Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries
Issue 4 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday February 22, 2000
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries met this day at 7:00 p.m. to examine matters relating to the fishing industry.
Senator Gerald J. Comeau (Chairman) presiding.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Before I ask Mr. Bastien to introduce his colleagues and make his presentation, I would like say a few words of introduction about our witnesses. He was appointed Canada's first Commissioner for Aquaculture Development on December 17, 1998, with responsibility, on behalf of the federal government, for the development of Canada's aquaculture industry. Mr. Bastien has extensive experience in aquaculture, project management and wildlife and aquatic resource management. He worked at them ministère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation du Québec as an aquaculture development officer, as extension services coordinator for Fisheries and Aquaculture, and as a mariculture coordinator/specialist. Prior to his appointment as Commissioner, Mr. Bastien served as Executive Director of the Société de développement de l'industrie maricole in the Gaspé Peninsula and Magdalen Islands. He has sat on various boards of directors, including the Aquaculture Association of Canada, the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance, and the World Aquaculture Society. He served as President of the AAC and has participated in various study missions on salmon farming in Scandinavia and scallop farming in Japan. Committee members will have an opportunity to put questions to Mr. Bastien. On that note, I would ask our witness to introduce his colleagues and to make his presentation.
Mr. Yves Bastien, Commissioner for Aquaculture Development: Mr. Chairman, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to the Committee for undertaking this initiative to meet with government officials and industry stakeholders so that you may understand better the challenges and constraints facing aquaculture development in Canada.
I have read your terms of reference and applaud your objectives as well as your desire to know more about this exciting industry -- how it has evolved, where it is today, and how it can be helped to grow well into the future. If there is anything I can do to help you in your undertaking, please be assured that I will do what I can.
I would like to introduce to you Mr. Jack Taylor, Acting Executive Director of the Office of the Commissioner for Aquaculture Development. Mr. Taylor was the first of my team members to join me, starting just a week after I arrived in Ottawa to take up my mandate. Also with me is Dr. Myron Roth, Vice-President of Production and Regulatory Affairs for Aqua Health Ltd. Dr. Roth is here tonight to help clarify issues related to fish health and disease, therapeutant use, and any other related questions that you may have.
As you may be aware, I was appointed Commissioner for Aquaculture Development in December of 1998. I started my three-year mandate on January 25, 1999. So you can see that I have been in this job for just over a year.
[English]
I would like to describe the current context for aquaculture in Canada. I have with me a table of the chronology of federal involvement in aquaculture development that you should have before you as part of my submission.
DFO research established the core science in the 1970s and 1980s which has helped to build the aquaculture industry in Canada and in some other countries. In 1983, DFO and the Science Council of Canada sponsored the First National Aquaculture Conference. In 1984, the Prime Minister named DFO as lead federal agency responsible for aquaculture when the industry was valued at approximately $7 million. In 1986, First Ministers agreed to a statement of national goals and principles for the development of aquaculture. From 1986 to 1989, MOUs, Memorandums of Understanding, were negotiated and signed with six provinces and one territory clarifying delineation of responsibilities between the levels of government, which was followed by the launching of MOU implementation committees. In 1988, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans launched a report entitled "Aquaculture in Canada" which recommended that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans take a proactive role in supporting aquaculture development in Canada.
In 1990, you saw the launch of the DFO strategy for the development of aquaculture. In 1992, DFO appointed a Director of Aquaculture Policy to provide leadership for aquaculture development within DFO and the federal government. Shortly afterwards, departmental and interdepartmental aquaculture steering committees were established followed by the First Canadian Aquaculture Planning Forum in Montreal. This gathering of industry and government stakeholders identified 47 strategic recommendations for industry and government action.
In 1993, the Second Canadian Aquaculture Planning Forum charted a course for a policy framework designed to enable aquaculture development. This forum led to the development of the Federal Aquaculture Development Strategy, FADS, with the support and cooperation of industry, the provinces, and 17 federal departments and agencies.
You may be interested to note that the value of farm salmon surpassed the value of wild salmon that year, signalling the beginning of a new era in seafood production.
In 1994 we saw extensive consultation on the FADS involving over 350 stakeholders in aquaculture throughout Canada and from around the world. DFO also commissioned a national opinion poll that revealed widespread public support for aquaculture development. Later that year, cabinet approved the FADS and reaffirmed DFO as the lead agency. However, Program Review was unable to reflect the emergence of aquaculture as a significant client, and consequently, adequate resources were not allocated to the sector or the FADS.
The FADS was announced in 1995 by Minister Tobin and was applauded as a milestone by industry and stakeholders. Just as the Aquaculture Implementation Committees were initiated, DFO terminated the position of Director, Aquaculture Policy due to lack of resources. From 1995 through to the end of 1996, this lack of resources resulted in further delaying the implementation of FADS. During this period, DFO decided to withdraw from freshwater aquaculture resulting in the winding down of their aquaculture R&D program in the central and arctic region, and the closure of the program in the Laurentian region. This happened at a time when aquaculture accounted for more than 17 per cent of the value of Canadian fisheries, but received less than 1 per cent of DFOs resources. Even more significant was the appointment of the Liberal Caucus Task Force on Aquaculture by the Prime Minister and their conclusion that "we have an obligation as a government to actively assist and promote aquaculture."
In 1997, the Liberal government announced its commitment for federal support of aquaculture which fuelled expectations in the sector by the high-level political attention the industry was receiving. That year saw the tonnage of Canadian farm salmon surpass that of wild harvest salmon for the first time, and signalled the continued growth of the industry.
With the appointment in 1998 of Dr. Gilbert Normand as Secretary of State for Agriculture, Agri-foods, Fisheries and Oceans, the sector received renewed attention and promises of support. That year aquaculture was valued at $550 million, accounting for 26 per cent of the total value of all fish and seafood produced in Canada.
In 1999, I took up the position of Commissioner for Aquaculture Development and set up my office and began to build my team. The creation of my office has once again raised expectations in the sector. In August, 1999, Minister Herb Dhaliwal was named Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Minister Dhaliwal immediately expressed the view that the development of a sustainable aquaculture industry was a priority for him.
If you look back over the course of time and the events which I have recounted, I am sure you will understand if I tell you that the aquaculture sector has heard the talk but is still anxious to see the walk.
The Federal Aquaculture Development Strategy is a sound document and was a great promise when launched in 1995. Unfortunately, most of the FADS has yet to be delivered. It was not delivered mostly because of lack of resources, human and financial. As a result, we find ourselves in very similar circumstances as we were in 1995, 1990 or even in 1985.
The challenges facing the industry have been identified. The roles of government have been stated. The solutions have been proposed. It has obtained the support and cooperation of industry, the province, and 17 federal departments and agencies. The consensus coming out of the National Roundtables on Aquaculture held last June was clear: Just do it!
The Office of the Commissioner has chosen to focus its energy on three priorities. First, to undertake a review of the legislative and regulatory environment within which aquaculture operates; second, to improve the perception of Canadians towards aquaculture development; and, third, to build bridges between the fisheries and aquaculture sectors and to contribute to a better integration into a unified fish and seafood production industry.
The legislative and regulatory review is progressing well, and we are still planning to provide a recommendation for an appropriate legal framework for aquaculture in Canada to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans during spring, 2000.
Canadians generally support aquaculture development. I can say this based on public opinion surveys that were taken in 1994 by Angus Reid, and in 1999 by Mark Trend, for British Columbia only, but there is much misinformation circulating in the media about aquaculture, specifically salmon farming. This is disturbing to both the industry and myself. This over-indulgence in negativity with respect to aquaculture is not justified, nor is it productive in bringing people together to find solutions to real and perceived problems.
I have made it my second priority to provide objective information about aquaculture to Canadians and to the decision makers who have the ability to advance or constrain this industry. The recent launching of our Web site was the first major initiative in our goal of providing objective information, and has been well received by both the industry and the government. The Web site was officially launched in Victoria, B.C. at the annual meeting of the Aquaculture Association of Canada in October. We have a big plan for this communication tool and we will use it to provide a gateway to the electronic resources available on the Internet. I hope you will take some time to visit it and browse through the material we have presented there.
Aquaculture and fisheries have evolved into a rather strange relationship here in Canada. Rather than being perceived as complementary activities with common purposes -- to provide fish and seafood to a growing market -- the two activities have become polarized, with the belief that we can only have one or the other. This is nonsense. I have travelled to other countries where there is no distinction between aquaculture and fisheries. They are considered as one production sector or industry.
For example, Japan has been integrating aquaculture and fisheries activity since the early 1960s, starting with the propagation of stock and the release of seed or juveniles as part of a measure to promote coastal fisheries. Today Japan is conducting enhancement activities using aquaculture technology which they call sea farming -- but which really is sea ranching -- with about 80 species, including those under technical development. Major successes were achieved with scallop, flounder, sea bream, prawn, urchin and abalone.
Helping to facilitate those partnership initiatives between aquaculture and fisheries is my third priority. The first element of our strategy to meet this objective is a contractual study on the potential of those technologies in Canada. The report of this study should be available on our Web site in March. This study will be communicated to the relevant clientele as part of the overall communication strategy which is presently being developed for OCAD in order to meet our second and third priorities.
Along with those three priorities, OCAD is regularly collaborating with the department on all matters related to aquaculture. During the last year, DFO has undertaken several important initiatives in order to catch up for the delay in implementing FADS, and to fully play its role as lead federal agency for aquaculture.
These initiatives can be summarized as follows: First, the creation of an aquaculture directorate; second, the launching of a comprehensive policy review and establishment of policy advisory committees; third, involvement in the aquaculture legal review; fourth, hosting of the two National Roundtables on Aquaculture; fifth, leading the Canadian Council of Fisheries Ministers to be expanded to include ministers responsible for aquaculture, as evidenced by the new name, the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers; sixth, leading the Aquaculture Task Group under CCFAM; and, seventh, the establishment of a coordination mechanism between the department and my office for ongoing collaboration and involving the Associate Deputy Minister, the Assistant Deputy Minister Policy, and myself.
These initiatives represent a major step forward for the department in its efforts to implement the FADS and to address the problems and needs of the aquaculture sector. However, these initiatives have yet to produce concrete results in terms of a new regulatory framework, new policies, and new positive attitudes towards aquaculture. Until this happens, we cannot confirm that the department is addressing the full range of its lead agency's responsibilities.
The challenge for the department is to successfully integrate its lead agency role for aquaculture with its mandate of ensuring the protection of the wild resources and the oceans. This integration will be completed when the 9,000 employees of the department will be convinced that aquaculture does not create any more impact on the environment than fisheries, and that aquaculture represents the only valid alternative to attain sustainability in the overall fisheries and seafood sector. If we look down the road, aquaculture represents the logical solution to the declining of wild stocks and will contribute in reducing the pressure on wild stocks.
The real challenge then is to target aquaculture as a national priority and to allocate to the sector the resources necessary to develop an aquaculture sector which can easily become a model of sustainable development and providing very welcome economic activity to coastal and rural communities.
Minister Herb Dhaliwal supports the development of a profitable and, at the same time, environmentally sustainable industry. With a private sector background, he brings to the job a profound understanding of the benefits of successful business development. He is, above all, a consensus seeker, and in an industrial sector faced with stiff global competition, regulated by two or three levels of government with many inherent conflicts, a consensus seeker is precisely what is needed.
New resources are extremely important to support the current collaborative work undertaken by both levels of government and the aquaculture industry to address the legitimate environmental concerns, and to put in place the necessary mechanisms -- compliance of environmental standards, good siting, codes of practice, and so on -- to properly assess and monitor impacts. More importantly, resources are needed to develop the mitigation measures and the technical solutions which will contribute in reducing even more the impacts. Generally speaking, those impacts are already minimal in comparison to many openly tolerated human activities or Canadian industries.
The other part of the challenge is to communicate this message to the media, to all Canadians, and to the civil servants of both levels of government.
Many of the world's wild fisheries are, or have exceeded, maximum sustainable yields. In many areas, stringent conservation measures are curtailing the harvest of wild fish. Aquaculture is now the fastest growing food production activity in the world. The demand for fish and seafood is outstripping the available wild supply, leaving it to aquaculture to make up for the difference. To meet this challenge, aquaculture has been growing worldwide at an average rate of 12 per cent per year over the last decade, with some areas achieving annual growth of 20 per cent.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO, predicts that aquaculture will show sustained growth for the next 10 to 15 years. Total aquaculture production is predicted to reach between 35 to 40 million tonnes of finfish, crustaceans and molluscs in the year 2010, or between 35 to 40 per cent of the total fisheries production by weight. FAO also predicts that up to 40 per cent of revenues on the international market generated by fish may result from fish farming.
Canada, with its 244,000 kilometres of coastline on the Pacific, Arctic and Atlantic oceans, and abundant freshwater resources, has tremendous aquaculture potential. In addition to our marine and freshwater resources, we have the science and technology infrastructure, the entrepreneurs, and developing markets to create a vibrant and environmentally sustainable industry. With a commitment of resources, we can recover our rank as a major seafood producer in the world, a position that has been in decline since the 1950s.
In conclusion, our Aquaculture Partnership Program is a new $600,000 per year program for three years, funded entirely from my budget. It is aimed at helping the aquaculture industry in the various regions of Canada to develop partnerships and to work together on projects of national or regional significance.
Dr. Roth has prepared a small presentation on the status of therapeutant usage in the Canadian salmon farming industry. Having read the minutes of previous sittings of this committee, I am aware that you have a keen interest in fish disease and fish health.
I hope I have been able to convey to you the impediments that have constrained aquaculture development but, more importantly, the potential that aquaculture has to offer.
The Chairman: You listed a chronology of activities which had affected aquaculture in Canada. You made reference to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans of the House of Commons in 1988. I happened to be the chair of the committee at the time. One of the recommendations the committee made at that time was there should be an assistant deputy minister, a senior level civil servant, placed in the position that you now hold. It took a few years, but it did happen.
In 1989, the next year after we made that proposal to the House of Commons, this committee made the same recommendation. It took a few years for that recommendation to be implemented, but I am pleased that it did happen.
Dr. Myron Roth, Vice-President, Production and Regulatory Affairs, Aqua Health Ltd.: I would thank the Commissioner for Aquaculture Development for inviting me to address you this evening.
Aquaculture has been very important to me and has been my occupation since I completed my undergraduate studies back in 1987. As someone who has been directly employed by a salmon farming company for over four years, and has worked on salmon farms on both coasts of Canada and in Europe, I have been able to pursue and develop a career of which I am proud. As a biologist, I believe that aquaculture represents a sustainable use of our aquatic resources that results in minimal risk to the environment. As a concerned citizen like you, I expect aquaculture food products in Canada to be of the highest quality and safe for human consumption.
My area of expertise is in the pathology of fishes, management of fish disease and, in particular, the use of chemotherapeutants, or drugs, pest control products and vaccines. Therefore, I will restrict my comments within this context, highlighting some areas such as disease and the use of therapeutants in aquaculture, an area on which there has been a lot of debate.
In order for disease to occur, three factors are required; the pathogen, the host, and an appropriate environment. While stress plays a key role in the physiological disposition of the host's internal environment, other external factors are also involved such as water temperature, site location, and distribution of wild fish that may come in close proximity to farms. Many disease-causing organisms can be found in wild populations of fish, and there are well-documented cases of significant mortality in what should otherwise be healthy and relatively stress free fish. I am referring, for example, to outbreaks of infectious haematopoietic necrosis virus in Alaska salmon stocks, or sea lice outbreaks in wild Atlantic salmon stocks in New Brunswick. In both cases, disease losses were noted in regions where commercial fish farming is not practised. In the case of IHN in Alaska, this occurred long before commercial fish farming was established; and in the case of sea lice, this happened in the 1940s in New Brunswick. Thus, disease can and does occur in salmon as a natural process, and infectious agents are commonly found in wild fish. That disease occurs in pen-reared salmon is therefore an extension of its natural process. However, in the farm situation, stress plays a more important role. Once disease is present, its spread can be facilitated by stress -- and induce further stress -- stocking density, and a variety of other complex factors.
When disease does occur, intervention is necessary to address the well-being of the affected animals, prevent the loss of stock, and prevent the spread of the disease. The number of drugs and pest control products and anaesthetics approved for use for finfish aquaculture in Canada is limited, numbering only eight for food fish such as salmon and trout. Only four antimicrobials are licensed for use. Of the four, three are prescription-only medicines, while the fourth, oxytetracycline, is listed in the Medicated Ingredients Brochure and therefore available to farmers without a prescription. However, as a rule, most oxytetracycline used on salmon farms is prescribed by veterinarians and is limited to young fish. Thus, nearly all administrations of antimicrobials are under the direct supervision of licensed veterinarians in Canada.
Disease such as infectious salmon anaemia, ISA, caused by a virus, represents a different case, as such organisms are not affected by antimicrobials. Viral disease in Canadian aquaculture is not common, but it does occur, the most notable being IHN which is a naturally occurring virus of Pacific salmon, and virus on the East Coast. Presently, ISA is being controlled by improved husbandry practices, including strict adherence to disinfection protocols and hygiene, selective depopulation of infected cages, stocking and fallowing policies, monitoring, and the use of a new vaccine.
Vaccines have played a pivotal role in disease management. In Canada, the number of licensed salmon vaccines, presently totalling over 25 products, greatly outnumber the number of medicinal compounds currently approved for use in aquaculture. Vaccination, along with other non-chemical fish health management control strategies, has become standard practice due to the lower costs to vaccinate fish and larger gains accrued from preventative fish health management strategies.
Approximately 90 per cent of the antibiotics used in aquaculture are administered as medicated feed. In some instances, such as with high-valued broodstock, antibiotics may be administered by injection. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Fish Inspection Directorate, now under the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, previously estimated that 1.6 per cent of all feed used in the New Brunswick salmon farming industry is medicated. This figure is consistent with the figures reported for salmon farming in British Columbia, which have not exceeded 3 per cent in five years. Both figures represent perhaps the lowest medicated feed inclusion rate for food animal production in Canada.
Further advances in fish health management, and in particular vaccine technology, have contributed to significant reductions in overall antibiotic usage. For example, in British Columbia, which accounts for more than 65 per cent of the salmon farmed in Canada, there was a 23 per cent decrease in the use of antibiotics purchased by feed mills from 1994 to 1995. Similarly, in Norway, where medicated feed practices mirror those in British Columbia and New Brunswick, the volume of antibiotics used decreased 99 per cent between 1987 and 1998, primarily due to advances in husbandry techniques and vaccine technology. During the same period, production in Norway increased from 47,000 metric tonnes to 407,000 metric tonnes.That is an increase of 860 per cent.
It is important to note that drugs are administered only for therapeutic purposes. They are not used as growth promoters. To put total usage into perspective, expenditures on aquacultural pharmaceuticals, excluding vaccines, in relation to other animal or human pharmaceutical sales are insignificant, representing less than 0.1 per cent of the estimated total drug expenditures in Canada. Of the total animal health antimicrobial market, expenditures in aquaculture account for less than 2 per cent. This figure is similar to global data which estimates approximately 5 per cent of the total veterinary antimicrobial market represents pharmaceutical expenditures for aquaculture.
In 1998 in British Columbia, where all veterinary prescriptions and feed milling orders are tracked, an estimated 383 grams of antibiotics were administered per metric tonne of salmon. Of this, oxytetracycline was the most common drug administered, equalling 90 per cent of the total. Furthermore, 80 per cent of the prescriptions were issued for small fish and broodstock. In rare instances, veterinarians may prescribe therapeutants not specified for use in fish. This is referred to as "off label" use, and accounts for less than 0.5 per cent of the antibiotics prescribed.
There are several reasons for the relatively small amounts of antimicrobials used in aquaculture. These include the antimicrobial use practices themselves, such as prudent use practices. Treatments are restricted to therapeutic use only; and they are not used as growth promoters.
Vaccines are very effective for fish health management. All farms are developing on-farm best management practices. Significant among these include fallowing, year class separation, integrated pest management, and biosecurity protocols. We have improved nutrition for salmon, and feeding practices and selective breeding has also come a long way.
Drug residues in Canadian farmed salmon and trout do not represent a health risk. There are several factors that contribute to this: the limited number of therapeutants available; usage is largely restricted to young fish; there is a high degree of veterinary involvement; and almost all antibiotics used are mixed by feed mills with extensive quality control programs in place.
How do we know that salmon are safe from drug residues? From 1991 to 1996, the DFO Fish Inspection Directorate randomly sampled 1,542 and 1,277 lots of farm salmon from New Brunswick and British Columbia, respectively. Residue levels detected above Health Canada's maximum residue limit were found in only 3.5 per cent of the samples from New Brunswick, and less than 1 per cent of the samples taken in British Columbia over the entire five-year period. In almost all cases where follow-up samples were obtained, residues were below the MRL -- maximum residue limit -- and no further action was required. Positive samples, that is, where residue was above the limit, were most prominent in the early 1990s. Since that time, despite increased sampling efforts to keep pace with increases in production, the occurrence of residues above the maximum residue limit have been nearly non-existent due to increased awareness and prudent use policies which are practised by salmon farmers.
One initiative worth mentioning is the Healthy Salmon Program. That is a quality assurance program which deals exclusively with the on-farm use of therapeutants based on HACCP principles and features a third party auditing model.
Therapeutants administered in feed result in a fraction of the drug compound leaching into the surrounding environment, through faecal matter and, to a lesser extent, uneaten feed. However, the stability, half-life, and bioaccumulation of drug residues in the aquatic ecosystem and marine sediment have been extensively studied and the data indicates the environmental risk is minimal due to the low toxicity to non-target animal and biodegradability of the compounds used. To be sure, salmon farms in Canada are subject to various types of environmental assessment. New Brunswick, for example, has been using and developing a performance-based third party audited assessment format. British Columbia has recently developed a similar format that is in the initial stages of implementation. As an added requirement, B.C. salmon farmers are also required to report all chemical usage on farms to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. If antibiotics were accumulating below net pens resulting in negative impacts, this would be detected during routine audits and the appropriate action would be taken.
I have only skimmed the surface of what is obviously a complex subject. I hope that I have be able to provide the committee with information that will be of value when discussing fish health issues, the use of therapeutants in aquaculture, and the future development of aquaculture in Canada.
Senator Cook: This new industry represents a rather high learning curve for me. I gather that, at the moment, this industry is regulated by consensus. I understand that the provincial government has jurisdiction over certain areas, and that the Department of Health has certain responsibilities. A number of key players make this industry work properly. I see it as a consensus approach. Am I correct in that?
Mr. Bastien: I would like to understand what you mean by "consensus". The jurisdiction over aquaculture is a shared jurisdiction, clearly it is shared between both levels of government. Each level of government has jurisdiction over aquaculture. For example, except in one province, the licensing and leasing of aquaculture operations is done by the province, but the federal government has a certain number of powers or certain jurisdiction over aquaculture. This includes some element of environmental protection under the federal Fisheries Act. It is a shared jurisdiction. There are some memorandums of understanding signed between the provinces and the federal government in order to separate the powers and to agree on which government shall do what.
The legal review I am working on now will come up with some clear suggestion on an environmental protection regime which will involve a collaboration and cooperation between the two levels of government. This will be in the form of a suggestion of how to improve the legal environment between the federal and provincial governments. In salmon farming, for example, the provinces have established some regulatory regimes to monitor and assess the impacts, and to ensure that farmers do not go beyond what is acceptable.
Senator Cook: Should we have an aquaculture act?
Mr. Bastien: That is a good question. I will provide some recommendations to the minister next spring on this specific question. At this time, I cannot give you my conclusion. I am still in a phase where I must analyze all aspects before I recommend an aquaculture act. Several provinces do have aquaculture acts to deal with their jurisdiction over aquaculture. Up to now at the federal level, aquaculture has been governed by what I would call "side" regulations.
We must analyze the legal advice of lawyers and determine the powers of the federal and provincial governments; and then determine whether we require a federal aquaculture act, or whether the powers that exist in the Navigable Waters Protection Act or in the Health Canada adequately apply to aquaculture. Several other pieces of federal legislation do apply to aquaculture. The Fisheries Act applies to aquaculture in specific aspects. At this time I cannot provide you with a recommendation for an aquaculture statute at the federal level. It will comprise part of my recommendation to the minister this spring.
Senator Cook: I would like to see someone being ultimately responsible for such a complex industry as aquaculture.
My next question relates to the health of fish. Is all feed medicated or is medicated feed used only when the stock is unhealthy?
Mr. Roth: Not all feed is medicated. If the fish become sick, a veterinarian makes a diagnosis and prescribes treatment. That prescription is sent to a mill and the mill will medicate a small amount of feed which is specified by the veterinarian. That is then fed to the fish. Each lot of feed is medicated, as required, under the orders of a veterinarian.
Senator Cook: Would you explain the vaccine process?
Mr. Roth: Convential vaccines are used in aquaculture now. They are what we in the industry call, "cook-and-kill" vaccines. We find isolates of various pathogens and we learn how to grow them in a commercial process. We inactivate them so they are no longer harmful to the fish or pathogenic. If you inject those into the fish in these preparations, those will elicit an immune response in a fish which prepares them for a subsequent infection. Those vaccines are regulated by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency which has detailed and extensive requirements for the licensing of vaccines and the quality control of vaccines.
Most vaccines used in Canada are what we call "over-the-counter products." They have been tested extensively and are licensed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for use for various disease indications that are provided on the label. In some cases, the use of vaccines must be under the supervision of a veterinarian.
I have covered the regulatory side which occupies my time.
However, the actual physical process is that each and every smolt is injected with a vaccine. Some 30 million smolts are stocked in Canada, and every one receives an injection to prevent disease. Some vaccines are utilized by immersion, and some vaccines are administered orally. They are included in the feed.
Senator Cook: With all of these complicated procedures, do you think the level of funding for research is adequate?
Mr. Bastien: No. We have addressed this in the last year. DFO has made some clear recommendations on the need for more funds for research. We are waiting for some answers on that.
I have been saying on all fronts that, if we want to make sure that the aquaculture we are developing in Canada is what we want aquaculture to be, that is, environmentally sustainable, we must invest some resources in this sector. That is clear. That was the first message of my speech at the Aquaculture Association of Canada annual meeting last October in B.C. We must focus on R&D to ensure that the industry develops properly.
Senator Cook: We thought penicillin would be the wonder drug of the century, it would answer all our needs, but now we find that certain strains of bacteria are resistant to it. This is an industry which is dependent on certain essential ingredients, and research and development is necessary if we are to sustain the industry and develop it further in the future.
Mr. Bastien: I agree with you. Any livestock production is dependent on antibiotics. I believe the aquaculture industry is less dependent on antibiotics than the livestock industry. From the information I have, the sector's performance in the use of antibiotics is good performance, but we can improve it.
Senator Furey: You made it quite clear in your presentation it is important to note that drugs are only administered for therapeutic purposes. How close are we to the genetic modification line that is creating a lot of problems in the agriculture industry? Are we close to that?
Mr. Roth: Can you clarify what you mean by "genetic modification"? In products or in fish?
Senator Furey: Fish.
Mr. Roth: Transgenic fish have been produced in research labs in Canada.
Senator Furey: Will it attract criticism similar to that now levelled at the agriculture industry about genetically modified foods?
Mr. Roth: I was just in Europe where there is lots of debate about transgenic animals. It certainly would be cause for debate. Currently, despite all the work which has been done on transgenic fish in Canada, there are no commercially produced transgenic fish. It will be a long time before that happens. It is an issue which will be debated for quite some time. I can recognize the benefits and also the concerns.
As a biologist, I know what issues are as they relate to transgenic animals and aquaculture, as well as the issues regarding containment. These are issues we must be concerned about. For the time being, it is not a process embraced by the industry.
Mr. Bastien: Believing that research will not happen on transgenic fish is naive. The research will happen, but I would like to stress that the aquaculture industry in Canada is right now applying a voluntary moratorium on the use of genetically modified fish for the clear reason that right now there is a clear opposition from the general population. It is also clear in Europe. It has come to Canada and North America. There are no short-term or medium-term plans for using transgenic fish, but saying that research will not happen would be naive. There is a major difference between research being done in Canada and some commercial usage. We may see those kinds of moratoriums, which are voluntary at this time, become more regulated by the provinces or the federal government.
We are far away from transgenic fish being placed in the wild. In my view it will not happen until we have some clear scientific evidence that there will be no danger in doing that. We are not there now. There is no danger to consumers or to the wild species regarding transgenic fish.
Senator Perrault: This is an excellent body of information you have brought here this evening. Has any cloning of existing species of fish been done? Does the term "transgenic" cover cloning as well? In the sheep world we have a ewe named Daisy who has a twin sister. Do we have something like that with fish?
Mr. Bastien: I do not believe so, but I am not perfectly sure. No, there is no cloning in fish as there has been with sheep.
Senator Perrault: A while back, one of the organizations on the West Coast said they wanted to import Maritime Atlantic salmon for experimental purposes. They thought they might be an ideal species to raise in cages. They said that there would be absolute security and that they would never escape. Of course, they escaped. Are they posing any problems to native stocks on the West Coast? I attended a fisheries conference over the weekend. There is a real fear on the part of some fishers that there could be some danger as a result of that escape. How did they escape and do they pose a danger?
Mr. Bastien: The prospect of escape being zero would be difficult to achieve because in the event of a major storm or a hurricane, you never know what human or industrial activities will be damaged. No doubt you will remember the pollution that resulted from the major flood in the Saguenay region. The Atlantic salmon which escaped in B.C., have been reproducing in salmon rivers in B.C.
Senator Perrault: Do they mature at a faster rate?
Mr. Bastien: It is the opposite. Atlantic salmon have a much longer biological cycle than the Pacific salmon. Your concern is understandable.
Senator Perrault: Why are we experimenting with Atlantic salmon if the growth cycle is longer than that of the West Coast indigenous species?
Mr. Bastien: There are many reasons, including their resistance to disease. Atlantic salmon is more domesticated than West Coast species. It was an easier species to develop. Your concern is valid, and it must be addressed.
I have just returned from an international meeting of countries which fish the North Atlantic salmon area. NASCO, the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization, which has members from the different countries around the North Atlantic; Norway, Scotland, Canada and the U.S., agreed on guiding principles to develop a code of containment. That would definitely help to reduce the incidence of escape.
For several years the government tried to establish Atlantic salmon on the West Coast, but they never succeeded.
Although there is a concern about Atlantic salmon establishing themselves in B.C. rivers, there is also the reality that those rivers are monitored very closely. There are means by which those species can be eliminated if they are found in rivers and that is a concern.
Senator Perrault: If they pose a danger?
Mr. Bastien: Yes.
Senator Perrault: You have suggested that in some ways it is a public relations problem, a marketing problem. There are fear mongers out there who are suggesting that the only good salmon is a wild salmon. I was at a restaurant over the weekend where one of the feature items was genuine wild salmon, as though any other kind is somehow unworthy to be on the palette of the diner. What practical steps are being taken by your agency to counteract some of this misinformation, if in fact it is that?
Mr. Bastien: Communication is a major challenge for this sector. I am planning to develop a comprehensive communication strategy. The department will do the same. The aquaculture industry has been subject to a fair bit of negative campaigning. The more we move ahead in that direction, the harder it is to step back to objective information. More and more we see bumper stickers that read: "Wild fish don't do drugs", among other things.
Senator Perrault: It is not helpful.
Mr. Bastien: It is harmful to the sector.
Senator Perrault: Is there any flavour difference between the two varieties, the wild and the farmed?
Mr. Bastien: A lot of testing has been done. Farm salmon has more oil content, so they are easier to smoke. Generally, the fish with more oil will taste better, and it is easier to cook. Generally, chefs prefer farmed salmon. As to taste, a lot of testing has been done and, depending on the strain, and depending on what the wild salmon has eaten, there may be some differences, but generally speaking there is no difference.
Senator Mahovlich: I have tasted some farmed trout and I cannot tell the difference between fresh wild trout or farmed trout. They are both excellent.
However, I do believe that there should be some federal legislation in this area. There should be some international laws because all waters are connected. The fish can swim up our rivers just as the zebra mussels arrived in Lake Ontario. It is an international concern. Are you cooperating with the Americans on aquaculture?
Mr. Bastien: Yes.
Mr. Roth: I just came back from a meeting in Paris where regulators from all over the world met to discuss risk assessment issues in fish health and aquaculture. Various issues were discussed. The experts had the opportunity to debate some of the science, and to examine the various agencies and their activities around the world. There are many meetings where harmonization issues are raised and where experts meet to try to understand what other countries are doing. Most of these meetings are attended by regulators.
Senator Mahovlich: Here in North America, our rivers and borders are so long, we must cooperate with the Americans to save some of our fish stocks.
Mr. Jack Taylor, Acting Executive Director, Office of the Commissioner for Aquaculture Development: I agree with your concern. It is an interdependent world. Internationally, aquaculture is a relatively young industry. In some areas, China for example, it has been practised for hundreds of years on an extensive basis for their own consumption. However, as an industrial activity, it is relatively new. There are relatively few opportunities for collaboration, but that is improving over time. There are meetings occurring more and more every year to bring countries together to discuss common problems.
There will be a meeting of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN in Bangkok later this month where a discussion of setting up a subcommittee on aquaculture will be raised at the technical level. We support this, of course, because we believe a lot of these problems are similar in Canada, the United States and around the world. Problems with multi-user conflicts, environmental standards are common around the world. Mechanisms like this and the work of governments and agencies to bring that to the attention of the world and back to their own country and jurisdictions is important.
Mr. Bastien: I just returned from a meeting in London with the NASCO organizations. All the countries were represented around the table and everyone agreed on the terms of reference of a working group to develop guidelines on the containment of farm fish. Each country must present a plan to meet those requirements which can be viewed as standards developed in an international forum between salmon conservation organizations clearly focused on conservation of wild stocks, and at the same time the aquaculture industry having a consensus on standards to set. Then each country must prepare a plan to meet those standards. It is happening. I could provide to you the terms of reference of this ongoing work.
The Chairman: In the early stages of aquaculture development, Canada placed a lot of money into research. At the end of the day, most of this research was adopted by other countries, taken from our universities and DFO facilities, and applied in other countries. In other words, we footed the bill and they did the development. Is this continuing? Are we still doing the basic research which is then being used by Norwegians or others for commercial purposes?
Mr. Bastien: I would tend to believe that it is the opposite now. The Canadian industry is working more on external technology. There may be some exceptions to that. You may have some specialized research being done in the country which is used elsewhere. That is because of the easy circulation of information these days. If the research is not done by a private company, if it is done in a university, it is circulated worldwide.
Generally, the level of research which has been occurring in Canada more recently has gone down compared to what was happening before. The federal government just announced a major initiative in aquaculture research through an aquaculture network initiative that was led and submitted by Memorial University in Newfoundland. The federal government just approved the proposal which amounts to $3.5 million for seven years for aquaculture research. It involves a network among Canadian universities which was just founded. That will bring more research into the picture. The sector definitely needs it.
A good portion of the research we are using is coming from outside Canada.
Mr. Roth: Canada has some great fishery scientists, however, where aquaculture technology is concerned.
However, if you attend one of the conferences in Norway it is like a feast of technology. The industry is very big and it is supported by the government. There are all kinds of examples of technologies which are developed there and they are actually used here in Canada. I am referring to feeding technologies and even processing plant technologies. Currently, there are two breeding programs in Norway. They are the best in the world.
Any efforts to bring more research dollars into Canadian aquaculture would be a really good thing.
The Chairman: Early on Canada was spending this money on research, but it was not applying it. We were not reaping the benefits of it and other countries, who were spending less money on research, were reaping the benefits. Their industries probably evolved due to a more sympathetic regulatory framework. Is Canada catching up now?
Mr. Bastien: In terms of research?
The Chairman: Yes, in terms of applying the research and developing the industry.
Mr. Bastien: The Canadian industry could be much bigger than it is now. The main reason it is not is the general policy and regulatory framework we have. Norway has an enabling environment, and up to now that has not been the case in Canada. That is why we are doing taking all the steps, such as the regulatory review, and the policy review inside DFO. The result of doing all of that should lead to a new era in aquaculture development.
The Chairman: That ties in with the objectives outlined in your paper.
I understand that European strains of Atlantic salmon have been brought into our aquaculture pens. Why would we bring a Norwegian Atlantic salmon to Canada? Is it a better looking fish?
Mr. Bastien: I would like to know where that information comes from. There is a protocol signed under the NASCO organization that prohibits the use of European strains of salmon on the East Coast. There are no European strains of salmon in Canada. However, they are used by the aquaculture industry in the United States. That there has not been equal compliance with the protocol, has been the subject of discussion between the Canadian government and the U.S. There is no usage of Norwegian strains of salmon in our commercial aquaculture now.
The Chairman: That must be a false rumour I picked up.
Mr. Bastien: Doctor Roth is saying I am wrong.
Mr. Roth: To my knowledge there are no Norwegian strains on the East Coast. On the West Coast, some Norwegian salmon were introduced in the early days. The salmon stocks live in different rivers. The biologists have looked at the performance characteristics of the salmon to try to develop stocks. The stocks on the East Coast are evolved for the East Coast. They have a life history strategy which is suitable to the colder water there. However, they do not grow on the West Coast. That coast is more like the coasts of Norway. There are some Scottish strains; Norwegian strains; East Coast strains; and Gaspé strains. They are different strains of salmon. They were introduced in small numbers a long time ago.
Some companies have maintained them as broodstock. This is not a constant trickle of salmon. Some broodstock are brought in and then they are captively bred by the growers.
Mr. Bastien: There was no European strain on the East Coast. I was right. They are on the West Coast. I mentioned Canada at one point there, and I was wrong.
Senator Perrault: Is Norway number one in the world?
Mr. Roth: For salmon growing, it is without a doubt. In terms of tonnage, and in terms of technology it is number one. However, Chile has a lower cost of production than Norway.
Senator Mahovlich: Is that because of necessity?
Mr. Roth: No. It is a variety of complex reasons as to why it is cheaper to grow salmon in Chile. They are very good at it.
Senator Perrault: Where do they get their species?
Mr. Roth: Norway.
Mr. Bastien: Chile has a lower production cost for two reasons. One is cheaper labour cost and the other is fish meal that is much lower in cost. Fish meal is an important complement of the fish feed. Chile is known to have a large production of fish meal. Their cost of the fish feed, is much less than ours. Those are the two elements of the lower cost of production.
The Chairman: My understanding is that it takes three pounds of fish to produce one pound of fish food for the salmon. Why would you take three pounds of fish to produce one pound of food for the salmon?
Mr. Roth: When fish are caught in the South Pacific for the fish meal industry, they are separated into meal and oil. It is not a fair comparison to say that it takes three pounds of fish because you do not grind up all the fish to feed the salmon. The fish goes through an industrial process and is made into meal. If people could catch those fish and turn around and sell them to people, they would, but they cannot. Salmon are efficient at converting the fish meal into usable fish. Presently Atlantic salmon have conversion rates which are 1.1 to 1.0, that is, fish meal into salmon.
The Chairman: My understanding is that the meal is made from non-commercial fish. It is fish of no commercial value.
Mr. Roth: They are trash fish. People would not normally eat them.
The Chairman: You just touched on sea ranching. What is the future of sea ranching as opposed to sea cage raising? The Japanese have done it and Alaska is practising sea ranching. Should we be looking at this more closely because it does in fact involve less medicine, less husbandry. There are wide open spaces out there. Should we be considering sea ranching?
Mr. Bastien: Yes, that has major potential. I commend you for having decided to visit the Madeleine Islands during the process of your hearings. Scallop fisherman there decided to do sea ranching, that is, to catch some scallop larvae in the wild and raise them for a certain period through aquaculture techniques. They seeded the bottom with those scallops of a size of 40 millimetre, and left them to grow. They then harvested them. Eleven years ago, those fishermen decided to take their future into their own hands instead of sitting waiting for social insurance money to come in.
This project is a good example of what was done in Japan. The technology used was Japanese.
There are other initiatives on the East Coast of Canada, specifically in relation to scallop. The potential is big, especially with regard to shellfish. With finfish you have some delicate problems to solve because a fish moves in the water. Sea ranching involves property rights, so the fact that there is movement may cause some difficulty. It is easier to do seeding of shellfish on a leased area where there will be some restricted access to the fish on the bottom. Swimming fish may cause a legal problem.
In our review, we will provide recommendations respecting a legal framework for shellfish sea ranching. This is an element Canada should be considering because there is major potential in that regard.
Countries such as New Zealand are doing this publicly. The government has developed a mechanism where the government can impose a tax on the landings for some species. For example, there is a tax on the landing of scallop by commercial fishermen. That tax is being used to reseed the bottom through aquaculture techniques. There may be a private company involved in the process, but it is an overall public process where, through taxation and through funding, you are providing more resources to the community and increasing the productivity of the wild. It is a good initiative. I strongly believe in it. It will help to build bridges between the aquaculture and the fisheries sectors.
The Madeleine Islanders are not opposed to aquaculturists. They are aquaculturists. They are happy and proud of it. They do not want to be diverted from that process. It is good, sustainable production.
Senator Furey: Mr. Bastien, I do not envy you your Herculean task to bring some order and simplicity to the host of regulations surrounding this industry at all levels. Is there tension between those who would promote the conservation of fish and fish habitat and those who would promote the industry itself, within DFO or with special interest groups?
Mr. Bastien: Definitely, there is a clear tension. It has been there for quite some time. It is a challenge, but I am sure it is possible. I am not saying we will be able to do it, but there will be major benefits in trying to achieve it. I appreciate your recognition of the size of the task. I am sensing some change and willingness to move forward.
One way to do that is to send a message to the population of the benefits of integrating those approaches. This is a communication problem. We need to develop a communication strategy. That is one important element of my mandate that I want to achieve in my three-year contract. One year has passed. I want to have a major communication strategy in place, and I am targeting the fisheries sector.
I gave a presentation last September at the Fisheries Council of Canada on integration. Many segments of the fisheries sectors are willing to build bridges between the two sectors because they can say see the benefit of joining instead of fighting each other. Due to the fact that wild resources are declining and fishermen are losing their livelihood, it is not an easy period of transition. Not all fishermen want to be aquaculturists. They want to fish. Their families have been fishing for generations. I have lived for 25 years in the Gaspé community, so I know that the population exodus and the loss of pride are real. People are just tired. It is a major problem. Proposing aquaculture to those people in some cases will not do a lot of good, although we know that in the Madeleine Islands it is being successful. We must publicize that success.
It is easier to start with shellfish. With respect to finfish there are some initiatives to introduce some valued added aspect when it is caught in the wild. Small cod caught in the wild can be farmed in pens to put meat on them to raise them to a bigger size. This also has some potential.
The office has launched a study to look at the potential of those activities in Canada. This will be part of our strategy. The tension is there. In B.C. I made a speech at the AAC. My words were interpreted by the fisheries sector as being a proposal that we get rid of the wild fisheries. My message was exactly the opposite. I was proposing bridging the sectors. The tension is there and the fisheries sectors are living through a difficult period. To many fisheries sectors, aquaculture is not a solution. All fishermen cannot immediately become aquaculturists.
Senator Perry: Since cod is scarce in the Atlantic could cod be farmed just like salmon?
Shellfish do not move around that much so you can control the area where you seed. What about lobsters? Do they travel or could they be controlled just like you control the scallops or the mussels?
Mr. Bastien: We could definitely raise cod. The question is: Is it profitable? Farming a species is always a question of balance between cost of production and the price you will obtain on the market. Even if cod is rare, its price on the market has not jumped up as we were expecting. A lot of research has been done on cod to try to develop the law of the early life cycle to see if it was possible to put the young in net pens and raise them. Right now it is not profitable. Some aspects of it, like the growing of juveniles, seems to be profitable. Newfoundland seriously considering it, but you still have a major problem in that your stock for the farming is not reliable because it is coming from the wild. The stocks are fluctuating. It is hard to develop an industry based on that.
If you base your assessment on production, then your problem is the cost of production. It costs a lot to produce the young juveniles. Other species are easier to produce, and they get a good price on the market. One particular species is being seriously considered. Species such as halibut are being studied in detail, and are the objects of commercial projects on both coasts. It is always a question of production cost.
As to lobster, they definitely move. Since they migrate, enhancement of the lobster would be done better in the public domain than in the private domain. I could definitely envisage an initiative like the initiative taken by the scallop fishermen the Madeleine Islands, for example, where lobster fishermen would develop projects to enhance their stock.
The difficulty is in trying to develop techniques that will ensure the survival of the lobsters. At whatever stage you put lobsters in the water, they have a very difficult time. At the beginning of this century, there was a huge amount of enhancement of lobster on the East Coast of Canada. Billions of lobsters were seeded, but it probably was a complete loss because the larvae of lobster went to the bottom. That was done by DFO. There remains some research to be done on the releasing techniques, the timing of the releasing, the size of the animal when it is released into the wild to ensure that it is profitable.
Senator Perry: Would seals destroy a lot of lobsters? When you kill a seal and open it up you find all sorts of species of fish in the body, including lobsters.
Senator Furey: That depends on what part of the world you come from.
Mr. Bastien: I will leave that question to my DFO colleagues.
Senator Perry: If you were to open a seal you would find lobsters in a seal, as well as herring, mackerel, and whatever was swimming around. The seal will eat anything it comes across.
Why would seals not be culled? Why should we not cull so many every year?
The Chairman: We may be into an area where Mr. Bastien will not want to respond. Those last two questions would be excellent questions for the minister when he returns. We will not put Mr. Bastien on the spot.
Senator Mahovlich: You are talking about the price. Tuna is very expensive, especially in Japan. What about farming tuna? Would that be feasible or possible?
Mr. Bastien: It definitely is possible.
Mr. Taylor: Tuna is being farmed in Australia and New Zealand. It is a very profitable business. We have not developed a technology here in Canada to do that yet, despite the fact that we have a major increase in the growth of aquaculture. Most of aquaculture sales are in the area of farmed salmon. That accounts for about 80 per cent of the value of our industry.
There is experimentation with new species. This requires a lot of research, which requires a lot of money. Some of that money is in the public domain, some of it in private funds.
In the area of new species, in Nova Scotia last year, a company from Iceland invested in a $15 million halibut farm to produce two-pound halibuts which are perfect for the table market in New England. It was a good opportunity, and the conditions were perfect. That investment is important to the area of southern Nova Scotia. Perhaps one day we will farm tuna, but we have so many other species to cultivate and to develop that it may take some time to do that.
Senator Perrault: A few years ago I visited the fish market in Tokyo. I was overwhelmed by the fact that we take that many fish, sea creatures, out of the ocean every day. There is a decline in the world supply of fish protein and we have a vastly increasing population. You have a really important role in your attempt to develop greater productivity here in Canada, as well as your contribution to the world itself. You are working in a critical area.
Are we really in endangering this world because of overfishing? A few years ago there were billions of herring off the Peruvian coast, now you cannot find one. Will the world ever co-operate and conserve our supplies of fish protein which is one way to keep people alive? That is a challenge before us.
They have yet to persuade an Atlantic lobster to come out to British Columbia. We have tried to entice them with bonuses and everything else. We have tried it three times. On two occasions they neglected to unlock the legs.
Mr. Bastien: It was tried.
Aquaculture will help all countries to meet the challenge of the depletion of world stock. If aquaculture did not exist, the pressure on the wild stock would be worse, much worse, because the demand is so great worldwide that the pressure on countries to catch more fish would be stronger. Aquaculture, is now 25 per cent of the value of our landing. That is a major change. It will continue to evolve. Aquaculture, if it is properly done, is the way of the future. It will contribute to solving our problem with wild stocks.
We should keep in mind that it is difficult to assess what global warming and climate change in the world is doing to our wild stock.
Senator Perrault: We do not know the reason for the decline. There are all sorts of theories.
Mr. Bastien: Aquaculture will contribute to the resolution of those problems. I look forward to your support of this view.
Senator Perrault: You have an important task.
The Chairman: On behalf of the committee, I would thank the witnesses for the papers they presented tonight. This was an informative session. The aquaculture industry is in good hands. We look forward to the future.
Senators, last week Senator Watt asked that a letter from the New Brunswick Aboriginal People's Council be filed as an exhibit. Would members be agreeable that this document be filed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: That will be done. I believe our clerk distributed it a few minutes ago.
I would also suggest that the presentation by Mr. Bastien be filed as an exhibit. Is that agreeable?
Hon Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Should we include the presentation from Dr. Roth as well?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The committee has expressed the wish to submit a supplementary budget so that we might take four extra senators -- if it is agreeable with the subcommittee on budgets of course -- on the West Coast of British Columbia trip at the end of March. It would cost $24,000. Is agreeable to members of the committee that we submit this supplementary budget?
Senator Mahovlich: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Mahovlich: Perhaps we should consider travelling to Norway since we have been told that they have the best aquaculture in the world.
The Chairman: Perhaps that is a matter for the steering committee. Senator Perrault, Senator Robichaud and I will come back to the full committee with a recommendation.
Senator Mahovlich: A trip in July or August would be preferable.
The Chairman: It is a major industry out in Norway. Scotland, which is a short distance from Norway, is also doing well. Leave that with your steering committee. We will see what we can come up with.
I should advise members that we have asked the minister to return on March 14 at 6:00 p.m.
The committee adjourned.