substances entering the marine environment. The licence focuses on limits with respect to fish stock density and cage separation. It also requires the operators to report diseases and to report what drugs and pesticides are used.

• 0930

There is no explicit obligation. There is an obligation to conduct the environmental monitoring, which I mentioned before. Those reports are unavailable to the public. There are no triggers in it that would trigger the minister to act if there is significant environmental harm. There's no real protection. There are no standards or criteria to determine a threshold for environmental harm.

DFO has no specific role in licensing these other than an advisory role. That's another part of the memorandum: that Canada has a right to comment on the licences. They participate in this counting process through a committee, which is made up of two DFO members and one member of the New Brunswick fisheries and aquaculture department. The committee is only advisory in nature.

The committee has on several occasions made very strong recommendations not to approve permits. Specifically, in 1997 the committee recommended that seven out of eight new licences not be granted, that the applications be rejected. The provincial minister rejected only one. Essentially, Canada is relegated to an advisory role here and their comments are not taken into account.

Another relevant part of the MOU is that both parties are to cooperate with respect to establishing criteria for where the sites are located. While the criteria are jointly agreed upon, DFO officials who observe the process say that there is no apparent application of the criteria by the province.

There's another interesting provision in the MOU that is essentially a harmonization provision. What it says is if one jurisdiction's regulation is found to be ultra vires, the jurisdiction that has constitutional responsibility is asked to basically implement legislation that is the same as what has been implemented by the jurisdiction that didn't have constitutional authority.

I'll go over that again, because it is a little bit confusing. What it is saying is where there is a question of constitutional authority— Say in this case the federal government wanted to challenge the provincial government's authority in passing regulations that have to do with fisheries, and say the federal government won their challenge. According to this MOU, they'd then be required to pass essentially the same regulations the province had. They'd be required to adopt those regulations through their own constitutional mechanism. Essentially, there's an attempt here to harmonize toward the provincial level.

What the MOU does here is to give to the provincial government the administrative responsibility for regulating the industry through licensing and leasing. At the same time, it then gives a power to both parties to inspect. This seems to be contradictory. One power is being the sole administrative authority and the other power is a power to inspect. The federal government has the power to inspect, but this is basically lip service, since it doesn't happen. There have been no charges laid under either the Fisheries Act or the aquaculture act. The inspection is essentially lip service.

• 0935

Another part of this agreement that is reflective or reminiscent of the harmonization accord is that it says both parties shall endeavour to remove any hindrances, any—I'll just read it exactly:

—shall endeavour to remove or alter any of their respective legislative or administrative enactments that would impede the implementation of this agreement.

So although in other parts of the agreement it said that both parties are going to keep their legislative responsibilities, it also requires both parties to alter their respective legislative or administrative pieces of legislation that would impede the development of this industry.

This is essentially what has happened in practice. Both levels of government have announced their unqualified support for aquaculture as the panacea for the problem we have in our fisheries industry, and jobs have taken precedence over a prudent, sustainable development approach to the industry.

Whether or not either level has removed legislative impediments is irrelevant, since the federal level, specifically, has ignored those legislative requirements. I'm thinking of section 36 of the Fisheries Act, the deleterious substance provision, and the fish habitat destruction provision as well, section 35. Although the impediments haven't explicitly been removed, they've just been ignored.

What should be done about the situation? To answer that question, I point to two other sections in the agreement. The agreement may be amended by mutual consent of the parties, and in addition, either party may terminate the agreement.

The Conservation Council is recommending that because the memorandum of understanding has failed to protect fish habitat and marine environmental quality, Canada should really give notice that it wishes to amend the agreement, and to amend it by giving the federal government, the DFO, a veto power over any site that is reasonably expected to destroy or to affect fish habitat.

In addition, the federal government should have some power to include specific environmental performance requirements in the licences. If DFO is concerned about the build-up of sludge in a certain site, it should be able to put conditions on the licence to require that to be removed, or require contained cages, or require some measure that would fix the environmental problem.

If New Brunswick rejects these proposed amendments, it is the Conservation Council's suggestion that the federal government should just remove itself, should terminate the agreement, because it has not provided for the responsibilities of the federal government in terms of fish habitat protection.

In place of this agreement, and to fill the gap in legislation that presently exists, environmental performance regulations for the aquaculture industry should be drafted under the federal Fisheries Act.

In addition, Environment Canada presently has only one enforcement officer stationed in New Brunswick to deal with the pollution prevention part of the Fisheries Act. The other parts of the Fisheries Act may have fisheries officers to deal with those, but there is only one such person in New Brunswick to enforce the pollution prevention provisions of the act. This clearly needs to be remedied.

Resources need to go towards enforcement of the Fisheries Act and CEPA in New Brunswick—in the Atlantic region, but specifically in New Brunswick—to improve the capacity to inspect the aquaculture sites in particular, and enforce the regulations that apply.

In addition, we would suggest that part III of CEPA, which is the part that deals with nutrients, be amended to explicitly include deposition of nitrates and phosphates into the marine environment from the aquaculture industry. Regulations should be written in order to limit the input of nutrients into the marine environment by aquaculture.

Finally, we would recommend that this committee undertake a review of this administrative agreement in the context of the two-year harmonization review. The effectiveness of this administrative agreement is crucial and very significant when we're talking about the problems of harmonization and the problems we are going to see with the harmonization accord.

• 0940

We appreciate this opportunity to bring this issue before the committee, and it would assist us a great deal if the committee could give some direction as to the jurisdictional responsibility of the federal government in this area. It is a grey area. We're dealing with the Bay of Fundy. The federal government claims this area because it has internal waters to Canada, and yet both provinces also claim this area as being within their jurisdiction.

The way it's been dealt with so far is for the federal government to basically step out but also maintain its constitutional authority through this administrative agreement, essentially maintaining some sort of authority on paper only, but stepping out of the field.

So we have concerns with this approach. We also seek some advice as to the proper role of the federal government in these issues.

The Chairman: Let me not only thank you for appearing before us but also congratulate you for this most interesting brief you have put together. It gives us a complete picture of something we've heard about in bits and pieces over time, but never in such a well-coordinated fashion. It certainly offers members of this committee a rather alarming picture that we will have to deal with in our report.

We will now have a good round of questions. When we've finished with the questions, we will go in camera to discuss future business—in particular, the travel to Washington, CEPA and climate change. We'll also have a discussion on the possible content of the report on the enforcement. I will invite Madame Hébert to give us a quick overview of the issues that have emerged so far.

I would like you to keep in mind that all this is on our agenda before we adjourn around 11 a.m.

To begin, as usual, we have Mr. Casson.

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

I'd like to thank you as well for appearing today and for bringing this very informative study to us.

You've called this an ecological disaster. The last data that was released was in 1992 and 1993. You say about one in five of the fish now are dying or being destroyed.

Why would somebody—and maybe this isn't a fair question to ask of you, but it just boggles my mind—invest money and go to all this trouble to create this business and then destroy it by poison and all these other things you've talked about? What is the present status of the industry? Is it still growing? Is it starting to dwindle? Is it finished? What has happened?

Ms. Juli Abouchar: I'm really not the right person to answer that question. It should be presented to the provincial government. Having recognized that, I can update you on the status of the industry.

The sea lice infestation is continuing. I've been told there's evidence of sea lice this winter. It's unprecedented to have sea lice in the winter. There are a million fish waiting to be slaughtered to try to deal with the problem. There are still licences on the block that are looking for approval.

It seems it's had a very damaging effect on the industry, but it also seems they are still going ahead with the licensing process. There seem to be signs also that the province is thinking about giving time for some of the worst-infested areas to lay fallow, so to speak, and have a six-month period for a flush-out. There certainly is an intention to go ahead with the industry and to take some stop-gap measures to deal with it, but what we need to see is some better, more sustainable, regulation of the industry.

• 0945

Mr. Rick Casson: The $45 million in subsidy that was given by governments, was that capital money to create cages and things or is that ongoing? Is the subsidy still happening?

Ms. Juli Abouchar: As far as I know, it was in the form of loans to kick the industry off. I don't have enough information to know whether they are still giving those loans. My sense of it was that it was start-up money.

Mr. Rick Casson: You mentioned destroying $700,000 worth of lobster. Are these lobsters farmed as well or are they—

Ms. Juli Abouchar: Yes, they were lobsters in a lobster pound, so they would have been caught and then kept in an empoundment.

Mr. Rick Casson: Is there any problem in that industry with this same type of thing—crowding and disease?

Ms. Juli Abouchar: I'm not an expert on the lobster industry, I'm sorry. I should also point out that Janice Harvey was the author of this report, so all accolades should go to Janice.

The lobster, to my knowledge, don't spend a long time in the lobster pound. So there aren't the same problems.

Mr. Rick Casson: Just one more, Mr. Chairman, if I can. In the new and recently signed harmonization accord, do you see anything that will help alleviate some of the problems you've talked about or is it going to compound it, in your opinion?

Ms. Juli Abouchar: No, I think the harmonization accord will not alleviate the problems but will exacerbate them. If the accord gives to the provinces control over industries, basically industrial emissions, and reserves to the federal government only control over industry happening on federal lands—this industry is in the waters of the coast, which are disputed, provincial-federal waters—I see the uncertainties continuing and I don't see the harmonization accord addressing the issues. I see the harmonization accord as taking some of the same approaches that this agreement took and I don't see it helping things.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Casson.

[Translation]

Mr. Asselin, please.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Good morning and welcome to the committee.

I would like your trip from New Brunswick to Ottawa to be very effective and for you to go home satisfied that you have obtained certain answers and had the federal government listen carefully to your claims this morning regarding aquaculture, habitats and marine environmental pollution.

The question I would like to ask you is this. You talk about there being no agreements. Is there a total lack of agreements or are there agreements in areas of shared federal-provincial jurisdiction? As you know, in Quebec, as in New Brunswick, the provincial government is elected. The provinces also have departments of the environment. They want to be masters of their own domain and they want their areas of jurisdiction to be respected.

And this often causes certain problems. The federal government signs an agreement with a provincial government saying that, yes, it is going to cooperate, that, yes, it is going to provide the resources and that, yes, it will be an ally or partner of the New Brunswick Department of the Environment, but when there are budget cuts, human and financial resources are withdrawn and the provincial government finds itself alone with its environmental problems, including those relating to aquaculture. If this isn't attended to, it has the effect over time of destroying the habitat and the natural resource itself, in this case salmon.

• 0950

There is also marine environmental pollution. As you said so well, the waters belong to the federal government, but I believe there must be a division of responsibilities between the province and the federal government. Then we could blame the government that doesn't meet or only partly meets its responsibilities.

For us and for the committee's benefit, I would like us to follow up our meeting this morning by attempting to solve the problems that you have in aquaculture. I know you have made seven recommendations, but, in your view, what agreement would be the most beneficial and would eliminate duplication and overlap? When there are agreements, it's always the other government's fault when things don't work.

[English]

Ms. Juli Abouchar: Thank you for your comments. I am in agreement with a lot of what you say. I don't think the problem and the solution here is in some magic agreement but in both levels taking responsibility for matters that fall within their jurisdiction.

In this case the federal government has some responsibility that it's just abdicated, and if it's a resources issue, a capacity issue, then that needs to be dealt with. But in my mind it's not an issue of finding some magic words in agreement, but of political will, of the federal government exercising its authority to protect fish habitat.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a supplementary question. Does such an agreement exist? If such an agreement exists, why doesn't it work?

[English]

Ms. Juli Abouchar: I think the agreement has to be a lot less lofty than what has been attempted, especially in the harmonization accord. It needs to get down to nuts and bolts and focus on getting each level to act rather than passing the buck to the other level. If it's a matter of timing, it must say you will act on these issues within a certain period of time or else the other level will act. It needs to be really focusing on how to exercise the responsibility that is there for each role rather than focusing on grand intent, which is what I see in the agreement.

The Chairman: Merci, Monsieur Asselin. Madam Kraft Sloan, followed by Mr. Knutson.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Thank you. As someone who is essentially a vegetarian, except for eating fish, your presentation this morning is rather sobering.

I'm wondering if you are aware of any studies that people have conducted either in Canada or in other parts of the world on the effects on health from the consumption of fish that have been fish farmed, particularly in abysmal conditions like this.

Ms. Juli Abouchar: No, I'm not aware of such studies. In fact, the province is of the position that there are no effects on human health. So if there were studies out there it would be interesting to see them, because the province is destroying all these fish, not because they are unhealthy for humans but because they need to get rid of the sea lice infestation.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, and I wonder how that would affect human beings as well as all the other chemicals and insecticides, etc. Do you have information on the percentage of fish that is—I don't know if “harvested” is the correct term—in fish farms versus wild fish?

Ms. Juli Abouchar: Speaking just from information that I know, most of the fish you purchase is farmed from fish farms. Most of the trout and salmon are from fish farms.

• 0955

There are problems with wild fish. Mercury is a huge problem with wild fish. Because of the mercury, actually, people are saying you're better off eating farmed fish than wild fish.

But we're sort of going beyond what I was prepared to talk about. I agree with you that the use of antibiotics, insecticides, and pesticides in the marine aquaculture business has to make residues in the fish.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Right. That's one of the reasons I moved from meat.

Do you have information on the effects that salmon farms have on wild salmon in this area, or is the number of wild salmon so small that it just doesn't matter any more?

Ms. Juli Abouchar: No, it is a concern that the release of salmon into the environment affects the wild salmon. That's one reason why they're so serious about getting rid of all the infected salmon.

I do have some data at home on the numbers of farmed salmon that have been caught in wild rivers. I can get that data to you.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: If you can table that with the committee, that would be useful.

I'm just wondering if there are other regimes. You quoted some other countries in your brief. I'm just wondering whether there are other regimes that have fish farms but enforce their regulations a little more proactively and have systems where their fish are not growing in such terrible conditions. I'm wondering if you're knowledgeable about some of these regimes. If you are, can you can talk about some elements of those particular regimes that would be a good lesson for us in Canada?

Ms. Juli Abouchar: Again, I can give you some more specific data on that when I return home.

Some of the alternatives being looked at in other countries include contained cages. This is so the waste is essentially contained and dealt with as waste rather rather than just flushed into the environment. So the best-case scenario is this proposal in some countries of the use of contained cages.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Do they have the same degree of difficulty around the enforcement issues or is this a particularly Canadian problem?

Ms. Juli Abouchar: I think that from my general knowledge, a lot of countries have enforcement issues as a result of their capacity and resources going to environmental protection. But that's just my general knowledge.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Are they having similar problems on the west coast with their salmon farms?

Ms. Juli Abouchar: Yes. The David Suzuki Foundation prepared a report on salmon farms on the west coast. They found many of the same problems and made some of the same recommendations that we're making, including contained cages.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

Would you characterize the fact that there's one enforcement agent in New Brunswick as a sort of bad joke?

Ms. Juli Abouchar: If it weren't so destructive and harmful, I would call it a joke. It's pathetic. It's very concerning to environmentalists. You can imagine that the effect of this is that most of the regulations just don't get enforced.

Mr. Gar Knutson: How many people live in New Brunswick, as a ballpark figure? That's just a general knowledge question.

Ms. Juli Abouchar: There are 750,000.

Mr. Gar Knutson: So we have one person whose job it is to enforce all federal environmental law?

Mr. Juli Abouchar: Yes, that's for all of CEPA and federal fisheries provisions. They have to deal with the pulp mills, the big industry. They have to deal with the—

Mr. Gar Knutson: He or she.

Ms. Juli Abouchar: He or she. Yes, that one person. Thank you.

One pulp mill would take enough of that person's time. In fact, probably one person couldn't even do one pulp mill. You'd probably require two or three people to take care of the enforcement of that one mill.

I actually reviewed some of the evidence that was presented on February 26. There was an indication that it's helpful to have two or three people on one mill.

• 1000

Mr. Gar Knutson: At an accident or something.

Ms. Juli Abouchar: Right.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I was always of the mindset that I was worried about the concern of the federal government losing capacity, but I'm now thinking that it's sort of an academic question. We don't have the capacity as it sits right now.

I appreciate that you've come and talked specifically about fish farming and salmon, but I just wonder if I could get you to expand on where else you think our enforcement efforts are short and what the consequences are of those efforts, or lack of efforts or resources, just from a general New Brunswick perspective.

Ms. Juli Abouchar: Well, in New Brunswick, I could talk about anecdotal evidence. Certainly the industries under federal jurisdiction include the pulp and paper mills. They include the creation of toxic substances. For instance, I'm thinking of NB Power's creation of PCBs. They have PCBs in their transformers. There are issues around where those PCBs are going in the province.

One situation I'm aware of is a situation on a reserve, where the PCBs are basically going out the back door of NB Power and being destroyed or being burnt by an individual on the reserve. They get the copper from the transformer and sell it. It has been totally unregulated.

Mr. Gar Knutson: This is in a proper incinerator?

Ms. Juli Abouchar: No, this is not in a proper, approved incinerator. This is an issue that has lots of federal responsibility as it concerns Indians, reserve lands, and a toxic substance. It has been allowed to continue. As a result, people are dying of cancer who live in and around that particular building on the reserve.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Has anybody laid a complaint with Environment Canada?

Ms. Juli Abouchar: This has been ongoing. This is now historic. It has been ongoing for several years, five or ten years, and I believe it has stopped because the man himself is ill.

We were in conversation with the Environment Canada official last week specifically about harmonization and aboriginal issues. The Environment Canada official claimed to have no knowledge of the situation.

My sense of it is that for the aboriginal community, it's certainly a big issue to them. They would have told somebody, but on the other hand, it was a situation whereby somebody was trying to make a living, so it's a tough one to say whether that community would feel free to intervene in that activity.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Does the provincial government provide a rigorous backstop in environmental enforcement? Are they stepping in, given that this one poor Environment Canada official can't do the job?

Ms. Juli Abouchar: The province would say that they were doing just fine, thank you. But from our perspective, the province seems to be too closely connected with politically strong industries in the province basically to do it on their own. My sense of it is that the province would really want strong federal support, but if they don't have the resources, if it's not there, then the federal government is seen as an interference, a hindrance.

I can't speak for the province, I can only speak for what I see. I see a situation in which the province is somewhat weak in the face of politically strong industry.

• 1005

Mr. Gar Knutson: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Herron, followed by Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I apologize for being late. Some of these points may already have been discussed.

This is a topic we do hear a little bit around home, because it has become a very important industry for the province. I know there's a fair amount of fish farming done in other jurisdictions, whether it be in Chile, Iceland, Sweden, or Norway, in particular.

You spoke a little bit about the closed systems. Could you tell me if any of those other countries actually had some first-hand experience managing more closed systems for surplus food and fish waste?

Ms. Juli Abouchar: Again, I'll have to give you some information from the office. My sense of it is that there are northern countries who have been experimenting with closed systems.

Mr. John Herron: I know the folks at ACAP are actually relatively concerned about the management of the waste issue, because that's where it becomes very environmentally unfriendly.

The other comment is that when I scanned your brief last night, I saw a reference to the 1980s, when the industry first started. The mortality rate had been around 5% and now we're seeing rates around 20%.

In terms of the growth of the industries we saw in, say, Scotland or Norway, is there any comparison as to whether that is “normal-ish”, or is it something that should be particularly highlighted?

Ms. Juli Abouchar: It seems to be a pattern, and it is a problem, so “normal” isn't the word I would use. It's a pattern in other countries, especially in northern countries we've looked at, but it was seen to be a problem in those countries as well.

Mr. John Herron: Last question, Mr. Chair.

In terms of biodiversity perspective with regard to identifying other salmon rivers, whether that be in Norway, Scotland or Ireland, there's a lot of concern about farm fish actually getting into and infecting the wild fish population, if that's a proper term to use, within the Atlantic.

Can you comment on that, and maybe on the effect of not having— about the ability of our fish cages to be able to keep the species within the farm as opposed to what the other countries are doing?

Ms. Juli Abouchar: As I mentioned before, we do have some data at the Conservation Council on the numbers, specifically in New Brunswick, of farm salmon showing up in rivers in New Brunswick. I will table that with the committee. I don't have that data with me right now, but I'll table that with the committee.

Mr. John Herron: On the same point, I'm almost a little bit more concerned about what's going on along the Pacific coast, because Atlantic salmon are being farmed on the Pacific coast. Is that what that would do from a biodiversity perspective?

Ms. Juli Abouchar: Yes.

Mr. John Herron: Can you tell some of the concerns the B.C. salmon folk would have?

Ms. Juli Abouchar: That is a big concern, especially in B.C., because you have a non-indigenous species populating the Pacific rivers. It was a concern raised in the Suzuki Foundation report about the aquaculture industry in B.C.

Mr. John Herron: Okay. Thanks.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Herron.

[Translation]

Mr. Charbonneau followed by the Chairman.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Ms. Abouchar, I would like to thank you for drawing our attention to the salmon aquaculture issue in New Brunswick and the implementation of the federal environmental statute in that industry. Your recommendations will definitely stimulate us as we review the implementation of the statutes and help us put more relevant questions to the representatives of the Department of Environment and Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

You've made a number of recommendations which, at first glance, seem to me to make a lot of sense, but the federal departments will have to be asked for their views on the matters you raise.

I would like to take the opportunity afforded by your appearance here, since you are the Executive Director of the Conservation Council, to ask you whether there are any other issues to which you would like to draw our attention in a broader way, at least in general terms regarding the implementation or non- implementation of the federal environmental statute.

• 1010

In your brief, you very carefully address one issue, aquaculture. Is that because this is the most pressing issue in New Brunswick or are there others that are equally pressing, equally important, that you could at least mention to us, or explain in detail?

[English]

Ms. Juli Abouchar: The Conservation Council has had a recent focus on marine issues, and so we have looked at aquaculture. But there are other issues on the horizon that have to do with fisheries. One is the harvesting of rockweed and the other is the harvesting of krill, both of which are going to be the subject of similar administrative agreements. We're concerned about those two issues.

The rockweed issue is basically the harvesting of seaweed from the coast for sale for food and for other industrial purposes. A pilot project has been started in New Brunswick, and is going to be up shortly. We're expecting to see it renewed into a full-scale industry. We expect to have the same situation where the federal government takes a back seat to the provincial departments of fisheries and aquaculture and other relevant provincial departments. So that's a concern.

Another concern that we're seeing on the horizon is krill, which is a very small shrimp at the very bottom of the food chain. There's a proposal before DFO to have a large-scale krill industry in the Bay of Fundy and in the maritimes. The krill would be used actually as feed for salmon. The added effect is that it makes the salmon appear pink, so it looks like wild salmon. We are concerned here about the krill industry—that it is going to take the same direction, with the federal government taking a back seat.

So those are two developments that are on the horizon.

In the past we have seen problems with the various industries in New Brunswick, with both air and water emissions of the various industries in New Brunswick—the pulp and paper industry, and also the oil refinery and our couple of utilities, the coal utilities. These are all pollution sources of varying degrees of seriousness.

In addition, an industry that comes to mind is the potato harvesting and processing industry. This is a situation, actually, where the federal government did step in and charge McCain's with an infraction of the Fisheries Act for dumping some organic waste into water. It's an example where the federal and the provinces can work together. The result was that it forced McCain's and the province to cooperate. So while the federal government was the heavy in this, it forced the province to work out with McCain's a cleaner technology.

In a sense it's laughable, because in the end the fine was $1 per day for McCain's. That was the fine that the provincial courts levied under the federal Fisheries Act, and that's a bit pathetic, but the result was that it forced the province and the industry to deal with a situation.

I guess that illustrates how it is important to have the federal government be a viable—you know, be taken seriously. Even if the end result is that it puts pressure on the province and industry to work something out, the federal government is an important stick or an important backstop in the province.

• 1015

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Here we have considered the level of federal resources involved in implementing environmental regulations in the Maritimes, or Atlantic provinces. Can you give us an idea of changes in levels of public resources or the government's environmental resources in New Brunswick? Have they increased or decreased? How is the monitoring of environmental legislation and regulations organized in New Brunswick? Is more or less care being put into it?

[English]

Ms. Juli Abouchar: The budget of the Department of the Environment in New Brunswick seems to be fairly steady. Although we did see some decreases last year, the provincial government explains that it was the retiring of a debt, or some such thing, and it wasn't directly affecting the real department budget. But if you look at the enforcement budget within the Department of the Environment, we are seeing some decline in that area, in the resources that are put towards enforcement, and the emphasis on enforcement.

If you read the New Brunswick compliance and enforcement policy, from the beginning to the end the emphasis is not on enforcement in the sense that we are going to prosecute polluters. The emphasis is on working with industry in order to bring them into compliance in the long term. This is a philosophical approach of the New Brunswick Department of the Environment, and it is not one that the Conservation Council wholeheartedly supports. We see a role for compliance, for working with industry, and for cooperation.

But without the stick, without that being taken seriously, without the appearance that these statutes are criminal statutes, without the sense out there that abuse of the environment is a criminal issue, we see that what the province is adopting is immediately put into a weaker position.

So it's a concern. The philosophy towards enforcement in New Brunswick is a concern to us.

The Chairman: All right, then, before we start the second round—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: A final question?

The Chairman: On the second round.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: It's to supplement my other questions. How would you describe the relationship between the New Brunswick Department of the Environment or the Government of New Brunswick and an organization such as yours, the Conservation Council? Are you an organization whose management is appointed by the department or are you a coalition of non-government organizations? What is the general relationship between the Department of the Environment and the volunteer organizations that concern themselves with environmental monitoring? Is it a good relationship of cooperation or is it more of an adversarial relationship?

[English]

Ms. Juli Abouchar: First of all, we are a non-governmental organization—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Completely?

[English]

Ms. Juli Abouchar: We are completely non-governmental. Our resources come from our membership and from foundation grants that we would receive to do specific work in aquaculture, for instance, and in other environmental issues.

I would say that we have a good relationship with individuals within the department. There are certainly a lot of very committed individuals within the ranks of the Department of the Environment in New Brunswick, and we work with them on issues. So I wouldn't want to go any further than that.

On the other hand, these issues are contentious. We are often in a position of having to criticize the policies of the New Brunswick government. So we take that adversarial position when called upon, when it's required.

The Chairman: Merci, Monsieur Charbonneau.

• 1020

Before starting a second round, I have a couple of questions from here. In your fourth recommendation, you bring to the attention of the committee the fact that there is one federal Environment Canada officer in New Brunswick, and you're advocating an increase in inspection and enforcement.

Have you given some thought as to what would be an adequate increase for New Brunswick? Can you possibly stretch your thinking into the entire Atlantic region? Then as a concerned Canadian, could you give us an idea as to what should be the national enforcement picture in your opinion?

Ms. Juli Abouchar: Well, I would hesitate to put numbers on this, but we would need a number of inspectors and investigators who could get the job done. This might require a full department, a full enforcement and investigation department, within New Brunswick. I'm thinking of maybe 10 individuals. That might be too many, but 10 would certainly be a good number to ask for.

But the important thing also is to have some individuals who are trained in environmental prosecutions. This is lacking at the provincial level in New Brunswick. Because there aren't very many charges that are actually pursued to prosecution, there hasn't been the learning curve within the New Brunswick Department of the Environment and the New Brunswick prosecutor's office.

An example of this is Irving. The Irving company was brought to court last year for an air pollution breach. It was pretty clear that the problem at the prosecution end was that the evidence was not collected in a manner that would stand up in court. So there's a real need. The company was defended by a lawyer who came in from Toronto to represent the company and basically blew away the New Brunswick department.

It was a very publicized, very public trial, and this kind of thing— If I were a prosecutor within the New Brunswick Department of the Environment, I would be very hesitant to prosecute again. I would feel that the training and experience wasn't available because of the small number of prosecutions that are taken.

So if the federal government were to assist in this area and provide not only investigators and inspectors but a dedicated prosecutor, that would certainly serve the region well.

The Chairman: Could you comment on the Atlantic region as a whole?

Ms. Juli Abouchar: I can't comment on Nova Scotia. As I understand it, there are more resources from Environment Canada focused in Nova Scotia than in New Brunswick. So I think they are not in as dire a situation as New Brunswick.

The Chairman: Thank you.

In the second round— a brief one —we'll start with Mr. Casson.

Mr. Rick Casson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to touch on one point you made here about the number of diseased fish that have been slaughtered as recently as this February— and there are more ready to go, another million —and the fact that the provincial government is now lobbying DFO to help in a compensation package. Do you know what form that's taking, or why they would expect DFO to be part of that? It seems to me that the province has created the problem with the licences they've issued.

Ms. Juli Abouchar: Yes, the province has created the problem, and as I understand it, the negotiations are not going very well. The federal DFO isn't forthcoming with any sort of compensation package; they are not particularly interested in doing that.

So as I understand it, that seems to be the approach DFO has taken: you created this problem, you deal with it.

Mr. Rick Casson: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Casson.

Mr. Knutson, please.

• 1025

Mr. Gar Knutson: On that last point, I suspect they're just trying to model the kill on what happened if Ag Canada were to step in and kill a herd of cows or something. The farmer would be eligible for fair market compensation under federal law if you stepped in and killed farm animals for disease control.

My question is a brief one. Can you table a copy of the memorandum of understanding with the committee?

Ms. Juli Abouchar: Yes, I will. I have it right here. I can do that today.

Mr. Gar Knutson: That would be great. Thanks.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Aquaculture in New Brunswick has a specific number of individuals working in the industry now. They're business people who are concerned about their public image and their product as well.

With respect to some of the questions, there is the biodiversity concern, the fact that they're losing a fair amount of other product through disease, and they also have serious habitat concerns. What kind of dialogue perhaps have you had with them? Perhaps more importantly, what kind of dialogue have they had amongst themselves, and hopefully with the public, to look at these issues? Are they concerned about it?

Ms. Juli Abouchar: Yes, they are concerned about it. The salmon growers association and the individual licensees are very concerned about it. Our position is not to criticize the licensees in particular, but to criticize the policies that have brought us to this point, because clearly it doesn't do them any good either.

As far as formal dialogue with salmon growers is concerned, the Conservation Council has not had any, but they have informal dialogue. As I said, they don't place the blame on the industry, but rather on government.

Mr. John Herron: I have one short one, Mr. Chair.

On that point, if you want to have regulations with respect to the federal or provincial government in terms of deposits of nitrates on the ocean floor, etc., it has to be an industry solution. It would be necessary to find out what other technologies are available in order for this industry to continue to flourish. I think benchmarking that in terms of what's being done elsewhere is very important in order to stimulate the debate.

It's one thing to say, well, you can't do this. Well, that means the industry can't exist altogether.

I think that protecting the habitat has to be addressed. We can't be forced to go to a government to enforce something when they don't really know what an acceptable The current level is not acceptable. How do they get to the other part?

That's why we need to encourage the industry to actually come up with those solutions ultimately. Maybe the market will end up depending on it. They'll be saying, well, if there's no room for an environmentally friendly manner, then certain markets won't necessarily sell farmed fish to that sort of market.

Do you follow what I mean?

Ms. Juli Abouchar: Yes, I do follow your direction. Industry certainly has a role to play, but my concern is that up to now it's been industry and government working cooperatively to get the industry going. We've had a decade of experience, and it hasn't been good.

So we can't just leave this up to industry to deal with and to come up with solutions for it. My sense of the history is that we're not going to get an adequate solution. We need to have government governing. We need to have government looking out for the other interests in the Bay of Fundy, the other economic interest, the ecotourism interest, let alone the ecological interest, that the public shares. I think both levels of government have to take that responsibility, along with public input.

I would be concerned if industry were to just run with this and be self-regulating, because of past experience.

• 1030

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Laliberte, please.

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

With respect to the presentation and your experience working with CEPA and the DFO issues, which I guess are very close to the New Brunswick people— On the public right to know, you're saying that government and industry are deciding behind closed doors. What is the public perception? Are there opportunities within CEPA? Is it public-friendly? Is it something that needs to be revisited?

As you mentioned, there are NGOs that will take a position, take on a challenge or pursue an action related to an incident. But in terms of public awareness, transparency on issues and the overall awareness of the effects of the industry that are taking place, what's the status?

Ms. Juli Abouchar: Well, I came here prepared to talk about aquaculture, so I will specifically address that question in terms of aquaculture in New Brunswick, which is very closed.

As I said, under the provincial regulations, the industry licensees are required to give environmental monitoring reports. These reports are regulated themselves. The reports are done by the licensees, and are provided to the fisheries and aquaculture department. They're not available to the public.

The Conservation Council has made a right-to-information request to get the environmental monitoring reports. The leader of the NDP has asked that they be tabled in the legislative assembly in New Brunswick, with no success at this point. They're not open to the public, even though they're required under legislation. I think this is a very big concern. A report is required under legislation for the benefit of the public, and it is not available to the public. It's a real incursion on participatory democracy in New Brunswick.

The Chairman: Thank you.

There is a question from the chair, and then we'll conclude, unless there are further questions.

Following up on the fifth recommendation in your report this morning, would you tell this committee whether the council has made representations to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, or to any other minister in Ottawa, on the fifth recommendation?

Ms. Juli Abouchar: No, our attempts to this point have been with respect to the provincial fisheries and aquaculture department.

The Chairman: Do you propose to make representations to the ministers of fisheries?

Ms. Juli Abouchar: Absolutely.

The Chairman: Do you propose to make representations to the Minister of the Environment?

Ms. Juli Abouchar: Yes.

The Chairman: Do you have any idea when?

Ms. Juli Abouchar: In the very near future. My suspicion is that we will send them a report that the Conservation Council completed on aquaculture.

It may indeed have already been sent as a routine matter. We actually sent one to you, Mr. Chair. So we'll be sending this report to them, and raising our concerns.

In fact, this report is available to anyone in the committee who wants it. It's co-authored by Inka Milewski, Janice Harvey, and Beth Buerkle. It's an extremely good summary of the environmental aspects of aquaculture in New Brunswick.

The Chairman: I wish you had made this commercial a little bit earlier, but it's still not too late.

Are there any further questions on the second round?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Is this report you have just mentioned being tabled with the committee?

Ms. Juli Abouchar: I'd be happy to table it. We had provided it to the committee already, but I will table it on this issue.

It doesn't deal specifically with the nuts and bolts of the agreement and enforcement issues, but it does talk about the state of the industry. It's available from the Conservation Council for $8.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Can we buy it, then?

The Chairman: Yes, we can.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Can we have 25 copies?

The Chairman: Are there any further questions on the third round?

There are no further questions. Then, Ms. Abouchar, again, thank you, congratulations, and best wishes for the fine work the council is performing. We look forward to being kept informed of your future initiatives and approaches to federal departments.

Ms. Juli Abouchar: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We're now going into an in camera session.

[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]