SAQU Committee Meeting

SUB-COMMITTEE on Aquaculture and Océans Act of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

SOUS-COMITÉ de l'aquaculture et de la Loi sur les océans du Comité permanent des Pêches et Océans

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 4, 1999

• 1127

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.)): Order, please. I guess everyone's here who's going to be here.

This meeting is to discuss the task at hand, and that is basically to provide a blueprint for two things, our study of the Oceans Act and a proposed study of aquaculture.

I want to mention that I'm sorry we had to arrange this meeting at a time that was inconvenient to John Cummins. He indicated, as we all know, that he wanted to be at the first meeting. There was an indication that we could do this meeting without him, but I know John's feelings are that he would have preferred to be here. At this point I don't know what we can do about that, but just send back the message to John that indeed we expect his input into this whole process. We are looking forward to that.

If you will just allow me to make a little statement, aquaculture in Canada is, to my mind, one of the few growth industries that's been identified that isn't in the high-tech area, so to speak—the information, knowledge-based economy. We can't eat information and we can't build buildings with information. That technology is presenting a lot of opportunities. But something that is not typical...here we have an industry that is very much—although certainly new technology is developing—a hands-on industry and could be of tremendous importance to the Canadian economy.

Our researcher has prepared a paper called “A Proposed Study on Aquaculture”.

Yvan, you are supposed to have a translated version of this paper in your hand. Is that correct? That's good.

I don't know whether all of you have had a chance to review the contents of this, but I think it's an excellent working document in terms of providing the blueprint the committee could follow with respect to the study of aquaculture.

• 1130

First of all, it explains the jurisdictional areas where we are rightly involved, and then it indicates five areas where our committee could get involved. I'd just point you to page 4. Alan has identified five areas, which include jurisdictional issues and the regulatory environment, the efficiency and effectiveness of government services, research and development, the impact of cost recovery on the industry, and interaction with other resource users. This would be a good time to introduce this element.

We will just throw it open for discussion. Have we all had a chance to read this paper? You just received it now. Okay. What we'll do, with your permission, is we'll talk in general terms about what we'd like to see in the study and we'll have to come back to make some decisions.

Those five areas I think are legitimate areas for the committee's involvement. What we can do when we are studying those, because we are to provide a blueprint as well for the study of the Oceans Act—we report on the Oceans Act before the end of June of next year. We could conduct some parallel studies in connection with the travel that would be incidental to the study of those five areas.

I'll give you an example. If we are going to look at salmon farming, we're going to look at travel to British Columbia. New Brunswick would be relevant, and also P.E.I. for the shellfish. While we're out there, we could conduct some parallel hearings that would allow us to do some work on the Oceans Act. We could look at it in that respect.

Other issues will involve travel abroad, if we see fit. The paper you have indicates a rationale for travel to places like Japan, Australia, and New Zealand because they offer the opportunity to study certain aspects of the aquaculture industry. Norway, Chile, and the United Kingdom are world leaders in the aquaculture field. The salmon farming that goes on in those countries...the production dwarfs what's happening in Canada.

I'm sure the committee members will have their own rationale. First of all, you'll have to decide whether we travel at all, because I think there has been opposition to any kind of travel abroad. If we are going to travel, where are we going to go? What rationale are we going to use to support the expenditures for the trip? What are we going to learn?

I don't think we have the time today to do the in-depth consideration that's needed to come up with these recommendations, and that is why I say John Cummins will have ample time for input.

What I'm going to suggest, though, is that in my view—my own personal view—we have a pretty good blueprint here. If you take this and study it and you agree that we have the basics of a good blueprint, come back with how you would alter it, or come back with an alternative. If you feel you want to do something different and have a different kind of emphasis on the committee's work, then we should be looking at that. I think we have something that's quite good.

• 1135

Having said that, I throw it open for discussion, and maybe we can start with you, Bill.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): You may or may not be aware that the B.C. government did a fairly comprehensive environmental assessment of the B.C. industry a couple of years ago, with a number of recommendations. I think they've done a pretty good job, actually. We heard the minister say they're expanding, and I think that is the direction we want to go in.

The concern I would have is that we just don't reinvent the wheel, that we just don't redo what may have already been done, in some cases.

In terms of the travel, I think the concern the last committee had is gone. I think we're on a new tack, shall we say.

The Chair: I'm happy to hear that.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I for one would like to see what's happening in other countries. I think the expansion of the industry is enormous.

I think there are 84 farms in B.C., and 26 are in my riding. I have about a third of the aquaculture industry in my riding. I think the opportunity for expansion is great, but it has to be done right.

So bearing those things in mind, I think there are some real opportunities. The question I would have is, how in depth do we want to go when a number of these issues have been dealt with? I would certainly like to look at the expansion and the future of the industry rather than dwell on a number of the concerns people have had over the years that I think have been dealt with reasonably well in other forums.

The Chair: Bill, my only response would be that the committee would be looking at issues in a pan-Canadian way. There may be some provinces handling something very well, and we can learn from them—

Mr. Bill Gilmour: That's fair.

The Chair: —but it's going to be pan-Canadian.

Yvan.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Iles-de-la- Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): Given these two objectives, we have a great deal on our plate. One of the things we must do is review aquaculture in the context of our review of the Oceans Act. I haven't had the time to dive into the Oceans Act to see where aquaculture fits in, but I do know that we have a lot of work ahead of us.

Perhaps Alan could help us out. Section 52 of the Oceans Act stipulates that the legislation must be reviewed after three years. Therefore, this review must begin on December 16 of this year and the sub-committee must report back by December 16 of the year 2000. Is that correct?

[English]

Mr. Alan Nixon (Committee Researcher): That's correct.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I see.

There is always a danger when the sub-committee turns its attention to a particular issue and a new season begins. I'd like the review of the Oceans Act to get under way and all elements of this review to be clearly identified. Then, if we weren't in a position to table our report in June of 2000, at least we would be well advanced in our work. I'd like us to draw up a timetable accordingly. Every fall, when we return, there's always a concern on my part that the membership of the committee will change. I wouldn't want us to have to start some of our discussions all over again because of new committee members. That's the first point I wanted to make.

Secondly, in terms of our traveling to explore the situation further, particularly the issue of aquaculture, I'm prepared to support this motion and, if necessary, to inform my leader of the funds available for travel and when and where such travel would occur. Since a picture is worth a thousand words, it would be interesting to see how things are done elsewhere. Of course, we would have to prepare ourselves in advance. In the first backgrounder prepared by Alan for committee members, we read that Canada lags behind other countries in aquaculture production. I think members should read up on these countries so as to see what kind of regulatory framework they have in place, to prepare very clear and concise questions in advance and to determine what exactly they would like to see during the course of their travels.

• 1140

It could prove to be quite interesting. In some respects, we would be rewarded for our advance efforts. Having already visited industries in other countries, I know that when we prepare ourselves properly in advance, there is never enough time to take in everything we want to see. We'll have to make some choices beforehand. This is something I'd like to work on.

One last question: how will our sub-committee operate? If we are assigned the same research officer, it will difficult to split him in two if the Fisheries Committee decides to hold concurrent hearings. For example, we've just concluded hearings on the native fishery. While Alan is helping us set down the parameters for our sub-committee, he can't get his notes together and work on the other report. Therefore, we need to agree on a work plan. I'm also going to find it difficult to split myself in two. I want some assurances from the Chair that the sub-committee will never sit at the same time as the standing committee.

If the committee meets for two days and if we decide to sit for one additional day, this likely means that we will be working much harder that the other committee members. Greater demands will be placed on our time, but for now, I'm up to the challenge.

[English]

The Chair: Yvan, there are two points you mention that should be clarified. First, on your question as to the link the aquaculture study would have to the Oceans Act, the link would only be.... As I understand it, in our travels in Canada, which would probably be P.E.I., New Brunswick, British Columbia, and perhaps somewhere else in the Maritimes, depending on how we finalize it, we would look for a value-added situation while we're there. We travel to somewhere about aquaculture issues, but we could also schedule some hearings that would bear on the issues of the Oceans Act, so we don't have to make a second trip. That's the only link.

The other thing is that this subcommittee is not the committee that would actually go and do the aquaculture study. This subcommittee's mandate and our task is only to provide the blueprint for the whole committee to study the aquaculture issue. Some of the concerns you have with respect to dividing yourself in two are not really concerns, because the whole committee will first set up a procedure and a schedule for discussing the Oceans Act issue. The whole committee will do the same with respect to the aquaculture study. It's just in the instances where we go somewhere and we can get double the bang for the buck that we take advantage of it. That's the link.

Yvan, did you have that understanding?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: It's somewhat clearer, but what's going to happen when we have to work on the Oceans Act and aquaculture at the same time? Will this review coincide with our travels in late November as part of our study of the native fishery? I don't think we will have enough time. There are only 24 hours in a day.

[English]

The Chair: No, no. Exactly. And the clerk has quite rightly pointed out that the aboriginal fishing strategy is also something that we might be able to hear representation on if we're out in B.C. If we use our time wisely when we travel, the rationale for the expenditures becomes a lot stronger.

Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): First I want to thank Alan for his report. It is very well done.

• 1145

In terms of the Oceans Act, there is no question that a trip to Halifax to talk to NAFO headquarters, which is in Dartmouth, of course, is wise. At the same time, there are aquaculture sites in the area. You can hit two birds with one stone in terms of that meeting, and that's wise in order to prevent the cost and everything else.

What Bill has said is absolutely correct. B.C. recently came out with their new aquaculture plan, and I think it's very good in its comprehensiveness. The one major flaw is that they allow the open-net cage farmers, who have farms that are already there, a grandfather clause to remain with open-net cages, with no particular date to get rid of them or close them up. I think that's a flaw in the plan, and that's why the environmentalists out there are so upset, because of the wild salmon.

In terms of the travel, there are two different countries that have a different approach to aquaculture. One is Norway, which is using a lot of land-based aquaculture sites, and the other is Chile, which catches a lot of krill to feed their aquaculture sites. We have banned it for one year in this country. Krill fishing is a cheap food source for the aquaculture farms, and that is a huge problem with the food chain in the oceans right now.

This is something we'll have to look at and make recommendations on. The minister at that time said the krill fishery would only stop for one year, and he'd review it every year—commercial krill fishing. This is something we would have to look at very seriously.

I think it looks very exciting. It's a good challenge. I look forward to working with the committee on this.

The Chair: I thank all of you for your comments. I think at this stage we don't want to get involved with too lengthy a meeting this morning because we're not in a position to have the kind of discussion to make a decision as to the next steps.

November 17 at 3.30 would be an appropriate time, I think, to come back, unless it's a problem with anyone's schedule. It's a Wednesday afternoon. We should not have the burden of the committees. I think that's our next step, and I believe at that meeting we should come prepared to basically finalize this blueprint.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: On both the Oceans Act and...?

The Chair: On the Oceans Act I think we can, depending on what you want to do there. The committee itself will have to decide what the scheduling and the agenda are going to be on the study. Basically what we're going to do is plug it into the travel part of it. But if you have other suggestions, that's fine.

Our next step is that meeting, and let's finalize this if we can. If you have a different view on our next step, maybe you could indicate that now.

We'll start with Peter this time.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The only additional concern regarding the Oceans Act is the rapid increase in the development of oil and gas explorations on our coasts, on the east coast especially, and it may be happening on the west coast very soon. How does the Oceans Act pertain to that industry, which is burgeoning? Of course, the battle between the oil and gas sector and the fishing sector.... You all know the George's Bank battle that is going on. The rigs want to go into the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The fishermen are saying get lost. Does the Oceans Act apply? If it does, can we improve it? Can we make amendments or recommendations to assist the oil and gas industry and the fishery in working side by side, if that's at all possible?

The Chair: Peter, certainly if your suggestion is going to be that we do something like that, maybe all of us could look at the blueprint, and if we have suggestions as to witnesses, the earlier we introduce that to the whole committee, the better. Certainly we're open as a subcommittee to receiving any potential witness list, if you feel you can get into that kind of detail now.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: On the Oceans Act, one of the oceans we tend to forget is the Arctic. It's becoming more and more apparent how fragile it is, with the movement of air currents. We see the bits on the tube about the Russians dumping their nuclear waste into the Arctic, and it does circulate back to Canada. I think we need to make sure we don't forget the Arctic.

• 1150

The Chair: Are you volunteering to go and spend some time there?

An hon. member: We could do the millennium in Resolute.

The Chair: I think we have a consensus that that would be our next step, the November 17 meeting. Let's all work hard to finalize it.

[Translation]

Is that amenable to you, Yvan?

Mr. Yvan Bernier: As far as the meeting on the 17th is concerned, Alan has already done the groundwork. You say that a plan should be ready then. Will additional documents be distributed to us at the meeting to assist us in our work? Will we be responding to these documents on the 17th or will we be discussing matters amongst the four of us for two hours? I'm not clear on how we plan to proceed. Are we meeting simply to announce which groups we plan to meet with during our future travels? Based on the points that were raised, I thought we would be devoting more time to this.

Consider the Oceans Act's three objectives. I like the way Alan describes the most contentious issues, namely the concerns of fishers about the privatization of the resource and about the fees charged and the concerns of the merchant navy. I'd like us to review the various provisions in the act as well as the general comments made by the groups who have appeared before the committee. This would give us some idea of the areas in which problems were identified. Now that the act has been in force for three years, can we invite some of the different witnesses back and ask them to relate their experiences with the legislation? Take, for example, the new fees collected for commercial transportation. Studies had been ordered before new fees were imposed. Have the results of these studies been released? These are just some of the many questions we could tackle.

[English]

The Chair: I'm just wondering, and it's something to think about, whether at this stage we should go through the procedure of preparing what in effect is a briefing book, an in-depth analysis of the kinds of issues we are going to be tackling. I don't know that that's practical, but I think Alan could shed some light on this.

Mr. Alan Nixon: I think it is practical, in the sense that it certainly can be done. I was the researcher with the committee in the previous Parliament when the committee studied the Oceans Act. I still have all the files. I know who the original witnesses were, and there were a very substantial number of them. I've only touched on the surface. Mr. Bernier would know because he was also there and participated in those hearings. We had a very extensive list of witnesses. We didn't travel at that time. All the witnesses were heard in Ottawa.

It certainly would be possible to put together some sort of a briefing book or a package outlining what the concerns of the witnesses were at the time. In that short note that I prepared, I highlighted what I think were probably the most contentious at the time. There was certainly a wide range of other issues raised.

The only problem at this point is that the committee is going to be working very intensively over the next few weeks. We've got next week, and then I believe we are travelling for a week. No, I'm sorry, we're here the week of November 15, which will be occupied by hearings. We will be travelling the following week. Immediately after that there may be more hearings, and then we'll be working very hard to prepare a report on the implications of the Marshall decision and possible solutions to that.

At the present time it leaves very little time to prepare materials in the short term. On top of that, the committee will probably have to have a meeting on dealing with the sockeye crisis that the witnesses were talking to us about today.

• 1155

If it were a matter of preparing material for the subcommittee to be considered perhaps over the Christmas break, where I could deal with this after we'd dealt with the Marshall decision, in terms of my time allocation, that would make much more sense. In terms of library resources, I'm afraid most of my colleagues are already pretty well occupied. There aren't too many other people who could step in for me, I'm afraid.

The Chair: I could just say this, Yvan. If we could agree on the travel itinerary and generally the issues we're going to be looking at, then I think we could accomplish what we need to accomplish in order to get the travel request approved. I think all of that has to be done before the end of November.

In terms of the more in-depth information you're looking for, I think it would be very relevant to have that. But my question is, do we need it before we set up the itinerary and generally the issues that we're going to look at so we can get this thing in the mill? If we don't do it by the end of November, it will all be academic.

Alan has two months afterward to do the studies you're asking for, because they're relevant, Yvan.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Peter sometimes has good suggestions. We'll see what happens on November 17.

The Chair: Thank you. We're adjourned.