FISH Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 4, 1999

• 0913

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)): I'm going to call the meeting to order. We have representatives here from all the parties.

We will read what they tell us we should read. Pursuant to Standing Orders 110 and 111, today we are dealing with the order-in-council appointment of the commissioner of aquaculture development, Mr. Yves Bastien. We'd like to welcome him to our meeting this morning.

It's a wet morning, I know, but some of us have made it. Maybe others will arrive later.

The procedure, Yves, is that it is the right of a standing committee to call before it those who are appointed by order in council, and if members want to meet with you and discuss issues, it is their prerogative.

I know from the work our committee has done in the past that aquaculture is an industry of growing interest. It's of great economic value to various parts of our country.

With that, we would start our meeting by allowing you to make a short presentation. I hope it was explained to you in that way.

Mr. Yves Bastien (Commissioner, Aquaculture Development, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): That's right.

The Chairman: Following that, we will have some questions about that presentation.

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): I have a point of order. Mr. Chairman, before I forget, I'd like to give a notice of motion. Next Tuesday—I think that's our next meeting—we'd like to bring a motion forward to have the minister appear before the committee for the estimates. That's all, just to put it on the record.

• 0915

The Chairman: We would entertain that, but I would also remind you that we might have to go and see the minister. It's my understanding that his leg has been elevated to the point where even coming here by aircraft might be of some difficulty.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Oh, he's out on the west coast.

The Chairman: So I would take that under advisement.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Sure, I appreciate that.

The Chairman: But if you want to think of that and maybe have the deputy come, or—

Mr. Gary Lunn: We'll put the motion forward.

The Chairman: The junior minister is sitting here at the table.

We would certainly want to consider the estimates, but—

Mr. Gary Lunn: We'll bring the motion forward next week, and we can work around Mr. Anderson's problems.

The Chairman: Very good, and we thank you for the notice.

Yves, welcome. And as you see, we have some fun around the table, too.

Mr. Yves Bastien: That's the way I like it.

The Chairman: Thank you, Yves.

Mr. Bernier may be coming, and we have translation, so feel comfortable in either language.

Mr. Yves Bastien: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will start by giving you some general comments, and then I will be happy to answer your questions and receive your comments.

Thank you for inviting me to speak to you about myself and about my role as Canada's first aquaculture commissioner.

As you will see from my CV, I have had extensive experience as a biologist and aquaculture specialist over the past 18 years. I have worked during the last ten years to establish a unique partnership between commercial fishermen and aquaculturists to develop the scallop fish industry in the Magdalen Islands of Quebec. I am pleased to say that these efforts are now starting to pay off, both directly, through a greater level of harvest and production, and indirectly, through improved understanding and cooperation between the commercial scallop fishermen and the aquaculturists. This is a theme I will stress during my remarks.

Let me speak for a minute about what I consider to be my role in this unique position. As you know, there is a huge Department of Fisheries and Oceans, with thousands of staff working diligently to help manage the fisheries and our ocean resources. This is a difficult and challenging task, and DFO has many highly qualified people to do this job.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): There's one word in there...

Mr. Yves Bastien: I'll be happy to receive your comments about it later on.

Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Don't let him bother you, Yves.

Mr. Yves Bastien: Oh, it's all right.

At the same time, DFO is responsible under the federal aquaculture development strategy as the lead federal agency for aquaculture. To some, this represents a conflict in mandate, since aquaculture and the capture fishery have so many differences, but to me this represents a complementary mandate, since both operate in and share the marine environment—although I know very well the importance of freshwater aquaculture. It is this joint tenancy aspect that I would like to focus on as a commissioner.

I have seen what other countries have accomplished when aquaculture and commercial fishermen work together to exploit in a responsible way the bounty of the sea. In Japan, for example, the central government has promoted since 1963 what is called there saibaigyogyo, what they call “sea farming” and what we would call “sea ranching,” to increase production of some 80 species. Simply put, sea ranching involves raising finfish or shellfish in hatcheries to improve survival, then releasing juveniles into the wild or emplacing shellfish on the seabed. Later, after the fish have reached marketable size, they can be harvested by commercial fishermen.

Such an approach has shown remarkable results for some species. Japan harvests eight times more scallop than we do in Georges Bank, which is the world's largest wild scallop fishery, a harvest worth more than $800 million per year. Based on my experience and knowledge, I think it's possible for Canadian fishermen and workers to enjoy the same level of income in the scallop fishery on the east coast.

I must stress, however, that my focus is on the aquaculture sector in general. Aquaculture has a huge potential for development in Canada, both in standard aquaculture practices like mussel, oyster, or salmon farming and in the sea-ranching activities for seeding juveniles in the marine ecosystem. But there is much to do if this industry is to grow to its potential, and I am committed to doing my utmost to help the industry succeed.

• 0920

I want to stress, however, that industry growth cannot be accomplished without regard for the effects on other users of the marine resource and the marine environment. Growth will be accomplished through responsible and sustainable practices that will give Canadians and other consumers confidence in the high quality of farmed seafood products. At the same time, aquaculture industry growth will help aboriginal, rural, and coastal communities to adjust to the dramatic change in the captured fishery sector.

I look forward to this exciting challenge, with I hope the support and understanding of the committee on fisheries and oceans. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Yves.

We now proceed to a rotation system of questioning, whereby it rotates among various parties. The first group we have for about ten minutes is the official opposition.

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to get your opinion, sir, on some of the issues that I think are outstanding in British Columbia with the salmon farming industry. We refer to it as salmon farming because generally with a ranch you're talking about a big area. If you've ever been to a salmon farm, you'll see that these fish are jammed into a small area. It's more like a feedlot than a ranch.

There was an article very recently, on February 8, 1999, in the Times Colonist in Victoria. I'm going to read you a paragraph from that, and I would like your comment. It says:

The industry says salmon farming is ecologically benign. Tell that to the Norwegian authorities who have just agreed to poison 17 rivers in a desperate attempt to kill off a parasite, introduced by imported smolts, which has already ravaged wild salmon and trout in dozens of Scandinavian rivers. (The industry here says that can't happen because Canada no longer imports live smolts, only eggs, but the disinfection process only deals with the egg surface.) Tell it to the Alaskans, who permanently banned fish farming in 1990 to protect their wild fish.

The question is that it seems to me that the first mandate of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is to protect wild stocks, and yet there seems to be a problem with this fish farming and we seem to be looking the other way. I want to know what your attitude is on protecting these wild stocks and how you can rationalize this dichotomy of interest that I see that faces the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Mr. Yves Bastien: There's a lot in your question. I'll start with the environment part of it.

I would like to say that the aquaculture industry is not different from any other human activity. I would like to stress that all the human activities in all the industries you know—fisheries, forestries—do have an impact on the environment. Nobody in the aquaculture sector will never say that the aquaculture industry does not have any impact on the environment. The point is that we can develop this industry in a very sustainable way if we sit at the table and start to look at how it can be, because right now the aquaculture industry is new; it is young.

The focus has been on the aquaculture industry for the last years. The view of a lot of people environmentally is that the idea is to stop it. I'm saying we should work on it.

You mentioned the vision of DFO. Well, there are two parts to the vision of DFO. One part is conservation. I have read two visions of DFO. One is on the Internet and the other is in pamphlets. There's another part of this vision, which is productive oceans, productive resources.

In recent years Canada has worked a lot on the conservation side of it, which is correct, which is normal, because you have seen a trend in the fisheries where it was going down. The idea was to stop what was going on, stop the decrease in the stocks. Recently, Canada did not do work on the productive ocean and the sustainability of this sector because, from my point of view, it's easier to have sustainability in the aquaculture sector than you can achieve with fisheries. Right now in the fisheries there is no solution proposed in Canada to maintain a level of production or to increase the production of the ocean, and aquaculture can do that. But—

• 0925

Mr. John Cummins: I find your remarks rather frightening. I don't think you understand the issue here. Let me just explain it to you a little more clearly.

I asked an order paper question, 103. I got the answer on September 21, 1998. The question was, with reference to infectious salmon anaemia, ISA, and its possible effect on salmon and other marine life on Canada's east and west coasts, what chemicals or antibodies or other medicines have the aquaculture operators on the east coast used to prevent or control the disease? Which of these products have been approved for use and so on? The answer is that infectious salmon anaemia is a viral disease with no known treatment. It goes on to say that it's always possible that local wild Atlantic salmon, the same species as cultured Atlantic salmon, have been affected by ISA.

You have a disease with no known treatment carried by farmed Atlantic salmon. I have a problem with that. Don't you?

Mr. Yves Bastien: Well, it's not proved yet which one transmitted the disease to the other one. It can come from nature. It could have come from wild fish that have transmitted the disease to salmon farms, but that's not the—

Mr. John Cummins: Excuse me. In this same question, in North America ISA has only been found in Atlantic salmon reared in marine cages in the Bay of Fundy, southwest New Brunswick. It says that as the salmon farms on the west coast are of the same species, they would be susceptible, but there is no indication of the disease in British Columbia. It's found only in Atlantic salmon, and that's the same in Scotland and in Norway.

Mr. Yves Bastien: Yes, I agree with you, but—

Mr. John Cummins: You're trying to tell me that it's transmitted from wild stocks?

Mr. Yves Bastien: It could be, definitely. You know very well if it's present on a farm because they are monitored, but the wild salmon are not monitored, and there is very commonly transmission of disease from wild salmon to the farm. That's possible. Some viruses will just move in the water.

I'm not saying it's the case, but I want to say that there are some studies in Canada, and very soon we'll have a vaccine for this disease.

It's like any other industry. In the aquaculture sector they face the same kinds of problems, and there is work to make sure there is a control on what's happening, what's coming up. Again, I'm not saying there is no problem; definitely not. I know these problems are important. What I'm saying is that you have the same kinds of problems in other industries, and we don't concentrate and focus on those problems as we do with the aquaculture industry. It's just because it's new and it's not included in our manners, our habits, so we push on this one so hard that, well, the objective is to destroy it or to stop it. For Canada it would be a loss of an incredible opportunity, and it's only a question of getting it straight. I would say that the aquaculture industry is much more cooperative in putting it straight than a lot of industries—for example, forestry.

Mr. John Cummins: I'm absolutely amazed at your response. I've asked you about a problem, a serious disease, a disease that is known to occur in fish farms, and you're trying to deflect responsibility for that and say that maybe it's something that was transmitted from wild stock when there has been no evidence of the disease in wild stock.

The problem with aquaculture is that DFO has tended to leave the problem to the provinces. In New Brunswick they allowed the development of too many farms in the same base, and that overcrowding I think was a problem.

• 0930

So my question again is how can the federal government, and you in particular, be a protector to wild stock and a promoter of fish farms if you don't have a sense, a feel, or any notion of the importance of wild stocks?

Mr. Yves Bastien: I do not have any notion of the importance of wild stocks?

Mr. John Cummins: That's the impression you've left me with this morning.

Mr. Yves Bastien: I will say to you that I have been working in the fisheries sector. I am an ecologist. My academic background is ecology. I've been working in national parks for the Canadian Wildlife Service, and I know exactly what you're talking about.

I'm just saying that's the kind of impact you have in any kind of industry in Canada. I'm saying we can work together to create a legal framework that will protect the environment while leaving this industry to grow and to give the benefits to Canada that it can give. In those rural communities there is a need for activity and for reorganization, and aquaculture can give this. Again, I'm sure this can be done without destroying the marine environment and the wild stock.

I would just like to add that the forestry industry has created a situation with Atlantic salmon that is much more damaging than aquaculture. I'm convinced of that, because I have worked in those sectors. I'm saying it's true there are some problems, some impacts, but let's put it into the general, overall picture and let's work on it.

Mr. John Cummins: In this same order paper question, the response from the minister is that in New Brunswick, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has no direct responsibility for controlling ISA in marine farms. If it has no direct responsibility for controlling that disease, who does? Who is responsible, and who's out there trying to protect wild stocks?

Mr. Yves Bastien: Health Canada is responsible and the province is responsible. You have a lot of regulations dealing with this.

I can tell you that I have been in hard discussions with the Province of New Brunswick recently. I want to make sure you understand that in this province, the cabinet and the government are not pro-aquaculture only. There are some very serious debates going on in New Brunswick right now at the provincial level, and they are taking what's going on very seriously. It's not correct to say that the attitude is to develop aquaculture without considering the impacts on the environment. That's not a correct view of the situation. It's the opposite way, anyway.

Mr. John Cummins: Last year the U.S. government put duties on the dumping of subsidized farm fish from Chile. The Chileans were dumping the fish at a below-cost price into the U.S. The U.S. put duties on that fish, but Canada didn't. My feeling is that we didn't do it because we wanted to protect the supermarket chains that happened to own some of these fish-farming operations. What's your view of that?

Mr. Yves Bastien: Excuse me, but between English and French, I didn't get the last part of your statement.

Mr. John Cummins: I said the U.S. put duties on the dumping of subsidized farm fish from Chile, while Canada didn't. I maintained that Canada probably didn't because we wanted to protect the supermarket chains that own fish farms in B.C. and other parts of Canada. What's your view of that?

Mr. Yves Bastien: I was not looking at this issue when it happened. What was the reason given to me by the people dealing with this in regard to the Canadian position? I don't remember the real reason, but I would suspect that they were not comfortable in putting in a fee. The Chileans are probably putting the product on the Canadian market at a fair price because they have much lower costs than we do. For example, their access to fish meal is so clear, so easy and so cheap that this brings their production costs down. Also, the cost of labour in Chile is very different. The price they put the fish in at here is probably the right price.

What I do remember is that the case was not strong enough to push the issue in court. They did not believe they would win the case, because the difference in the costs of production was too large to withstand the issue.

The Chairman: Thank you, John. I think you've exhausted your ten minutes.

• 0935

Members, we now have before us a person appointed for aquaculture, for looking at the industry in terms of helping it to develop, to control it, to monitor it and so forth. But I think we have to be careful. He's not an expert on international trade, the World Trade Organization and all of this.

Yves, we don't mean to put you on the spot with that, because we recognize what your position is.

Yvan, it's your go.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine— Pabok, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I apologise for coming late this morning because of the bad weather we have. But I am happy to see that some of my colleagues arrived before me.

Mr. Bastien, welcome. I will make a few comments along the line of what the Chairman just said. Unfortunately, I mist your statement, but I will ask you a few questions all the same because I can read fairly quickly. It's the first time that I see a public servant really trying to answer the questions. He uses far less "bureaucratese" than some. However, Mr. Bastien will probably have to determine the various jurisdictions in which the department or the minister wishes to act because there are different positions. A few people will say that some answers are rather—

[English]

Mr. Peter Stoffer: There he goes.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: —political in nature, whereas others are more administrative.

You may have already done it in your statement this morning, but I would like you to define aquaculture because I must admit I am not familiar with this industry. Before, it was the responsibility of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Could you tell me briefly, if possible, what is the purpose of the term in office entrusted to you by the minister? I notice that your term is very short. Only three years. Could you tell me in three sentences what you intend to accomplish in that time. Could you describe not only aquaculture but also what you intend to do.

I heard bits and pieces of what my colleague John said. Since I come from Quebec, I am always very careful about jurisdictions. The responsibilities of the different levels of government, be it federal, provincial or even municipal in some cases, do not seem clear to me. What about the legal aspect? Above all, could you describe your mandate in three sentences. How would you sum it up for somebody like me who does not know much about aquaculture?

Mr. Yves Bastien: I will start with a short comment on your introduction. I want to say that I am giving here my personal view as the Commissioner for Aquaculture Development and as somebody who reports to Mr. Anderson. I expressed my views to Fisheries and Oceans Canada concerning aquaculture and fisheries and I made a presentation to the deputy minister of that department. I intend to give the same presentation to Mr. Anderson to start discussing those visions.

I have been hired by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. When I took office, I had a discussion with Mr. Anderson and it was very clear that he was asking me to play the role I intend to play, that is to represent the issue of aquaculture in Canada and give it the importance it deserves in Canada as a very productive activity which is a perfect example of sustainable development.

My role is similar to that of an advisor. I report directly to Mr. Anderson since I am not part of the continuous decision-making process of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. One could say that my work is to impact on decisions concerning aquaculture in Canada. I have to represent aquaculture before the various authorities, before the committees on environment and the representatives of the industry, to ensure the smoothest development possible, to the satisfaction of all parties, and to enable it to grow to its full potential. One must say that at the present time, the enormous potential of aquaculture in Canada is being exploited in a very limited way. So my role will be to influence and advise the minister and to work very closely with the Secretary of State for Agriculture and for Fisheries and Oceans in order to ensure the development of aquaculture.

• 0940

I gave myself two main objectives, among others. I think we have a problem in the regulatory and legal fields as regards the practice of aquaculture in Canada. This also applies to the environment. I will make a small digression here to say that we are now trying to make regulations for the control of aquaculture in several areas of the Canadian regulations and legislation. I personally think that a good government should opposed the kind of practices or rather order a complete regulatory reform of aquaculture, including the environmental aspect. The creation of a regulatory framework in Canada that will promote the development of the industry, making it a sustainable industry respectful of the environment of course, is my first priority.

Instead of inserting rules almost everywhere in the existing regulations, without having guidelines and a clear vision, it would be preferable to have an act on aquaculture that would give a status to the industry and at the same time create the regulatory framework that will control it adequately, which is not the case at the present time. We are now trying to regulate through existing regulatory provisions that were not meant for aquaculture. I must tell you that there is no mention of aquaculture in the Fisheries Act; the word "aquaculture" does not appear in it because the act was drafted when aquaculture did not exist. We are trying to control aquaculture through sections or regulations that have nothing to do with its peculiarities, without having a clear vision of what should be done concerning aquaculture, be it in the area of the respect for the environment or the need to create a framework that will enable aquaculturists to develop their activities.

My second priority is to change the general attitude of Canadians regarding aquaculture. I really intend to do whatever I can to convince Canadians that this industry is not as damaging for the environment as some would have us think at the present time in all regions of Canada. I will work on it as hard as I can.

I don't know if I answered your questions.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Yes for the moment being. I will now listen to my colleagues and I will ask for the floor again if I have other questions. Thank you, Mr. Bastien.

[English]

The Chairman: Paul, we have ten minutes. Would you and Carmen share that ten minutes?

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Sure.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Go ahead and lead off.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I want to thank you for coming before the committee this morning, and I want to encourage you to continue to be candid and forthright in your stay in that position. Don't lose that as you become part of Ottawa's safe. I think we would agree that you should remain who you are. Answer the questions the way you've been answering them this morning. I appreciate that.

Mr. Yves Bastien: I would just tell you that I appreciate doing that job, and if I'm not doing the right job, I'll just go away.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Go somewhere else?

Mr. Yves Bastien: Yes.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Well, we don't want you to go away.

I bring a freshwater perspective to this committee because I live on a Great Lake, on the shore of Lake Huron. Of course we've brought non-indigenous species into the Great Lakes system through a number of methods, but largely through the holds of ships in years gone by. We're trying to deal with those problems today. You're familiar with the sea lamprey, zebra mussels, and other species that have been brought in. There's a continuous cost to trying to keep the species from becoming dominant, from overpopulating and of course from destroying the species that we want for sport and for commercial fishing.

I'm just wondering how you feel about what we've done in the Great Lakes, given the fact that in Lake Erie we've done things there to destroy that lake. I think in reference to Mr. Cummins' question earlier this morning, we have brought it back. As human beings we have destroyed some of the natural environment, but nature has a way of regeneration. It has done that in Lake Erie, where the good species have now come back, the pickerel particularly.

• 0945

I guess I wonder about your interest in the Great Lakes or the fresh waters of our country. I know you haven't done as much work there, but how do you see us working aquaculture in the Great Lakes?

And probably as a last question, should aquaculture remain part of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or should it become a part of the Department of Agriculture? We talked about ranching and feed lots, and we've used other terms like that. How do you feel about that issue?

Mr. Yves Bastien: In terms of having nature rebuild a lake that has been destroyed, I'd just like to mention that the process to rebuild an area like that is helped a lot by aquacultural practices. Very often the only way to put back stock in a river is through aquacultural practice. But that's only a side comment.

I think the aquaculture potential for fresh water in Canada is important. In terms of the way to do it, I'll go to the last part of your question and then come back to the first part.

I think agriculture is interested in dealing with aquaculture, but my personal belief is that there are two parts to aquaculture. You have the aquaculture that is being done in public waters, which include the freshwater lakes and rivers. The other part of the aquaculture is done on private lands, like a farm. From my point of view, what is done on private land could go to agriculture because it's quite the same issue: it's producing livestock on private land. You have some regulations to control what's going out of the farm. Since that's the way it's done, this part could go to agriculture.

The other part, from my point of view, cannot go to agriculture without it having a serious link with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and all of what is done in the oceans, lakes, rivers, and navigable waters. Clearly, whatever activity you have there has a very important impact on all the other users of the water column. Since it's done in that water, the rest of the aquaculture in Canada could not go through the Department of Agriculture, or it would at least have to have some strong links with the rest.

From my point of view, then, it could go anywhere. The place where we put aquaculture is not an issue for me. It could go to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, it could go to the Department of Agriculture, it could go to the Department of the Environment. The problem is that we don't have the legal framework to act correctly with the aquaculture. It's dispersed everywhere in Canadian legislation. After the legal framework is well defined and includes everything—environment, regulation, standards of the aquaculture industry—you can give administration of part of this law to anybody: to the Department of the Environment; to the Department of Agriculture for agriculture-type services like husbandry practices or veterinary practices; and other parts can go to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

So in terms of this part of your question, I don't think it matters where it goes right now, but we could make the decision later on when we have the good legal framework.

Concerning aquaculture in Ontario, I must say I'm not a specialist, but I know that aquaculture on private land has big potential and has grown a lot in Ontario. Concerning aquaculture in the Great Lakes or in rivers, this is like the ocean. You have some impacts on the environment, so you have to make sure you have some good husbandry practices, that you have a code of practice in terms of containment, in terms of what is happening in those net pens. Any kind of aquacultural activity has to be well controlled and not impact on the environment more than routine activities. You know, whenever you go out of your house or you drive a car, you have some impact on the environment.

I would like to introduce another concept. I think the only way to go through this integration of aquaculture in Canadian legislation and Canadian practices is through zoning. For example, there is an acceptance than an agriculture field is a quite polluted area, and in the forestry sector there are sectors where it's heavily exploited. On the other hand, you have national parks and you have territories that are protected. This will have to be done in Canada also, to make sure you have some areas that are protected where you don't have any activity, neither fisheries nor navigation, and other areas where we have heavier activities.

• 0950

This goes through a zoning process. Until we have that kind of zoning... And this is possible right now for the ocean part of it. There is a new Oceans Act and there is an ocean strategy that is putting forward that kind of zoning. And I would say that in the freshwater sector this would be possible also, to create a zoning system where you have some areas where you accept some aquaculture activities, like you accept some very polluting industries and you try to control their effluents and their impact, and in some other areas you don't because you have some natural features that you want to protect. This could be done.

To answer Mr. Bernier's question—

The Chairman: I want to cut you off there, because everyone is limited by a timeframe, and if you ask a question and it takes too long for the answer, they lose out on their time.

Paul, are you satisfied so far? I want to get Carmen in this ten-minute period too.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I'll defer.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have more of a comment at this stage. It's my own personal view that anyone who would have the job of the commissioner of aquaculture should have a broad-based background to bring to the position. In examining the qualifications of this gentleman, he brings very interesting qualifications to the position. He was a naturalist. If you look at his curriculum vitae, for the first 15 years of his career he was involved in being a naturalist in related functions and a marine resources management person. That would put him quite on the other side of the fence. Is that not correct?

Mr. Yves Bastien: I don't know what to say. That's good for my ego, what you just said.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Well, you're not someone who's coming from the aquaculture industry, taking over the position of the commissioner of aquaculture.

Mr. Yves Bastien: Definitely not. And I want to stress that I'm an advocate of a sector, not an industry.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I see here that you worked as a naturalist in the parks area, as a naturalist in the fisheries; you were involved in research and project management in marine resources. So you know what raising and harvesting fish and the fruits of the sea in the natural environment are all about.

Mr. Yves Bastien: Definitely. And I want to make sure you understand that it is clear that one day I'll have some opposing position with the industry. I'm here to develop a sector, but to make sure that it is sustainable and does respect the environment. I'm proud to live in a country that places environment at a high level. I like that. As you say, I've been involved in that. I was as deeply involved in that as I am in the aquaculture sector. Clearly, I will never push something that is creating an impact on the environment that we can't control.

The thing is, this industry is quite young, and we must create the conditions to sit at the same table, all the parties, and to work on a good system where everybody will be satisfied, including the environment people.

• 0955

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: What I'm getting from you, Mr. Bastien, is that your attitude is that the aquaculture industry should not be allowed to develop at the expense of any other resource. Is that correct?

Mr. Yves Bastien: Yes.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: And you say that this particular method of raising and harvesting a species of fish has definite advantages. I'm wondering, sir, if you could elaborate a little more on the advantages the industry offers. You alluded to a few things, such as knowing exactly the quantity of the resource at a point in time, but are there other advantages? You mentioned the scallop harvest in Japan, which is eight times the amount we're harvesting in the biggest wild area that we have, and it's probably a $6 billion harvest for the Japanese. Would you advise the committee of those kinds of advantages that are available to the industry and to the Canadian people?

Mr. Yves Bastien: Definitely, and this—

The Chairman: We're really short on time here, Carmen.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: He can shorten it any way he wishes.

Mr. Yves Bastien: I'll try to be as short as possible.

The Chairman: Peter, will you allow just a minute? I won't take it off you, but—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: We have another hour.

The Chairman: I know we do, but it's ten minutes for this side, so if it's okay—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Go for it.

The Chairman: Good, Carmen. We've agreed.

Mr. Yves Bastien: In terms of fisheries, what aquaculture brings to the system is, as you said, a better control on the planning of the economic activity in region and province, just because if fisheries and aquaculture start to work together... I have visited some places in Japan where they don't see any distinction any more between fishermen on one side and aquaculturists on the other side. They call it all ocean production.

In this situation, for example, you can plan the size of your fleets. The Japanese have faced the same kind of problem Canada is facing right now: they were fishing everywhere in the world, and in the 1970s, when all the countries had established their 200-mile economic protection zones, those boats were not able to fish any more. So as a country, they decided to tackle this issue and to create in Japan conditions to have a big productive industry, while respecting the environment. This will help, for example, to decide the size of your fleet, and to make sure that your processing plants are operating year-round, which is a very important thing.

Very often in the fisheries sector—and you know the problem there, you're into it every day—you have operations for some weeks for a very short period. In the aquaculture process normally you have to feed the market year-round; then your processing system is working year-round, so it's producing jobs for people and keeping economic activity going year-round.

I have a list here of the advantages. There's one very important one: to reduce the pressure on wild stock. This has happened for wild salmon. The salmon-farming industry has created a down pressure on the wild stock, because there was a big poaching black market for salmon in the past on the east coast. The salmon-farming industry, or production, has calmed down this black market. I'm not saying there is no poaching any more, definitely not, but the pressure on the wild stock has gone down because there was farm on the market everywhere, so the black market didn't exist any more.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Peter, Gary has to leave, so he has a few short questions.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Sure.

The Chairman: I want to show you how nice we are to Gary. We always treat him well.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I have two yes-or-no questions, and I think John has a couple more questions.

Have you read the 1996 Liberal caucus task force report on aquaculture? I know there's an entire report out there, and I think we talked about it in this committee before. It's out there. In fact I've read it, so it's not a big secret, and Wayne is aware of that.

Secondly, are you aware—and I've heard this from many sources—that the NDP government in British Columbia is about to lift the moratorium on aquaculture on the west coast? What communications have you had with the B.C. government with respect to that? Are you aware of what's happening there?

• 1000

Mr. Yves Bastien: To my memory, I have read the 1996 report, but I would have to go through it again.

Mr. Gary Lunn: That's okay. I just wondered if you had seen that.

Mr. Yves Bastien: Concerning B.C., what information I have is that the moratorium on shellfish farming has been lifted for a certain time, yet the moratorium on salmon is not lifted yet. I would say that the debate is going on very strongly in the government. I can't tell you which way it will go. One possibility is that maybe there won't be any decisions made before the next election. I don't know. But I can tell that to the best of my knowledge right now the moratorium on salmon farming has not been lifted.

Mr. Gary Lunn: John.

Mr. John Cummins: Your statement that salmon farming somehow reduces pressure on wild stock is outrageous. It's a well-recorded fact that the disastrous decline of wild sea trout in northwest Scotland is largely due to commercial salmon farming. That's what the government scientists say. They found that sea lice infestations in caged salmon have spread to wild trout, slowly weakening and eventually killing them. The scientists there from the freshwater fisheries lab and the marine laboratory in Aberdeen have advised the Scottish office that they've concluded that lice from farmed salmon are a major contributory factor to this decline in wild sea trout.

Do you have a comment on that, in light of your previous statement?

Mr. Yves Bastien: I would like to see scientific evidence in Canada of the impact people are talking about concerning salmon farming.

I have appeared in front of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and I have listened to all the debates that have taken place for a certain period. I'm not a specialist in every domain, but what I've heard there is showing me that the evidence in Canada in terms of genetic impact on escapees of salmon in the native rivers and things like that is not so strong. Again, I'm not saying there is no evidence.

Mr. John Cummins: What you're telling me is that we can't learn from what's gone on elsewhere. Norway has effectively wiped out its wild salmon resource by repeatedly applying poison to river systems in a last-ditch effort to fight farm-bred infectious salmon diseases. Can't we learn from what went on there?

Mr. Yves Bastien: The problem is that we are saying the actual status of Atlantic salmon in the northern Atlantic is due only to aquaculture practice, while it's not the case. I could prove to you and demonstrate in fact on paper that forestry has created much more damage to the salmon rivers on the east coast of Canada than aquaculture will ever do. So what's the issue here? We know we have some impact.

Mr. John Cummins: The issue is that you can get hit by a car going across the street or you can get hit by a bus. The result's the same. To say that the impact from forestry is greater than the impact from fish farming on wild stock is not a reasonable statement.

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game is protesting this expanded salmon farming in British Columbia because of increasing evidence that escaped farm salmon are establishing themselves in the wild. The department suggests that thousands of fish are establishing themselves in the rivers.

The Southeast Alaska Gillnetters Association, in a letter to Premier Clark in British Columbia, note that the amount of escaped salmon from Canada and Washington fish farms is a major concern. They say that tens of thousands escape yearly from B.C. net pens and over 400,000 have escaped from Washington State farms in the past year. They say that expanding net pen aquaculture clearly threatens native wild stocks in the area. Are you prepared to go to battle with the Alaskans over aquaculture?

• 1005

Mr. Yves Bastien: Most definitely. And I can tell you that there have been some complete reviews, very extensive reviews in B.C. during the last two years, reviews done by independent people from the environment sector. The conclusion of those reviews is that the overall impact on the environment of salmon farming in B.C. at its present state is low. That's fact. That's what has been published everywhere.

Also, in the state of Washington there was a court that presented the case very clearly, and their conclusion is the same. There is no evidence that what you're saying is creating damage to the environment and that those fish are really establishing in the wild. That's not the case.

Mr. John Cummins: Are you prepared, as the new commissioner, to ensure that legislation is prepared that would ensure that the aquaculture industry shoulders full liability for all the costs, including disease eradication, site restoration, and so on, if and when it's proved that these net pens do impact negatively on wild salmon stocks?

The Chairman: John, the time is up, but I don't think his position, his mandate, is to create legislation.

Mr. John Cummins: To prepare it. I asked him if he's prepared to prepare it.

The Chairman: I don't understand that to be his mandate either. But I would probably allow a question along the lines of does he plan to report to the minister or to Parliament on his findings and his work quarterly or annually, or how will we, as parliamentarians, receive information on the work? Is that what you're looking for?

Mr. John Cummins: No. What I'm saying is he's so adamant that there's no problem with this net pen reared salmon that I'm just asking if he's prepared to prepare some legislation for the minister so the minister can bring that legislation forward that would allow the industry to shoulder full responsibility for any disease eradication or restoration of habitat that may result from fish farming. If he's adamant that it's risk-free, there shouldn't be any difficulty in getting the industry to do that.

The Chairman: As the chairman, I would have to say that's an unfair question, because this man is not here to present or to prepare legislation. I know he will report to somebody, hopefully.

Yves, I'm not going to have you answer that question.

Mr. Yves Bastien: I would like to make a comment without answering the question.

The Chairman: No, I stood John down; I'll stand you down and I'll go to Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome again, sir. On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I thank the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for finally appointing someone to this very important industry.

There are a couple of concerns that disturb me, and it's just visual perception. Usually when we have a guest or a visitor come here, other people of the department come with that individual. I'm hoping that just you here by yourself doesn't indicate the importance or lack of importance that DFO will place upon this department.

There is another thing. As you may know, this committee has been quite critical of DFO, of its centralized operations here in Ottawa. I'm quite sure, and I'm sure you can verify this, that there will not be an aquaculture industry in the Ottawa or Hull rivers or the Rideau Canal. I'm hoping that this department, as you get more acquainted with it, will spread out to the outlying areas where the aquaculture industry actually takes place. That's where the decisions should be made and brought to Ottawa, and not Ottawa decisions to be brought out there. I'm hoping that's the direction in which it will go.

I do appreciate the fact that you mentioned the Georges Bank. Although you haven't the report yet from the task force in Nova Scotia, I am hoping that your recommendation would be that we don't have oil and gas exploration on the Georges Bank and that we join our American cousins in placing the moratorium until the year 2012, as the Americans have done on their side of the Georges Bank. I'm hoping that's a recommendation you would be able to come up with to help the minister make that decision when you get that report from the task force in Nova Scotia.

There are a couple of other things as well. You made a comment that to me was quite disturbing; you you made it to my honourable colleague from the Reform Party. I don't say you blame, but you indicated that wild salmon can transmit a disease or a virus, or there was some indication, to farm salmon. I'm sure there's more than one commercial fisherman on the west coast who would really like to question you on that aspect.

• 1010

The fact is, sir, that net cage salmon farming is a huge problem. The David Suzuki Foundation has done tremendous reports and tremendous studies that prove unequivocally that this is a major problem in our country in terms of the open net system. I just find it a dangerous trend to say that wild fish are to blame for that. I hope it won't be the attitude of DFO to blame disease on wild stocks, when it comes to farm stocks.

Another problem I have as well is the krill fishery. The minister denied the krill fishery in the Bay of Fundy for this year, although he says he'll determine it on a yearly basis. As the aquaculture industry grows for finfish, there will be a huge demand for fish meal, and the cheapest fish meal out there is krill. If we in any way, shape, or form allow people to fish krill to feed the farm salmon industry, it will be totally devastating upon commercial fishermen right across this country and in other areas.

On what Mr. Cummins has said as well, I'm hoping you take advice and evidence from other countries, like Norway, which has spent hundreds of millions of dollars correcting the errors of farm salmon. It would be prudent of yourself and your department to correspond and correlate with them, and work with the provincial governments in terms of regulations.

As Mr. Bernier said, I don't mind interfering in provincial regulations when it comes to the environment, but I know the Bloc Québécois may have a problem with that. But I think it would be incumbent upon yourself to work very closely with the various ministers of fisheries in the provinces that are affected by this to come up with long-term solutions.

My last point is on Irish moss. Would that fall under aquaculture? If you can't answer that now it's fine, but it's a problem on P.E.I. Is it possible to seed Irish moss beds environmentally so there's an industry in that regard as well?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have more questions for later.

Mr. Wayne Easter: He doesn't want any answers, though, Mr. Chairman, obviously.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I gave some questions. You can answer them. Take the blues and then send them back.

Mr. Yves Bastien: If I forget some you will remind me about them, I hope.

Concerning your first part, I am already planning to have regional advisers in my office. There will be one regional adviser on the west coast, one on the east coast, and one in central Canada, so I will address this part definitely. As you know from my c.v., I come from Quebec, so you can be sure I will always consider the provincial legislation and jurisdiction very clearly.

It is clear that a good portion of the aquaculture legislation, mandate, or jurisdiction is with the provinces. That was clearly mentioned in the MOUs the federal government signed with all the provinces from 1985 to 1987. Some are more recent. In those MOUs it's clearly mentioned that a good portion of the jurisdiction in aquaculture resides with the provinces. You can be sure I will maintain some very good relationships with the provinces, and I have started that. In the next months I will definitely meet with the provincial authorities.

Concerning the wild stock, I want to make sure that what I say is not badly interpreted, because this is very often the case. I just said it is possible for disease to go from wild fish to caged fish. I'm a salmon specialist. I work in the rivers of Quebec, and there has never been any salmon farming in Quebec. In the summer, when there are very high temperatures in the natural rivers—there is no aquaculture going on anywhere—those fish will die from furunculosis. That disease is in the population; it's natural. Those fish could transmit the disease to a caged farm if there were one in that bay.

So I'm just saying that's possible. I'm not saying that's the case all the time, and I'm not saying you don't have other side cases. There is some evidence that caged salmon have transmitted disease in the wild. I agree with you that this is a very important problem in Canada. We have to face it and work on it. I have proposed a code of practice for that, and everybody who is doing aquaculture in the world is working in this direction.

• 1015

The industry, with the government, has to develop a code of practice. For example, if you want to stop an impact that is very important, you prepare some legislation to rule it. A code of practice can come from two directions. It can come from the regulations, but this does not always give the result, because you have to put an officer behind each farm, and that's not easy. The best way to do a code of practice is on a volunteer basis. But as you say, you also need some regulations to enforce that. A code of practice is an important way to address those issues, and I am more than willing to work on that with the industry. I would say the industry is ready to go in that direction because they have no advantage in polluting the environment. The pressure would be so strong on them that the industry would fail.

I'd just like to give you a case in Norway. When I visited Norway in 1983 we visited a farm that was in a very close fjord. They were having problems and they didn't know why. By the time I arrived they knew why. The problem was that the fjord was not flushing enough. There was not enough communication between the ocean and the fjord. The food that was not eaten and the feces of the animals were just accumulating under the cages. But the government didn't tell the farmers to stop. The farmers decided to stop producing on this site at this level because they were polluting it themselves, and the farm was not profitable. So for the farmer, there is no benefit in doing practices that will pollute their environment and the water. That's one way.

Concerning the krill, the aquaculture industry in the world is working to replace some part of the feed that goes into fish farming with other protein. I think in the future this will be a major trend in the research, because if you look more years down the road, the industry will have to bring their costs down as much as possible. So if there are some replacements available through research and development, the industry will go for that, because the one biggest production cost in finfish farming is the cost of the meal.

Industry will definitely address that. You can see in other sectors like agriculture sometimes there are some replacements, and working on the type of food is very important in terms of research to try to get the cost of the food down.

The Chairman: Thank you.

I'm going to move over now to Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Mr. Bastien, to the committee as aquaculture commissioner.

We have a very big aquaculture industry in P.E.I. in mussel farming and tremendous potential in aquaculture in oysters—mostly shellfish and some finfish—but pretty well all land-based fish farming rather than cage-based, as happens in Fundy and B.C. It's an industry that I believe has a tremendous amount of potential.

My own experience, when I first came here as an MP, was when we went to DFO at the time with serious problems in that industry, it was given such a low priority by DFO that the industry basically didn't exist. There's a conflict within DFO, and I think John alluded to that, where on the one hand you have a department that was set up to deal with basically policing the wild fishery in the oceans and inland waters, and on the aquaculture side you have an industry that's basically intensive fish farming, farming in a way that is closely linked to agriculture, using concentrated housing, antibiotics, feed, nutrition, health, and so on.

• 1020

I am pleased to see that there is somebody now in the department who basically can take the lead. Some of your comments, though, lead me to wonder. As a government, we did announce a federal aquaculture development strategy. It's not the paper that Gary was referring to earlier, which was an internal Liberal paper. But the federal aquaculture development strategy was announced, I believe, in 1996, which came about as a result of extensive consultations over a number of years with people in the aquaculture industry and the regular fishery. Is that the strategy you're to follow? Your remarks make me wonder if you're developing a new strategy. I need an answer on that.

Secondly, and I'll close with this, I think John Cummins raised some valid points in two areas. There is a major conflict between regular fishermen and those who are involved in fish farming and shellfish farming in two major areas: one, the impact of the health of the fish in both sectors and the long-term future of both sectors; and two, the impact on prices of a market that may be flooded with farm fish.

The Chilean experience is a prime one. If you have salmon coming in, or even salmon farmed in Canada, that has been coming out of fish farms, going on the market, then naturally, if you flood the market you're going to have a problem in terms of prices. So that affects fishermen in that regard as well.

My concern here—and your answers are somewhat antagonistic to regular fishermen—is how do you see yourself fulfilling the role of bridging the gap between these two sectors in a way that we come together and move forward together?

Mr. Yves Bastien: I'll answer your last question first. I don't remember the first part of your questioning, but we'll come back to that later.

I want to mention that in 1997 I gave a presentation to the first international symposium on stock enhancement and sea ranching, and on that occasion there were 24 countries presenting results in that area.

What I'm saying is the error in Canada is to have a conflict between those two sectors, because in fact it's not a conflict. They are working the same environment; they are producing the same kind of fish. I will definitely agree that the philosophy of a fisherman is to catch a fish, to kill it, and to bring it to market, while the philosophy of an aquaculturalist, who works in an intensive aquaculture practice, is to keep the animal alive as long as possible. That's two different philosophies. But in what I call sea ranching, there is no distinction. The aquaculture practices are used to make sure that fishermen fish. And as I said, 24 countries were presenting results.

I spoke to you about Japan, but a lot of other countries are doing it. New Zealand is imposing a tax in the scallop fishing industry, and with this tax they seed the bottom. That's a very simple practice.

I'm not saying that conflict doesn't exist elsewhere in the world, but if you modify the vision... and that's possible. Even in the actual DFO vision, you have this productive ocean vision. This is only a question of attitude.

• 1025

Mr. Wayne Easter: I agree to a point with what you're saying. The problem here is that we're not going anywhere if you, as representing aquaculture, are basically going to take the position that in terms of your discussion... As I sit here observing John's and your discussion, it's a “you're wrong, I'm right” position on both sides, and this industry is not going to move ahead that way. We have to come to some kind of process that allows us to look at all of the evidence and prove unequivocally that these two industries can move forward together. If that means at the end of the day that there is a problem somewhere in terms of salmon fishing with cages and having to be moved to a land base or whatever, then so be it. We need to be basing our decisions on facts. I've seen the conflict within DFO.

I personally believe aquaculture has tremendous potential both from the finfish side and the shellfish side, but we're never going to exercise that potential unless we can get the wild fishery and those who are involved in fish farming to come together and to move forward together. We're not going to do it by saying I'm right, you're wrong; we're going to have to somehow document the evidence.

With regard to the points raised about Norway, I don't know the answer, but I would certainly like to have it proven to me that there isn't a problem there so that I can explain to fishermen that there's evidence why this is not a problem. That's where we have to move to.

I'm just talking, Mr. Chairman, about what I've seen happen here today.

The other fact we have, and it's a major one, is that I'm personally very concerned with what I see happening at the environmental committee relative to aquaculture. That's another problem we have to deal with by evidence, not supposition.

The Chairman: Thanks, Wayne, and—

Mr. Yves Bastien: I agree a lot with your last comments.

I would like to have the occasion to comment, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Perhaps as chair I could make a comment here.

John, I'm not sure that you and Gary brought this out as forcibly as the committee heard it on the west coast. As someone from the Atlantic, I was amazed to find that the fish they're using in the fish farms on the west coast are mainly Atlantic salmon. John, I'm not sure if we explained to all members of the committee—and the membership has changed somewhat—that the fishermen on the west coast are extremely concerned that the seals and other factors on occasion are knocking down the cages and these Atlantic salmon now are becoming a wild species on the west coast. Many of you are probably aware of that, and perhaps another member of the committee or John would like to have a brief answer to that. But I think that was a bigger concern than simply the same species in the same environment.

Mr. John Cummins: In addition to that, to support what you're saying, in the south coast of B.C. conservation and protection enforcement summary for July 27 to August 2, 1998, for the Port Alberni area, it was noted by fisheries patrol vessels that on average two or more Atlantic salmon per boat were found. Sport fishermen were also picking up Atlantics. Of course there is documented evidence that they're now spawning in rivers on the west coast. That's a huge problem.

The Chairman: Bill, perhaps you would allow the chairman a minute to get an answer to this.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Certainly.

The Chairman: The big concern we heard out there was having species that weren't indigenous to the area among their own species. Yves, could you give the committee a brief answer to this problem?

Mr. Yves Bastien: I've read some reports on this subject, and from my point of view there is no evidence that the Atlantic salmon was established on the west coast. I would like to stress that over the years there have been some incredible efforts to introduce Atlantic salmon in B.C., which were supported by both levels of government. These were systematic introductions to rivers, the seeding of Atlantic salmon to establish populations in rivers. They never succeeded. This is after years and years of trying to do this with millions of fish.

• 1030

Right now, we're talking about escapees. I'm not saying that once in a while you will not find an Atlantic salmon in a west coast river. Once in a while there may be a nest there. But with regard to a situation where Atlantic salmon are established on the west coast, I have seen a lot of evidence saying to me this will not happen. I'm a specialist on Atlantic salmon, and I know they have not been successful in competing on the west coast. Government and fisheries biologists have tried to introduce Atlantic salmon on the west coast for years, and they never succeeded.

Mr. John Cummins: On a point of information, Mr. Chairman, it has been established that on the west coast there have been Atlantic salmon that have escaped from cages and spawned. That has been established. That's a fact.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Provincial fisheries officers stated that categorically. The evidence is quite—

Mr. John Cummins: The issue was raised again last summer, and it's now a scientific fact.

Mr. Yves Bastien: I would like to refer to the paper and look at the evidence.

Mr. John Cummins: You said you were a specialist.

Mr. Yves Bastien: Yes, but I'm a specialist on competition between species. I work in that area. What I'm saying is there's a difference between two fish spawning and a population being established in a river. There's a major difference in this regard.

The Chairman: Bill, from Newfoundland.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: It could be trout from Newfoundland.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Small trout.

Most of my questions have been covered off, Mr. Chairman. I'd just like to welcome Mr. Bastien here and tell him that I have a keen interest in aquaculture, because the south coast of Newfoundland, which I represent, is into an evolving aquaculture industry. We are ideally located, with ideal waters. We are ice-free and can provide, I believe, for a quite significant industry. But we've had some severe growing pains.

You mentioned site designation for aquaculture. Whose responsibility is that? Is that DFO or provincial fisheries? I ask that question because you've mentioned the importance of the flushing on the sites to reduce or eliminate potential pollution. Whose responsibility is site designation? Could you answer that for me?

Mr. Yves Bastien: I would say it's a joint responsibility. But where the province is responsible for issuing the permit, some provinces have installed a public hearing process for site selection, and this is handled by the province. So it really depends on each province. But in general I would say that in terms of establishing a process to hear the opinions of all the users, this would be more a provincial jurisdiction.

In terms of doing some monitoring or analysing the general situation of a site as to whether it's suitable for aquaculture and what the impact could be, for example, DFO definitely has a mandate for this when it comes to science and habitat. There are a lot of jurisdictions, but DFO has a law that applies everywhere in Canada to protect the habitat. It's a joint process. But the process of carrying out public hearings or the site analysis, in my view, in most cases could be coordinated by the province.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Thank you for that.

You've emphasized that as being so joint that it raises a concern of mine. Site inspection and designation are vitally important for environmental factors, such as flushing, that would keep the site environmentally sound. I'm a little bit afraid that it's so joint that perhaps one is expecting the other one to do it, and consequently we may head for some problems. I don't know if that is something you would want to sort out with the provinces. If we talk to the province, they say it's DFO; if we talk to DFO, they say it's the province. Consequently, we end up with a major problem—escapement.

Escapement is a big concern. It ties in with what my colleague from the Reform Party has alluded to. Is it DFO's responsibility or the province's to make sure measures are taken that will eliminate escapement? We have to strive to eliminate escapement so that we don't have the kinds of things happening that members have alluded to.

• 1035

What's your view on escapement and the measures around it? Do you feel they're totally effective now, or are there some weaknesses there? When we talk about transmission of disease and the intermingling of stocks and so on, escapement is certainly a big factor. Could you respond to that concern that I have?

Mr. Yves Bastien: As I was saying before, I think a zoning system is very important in Canada. I agree with you that there's a concern about the legal framework in Canada in terms of aquaculture. I mentioned that, and it has been presented by all parties everywhere in Canada, by provinces, by the federal government.

The legal framework for aquaculture in Canada is not well defined, and there's a need to prepare a new one. I fully agree with you that it's not always clear right now, and depending on which province you are in, it's different, and completely different in some cases. In the DFO we have started to analyse the possibility of having some federal-provincial meetings with provinces on this situation from now on, on a more regular basis, because there's a need for a new legal framework. I would say everybody in Canada agrees on the principle, but the task to create a new legal framework is not an easy one.

I view my role in this task as one of giving a lot of advice and maybe coordinating things, but the first thing we have to get to create a new legal framework is the approval of the government. We have to prepare some rational documents to bring the issue to Parliament, to the MPs, in order to get an okay on working on a new framework. After that, there are a lot of people who can work on it, from the Department of Justice to DFO. I can contribute to this by contracting to work to design some pieces of the new legal framework, but we have to convince the government there's a need first. That's the first step, and I will definitely work in this direction.

Mr. Bill Matthews: We can learn from other countries. I'm told that aquaculture is the second-largest industry in Norway, behind oil and gas. That is very significant if it is indeed correct. I am led to believe that aquaculture has really blossomed in Norway.

John has talked about learning the bad lessons from other countries, with the rivers and the pollution and all the other things. Do you see any positive lessons we can learn from places such as Norway and that we can apply in Canada, whereby we can advance our aquaculture industry in other species? In the riding I represent now, we're into steelhead trout, mussels, scallops, these kinds of things. Do you see any potential for halibut and other species like that in the area of the province where I live?

Mr. Yves Bastien: I definitely see some potential. I would say we are just entering a food revolution in the next millennium. This is just a start. FAO is forecasting a shortfall of 55 million tonnes of fish in the world in 2025, even if aquaculture continues at this rate they are expecting now. The window there is really important. This is a new sector of food production, and it will grow, I'm sure. We have no choice.

Right now, aquaculture represents 21% of Canadian landings. It's not a side player; it's an important player. Canada's share of marine landings has gone from 5% in 1950 to 1% in 1996. In 1995-96, Canadian production went below one million tonnes of production for the first time. Well, there's a window, there's an opportunity.

Right now, it's hard to see how it will evolve, but halibut raising is definitely a possibility. There's a lot of research going on in the world and in Canada concerning this species. The idea is always to choose a species for which you will have profitability, and that's the problem. You have to have a species that is giving a good price when compared to the production costs. With some species, it's not possible. For example, it has been hard with cod because the price of cod has never jumped up. It's better now in some cases, such as when you do good niche marketing, but it's still not at a level at which you could support a big industry. But I believe there's an industry for cod farming, and it will evolve.

• 1040

Mr. Bill Matthews: Does that come under you?

Mr. Yves Bastien: What do you mean by “under me”?

Mr. Bill Matthews: Right now, there are fishermen who catch cod. They keep the small cod and feed them, and they grow. Consequently they control those cod, and they sell them when they get to a weight at which it's profitable to do so. Would that fall under your purview as well?

Mr. Yves Bastien: Well, that's a very good example. I believe that's aquaculture.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Yes, but the fish are wild.

Mr. Yves Bastien: Yes, but it's done in an aquaculture practice.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Yes, but I just ask the question so that you can clarify it. I'm sure some people probably don't realize it's ongoing now, so I just wanted to make the link.

Mr. Yves Bastien: For me, it's a good example of a link between the fisheries sector and aquaculture. Instead of waiting for the ocean to give them fish to fish, they will catch the small fish and will raise them. The problem with cod is that it's very expensive to get the juveniles. A lot of research is going on to produce cod in hatcheries. Still, it's costly because the survival rate is not as good as it could be. Right now, then, the procedure is to catch small cod in cod traps. Because they grow so fast in sea pens, you can profit from this. You have a marketable product after six months.

The Chairman: I see hands moving everywhere here. There are a lot of people with questions. I'm going to move on to John, I guess, and then we'll move down through the rows, but I'm going to ask you something first. Maybe I picked it up wrong, but you indicated that Canada's share of the marine catch fell below 1%.

Mr. Yves Bastien: The figure I have says it came down to 1% in 1995. In 1950 it was 5%. The curve is just going down.

The Chairman: Can you explain it? Is this an international global fishery you're talking about?

Mr. Yves Bastien: Yes, I'm talking about the world marine species catch.

The Chairman: So in terms of the nations of the world, Canada's share, which once stood at 5% of the total catch, is now at less than 1%.

Mr. Yves Bastien: Yes.

The Chairman: That's a very shocking statistic, and I wasn't sure members of the committee had picked it up.

Mr. Yves Bastien: That was given to me by DFO.

Mr. Wayne Easter: So it has to be right.

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: John, do you have something?

Mr. John Cummins: I do.

First, I don't expect it this morning, but I would like you to provide the committee with one instance of a disease being transmitted from wild fish to caged fish.

What I'd like to get back to now is your statement about salmon aquaculture somehow taking the pressure off wild stocks. In an article that came out last fall in the journal Science, Rebecca Goldberg, a biologist at the Environmental Defense Fund, said she would argue that salmon aquaculture is not something that should be promoted by governments as a way to take pressure off wild stocks. She notes in that article that it requires about three pounds of smaller wild fish to produce one pound of caged salmon. To put it another way, it's estimated that the world salmon farmers fed their fish 1.8 million tonnes of wild fish to harvest just 644,000 tonnes of salmon. The fish they're taking in are fish like herring and others, fish that, if they had been allowed to grow to maturity, would have been a valuable food source for many people.

You talk about a shortfall of fish. I tell you, there's going to be a shortfall of fish in short order, and the shortfall of fish may impact the fish meal market before it impacts anything else. Would you not agree that you can't keep mining the oceans for fish meal without sooner or later running out of ore?

Mr. Yves Bastien: I would answer that by saying it's a question of market. If the world fleets are fishing for fish that go in the fish meal, and if that fish meal goes to the salmon farming industry, it's because the market is there and because they get a better price there. When you farm a big predator, that's the case; I agree with you. You invest a lot of secondary protein fish to feed those animals. But it's a question of market.

• 1045

There are two different demands in the world. One is for fish protein for the developing countries, Asians, and there is a demand for what we call the white cloth products in restaurants. There's a demand for that, and those animals right now are fed with fish meal, which comes from the ocean.

What I was saying is that in some years from now this will evolve. Already a lot of study is going on to introduce other protein, like canola or soya, in the feed for salmon. This will evolve. I agree with you that right now it's a big investment in salmon farming, but it's a question of market demand. If the people are fishing the herring for fish meal, they get their price and that's the market demand.

Mr. John Cummins: In terms of the market demand, I can take from you then that in the Strait of Georgia in British Columbia the market demand is for herring roe, so we should just harvest herring roe until the cows come home and to hell with it providing herring as food for salmon. That's the logical conclusion.

Mr. Yves Bastien: I would suggest to you to use aquaculture instead. Instead of killing the fish, you could produce herring roe.

Mr. John Cummins: That's the point then, that with aquaculture you do. For every pound of edible fish you produce in aquaculture it's taken three pounds of small fish.

Mr. Yves Bastien: No. That's not the point I wanted to tell you. I wanted to give you an example of what aquaculture is doing. You can produce herring roe on kelp by having herring spawning in aquaculture tanks. This is a procedure that is going on on the west coast, and this just shows how aquaculture sometimes is saving the animals.

You're doing two things at the same time. Instead of killing the herring and taking the roe out, you are producing—

Mr. John Cummins: There are two products there. One is roe on kelp and one is simply roe. They are different products. It's like an Oh Henry bar and a KitKat.

The other issue that's important here and that we've brushed over is the pollution issue. It's estimated that salmon farms in Norway alone discharge nutrients in their feces equivalent to a city of at least 1.7 million. In 1992 researchers at the University of Stockholm argued that this salmon net pen aquaculture exacts a high price from the wild ecosystem.

In Washington State the pollution control hearings board ruled that Atlantic salmon is a biological pollutant under the Clean Waters Act. Environmental officials in Maine agree that pollution from salmon aquaculture has been a serious issue.

There is a huge problem with pollution as well with salmon pen farms, with these farms. What kinds of steps are you going to take to see that this problem doesn't increase?

Mr. Yves Bastien: I will try to sit at the same table with all the stakeholders, including on the environment. I'm not sure I'll be able to do it, but I'm committed to it and I'll try. I'll give it a try.

Concerning the nutrients, I would like to say that DFO has looked into that very closely, and you have scientific work that has been done showing that the level of nutrients entering the marine environment due to feed that is not taken by fish is not a serious issue.

Mr. John Cummins: You have to understand that the DFO's constitutional mandate is the protection and management of wild fish stocks. I see a real contradiction with your attitude this morning and that constitutional mandate of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I want you to know that.

• 1050

The Chairman: Thank you, John.

We're looking at the appointment of a person to work with this industry, and I think in all fairness to everyone, we should... Maybe I'm wrong in identifying the position you and your party are taking, but it would almost appear that your position is against aquaculture, that we should close it down.

Mr. John Cummins: No.

The Chairman: I'm not sure if other members are getting the same impressions.

Mr. John Cummins: No, that is not the point.

The Chairman: I think if you would clarify that for the committee, it might be worth while.

Mr. John Cummins: No, my point is not shutting down of aquaculture. We're fully supportive of it. I think that shellfish aquaculture and what not is doing fine in British Columbia. It's a healthy industry. It's a clean industry and it's operated well. There are huge problems with net pen fish farming in British Columbia—huge problems. There are huge problems worldwide. The direction of the questioning I have this morning is to find the attitude of the commissioner toward that problem. And I'm not encouraged by his attitude. These problems must be addressed if we're to protect wild stocks. I'm not convinced that the commissioner has that interest at heart. I'm very concerned about that, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: We're glad to have you clarify your party's position.

I'll move now to the Bloc, and then I think Wayne has some points.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief. I am glad you asked the question again to my friend John because I did not really understand where he was heading for this morning. I did not know whether he was for or against aquaculture. As for me, I admitted right at the beginning that I did not know much about aquaculture.

To bring this episode to a close, I would like to say that I appreciated Mr. Easter's search for truth; he talked about the strong positions of Mr. Bastien and John, and he said that we had to find a common ground. I would say in passing that I would like to see that same kind of attitude when we try to find new management tools, for instance for the problems we have with groundfish.

Since I have a rather limited knowledge of the subject, I would like Mr. Bastien to answer again the question asked by Mr. Matthews concerning the responsible authority for site designation. Is it the federal or the provincial government? I don't think I understood perfectly his answer. To broaden my knowledge, I would like you to tell me if there is an inventory of known things that we could quickly pass on to our constituents so that they get to know it.

You also said that three other advisors will be working with you. Has the federal government earmarked an amount to help structure those operations? If not, are you going to advise Mr. Anderson to do so? I would like to know if such a program exists since the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy is nearing its end so that I can quickly tell my constituents in the Gaspe peninsula.

Mr. Yves Bastien: What do you exactly mean by "an inventory of known things"? Are you talking about facts concerning aquaculture?

Mr. Yvan Bernier: As an adult, I would have to learn everything from scratch about aquaculture. Are we talking about clam farming or mussel farming? What species are being farmed in aquaculture? My lack of knowledge really runs deep. What are the conditions for the practice of aquaculture? I would like to know more about it to pass that knowledge on to my fishermen who have nothing left today and who could take advantage of the move to aquaculture. What could I do to apprise them of the possibilities?

Mr. Yves Bastien: The province of Quebec certainly has tabled development plans and strategies and I could ask that copies be sent to you. In them you have an indication of the species that could have some potential in Quebec and of the projects that could be launched. Those plans do exist and I will make sure that you get them.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Is there some funding of the federal level for that kind of projects?

Mr. Yves Bastien: Before accepting the position of Commissioner for Aquaculture Development, I was the general manager of an investment fund for aquaculture in the Gaspe peninsula called SODIM and we were negotiating with the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the regions of Quebec with a view to injecting $2 million in the investment fund.

• 1055

There are monies available at the federal level, and up to now, they have mainly been invested in aquaculture through agencies such as ACOA, the Secretary of State for the Western Economic Diversification and DEC. So we did inject some money in aquaculture. The Farm Credit Corporation of Canada has also invested in aquaculture, mostly in the areas of salmon and mussel farming. Some federal institutions are supporting financially the development of operations.

I would like to add that the honourable Gilbert Normand is preparing a submission to Cabinet for the creation of a program that will include financial support to help operations get started and to fund research. So things are being done at the present time to improve that aspect. There has already been some federal action and funds have been allocated to this area.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Bastien, I want to say that our party, and I'm sure I speak for all parties here, would be willing to work with you and your department in order to ascertain the best for aquaculture and wild fishing that's going on in this country. But I see three major problems happening. One is jurisdiction.

For example, I'm not sure if you were in Tatamagouche, Nova Scotia, but they want to set up a huge shellfish farm, and a lot of recreational boaters are saying get lost—

Mr. Wayne Easter: It's not true.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: To them it is, and the facts are facts. Mr. Colwell, the provincial minister of fisheries, is saying maybe this is federal responsibility. We have memos from the feds saying maybe it's provincial. You're going to have to deal with that jurisdictional problem immediately.

The second problem is pollution. Mr. Cummins is absolutely correct, pollution from aquaculture is, for finfish especially, a huge problem. And to say forestry causes problems as well, so we're not as bad, is not going to hold any water. The fact is nobody accepts any polluting industry of any kind.

And one thing, sir, that hasn't been touched yet is there's a conference in Cartagena, Colombia, about biotechnology when it comes to seeds and grains and that, and my fear is... I saw an advertisement the other day of a company in Nova Scotia that said “From fry to market in 18 months”—18 months to have a fish from fry to market availability. That scared the hell out of me. What the hell is in this fish to make it grow that fast, besides genetically altering the fish and feeding it stuff for which the long-term effects on ourselves and our children we don't know? I have great fear that what we're putting in this fish for human consumption down the road is going to cause us some major problems. I'm very concerned about that.

The Chairman: You made your statement.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chairman: And I assume you don't eat Kentucky fried. It's 42 days for chicken.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: It's the same thing.

The Chairman: Wayne.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I come back, Mr. Bastien, to the original question I asked in terms of your appointment.

As a government, we've put a lot of weight in the federal aquaculture development strategy we had developed. Is that what you intend to be following and moving toward, or are you looking at a somewhat different strategy? Certainly everything is amendable, but in terms of getting the strategy developed, what kind of advisory system are you setting up to give you advice, and how much resource do you have in your position as aquaculture commissioner to work with?

Mr. Yves Bastien: Yes, that's the part of the question I did not remember. Anyway, I did not have the chance to answer it.

At the time that DFO prepared and published the strategy, there was no commissioner for aquaculture development on the scene. What I want to say concerning this is that the document is a DFO document, so I'm bound to it, because I am a DFO employee, and that's correct. But I want to say that it was written at a time where this position was not expected to come anyway, so my personal plan or working plan is developing right now. Definitely I will inspire myself through the strategy, but I will not accomplish only what's written in there, definitely not.

• 1100

I have another perspective and I have another mandate. The government gave me a mandate to promote this sector and make sure it reaches its level of development.

As you say, it's an evolving process. I will definitely work on some issues that are identified in the DFO strategy and the government strategy on aquaculture, but I'm developing my own working plan right now. I have a $2 million budget per year for the next three years. A good portion of this budget will go into staffing, because I need some staff. As I said, some regional staff will be reporting to me, but my office is still a small one in terms of people.

I would like to stress again that I don't have the mandate to do everything in aquaculture. I'm an adviser to the minister to create a new legal framework, a new policy framework in Canada to make sure we tackle all the issues. I would like to bring back the environmental issue here.

I want to make sure you understand me. I'm concerned about the impact of aquaculture on the environment, and I always will be. I'm just saying we can profit from this occasion for Canada to take this industry and make it an example of what could be sustainable development. It's a new industry. When I compare it to forestry, I'm just saying be equitable and give this industry a chance to become a model of sustainable development. I'm not saying there is no impact. I have some concerns, and I will definitely address them while I'm in this position.

The Chairman: Mr. Bastien, I want to thank you for coming before the committee this morning. I don't think you had any choice, but we certainly appreciate the fact that you came and made a very excellent presentation.

As Canadians, we have to recognize that the waters of this country are certainly one of our great assets. We have to recognize that as a nation we've lost apparently a great share of the markets of the world, in terms of the fish we are able to supply to those markets. We have to recognize also the geometrics of our population explosion and the demand for protein in the future. With that, I think someone has recognized the need to create protein from other than natural means.

It's been an interesting morning. I know we could probably spend another few days here. I'm sure the committee will look forward to receiving reports. I didn't get an answer on how often you would report to the minister and Parliament—to the public—in terms of your work.

We are impressed. I hope most of our members are impressed to the point where I'll be able to report to Parliament in a tenth report that the committee has considered the order-in-council appointment of Yves Bastien to the post of commissioner of aquaculture development, referred on Monday, February 1, 1999, pursuant to Standing Order 111 and the sessional paper 854036110, that the committee has examined your qualifications and finds them to be competent to be able to perform the duties of the post. The minutes of this meeting will be duly recorded in Parliament, and I will submit them as chairman of the standing committee.

Are there members of this committee who are adverse to my presenting that report?

Mr. John Cummins: I am serving a notice of motion, Mr. Chairman. The motion would read that this committee advise the minister that this committee has concerns about the appointment of Yves Bastien as aquaculture commissioner. Mr. Bastien's views on the protection of wild fish stocks and fish habitat are inconsistent with the constitutional mandate of DFO to protect and manage wild fish stocks.

The Chairman: I think the notice of motion would have to follow our decision on whether Mr. Bastien is competent or not.

I would ask for a show of hands of those who would suggest that he is competent to assume this position.

• 1105

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Comments or questions?

Mr. John Cummins: There's a conflict between your motion and mine.

The Chairman: There would be, but I would assume that you could present to Parliament information that you and your party are not satisfied with this appointment.

Mr. John Cummins: I think his comments this morning are sufficient to compel me to make that motion. That's my point.

The Chairman: As chairman, though, I would rule that first of all we have to decide on whether or not he is competent. If you are in the minority or whatever it might be in terms of that, you would have every right as a member of Parliament to present your views on his appointment.

For a brief debate, then, Peter...

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

I certainly understand what Mr. Cummins of the Reform Party is saying, and I appreciate his concerns as well. But there's probably no one happier around this table than I am to actually see DFO take an active role in aquaculture concerns. Having spoken to him about his last comments on the environment and his concerns, as well, and his expertise in aquaculture, I would definitely respond in favour of his appointment to aquaculture, but on the premise that he is willing to work with all political parties and all people in the industry on both sides—the commercial fishermen and the aquaculture industry—in order to ascertain long-term solutions that are beneficial to all Canadians.

From my understanding, Mr. Bastien is willing to do that, so I would support his appointment to the commission, with the reservations of what Mr. Cummins is saying as well.

The Chairman: Is there further debate on whether or not Mr. Bastien is competent to assume this post?

Could I have a show of hands, then, for those who favour his appointment?

There is general favour, with one negative, John, on behalf of the Reform Party.

Mr. John Cummins: Yes, that's right.

The Chairman: As a committee, we'll now hear the notice of motion that Mr. Cummins has brought.

John, with a notice of motion, I think we need a 48-hour notice on that.

Mr. John Cummins: Yes, I understand that.

The Chairman: It would be considered, therefore, at the committee meeting on Tuesday of next week. Are you satisfied with that ruling?

Mr. John Cummins: I think so. The motion is contrary to the one that was just passed. So you can let it stand for the time being, and I guess we'll see whether there's any point in pursuing it at that point.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chairman, there's another motion, one Mr. Lunn had mentioned, as well, for Tuesday.

The Chairman: The other notice of motion was that the minister would be invited.

John, I did indicate that you should give some thought to having—

Mr. John Cummins: I would like to.

The Chairman: —maybe the junior minister, the parliamentary secretary, to come with the deputy to present the estimates, if that would be—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Hear, hear.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Chairman, I think there may be a possibility within three weeks that the minister himself might be able to come before the committee. I think we should check out that possibility. Certainly it would be far better to have the minister here rather than myself and/or the department. He's the person who's in charge.

I talked to Minister Anderson yesterday, and although he certainly will be on crutches for a considerable period of time, it is anticipated that he may be able to come to Ottawa the latter part of next week or the week after.

The Chairman: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I know individually a lot of us have phoned and e-mailed him or sent him a letter saying get back on your feet, but I wonder if it is possible that you as chair would be able to write a letter on behalf of the committee to wish him a speedy recovery.

The Chairman: Our clerk will do that.

With that, the meeting will now be adjourned until Tuesday.

Sorry... yes?

Mr. John Cummins: Hold on. On the matter of the appointment of the next witness—

Mr. Wayne Easter: I think we need a motion for that.

The Chairman: The clerk is attempting to have the other people come before this committee. I understand they're—

Mr. John Cummins: I'm only interested in one: Mr. Chapple, who was appointed to the Pacific Salmon Commission. I would like to see him appear before the committee here in Ottawa.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Chairman, I believe the clerk is trying to get that arranged, for him to be in Ottawa. We understand there's a preference to have the individual here physically rather than through video conference.

• 1110

Mr. John Cummins: That's right. Video conferencing is simply inadequate. This is a very important issue, and I think Mr. Chapple should be before the committee.

Mr. Wayne Easter: That's what we're trying to do.

The Chairman: You recognize that the committee has the right, if necessary, to subpoena him to appear before us. We'll make every effort before that happens to try to have him come.

Mr. John Cummins: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

The meeting is now adjourned.