Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries

Issue 4 - Evidence of May 2 meeting

The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries met this day at 5:45 p.m. to examine matters relating to the fishing industry.

Senator Gerald J. Comeau (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: Honourable senators, we have witnesses from the Office of the Auditor General and from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Mr. Ronald C. Thompson, Assistant Auditor General, International Affairs, Office of the Auditor General: Honourable senators, my two colleagues with us today are Mr. Gerry Chu, Director, Audit Operations Branch and Mr. John Sokolowski, Senior Auditor, Audit Operations Branch.

We appreciate the opportunity to discuss the results of our fisheries and oceans audit, presented in chapter 30 of our December 2000 report - "The Effects of Salmon Farming in British Columbia on the Management of Wild Salmon Stocks."

This was the third audit of the department's Pacific salmon management programs since 1997. Our previous audit chapters had reported on habitat protection and the department's management of the Pacific salmon fisheries. In previous audits we had noted the continuing loss of salmon habitat and the decline of some wild salmon stocks. Indeed, Pacific wild salmon stocks are under significant stress and their status has become a concern.

With respect to salmon farming, I am sure you are aware of how important this industry is to Canada as the world's fourth-largest producer of farmed salmon. British Columbia accounts for nearly 70 per cent of Canada's production. Seventeen salmon farming companies in the province were operating 105 farms when our audit ended. Their production has grown steadily in the last decade. Although there has been a moratorium since 1995 on expanding the salmon farming industry, there are indications that it may be lifted in the near future.

The federal government and the province share responsibility for regulating aquaculture in British Columbia under a 1988 memorandum of understanding on aquaculture development. The province's responsibilities include managing and developing the salmon farming industry. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, on the other hand, is responsible for regulating a number of areas, including conservation and protection of fish and their habitat. Under its 1995 Federal Aquaculture Development Strategy, the department must also ensure that its aquaculture development activities are consistent with sustainable development.

Our audit looked at whether the department was meeting its legislative responsibilities to conserve and protect fish, specifically salmon stocks. I emphasize that we focussed on the department's role as a regulator and not on the merits of the aquaculture industry.

We found that in regulating salmon farming in B.C., the department was not fully meeting its obligations under the Fisheries Act. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly review some of our observations.

As a regulator of salmon farming, fisheries and oceans is in the business of managing risks. Salmon farming poses risks that include the potential impact of harmful substances on fish habitat and the effects of possible interaction between farmed Atlantic salmon and wild stocks. The department operates at present on the assumption that salmon farming represents a risk to wild salmon and fish habitat that is low, overall. However, we are concerned that the department is doing little to monitor and assess the actual and potential effects of salmon farming with the future in mind.

Specifically, we found that DFO is not adequately monitoring the effects of salmon farms on surrounding fish and fish habitat. This is particularly troubling given the department's responsibility for enforcing the Fisheries Act - specifically sections 35 and 36, which prohibit the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat and the deposit of deleterious substances into water frequented by fish.

At the time of our audit, the department had not determined how it will apply and enforce the Fisheries Act to protect fish habitat from the effects of salmon farming. A major factor is the department's lack of scientific information that would enable it to establish criteria to determine what constitutes harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of habitat resulting from salmon farming. This is a concern because regulations are being developed by the province that may conflict with federal legislation. We urge the department to take immediate action to resolve this situation.

The department has assumed that salmon farming poses a low risk on the basis of a 1997 provincial review of salmon aquaculture that reflected existing production levels and practices. However, the department has not assessed the potential risk should the industry expand, nor did it have, at the time of our audit, a formal plan for managing that risk and assessing the potential environmental impacts.

There are conflicting scientific views about the effects of salmon farming on wild salmon stocks and on the environment. Moreover, there are very few studies that apply directly to the situation in British Columbia.

To deal with the possible expansion of salmon farming, we believe that the department will need good information about the potential effects on wild stocks. Good information comes from both good quality research and effective monitoring. In our audit, we found that it was not giving adequate attention to prioritizing research requirements in this area. The department is doing some research, but we did identify gaps in information - for example, on the risk that disease may be transferred from farmed salmon to wild stocks. We also identified gaps in monitoring - for example, the status of wild salmon stocks adjacent to existing and potential farm sites.

Further, the department, at the time of our audit, was not adequately monitoring the presence of escaped farm salmon. We identified that farmed Atlantic salmon are indeed present in B.C. streams at all life stages. They also have successfully reproduced in some rivers. Our report questioned whether Atlantic salmon might adapt to local conditions and become established in B.C. coastal streams.

Finally, salmon farming has the potential, in our view, to increase the stress on wild salmon stocks over time, especially if the industry expands. To ensure that sustainable salmon fishing can coexist with the farming industry, it is urgent that the department remedy these shortcomings in consultation with the province.

As I conclude, I will provide six reasons why we have been so persistent about the need for more science and research.

First, science is needed to develop administrative criteria to determine what is harmful alteration, disruption and destruction of fish habitat resulting from salmon farming.

Second, science is needed to help develop regulations and criteria for determining when deleterious substances are a problem and when they are not.

Third, science is needed to establish more credible siting criteria for salmon farms.

Fourth, if the moratorium is lifted and the aquaculture industry does indeed expand, there may be a call at some point for a cumulative environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Science is needed to equip the department, and perhaps others, to do such an assessment or series of assessments.

Fifth, research is needed to identify and assess the risks of interaction of farmed Atlantic salmon with wild salmon.

Sixth, science is needed to address the potential risks of introducing transgenic salmon into farming.

At the end of the day, we believe that the department is committed to taking action to address the issues that we raise in our chapter. In this respect, the $75-million Program for Sustain able Aquaculture - which is referred to in the department's response to our chapter - will be particularly important.

That concludes my opening statement. We would be pleased to answer your questions.

The Chairman: I ask Ms Forand from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to introduce her colleagues and proceed with her presentation.

Ms Liseanne Forand, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans: Mr. Chairman, I will introduce my colleagues from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

[Translation]

To my left, Mr. Paul Cuillerier, Director general, Habitat Management and Environmental Science.

[English]

Ms Forand: To his left is Iola Price, Director, Aquaculture Science Branch, Oceans and Aquaculture Sciences Directorate.

[Translation]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before this Committee and to give you the latest developments concerning DFO's commitment and approach related to the implementation of a sustainable aquaculture industry which Canadians can trust. A lot of progress was made in that industry last year.

[English]

I will present information from three areas to the committee. The first is a brief overview of DFO's Aquaculture Action Plan. The second is the progress achieved in each of the various action plan elements. The third is a description of the way in which our actions and investments are consistent with the observations and recommendations contained in the Auditor General's report.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans' strategic plan identifies two objectives for aquaculture: to increase public confidence in environmentally sustainable aquaculture development, and to increase the industry's global competitive ness.

[Translation]

To do so, the Department has prepared an action plan based on four themes: a healthy environment, healthy fish and quality products, a common use of our aquatic resources and a competitive industry. Each of the elements of the action plan is in support of at least one of these themes.

[English]

I will just mention that we have provided the committee with a graph of the action plan so that it is, perhaps, easier to follow along with the individual elements.

The first element in the action plan is the Program for Sustainable Aquaculture, which Mr. Thompson has already mentioned.

[Translation]

Last August, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced the Sustainable Aquaculture Program, an investment of 75 million dollars over five years, that is, 15 million dollars per year on a continuing basis. This program covers three areas: first, science, research and development to which 32,5 million dollars a year will be allocated over five years; health will also receive 20 million dollars over five years, and thirdly, an improved management and regulation framework that requires an investment of 22,5 million dollars spread over five years. I will now explain each one of those three areas.

[English]

The science, research and development component of the action plan - $32.5 million over five years - has two thrusts. First, the department is investing $20 million over five years for the Aquaculture Collaborative Research and Development Pro gram, which we refer to as ACRDP. It will be administered by DFO and will provide funds for research and development projects that are proposed and jointly funded by private industry. ACRDP will allow DFO scientists to work closely with industry to develop new production technologies and to investigate the use of fish species not widely used for aquaculture, for example: sturgeon, haddock and halibut.

The second thrust to the science and research and development component of the program for sustainable aquaculture consists of a $13.5 million investment over five years aimed at increasing the department's capacity to address environmental and biological science concerns. This funding has now been allocated to regional science groups and is being used to support priority areas of research. Such areas include, near-field and far-field effects on fish farms on benthic habitat, as well as an assessment of accumulative impacts and the assimilative capacity in three coastal regions, including the Broughton Archipelago in British Columbia. This work is consistent with the Auditor General's report.

[Translation]

The second component of the program is human health whose aim is to enhance the Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program to guarantee the sanitation and the quality of fish and products, in order to give consumers and markets greater confidence in aquaculture.

[English]

In support of the Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program, CSSP, a $20-million investment over five years has been allocated between DFO, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Environment Canada. This funding will allow CFIA and Environment Canada to increase their capacity to monitor and classify shellfish growing areas and will allow DFO to better control access to harvesting areas through patrols and licensing.

The third program area is the Sustainable Aquaculture Program relates to an improved management and regulatory framework. This has three subparts. The first subpart is marine safety. We are investing $6.75 million over five years to enhance DFO's capacity to implement the Navigation Protection Program within the Canadian Coast Guard. That is intended to assess navigation issues related to aquaculture and to process applications for approvals under the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

The second subpart is habitat management. We are investing $7.5 million over five years to increase DFO's and Environment Canada's capacity to assess the effects of aquaculture on fish, fish habitat and migratory birds. This will also increase DFO's capacity to conduct environmental asses sments under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and to monitor the performance of aquaculture operators to better ensure compliance with DFO's regulatory responsibilities.

The third subpart is program and policy coherence. We are investing $7 million over five years to establish an office of sustainable aquaculture within DFO to provide increased integration and coherence to program and policy aquaculture activities across the department and to serve as the point of contact for stakeholders.

The second element of DFO's Aquaculture Action Plan is aimed at developing an enabling regulatory environment. This aspect of the action plan is aimed at refining processes and setting standards for decision making for both government and industry. Short-term work currently underway includes the following activities: Clarification of the environmental assessment process, as it applies to aquaculture and the development of a national guide outlining information requirements to assess the environmental effects of marine aquaculture - both finfish and shellfish.

We are also developing a national guidance document on the application of section 35 of the Fisheries Act to aquaculture - the item to which Mr. Thompson referred. We are also looking at further guidance materials on: section 36 of the Fisheries Act, the introduction and transfers for aquatic organisms, the application of fish management authorities, the application of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and, in particular, the length of time of duration of NWA approvals.

If necessary, these efforts will feed into the development of comprehensive legislative and regulatory amendments. We have made excellent progress on developing these guidelines and we expect to roll them out to industry and the provinces over the coming weeks.

The third element is an enabling policy environment, which goes hand in hand with an enabling regulatory environment.

[Translation]

The third component of our action plan concerns the creation of a favorable political environment enticing the establishment of certain conditions for the sustainable development of this industry in Canada. First, we are developing a framework to guide DFO and our employees so that they can apply the current policies to the aquaculture industry or develop new policies and new programs.

[English]

The next element in the action plan is a national aquatic animal health program. DFO is working collaboratively with industry and the provinces to scope such a program out with three major elements. First, strengthened legislation, regulations and programs for disease control and risk management; second, increased knowledge and infrastructure, to improve fish health, diagnostic methods and understanding of disease distribution; third, pro grams to respond to exotic and endemic diseases of concern. A program based on the strategy would bring greater certainty to the management of diseases of concern and would lessen their impact on farmed fish, with potential collateral benefits for wild fish.

The final action plan element is continued, constructive dialogue with the provinces and the territories through the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture ministers, which has established an aquaculture task group to harmonize processes such as site applications. We are making good progress on all aspects of this action plan.

Before concluding, I would like to turn to the Auditor General's report and briefly respond to its four main recommendations. With respect to better defining the application of sections 35 and 36 of the Fisheries Act to aquaculture operations, the activities I mentioned earlier, as part of the enabling regulatory environment aspect of our action plan, clearly address that issue. We are developing guidance materials, working on definitions and, we are doing work on the science side to buttress our obligations in that area.

Regarding the monitoring and enforcement of habitat, DFO has added three full-time equivalents to its existing resources in the Pacific region as part of the Program for Sustainable Aquaculture. In addition to its own monitoring efforts, DFO is working closely with the provincial ministries of agriculture, food and fisheries and environment, lands and parks, which are undertaking an intense assessment of fish farm effects on the benthic environment. These activities are consistent with the Auditor General's recommendation that we strengthen our monitoring capabilities and work with the Province of British Columbia in respect of salmon farming operations.

[Translation]

As I mentioned earlier, DFO has now important new resources for biological and environmental sciences and research priorities have been established. Generally speaking, these priorities are consistent with the comments made in the Auditor General's Report.

[English]

With respect to the Auditor General's observations regarding the Atlantic Salmon Watch Program, I am pleased to report that in the last fiscal year Atlantic salmon watch activities intensified with additional effort in active surveillance. This was supported by increased funding from the province and a significant contribution by industry, as well as an allocation from the department.

[Translation]

Finally, we believe that the new investments dedicated to aquaculture will give the Department the possibility of creating conditions that will allow this promising industry to compete globally. In addition, we believe that these new investments and DFO's action plan will position the Department to be able to better address the major concerns raised by the Auditor General and lay solid bases to increase public's confidence in the sustainability of that industry.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you. I am not familiar with the term "benthic habitat." Could you please explain?

Ms Forand: I will ask my colleague from the habitat branch, or his colleague, Ms Price, to give you the scientific background on that term.

Ms Iola Price, Director, Aquaculture Science Branch, Oceans and Aquaculture Science Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans: Benthos are the small animals and plants that live on the bottom of the sea. Benthic is the adjective that describes the benthos that live there. It indicates what is living on the bottom. Our studies in DFO with the provinces and the industry relate to the impact of material coming from salmon cages on the benthos, or the other aquatic organisms, living below the cages.

Senator Robertson: I thank both groups for appearing tonight. You have given us a significant amount of information to keep us busy for some time. This is the first opportunity I have had to read your opening statement Ms Forand. Is it your response to the Auditor General's comments about their audit on the West Coast? Do you consider your opening statement a response to that?

Ms Forand: It is, in part, a response to the Auditor General's statements. It is also, in part, a fulfilment of the objectives that we had established in our strategic plan. When the Auditor General's team were doing their work one year ago, we were, at the same time, developing the elements of a proposal for a sustainable aquaculture program. Happily, our views of what we needed to do and what investments we needed to make, converged nicely with the comments that the Auditor General provided. We welcomed the comments that the Auditor General provided in chapter 30, because they reflected the areas and elements that required a greater investment.

We were pleased to be able to put together a program and receive approval and funding to implement such a program. That enabled us, while we met and responded to the comments of the Auditor General, to achieve our two main objectives: To increase public confidence, which is very important in terms of the future of the aquaculture sector in Canada; and to ensure, while we did that, that we could increase the global competitiveness of our industry. In other words, we were able to ensure that aquaculture in Canada is no more expensive or difficult or burdensome than it is elsewhere in the world. In that way, our aquaculture producers would be able to compete. We had twin objectives and we believed that the components of this program nicely balance those two areas.

Senator Robertson: Mr. Thompson, does this statement give you comfort with your concerns expressed in the audit?

Mr. Thompson: Certainly, the work that has been outlined by Ms Forand addresses and will continue to address the issues raised in the chapter. Ms Forand and her colleagues know better than I that the devil is in the details and in the doing. Thus, we will want to monitor, as Parliament's external auditors, in the years ahead. In terms of the quantum of work, we are quite happy and satisfied with it.

Senator Robertson: I shall be more specific. Mr. Thompson, how did you arrive at the decision to do three audits, since 1997, of DFO's Pacific Salmon Management Plan?

Mr. Thompson: We have an office on the West Coast in Vancouver. The salmon industry is a rather large component of the fishing industry on the West Coast. As we looked at areas in our strategic planning some years ago and where we might be able to and should look on behalf of Parliament at key programs, we thought that the salmon industry on the West Coast was extremely important for us to audit. We decided to go at it a bit at a time, rather than trying to do too much at once. That is how we ended up looking at the salmon industry over three chapters.

Senator Robertson: Is it that you just have not had time? Or is there another reason why you have not done an audit on the East Coast?

Mr. Thompson: We did not think that we wanted to take on the whole of the country. We felt that would be somewhat unmanageable for something that seemed as tricky as aquaculture, and so we limited the scope to the West Coast and to the effect on wild salmon stocks. Perhaps our scope could have been broader, but we wanted to bite off chewable chunks, if you will, and to know that we could do the work we had planned.

Senator Robertson: My next question comes back to the ADM of DFO. If an auditor general's audit were done on the Bay of Fundy aquaculture, what do you think the AG would recommend and how would you respond? I know that is somewhat suppositional, but those of us from the East Coast have a particular interest, as well.

Ms Forand: I would hesitate to place myself in the mind of an auditor, personally. Yet I would hope that were they to look at the Bay of Fundy aquaculture operations in 2001, they would find that the level of cooperation between the province and the federal government has improved. They would also find that mechanisms have been put in place to coordinate the work that needs to be done - be it monitoring, disease control or site application reviews - and that it is being done in a consistent and professional manner, based on scientific evidence.

I believe that they would also find that the investments that we are making through the Program for Sustainable Aquaculture are enhancing our abilities to ensure that aquaculture sites do not impede navigation and that they do not pose a threat to the habitat. In particular, I believe that they would find that we are taking an "adaptive management approach." Where there is uncertainty with respect to impacts, particularly on habitat, we are putting in place monitoring and surveillance protocols so that the industry, the province and the federal government together can monitor on a continuous basis. In that way, they can agree ahead of time on the triggers that signal the need for taking action, should issues of concern emerge, and what that action will be.

I am, perhaps, overly optimistic, but I would hope that the Auditor General would find some positive things to say about how the aquaculture industry is being managed in the Bay of Fundy.

Senator Robertson: What is your view on whether the ecosystem can support more farming in the Bay of Fundy and, more importantly, how do you know that?

Ms Forand: We continue to do studies in that area. Some of the money from the Program for Sustainable Aquaculture will go to science work that is being done by the department on assimilative capacity and other considerations in the Bay of Fundy. The Province of New Brunswick has instituted this year, a new Bay Management Plan for Aquaculture. That has a number of objectives. Among other things, they are seeking to go to a single-year class system whereby they would have odd-year classes in one bay, and even-year classes in another. They are thus attempting to spread more equitably, perhaps, the location of fish farms.

As well, we are working with the province and will begin some work as early as this summer to look at other opportunities for fish farming outside of those areas that are already being used. There is no question that at some point, you do reach a limit. We do not believe that we have reached that limit yet, but we would like to look at other opportunities for farming locations. There is no question; there is a limit to how far we can go. We are not at that limit, but we continue to monitor closely in terms of the impacts.

Senator Robertson: I have questions about the accuracy of the science. We are always told that the scientific work is being done and about the number of fish down there. Suddenly, we have no fish down there. However, I shall leave that for the next round of questions.

Senator Chalifoux: My first question relates to the relationship between your department and the Province of British Columbia. Is it a good relationship? What is happening in that relationship?

Ms Forand: Our relationship with the Province of British Columbia in respect aquaculture has been very positive, particularly in the last year or two. Before that, the relationship went through some difficult periods on an entire range of issues. With respect to aquaculture, the province introduced a new policy in the fall of 1999. The policy expressed an objective of doubling the amount of shellfish farming along the coast. It also introduced some mechanisms to enable salmon farms that were poorly sited to be relocated, or salmon farms that wished to use ground-breaking technology to receive authorization.

Since then, to enable them to do that, we have worked closely with them on the site approval process. There are a number of committees that we have worked on together, as is the case in New Brunswick. In particular, what we are trying to do is to harmonize our requirements for monitoring and for information as part of the site application process, as well as ongoing monitoring. That does not mean subsuming what we need in terms of what the province needs, but rather, putting everything we need on the table. In that way, as the federal government we can properly regulate and monitor this industry, and advise of the specific information that we need and when we need it. The province similarly responds that they are responsible for site leasing and that they need their specific information from the proponent, and when they need it. All of that can be put it into one process, as much as possible, in an attempt to be more responsive to the needs of the applicants and other people who have concerns with respect to those applications.

Senator Chalifoux: According to the Auditor General's report, British Columbia accounts for nearly 70 per cent of Canada's fish production. There are 17 salmon farming companies in the province that are operating 105 farms. My question is this: Why did the fisheries department import Atlantic salmon into the Pacific Ocean?

Ms Forand: That decision was made some time ago. I would, perhaps, turn to my colleague, Ms Price from science, if she has any comments on the differences between Atlantic and Pacific salmon, and why that species was chosen. My understanding is that, initially, it was chosen because it was a species for which farming methods were known.

Atlantic salmon had a reputation of possibly growing faster and being a sounder product in terms of marketing. There had been efforts made as long ago as early this century to implant Atlantic salmon in Pacific waters, which had not taken. The Atlantic salmon had not survived. I would expect that they considered that the risk of hybridization was minimal, as a result of those experiences.

My understanding is that at the time there was not much known about farming methods for Pacific salmon because much of the research had been done on Atlantic salmon. Thus, it was a more attractive species. I must say the farms in B.C. are not exclusively Atlantic salmon. There is a significant amount of Pacific chinook salmon that is also being farmed. I would ask Ms Price to add to that.

Ms Price: I was not a member of the department when the decision was made but I have done some reading on the subject. The State of Washington had introduced Atlantic salmon for aquaculture two years earlier. There was an issue related to the competitiveness of the Canadian industry vis-à-vis the American industry. Atlantic salmon, one could see, was becoming the worldwide industry standard. That was the species that was most preferred by consumers worldwide. The industry told the department that the Atlantinc salmon would have the greatest market acceptance.

As Ms Forand said, there was a great deal of information available on the Atlantic salmon culture technology. Interestingly enough, most of it or at least much of it, was generated by our own department for Atlantic salmon enhancement on the East Coast. Pacific salmon - chinook and cohoe - are grown now. The per cent of the B.C. cultured salmon market has declined somewhat, but there is a 15 per cent market share being grown in the province. The Atlantic salmon is more docile in captivity. It adapts more readily to captive conditions, grows faster and, as I said before, has a greater level of market acceptance.

Senator Chalifoux: I have great concerns about the mixing of species such as that because it can cause illness and other issues that are not present now. I have grave concerns about the genetics.

Ms Forand, you talked about scientific research. The Nisga'a have made an agreement and part of that concerns the salmon run going into the land. They have a partnership with your department. As you spoke about science and scientists, I did not hear you speak about the expertise of the Aboriginal people, who have been fishing for thousands of years and know the habitats well. Are you working with Aboriginal communities in B.C. to establish good working relationships? Our people have lost many kinds of jobs, and they are really suffering; and yet their expertise is not even considered.

Ms Forand: I will answer generally and then ask my colleague, Ms Price, to add from a science perspective.

When we talk about investments in science, research and development, and particularly when we talk about the science that DFO performs in its departmental capacity, we, as a matter of policy, consider the value of local and traditional knowledge as part of that. We do not always have as many mechanisms to take advantage of that traditional knowledge as we should, but that is something that we recognize and are working to improve.

With respect to relationships with First Nations in B.C. and in the case of the Nisga'a and other First Nations with whom we have agreements, efforts are made to incorporate the traditional and local knowledge that they can bring to the relationship. That would be just as true with respect to research and environmental science in fish habitat and other areas of concern to the aquaculture sector.

Ms Price: I am not sure that I can add to what Ms Forand said. However, the department is in the business of discussing and conversing with all the native groups across Canada, and we make use of environmental knowledge.

We are encouraging Aboriginals from across Canada to take advantage, on their terms, of aquaculture opportunities in locations that are suitable to them and with species that are, perhaps, locally available and easily cultivated. It is my understanding that there is a great deal of interest in shellfish culture by First Nations in British Columbia. We are encouraging local groups and bands to get involved in the aquaculture industry, if they so choose. The decision must be theirs or yours.

Senator Chalifoux: Are they being paid the same as your scientists, because their work is just as valuable? Are they receiving monetary value for their expertise?

Ms Forand: I do not have the details on that, senator, but I am sure that we can obtain the information available on the arrangements with First Nations in B.C. and elsewhere. Generally speaking, the arrangements that we have involve agreements that encompass a wide range of activities - monitoring, scientific work, collection of data, et cetera.

There is usually, in my experience, a grant or a contribution- style arrangement between the First Nations and the department in terms of the information that is to be collected and the work that is to be done. Generally speaking, the people who actually do the work are being paid by the First Nations based on the grants and contributions that they receive from us.

We will provide more information to you in terms of our relationship with First Nations and the use of traditional and local knowledge.

Senator Chalifoux: I would appreciate that. I asked that question because, for many years, researchers and scientists have come to our communities, talked to us and then returned home to work on their theses. Many received their BAs, MAs and more on the backs of our people. That is why it is time that some of our people receive some benefit from the traditional knowledge that they pass along.

Senator Cook: I would like to address your Aquaculture Action Plan. I was excited when I read about it because it covers many of my concerns, especially fish health. Until I reached the bottom of it where it states that you work with the federal and provincial governments, because there is a shared jurisdiction of this industry. I wonder how much bite there is to your plan, given that there are two players in the field?

Also, could you help me to understand the structure and some of the implications of the industry, because a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I listened to Mr. Rideout, who is the Executive Director of the Canadian Aquaculture Alliance. Where does he fit into the structure? Who is responsible for this new and exciting industry? Who is responsible for the implications that are still unknown, especially in the area of fish health? Could you help me to understand those points?

Ms Forand: I will do my best to briefly describe the jurisdictional issues that enter into the question of the management of aquaculture. There is no question that the Canadian Constitution is not overly helpful in that regard. The drafters of the Constitution did not have aquaculture in mind when they separated out the heads of power between the provinces and the federal government. However, in the application of it, although the lawyers are unprepared to draw fine lines, we find good, solid ways to work with the provinces and with the industry.

I would seek to reassure you on the question of "bite," for example. If we are working happily together, is there any bite? In fact, our areas of jurisdiction are quite clear. For example, the federal government, through DFO, is responsible for safe navigation through the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the protection of fish stock and habitat through the Fisheries Act. Under those pieces of legislation, we have explicit and clear responsibilities and obligations in terms of the protection of those areas. Take, for example, an aquaculturist who seeks to obtain a water lease, the provinces are responsible for the issuance. They issue the lease, because they have the authority everywhere except Prince Edward Island, where the federal government has the authority on behalf of the province of Prince Edward Island. That power has been assumed at Prince Edward Island's request.

Even though the province can perhaps issue a lease, they cannot issue a fish habitat permit and they cannot issue a navigable waters protection permit. Both of those are triggers for an environment aassessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. When a proponent comes forward for an application for an aquaculture site, they have to go to the province to submit their aquaculture application. The province immediately contacts DFO and seeks the opinions of DFO: Will this have any impact on fish habitat and if so what mitigating measures will have to be taken? Will it have any impact on navigation? If so, you will have to issue a permit and an environmental assessment must be done. That is how we work together to ensure these processes happen at the same time. That is preferable to the proponent having to wait, perhaps, four months to receive all the approvals from the province, and then start another four months to receive all the approvals from the federal government. We try to do them together.

Our areas of approval are distinct. We definitely have full jurisdiction and control over the assessment of damage to fish habitat and the assessment of any impairment to navigation. It is quite clear. Each of us has our own role. Harmonization is one of the objectives under the action plan. Our objective is to ensure that it is clear who is responsible for what, to make sure that the proponents understand who is responsible for what, and, as much as possible, harmonize our processes so that we can work concurrently and be as efficient as possible for the proponent.

Senator Cook: Where does the Canadian Aquaculture Alliance fit into this equation?

Ms Forand: They are an industry organization. You could call them a representative organization, a lobbying organization or a policy organization for the industry. The way in which they have traditionally been organized is that they are almost a federation of provincial associations - New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, B.C., et cetera. They pool money to form this association so that they can speak with one voice whenever they can. Thus, they can come together with an industry view.

We appreciate the fact that we have an interlocutor such as Mr. Rideout. We are able to speak through him to the whole industry. Mr. Rideout can consult with his members and come back to us. However, he is an industry representative, and he does not represent all the interests that we have to take into account. He represents the aquaculture industry in Canada. That industry is becoming increasingly interested in working cooperatively with us. That work includes codes of conduct; for example, bringing the industry together and seeking a consensus at the industry level in terms of their needs from a code of conduct. We then come to the table and let them know what we need in terms of assurances, monitoring and other considerations from a code of conduct. Perhaps we can reach agreement, and then it becomes a shared initiative.

Senator Cook: Would you say then, that this is a shared jurisdiction with dialogue from the provinces and the alliance that has been identified, but essentially the buck stops at DFO?

Ms Forand: The buck stops at DFO, particularly with respect to the protection of fish stocks, fish habitat and navigational safety.

Senator Cook: What about the fish health?

Ms Forand: Fish health, as well.

Senator Adams: Mr. Thompson, since we have had salmon fishing and salmon farming there have been problems, especially on the B.C. Coast. There has been fighting over the fish and two or three years ago they had to stop salmon fishing, because of the fighting between the Americans and the Canadian fishermen. How is that working now? Is it working better for the fishermen? I remember especially hearing some Aboriginal witnesses who came before the committee. They had to stop fishing, because the fish were gone. How does the system work now? Is it working better for the fishermen? Are the unions now satisfied? Are they getting their money? How is that working now?

Mr. Thompson: I can offer a comment or two, and perhaps my colleague Ms Forand may want to chip in as well. It seems to me that there are certainly a number of points of view being expressed on the issue of salmon farming on the West Coast. There are those who think that there are serious problems with it. There are others who say that there may be problems, but there are incredible opportunities there as well.

I would say that there is a constructive tension going on in relation to concern about aquaculture - in particular salmon farming - on the West Coast.

Out of that tension can come a great deal of good. There has been a strong focus, as we have seen, on the work that we have done on salmon farming on the West Coast. That focus is encouraging the department to undertake research in areas that will allow it to become, perhaps, a more effective regulator. That is a good thing. There is an incredible window of opportunity to get it right.

There also seems to be a willingness on the part of the department and, hopefully, other players to get it right. However, as I mentioned earlier in response to an earlier question, it seems to us that the devil is in the detail and in the doing. We - the department and the external auditors - will all have to see how the work that is being planned and now being carried out by the department, actually addresses the concerns that we raise in the chapter. In fact, these are many of the concerns that you referred to in your question.

We are cautiously optimistic - as optimistic as auditors ever get to be in this world - that the planets are in the right orbit to address the issues we raise. Now we want to see how the work that is being planned addresses those issues. I might suggest that this committee can play quite a role in encouraging a proper resolution of these issues.

Any department - and DFO is no exception - has a finite number of resources and a certain time frame in which to do its work. I think the department would react to areas where there is political will and interest on the part of Parliamentians to address specific issues. This committee can actually "hold the department's feet to the fire" to be sure that the work that they plan actually is carried out and that the issues that this committee has been expressing, are properly addressed.

Senator Adams: You mention that there are 17 aquacultures operating with 105 farms. There were quotas in place before the farming. Now there are the salmon farmers. The people are fishing and they have quotas to fulfill every year. How is this quota system working for the fishing of salmon?

Mr. Thompson: I am not really familiar with the movement in terms of stocks, quotas and that sort of thing. If I may suggest, I ask Ms Forand to respond to that question. One point I would perhaps clarify is that, as we understand it, there have been no new salmon farms on the West Coast since the mortarium was put in place. In fact, there has been more volume of salmon, but that is from an existing quantum of salmon farms. There have not been any new farms introduced.

Ms Forand: While DFO supports the sustainable development of aquaculture in Canada, including salmon aquaculture in B.C., we do not see it, in any way, as a replacement for the wild fishery. In fact, we continue to manage wild stocks in and of themselves for their own sake. We do not see any tradeoffs between wild stocks and farmed fish. There are locations that are optimal for fish farming, and there are people who are well suited to fish farming. There are investments that deserve to be made in fish farming.

Similarly, there are wild stocks to protect. In fact, the department issued a paper last year called a "Draft Wild Salmon Policy for B.C.," in particular for Pacific salmon. That paper sets out the way in which we would seek to manage wild salmon to protect the biodiversity of salmon on the West Coast and to protect those stocks that are important - both for their own sake and for the commercial or recreational First Nations and other fisheries. We see them very much as not mutually exclusive and not incompatible. Definitely, we need to do our own work on the wild salmon and consider the aquaculture industry as another industry and a viable one for B.C.

Senator Adams: Have you heard if there is a viable fish or salmon hatchery in B.C.?

Ms Forand: There are salmon hatcheries in B.C. The Draft Wild Salmon Policy talked about the considerations to be given to hatchery and enhanced salmon, as opposed to what we would call "wild stocks," which would be those that could be traced back, I believe the policy says, two generations, in terms of stream spawning. There is still some hatchery activity that goes on in B.C. We can obtain more information about that if you would like, senator.

Senator Adams: I was in Victoria, B.C. and after that I went to Washington state to see a large salmon hatchery. They said that most of what we grow here goes down there. They are concerned about that. As soon as the fish go in the sea, it does not matter whose fish it is, it will go wherever it wants, even to the States.

Senator Watt: First, I would like to elaborate on the fact that in my area, which is called Nunavik, we had an abundance of Atlantic salmon at one time, when I was a youngster. That salmon is no longer there in the same numbers that it once was. I remember trying to carry a salmon, but the salmon was bigger than I was. I probably was about nine years old at that time.

We do have three major salmon rivers, but those rivers have depleted over time to the point where the stock are becoming unrecognizable, whether they are Atlantic salmon or a mixture of Atlantic salmon with the landlocked salmon. That is an unknown factor. Fisheries and Oceans should take some time to develop programs to see what is happening, how we can improve the stock and how we can bring back the stock.

Mr. Thompson, if I understood your presentation, you point out that DFO should be more alert in terms of what is happening not only to the habitat area, but to the regional stock - which is the wild stock. You emphasize here that they have declined substantially.

You also mentioned that there are 17 salmon farming companies that exist now. They also increase the farming.

Is there an environmental assessment that takes place before deciding where the location will be? Is there a proper assessment that accounts for any impacts that might be had adjacent to that particular site? I think that we must be concerned about the health of the wild stock, but also the health of human beings.

If we are not really on top of it, we may find that we are ruining the natural stocks and we are also endangering ourselves. That worries me.

Mr. Thompson: My understanding of how the system works might provide some relief to your concerns, senator. As I understand it, if there is going to be an expansion of the farming industry on the West Coast, it will trigger an environmental assessment. If there were a significant increase, I would suspect that there would be a rigorous environmental assessment. That is built into the process and legislation. If done properly, that should address the issues about which you are concerned.

In terms of the salmon farms that exist now, there was an environmental assessment done by the province. This is this SAR that was done in 1997 that we refer to in the chapter. That has been relied upon since that time for the department to look at salmon farming on the West Coast and say that that is a low risk activity. We are pointing out in the chapter that in relation to the existing salmon farms, the basis for assessing that as low risk, perhaps, is not as proper today as it was three or four years ago. The production from existing salmon farms has increased significantly.

Some of the assumptions underlying the SAR 1997 appear not to be so. Specifically, we now understand that escaped Atlantic fish from farms can reproduce in Canadian waters. That was not thought to be the case when the SAR was done. It now seems to be the case.

Ms Forand: As Mr. Thompson indicated, any application for a farming site must be assessed whether it is a shellfish farm or a salmon farm. As he mentioned there is still a moratorium on new salmon sites in B.C. Each application would require an assessment under the Fisheries Act as to the potential to create habitat damage. Almost any installation that you set up for fish farming does represent a possible risk to navigation and so requires a permit under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and thereby requires an environmental assessment. Each assessment must determine not only the impact of the site for which the application is being put forward, but also the cumulative impact of that site in addition to the other sites as well as socio-economic impacts.

It is not only DFO concerns that are taken into account when an environment assessment is triggered. We look at other things like migratory birds and other impacts on the environment and the socio-economic environment as well as the natural environment. I believe that we can reassure you to the extent that environmental assessment is part of approval processes with respect to salmon farms.

I would add regarding the question of whether we are relying on the 1997 environmental assessment for our decisions these days. As I set out through the program for sustainable aquaculture and other investments, we are spending over $1 million a year on additional science, research and investigations with respect to the impacts of aquaculture on the environment, fish habitat, and fish diseases. We are increasing our knowledge with respect to the cumulative and solitary impacts of farms.

Senator Watt: It is beyond my wildest imagination that they did not think that the fish would reproduce when they began to talk about whether they could reproduce the fish or not. We all reproduce. I will not get into that.

Is it possible, then, that we are witnessing in Northern Quebec the kind of salmon that are not familiar to us. They are not ordinary salmon to which we are accustomed. Is there a possibility that this could be coming from the reproduction of those farm fish that have managed to mix themselves with the wild stock.

Ms Forand: Mr. Chairman, I will attempt to answer and perhaps ask my colleague Ms Price if she has anything to add. The situation of wild Atlantic salmon in Canada, Greenland, Iceland and Europe is the subject of a great amount of concern and significant study. There is no question that the returns of wild Atlantic salmon have been declining precipitously since the mid-1980s. They continue to go down. People do not think they cannot go down further, and they go down further still.

There has been a tremendous amount of attention and care paid to Atlantic salmon to the extent that there is no longer any commercial fishery for our wild Atlantic salmon anywhere in Canada. The recreational fisheries are tightly controlled. It is mostly catch and release. Still, the numbers decline. It is obviously not harvesting that is contributing to this decline.

The scientists have looked at this problem. It seems to be a question of ocean survival but they do not know at what point in the ocean survival - is it close to shore, far away from shore? These are fish that range extensively in the course of their lives.

In terms of whether you are noticing changes in the salmon and whether that is related to farming in any way, I am not aware of any research on genetic changes to wild Atlantic salmon. I could perhaps hope to reassure you by saying that with respect to Atlantic salmon farming on the East Coast of Canada, we do have a rule to the effect that only local strains of fish are allowed to be farmed in any given area. In other words, we do not introduce new kinds of Atlantic salmon into areas where those salmon have not been before in an attempt to preserve the genetic integrity of the local stocks.

Senator Watt: Is there a proper monitoring system in place?

Ms Forand: Yes, very much. My colleague Ms Price could give you more information on that in terms of introduction of stocks.

Ms Price: I am not aware of any movements of escaped farm salmon up into the Nunavik area. I am somewhat familiar with Ouananiche, in that I grew up in Northern Ontario. Ouananiche are landlocked Atlantic salmon - landlocked because of changes in the earth's environment. The land lifted after the glaciers retreated and these salmon were not able to get back to the sea. They adapted to life in freshwater. There are kokanee salmon in British Columbia that are somewhat landlocked forms of Pacific salmon. They do not choose to go to sea.

I am not aware that Atlantic salmon have been moving into areas where they are not traditionally found. It would be useful to see specimens. We could then ask people in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to inspect them and find out where they came from. Would it be possible to get any specimens, even scales or some part of the fish that you see in the rivers where you have never seen them before?

Senator Watt: I want to make a comment on the fact that there might be some lack of scientific information. The traditional knowledge and the scientific information go together. I want to ensure that they do not try to separate the two. All the scientific groups with which I have ever dealt talk to some of the people who have common sense when they want further knowledge. Those are the types of people who have traditional knowledge. These people can provide good traditional knowledge; they have the knowledge, by listening, by not talking.

You pointed out that the DFO might not necessarily be meeting its obligations under the Fisheries Act. Do you wish to elaborate on that, or have you already done so? I do not want to take up too much of the committee's time.

The Chairman: We might get to that on a second round, if you do not mind.

Before we go to the second round, I do want to bootleg a few questions that I had at this point. I would like to get a feel for what I would call the degree of acceptable risk that is involved in the farming of fish. I will not refer at this point to shellfish, but to finfish.

I would like to know whether you were able to establish the yardstick. Nothing can ever be 100 per cent risk-free. We all know that. At the 1999 annual meeting of the Aquaculture Association of Canada, the minister referred to the use of the precautionary approach and sustainability to the implementation of the aquaculture program. The precautionary process, as you know, is to err on the side of caution. The commissioner of aquaculture referred to the precautionary approach as a buzzword that is useless in the real world. He referred to that at an aquaculture development conference.

I am trying to assess whether you, as the Auditor General, were able to get a feel for the department's yardstick on this. Have you been able to determine what the precautionary approach is? If so, is it being used?

Mr. Thompson: To put it simply, we found at the time of doing the work, that we did not think that the department had the tools to allow it to engage in a meaningful risk-based approach. Specifically, it had not yet had an opportunity to flesh out meaningful criteria for what constitutes harmful alteration, disruption and destruction of fish habitat that resulted from salmon farming on the West Coast. That is section 35 of the Fisheries Act.

In addition, the department had not developed regulations and criteria for when deleterious substances are a problem and when they are not. That is section 36 of the Fisheries Act.

In our judgment, there was more work needed in relation to establishing, together with the province, consistent and credible siting criteria for fish farms - particularly if the number of fish farms will be expanded.

My last point is regarding this environmental assessment in which all of us who have been part of this process will be putting a significant amount of faith. To ensure that sound environmental assessments are done, it seemed that there was a need to address these first two or three shortfalls at the time. Hence, when you do an environmental assessment or an accumulative environmental assessment you can be looking at a consistent and credible way at what is harmful alteration, disruption and destruction of fish habitat, and when is the deposit of deleterious substances a problem or not.

In summary, we thought that the department did not have the tools to be able to engage in an adequate risk-based approach to the review of salmon farming on the West Coast.

The Chairman: You were saying that it did not have the tools at that time. Are you satisfied that it does have the risk-based management tools at its disposal now?

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, at the time of finishing the audit we felt that it did not. Ms Forand and her colleagues have spoken about the work that is now underway to put in place, as I understand it, the tools to do that job. We have not done any audit work since then, so I cannot comment on that.

The Chairman: I will not place you in the position where you should.

I have one other question on this area. One of the cornerstones of the DFO action plan is to increase industry's global competitiveness. That worries me somewhat in that if we are to be globally competitive, we do have to produce finfish that are comparable to industry-produced finfish in such areas as Chile, Norway, Sweden and elsewhere. I am not familiar with the yardstick that these countries use to produce a competitive finfish.

Obviously, if we are to be competitive, we may be tempted to use shortcuts that might harm the habitat and environment. These methods have been historically rejected in Canada. Obviously, the bottom line is price.

Even though we do want to see our aquaculture industry grow and prosper, are we setting an objective that we may not wish to attain, as the Canadian public? Is this something that you are examining?

Mr. Thompson: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that Ms Forand might respond to that.

Ms Forand: When we talk about our objectives in DFO for aquaculture, we always link the two objectives: increasing public confidence and increasing global competitiveness. Your question is well put in terms of at what cost would we increase global competitiveness.

We firmly believe that if we can demonstrate that the Canadian aquaculture industry produces products in a sustainable fashion with minimal impact on the environment, that that will translate into a competitive advantage.

The kind of compact that we want to have with the industry and provinces is to work together to reduce the unnecessary regulatory burden. Let us be as efficient as we can. Let us not keep people waiting 10 months for an approval if there is no need to because we do not have enough people to do the work. Let us ensure that we streamline processes and do things as efficiently as possible. Let us also be committed to the need to demonstrate that these products have been developed and farmed in a sustainable way.

We believe that in the current marketplace, looking at things like eco-labelling and other concerns that consumers have all over the world, we can translate that care into a competitive advantage and a price lever for our industry. We believe that we have their support.

The Chairman: I understand that Alaska, which does not produce aquaculture fish, markets their wild fish salmon as being eco-friendly. They use a special word. I believe that they call it "organic fish." It is a good marketing ploy on their behalf.

I do appreciate the fact that this has been considered as a cornerstone of your global action plan.

The Auditor General referred to sections 35 and 36 of the Fisheries Act in his concerns that the department was basing future expansion on 1997 provincial data. Of course, we are referring to B.C. Since that time, there were some additions to the sites and so on. In fact, the provincial government will be lifting this moratorium quite soon. It could be sooner than we all think, depending on the results of the election.

I am worried about what the auditor pointed out here - that we may not be ready. Your management plan may not be quite ready. If the moratorium is lifted, we may approve sites too quickly and we may live to regret it. It comes back to that confidence factor that has been expressed by many individuals appearing before this committee, which have been well meaning and sincere. Are we ready for the lifting of this moratorium?

Ms Forand: Following upon the recommendations and observations contained in the Auditor General's report, as well as in our own observations with respect to our needs as a department vis-à-vis the aquaculture industry, we have begun working on the three elements that Mr. Thompson mentioned most recently. With respect to what would be the criteria for determining that harmful alteration or disruption of fish habitat has occurred, we are working on those criteria as we speak.

We expect to have drafts available for discussion within weeks. We expect that, unless the B.C. government lifts its moratorium next week, we would be ready with criteria in that regard. This criteria would be accepted across the department and applied consistently across the country.

With respect to the criteria for the deposition of deleterious substances, it is Environment Canada that administers the deleterious substances provision, section 36. That work will take more time. However, we have begun that work in terms of identifying the deleterious substances and the levels that might be acceptable. It will take a significant amount of work, but that work has been initiated and will be completed over the coming months. We will also be working with the province in terms of siting criteria before any moratorium is lifted, because that is something that they will have concerns about - as much as we do.

To reassure the committee in terms of the way in which these issues have been approached in the past, you may consider a broad statistic. Over the last 10 years or so in Canada, in terms of shell fish siting applications and finfish siting applications outside of B.C., I have been told that the department has rejected 500 such applications over the last 10 years. That is to say, a site application does not result in a rubber stamp approval. There is a rigorous process that is undergone.

As I mentioned earlier, as we are increasing our monitoring, we have more resources to do that. We are working with the provinces and industry to do that. This refers to your question, Mr. Chairman, about a precautionary approach. That is what we mean by the adaptive management approach. If the likelihood of damage is great and the uncertainty is great, we will take a very cautious approach. However, where the likelihood of damage does not seem so great, there might be a possibility of approving a site. It is not a huge possibility as far as we know, but if there is uncertainty we will put in place what I have referred to as an adaptive management approach. We will monitor more stringent ly, look for more information, and seek to eliminate that uncertainty as much as we can as we go forward in partnership with the province and with the proponent.

I will say on their behalf that we have found that the industry representatives with whom we have been working who are seeking to set up new sites or expand their sites have been cooperative in terms of taking on their share of responsibility for this monitoring and surveillance. They appreciate that it is important to them and to their product that they be able to demonstrate that it is safely and cleanly produced.

The Chairman: I have one final question on this subject.

The Auditor General, on a number of occasions, raised concern that there was not enough funding for research. I am not speaking about development research for products, I am speaking about the real science to ensure that we are making the right decisions. I just looked at the numbers. As I understand it, there is something like $13.5 million over five years planned for research work. If I divide that by the five it comes down to $2.7 million a year. If I divide that squarely on two coasts, one east and west - and I am not sure if it is divided that squarely - it comes down to $1.35 million per year.

Based on the kinds of concerns that have been expressed to this committee over the course of the past year, I am hesitant to accept that $1.35 million per year can do the work that I think has been presented to us as being required. I am deeply concerned about that figure, the $1.35 million. Would you comment, please?

Ms Forand: I would start by saying that in terms of the program for sustainable aquaculture, your math was correct. In terms of DFO science, $2.5 million a year is variously distributed throughout the regions depending on their involvement in aquaculture. For example, the Pacific region gets approximately $350,000 of that amount per year. The Maritimes gets $470,000. Newfoundland gets some, et cetera. That is the science portion, but there is also $1.25 million that is habitat. There is some habitat work, of course, that while it is not specific science work, it also contributes to the objectives that we are seeking to achieve.

The main point is that this is incremental funding. This is additional funding. We have other research that is being done as part of our regular programming that we already had in place. In addition, we have strategic funds both for environmental science and biological science that are being used to do special initiatives that have been identified.

The other point that I would make is that Fisheries and Oceans is not alone in the aquaculture science business and in the fisheries science business. There is a consortium of universities that have been brought together under the heading of "Aqua Net," which is operated out of Memorial University. They are doing a number of activities. In fact, we can provide the committee with a Web site page that lists all the research projects that have been approved with funding.

There is a significant amount of funding there, too. There is an entire range of research that is being done. We have also been talking to researchers who are seeking to involve us as partners through university chairs' initiatives and centres of excellence.

You are correct to say that it is $2.35 million per year for DFO science, but I would caution you that that it is incremental funding in addition to what we are already doing.

The Chairman: I would like it if you would pass on that Web site to us so that we can have it as part of our own information.

Senator Robertson: I go back a few years. We have had scientists from the department come and talk about the size of cod in that particular year relative to the size of cod a few years before at a certain age. It was noted that the size had diminished.

We have had discussions about the disappearance of the salmon and the disappearance of ground fish. I do not think that there is time to discuss all these areas but it may be helpful to the committee to have the scientific branch of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans explain to us how their research is done and what they are finding.

I am sure that the research continues to improve each year. Mr. Thompson suggests in his document that farmed Atlantic salmon are present in B.C. streams at all life stages. Reviewing that, a question automatically rises: How did you determine that? One has a vision of someone sitting on the bank of every stream with a fishing net. You never know. I would like to know how that is done, how you do that.

We get all this information. That is why I like the science people, because they can sort out what is right and what is wrong. We heard a witness last night talk about the issue of the deposit of a deleterious substance and the effects on the fish and the habitat. Last evening, the Canadian aquatic aquaculture industry claimed that uneaten fish food dropping to the bottom is not a problem. Our witness claimed that all the food is eaten. Is that true? How do you know if all the food is eaten?

I come from a farm background, and I do not think that I would know if the animals ate all their food or not. Obviously, there is a significant amount of science going on out there that we do not know about.

Perhaps there is not time this evening to examine that, but I would like to have some of the scientific people come as witnesses.

The Chairman: That is noted. I have asked the clerk to note it. There will be an invitation sent out.

Senator Robertson: Mr. Thompson, answer my "how" question, if you would?

Mr. Thompson: I would impose on my colleague, Mr. Sokolowski, who worked on the audit, to perhaps add a comment or two if that would be acceptable.

Mr. John Sokolowski, Senior Auditor, Audit Operations Branch, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: The presence of farmed Atlantic salmon and their life stages is information that has been gathered by commercial fishermen and sports fishermen. The data is collected and forwarded to the provinces and to DFO's Atlantic salmon watch program. Within that program, they also do surveys of the juvenile Atlantic salmon, which were offspring of the original escaped salmon. They found those in over 79 rivers and streams. That is the information that is the basis of our comment.

Senator Watt: I wish to return to item 6 in presentation. I have read it over again. Is there anything else other than what you have already highlighted in your presentation that you feel that the committee should do? There is a lot of good information here upon which we can draw. Is there anything else?

Mr. Thompson: I think that we have covered, through the opening statement and our discussion this evening, the issues that are of concern to us. In terms of what the committee might do, it might reflect on what we chatted about earlier. There is a need in a busy bureaucracy and a busy government with a lot of priorities and a limited number of resources to have support - particularly political support for doing important things.

Although we have only looked at the salmon farming on the West Coast, the regulation of aquaculture is an important thing. I think that this committee could do a service to Canadians in holding the department's attention - to holding its feet to the fire, if I might be so crude. It should be ensured that the work that is planned is carried out and that the department addresses the issues that concern this committee, the department and all the stakeholders.

Senator Watt: Is it true that due to the lack of funds, Fisheries and Oceans becomes slack in some of its responsibilities? Is that something that we should consider when the report is being finalized?

Ms Forand: The question of research with respect to aquaculture as well as research with respect to other stocks and habitat in the Arctic is expensive. It is difficult. It has its own challenges.

Senator Watt: Beluga, for example.

Ms Forand: There are any number of examples - turbot, halibut. Our department is anxious to do the comprehensive and complete job that it needs to do in the Arctic. We are seeking sources of funding, I can assure this committee, high and low. We are working with other departments, governments and countries through the circumpolar work. We are conscious of the need for more research in the Arctic. We continue to put as many of our resources as we can in that area and to seek additional sources of funding to increase that.

I do not think that we would like to characterize our approach as being slack. We are trying to do as much as we can with the resources we have and we are actively looking for additional resources to increase our coverage in the North.

Senator Cook: Is the implementation of your program for sustainable aquaculture - your $75-million package - done with your current staff? Was there a need to add additional staff?

I have another short question. Where is it housed? Who is doing it?

Ms Forand: We have implemented that program with some existing staff and some new staff.

In terms of where it is being done and by whom, it is being done across the country. The bulk of resources from this program - both funding and salary dollars - have gone to regional offices. We have distributed this funding from Newfoundland to Victoria relevant to where the needs really were. In terms of numbers of people, I have I would say about 75 extra people have been added to the department to put this program in place.

Senator Cook: I am a Newfoundlander so I am somewhat familiar with what Memorial University is doing with its Aqua Net program. Under the umbrella of the centres for excellence who are doing work, particularly as it relates to your department, where does the research end up that Aqua Net will do? Is it shared with you? Do you have a call on it or does it go back through the centre of excellence? Where does it end up so that it goes back to where it is needed?

Ms Forand: I will attempt an initial answer to that and then ask my colleague, Ms Price, as a representative of the science centre if she has more to say.

We are greatly involved in the Aqua Net initiative and in other initiatives. We got together with the people who were organizing Aqua Net late last year in December. We have the ACRDP - the Aquaculture Collaborative Research Development Program - also as a partnering program. We have the centres of excellence. The National Research Council does work in this area. There are granting councils are doing work in this area.

We held a workshop in January for all of these funding groups to get together. We wanted to put on the table what our programs are because we want the work to be useful across the board. We do not want to be paying twice for the same thing. We do not want overlap and duplication. As well, we want to have access to the results of this work and want to ensure that it is broadly shared. Also, it has become a bit of a buzzword to partner with industry and have matching programs. We do not want these programs to fail because we are all going out looking for matching funds from an industry that, while it is quite promising and delivering a bit, there are many small operators who do not have the funding to match government investment in these areas. We wanted to ensure that all this was being done not in a massively coordinated way, but at least so that all those involved had the information in terms of what was being done.

It was a useful workshop. We will follow that up with a workshop with industry and the provinces to get them involved as well.

That is a long way of answering your question, senator, to say that we are involved with them. The information that will come from their research will be broadly available to the scientific community. We are planning along with them to ensure that the work that we do and that others do is complementary and not duplicative in terms of the research.

Ms Price: I would like to add that the research that comes from the Aqua Net research funding will be published in scientific journals. That is what university professors do. In addition, they have a commitment to hold workshops and complete technology transfer through university development officers who are hired specifically to get the information out to the people who need it. They will be publishing fact sheets on specific items. Those fact sheets will report on small portions of the research in plain understandable language, not necessarily filled with jargon or scientific words that are not easily understood.

There are also a number of people in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in the science sector who have adjunct professorship status. They lecture part-time at university free of charge. As adjunct professors, they are eligible to be part of the Aqua Net programs.

There are people in DFO who will be partnering or working alongside university people. People from Aqua Net, the aquaculture industry and the province will all be working together to get this information produced, published and distributed to the people who want and need the information.

We also are working through the Department of Agriculture and Agri-food to have all the titles of the projects and the names of the people who are involved in them on a Web site that is freely accessible to anyone who has a computer. You can go to a public library or use your own computer to link into the inventory of Canadian agriculture research, which also has a lot of aquaculture research information on it.

We are working to get all those projects listed so that anyone who wants to know something about who is working on what will be able to find out. They can go in and key in on a word to find out who's doing what, where and when it started, when it will finish and what they expect to find out.

We are working to get this information out to the general public, the aquaculture public, the environmental groups - anyone who is interested in this information in the easiest and most accessible form as quickly as possible.

Senator Cook: I am hearing that DFO is the collection agency - the repository, if you like - of all this information that is being done by various people. From what point is it assured that this information is used in a responsible way? I am looking for the core point.

Ms Price: It is one of the places to where the information comes. We receive many telephone calls and letters from people asking for information. It is only one of the places. You can get information from the Internet. The scientists will be publishing in scientific journals, so students and others who read the journal can have access in that way.

We are only one of the entire network of people who will be receiving and then turning the information around back out to anyone who wants it. I would not say that we are the sole repository because I do not think that would be right. We want to fan it out.

Senator Cook: Is there not a risk of duplication of effort if it is not coordinated at some point with all those different things going on?

Ms Price: Yes. That is one reason why I have been working along with the Department of Agriculture on this web-based database that is accessible to people. There is a coordination mechanism as mentioned. We have had meetings with the Aqua Net people and other funding agencies to talk about who is doing what, who is funding what, and what are the priorities. The ACRDP program has held meetings across Canada to talk with people from the industry, the province and other federal departments to identify the priorities and how to address them. We want to ensure that any priority is not being addressed in several places with knowledge of one another.

We are working, through a variety of mechanisms, to ensure that we minimize duplication. You can never eliminate it, but we are working to minimize any duplication of effort.

The Chairman: Just before we wrap up, I would like to ask committee members if they would agree that we append materials from the Fisheries and Oceans Canada, as well as the material from the Auditor General, as an exhibit to our committee.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: So be it. Next Tuesday, May 8, 2001 at 7 p.m., the Minister of Sustainable Development of Nunavut will be here. It should be an interesting evening.

On Wednesday, May 9, 2001 at 5:45 p.m. there will be a videoconference with witnesses from British Columbia. It again should be interesting. These are witnesses that Senator Carney recommended to be heard.

To the witnesses tonight on behalf of committee members, I extend our deep appreciation for contributing to our understand ing of this complex part of the industry. You have made it more understandable after this evening. We appreciate your enthusiasm - even at this late hour - for a subject that kept the motivation of our members going. I thank you for that. It has been most helpful to us as we wrap up over the next few weeks, the final part of our study of aquaculture.

The committee adjourned.