Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries
Issue 3 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 15, 2000
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries met this day at 7:00 p.m. to conduct an examination of matters relating to the fishing industry.
Senator Gerald J. Comeau (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Before I ask the Minister of Fisheries to open with his comments, I should like to remind members that we are being televised tonight, so we should avoid using acronyms and perhaps use the long names of any acronyms that we tend to use, in order that the television public may be able to understand the proceedings.
For those of you who may not know Minister Dhaliwal, he was first elected to the House of Commons in 1993, representing the federal riding of Vancouver South. He was re-elected in 1997, representing the redistributed riding of Vancouver South--Burnaby. As a member of Parliament, Mr. Dhaliwal was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans; he served on their fisheries committee and vice-chaired a Liberal caucus task force on aquaculture in 1996. Mr. Dhaliwal is no stranger to fisheries and oceans.
Mr. Dhaliwal was appointed Minister of National Revenue in June of 1997 and was appointed Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in August of 1999.
Mr. Dhaliwal holds a commerce degree from The University of British Columbia and is a businessman who has specialized in transportation, maintenance and real estate development. He has played an active role in a number of non-governmental organizations such as the United Way, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, the India Cultural Centre of Canada and the Orientation Adjustment Services for Immigrant Society.
Mr. Minister, I now yield the floor to you. Please proceed.
Mr. Herb Dhaliwal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans: Honourable senators, thank you for inviting me to address your committee this evening. I have had the opportunity to work with some of the senators and it has always been a pleasure. Also, I had the opportunity to be in China and to work with your clerk, Barbara Reynolds. She is an excellent talent and it was a great pleasure being in China.
One of the important things we did in China was to deal with the land mine issue. It was the first time any international organization put the land mine issue on the agenda. More than that, it was actually supported as a resolution. I had the honour of working on the committee that drafted the final resolution and of representing Canada. It was a proud moment for all of us to be in Beijing and to adopt this resolution to ban anti-personnel land mines. That was the beginning of the process for international parliamentarians to agree on that matter.
With me this evening from my department are Mr. Stagg, Mr. Bevan, Ms Forand and Ms Price. If there are technical questions, I am sure they will assist me. However, I will try to respond as much as I can myself to the committee. Mr. Chairman, I hope to begin with a statement and then open it up for questions and answers.
I am pleased to share my thoughts with you on where the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada is and to discuss our plans for the future. If you will permit me, I will use the acronym "DFO", which I think people know.
I am excited about the future of Canada's fisheries. I believe that we live in an era of opportunities. There are endless possibilities for innovation, cooperation and coordination. This atmosphere creates the potential for growth, development and promotion of our oceans' resources in a safe, sustainable way and in harmony with our international partners.
I have an action plan to make the most of this potential. Let me share with you the overriding principles of this plan, which I have adopted as the core of my personal vision. First, I wish to create a fishery for the 21st century that will conserve the resource while developing new and innovative economic opportunities for Canadians and others around the world. Second, I see Canada as a leader on the world stage. This country should lead the global community in sustainable development and in protecting the richness of our oceans' resources for generations to come. Third, at home, I want to strengthen core departmental programs that are of vital importance to all Canadians.
I have embraced these principles personally and I have also shared them and discussed them with my department. My vision complements and recognizes the hard work of DFO and will help guide this work into the future.
The women and men of DFO have developed a strategic plan -- a road map, if you will -- to provide practical direction for achieving those principles. We recognize that it is crucial to plan for the future with confidence and credibility. Our intention will be to take advantage of the opportunities that lie before us and to establish ourselves as a world leader in productive, sustainable development of fisheries and ocean resources.
There are four key policy areas in the department's strategic plan. I should like to highlight those areas for you this evening. They are: oceans management, the fishery of the future, aquaculture, and marine services.
When we talk about oceans management, it is important to remember that the name of my department is Fisheries and Oceans; sometimes people forget that. Both parts are equally important and are interconnected.
The vision of the oceans management strategy is to take advantage of all the benefits we can derive from the oceans. That requires balancing wealth generation with the need to protect and sustain the long-term health of our oceans. These are goals that we share both here in Canada and internationally with other ocean states.
Canada's Oceans Act came into force on January 31, 1997. It was a great privilege to work on that legislation when I was parliamentary secretary to Mr. Tobin and to see it come through. In implementing the oceans management strategy as called for in that act, we are working closely with provincial and territorial governments, aboriginal organizations and a wide variety of oceans users on important issues. In particular, we are working together to establish pilot projects related to marine protected areas and integrated management. Those two programs underpin the oceans management strategy.
The purpose of these pilots is to develop practical, results-oriented working relationships that will enable us to ensure the sustainable development of our oceans. We need to continue our efforts to collaborate with other governments, the industry and communities and to work in coordination and cooperation with other nations. At the beginning of the 21st century, this is one of our most important challenges. It is essential that we work with all stakeholders and interested parties so that we develop the capacity to plan effectively for the long term.
In keeping with our broader vision that we share the world's oceans in common with other nations, I should also like to highlight the fact that Canada has ratified the United Nations Fish Agreement, known as UNFA. This is a vital tool for conserving and managing straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks on the high seas.
I worked on this agreement right at the beginning. I remember going to the United Nations, where it seemed like a huge challenge to bring the rest of the world together. At the beginning, even countries such as the United States were not very optimistic about having this go through. However, Canada, along with other like-minded nations, was able to have this agreement signed. Approximately 26 countries have ratified it and we need 30 to make it come into effect. That is one of the priorities I have put before me -- namely, to push forward and to ensure that countries sign it -- because it will be a great advantage to Canada.
Let me thank you for your support in helping to pass the legislation that enabled us to ratify this important agreement. This has put Canada in a stronger position to promote the agreement so that other signatories come on board. I encourage the members of this committee to do what you can to assist in this effort so that the agreement is implemented as soon as possible. Together, all nations can promote the sustainable use of the world's fragile ocean resources.
The oceans do not belong to us. The oceans belong to our children, to their children and to future generations. Therefore, we must adopt the highest standards of excellence to ensure safe, healthy and productive oceans and aquatic ecosystems for the benefit of both present and future generations.
The second key policy area is what I call the fishery of the future. This is an all-encompassing look at how we adapt to and take advantage of the realities of the fishery in the 21st century. I am proud to say that just two weeks ago I was in Newfoundland to sign a memorandum of understanding on emerging fisheries development with Minister John Efford. This MOU is an example of how governments can increase cooperation and coordination in order to encourage fisheries diversification and to facilitate the commercial growth of new and under-utilized fish resources. Through this type of federal-provincial collaboration, we can develop new economic opportunities for all fisher groups and we can work with the industry to create a more viable, stable fishery through diversification. I am optimistic that this is just the first of many similar agreements that will follow with other provinces.
A key feature of the fishery of the future is that stakeholders have an interest in taking more responsibility in managing the resource and their own futures. The department's role becomes more closely aligned with conservation, policy development and monitoring performance. We are currently developing important policy frameworks for both the Atlantic and the Pacific regions, and I am pleased to say that the Atlantic fisheries policy review is well underway. Together with stakeholders, we are working to establish a set of principles to guide fisheries management on the East Coast for the long term. Similarly, the Pacific fisheries policy initiatives provide guiding principles for managing commercial, aboriginal, and recreational fisheries.
In tandem with these policy initiatives, the Canadian Fisheries Adjustment and Restructuring Program, referred to as CFAR, is helping Atlantic and Pacific coastal communities adjust to the changes in the fisheries. I must emphasize that our policy review processes are open and transparent. We depend on extensive consultations and stakeholder input for success. As I said, in building a fishery for the future we are building a responsible, accountable and professional fishery -- a fishery in which participants play an active and meaningful role in steering the course and determining their own future.
As one concrete example of this new climate, I would point to the role that industry has played in developing and adhering to the all-important Canadian Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing Operations.
I also want to point out that inclusiveness is an important principle in the fishery of the future. Recent court decisions such as the Marshall case, and treaty settlements generally, have highlighted the need to continue focusing on sharing of the resource and responsible management of the resource. This winter, we are working on that very issue and I can report that progress is being made. We are working from the principle that aboriginal and non-aboriginal fishers want the same things: sustainable jobs and a sustainable resource. These developments represent important opportunities to work together for a sustainable, profitable, conservation-based, regulated fishery.
Finally, I want to stress that the fishery of the future is a work in progress. It consists of a series of linked initiatives that will guide us over the long term.
Our third policy objective in the strategic plan is aquaculture. As a member of Parliament from British Columbia, I am very familiar with this subject. As you stated, Mr. Chairman, I have had a strong interest in aquaculture since co-chairing a Liberal caucus task force some five years ago. The knowledge I developed from that time has helped me immensely as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, where I have taken on a leadership role in this important area of economic development.
Let me list some concrete developments in this area. In 1995, the Government of Canada issued the Federal Aquaculture Development Strategy, a blueprint for creating a clear framework for the industry to function day to day and to flourish in the future. In December 1998, Yves Bastien was appointed the federal commissioner for aquaculture development. The creation of that position was a direct response to a key policy commitment made by the government in the previous election. In April 1999, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans also named a director general to assume primary responsibility for aquaculture. Last September, in Quebec City, I signed the Agreement on Interjurisdictional Cooperation with my provincial and territorial colleagues. This agreement will permit us to identify shared priorities and create opportunities for the fisheries and aquaculture sectors. At the same time, the federal-provincial territorial ministers unanimously endorsed a goal of Canada becoming a world leader in sustainable aquaculture.
Finally, I want to point out that the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister also recognize the importance of aquaculture. In fact, the Prime Minister, again, highlighted aquaculture when he spoke in Charlottetown last November. I commend this committee's plan to study this exciting area, and I look forward to the results of your work.
In the meantime, let me share a few of my thoughts about the directions I believe we should take to assist this industry to reach its full potential. The importance of aquaculture is becoming more apparent every day. The latest figures available show that 25 per cent of the world's total fish production comes from aquaculture. Canada's contribution is small, but it is growing. Presently, we make up 3 per cent. Through annual growth rates in our market of 10 per cent to 20 per cent, aquaculture in Canada could easily reach $2 billion a year in sales later in this decade.
That is good news. Aquaculture is one way to continue providing an important source of protein to the rest of the world. It is also an industry that can provide jobs in coastal communities, including those hit hardest by fisheries restructuring.
Our vision is to improve and enhance aquaculture so that the Canadian industry reaches its full potential in a sustainable way. To do this, we are concentrating our efforts in four areas: reviewing the legal and regulatory framework as led by the commissioner for aquaculture; developing a better and more consistent DFO policy framework for aquaculture; enhancing federal-provincial-territorial cooperation through the new Council of Canadian Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers; and enhancing DFO programs in support of the federal aquaculture development strategy that was released in 1995.
In following through on these initiatives, our aim is to promote wide-ranging and inclusive consultations. That will help ensure that the industry is guided by common objectives and grows in an environmentally healthy manner. Let me reassure you that we will explore every avenue to promote and expand this exciting industry in a responsible and environmentally sound way.
The fourth and final policy priority is to maintain and enhance DFO's capacity for providing marine services. For most of you, this means the Canadian Coast Guard. As you know, the Canadian Coast Guard joined DFO in 1995, creating what we refer to as the "new DFO". Our challenge is to live within budget constraints while maintaining and improving the marine services for today and for tomorrow.
The Coast Guard is evolving and modernizing. Once an organization primarily oriented towards service delivery, the Coast Gourd is now moving towards a leadership role to provide oversight in managing and protecting Canada's oceans and waterways. Changing the Coast Guard's role is a complex and ongoing task. Innovations, legislative reforms and new technology will help clarify our responsibilities and maintain our high standard for marine safety, maritime commerce and environmental response.
The Coast Guard also has a key role in supporting the department to carry out its responsibilities for oceans, environmental protection, oceans science and fisheries management. Managing the oceans and their resources is different at the beginning of the 21st century from what it was 100 years ago. For one thing, we now recognize that our abundant ocean resources are not limitless, nor are they immune to fluctuations. At the same time, however, we have important opportunities. We are now guided by some key principles that underlie the Oceans Act: sustainable development, integrated management, the precautionary approach, and an open, transparent and inclusive leadership style.
Through these principles, we have the opportunity to create a new regime for marine and resource management that will help us to be more flexible in facing new realities effectively. That will help us to be better prepared and capable of responding to a dynamically changing environment. We have an opportunity to promote a different and better style of leadership than in the past. Instead of merely providing services to expectant clients, we now work together with them. Working together with citizens and other levels of government, we can provide meaningful direction and cooperate in shaping the future that affects us all.
Citizen inclusiveness is an important principle for the Government of Canada as a whole. With today's computer and information technology, we have better opportunities than ever before to share information and promote widespread participation in shaping future directions and services. I am confident that, with proper guidance and widespread cooperation, Canada's fisheries and oceans industry will not only survive but will thrive in the 21st century.
Mr. Chairman, three oceans touch our country. Some would argue that the Great Lakes may be a fourth. We have the longest shoreline of any nation. That should be seen as a huge asset to us as a country and to Canadians. We should ensure that we protect this most important asset for our children and our future generations. That is one thing I am committed to doing.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, minister, for your opening comments. They will be very helpful to this committee. I look forward to this committee cooperating with some of the objectives that you have outlined here tonight.
Would it be agreeable to members that the presentation by the minister be filed as an exhibit with the clerk of the committee?
Hon. Senators: Agreed
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for accepting our invitation. I especially appreciate his optimism about the future of the fishery. Mr. Dhaliwal, you mentioned aquaculture, a field in which there is a great deal of room for innovation and for the fishery of the future.
In New Brunswick, particularly in the southeastern portion of the province, commercial lobster fishermen are concerned about one problem. To their way of thinking, the fishery of the future must include an immediate solution to the problem of native participation in the fishery. For some fishers, this is their sole source of revenue.
The Supreme Court has recognized that natives have certain rights. We have seen some natives go off and fish without bothering to comply with the regulations. The Supreme Court subsequently stepped in to clarify the situation and ruled that the minister could regulate the fishery.
You are currently involved in negotiating agreements with different communities and I agree that this cannot be an easy task. The problem has existed for many years now. I do not expect a solution to be found immediately. Commercial fishers are worried. They are wondering if the native fishery will be regulated to the same extent as commercial fishers are, even if an agreement is not reached with native communities.
[English]
Mr. Dhaliwal: Certainly, I have had the opportunity to visit some of the aquaculture operations in your province, Senator Robichaud, when I travelled across this country. I was extremely impressed with the growth of this industry and how well your province has done in light of some of the problems and hurdles that have been faced. It is certainly a priority for me to see how we can move the aquaculture file forward.
In terms of the Marshall decision, as you know, last year's court ruling recognized the treaty right under the 1760 treaty, which was a peace and friendship treaty with the Mi'kmaq and the Maliseet people. The courts have ruled that there was a treaty right to fish, gather and hunt. I, and my department, continue to say that, first of all, we have an orderly and regulated fishery, that conservation will be a priority, and that as minister I had the full authority to regulate the fishery. This treaty right was not an unfettered right but a regulated right. That is what we said from the first day when the courts ruled, and the courts reaffirmed our position.
Certainly we have moved forward. We are now sitting down with Mr. McKenzie, who met with a larger Atlantic policy congress. Now he is working on a band-by-band basis, talking to them regarding an interim agreement for this coming fishing season.
We have also appointed an assistant representative, Mr. Thériault, who is dealing with the commercial fishermen to ensure that their views are understood. We must sit down and negotiate. We have said from day one that the way to resolve this is through negotiations at the table. Meanwhile, I emphasized earlier this week, and I emphasize again, that I will not tolerate chaos on the water and we will have an orderly and regulated fishery.
The fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that there is a treaty right means that we must provide opportunity and participation by the aboriginal community to the fishery. That is the law of the land. We must ensure that we do that, and we are doing that. The commercial fishermen have asked that it be done through a voluntary retirement of licences and that is exactly what we are doing. We are reviewing the many proposals before us in order to provide that access, not by putting additional pressure on the resource but by taking existing licences out through a voluntary retirement program.
There are no quick fixes. There are no easy solutions. The way we will resolve this is to negotiate an interim agreement and then to continue on a larger agreement with the Department of Indian Affairs. We are continuing on with that; we are very focused and it is at the top of my agenda.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: The fishers with whom I have spoken are not worried about the natives participating in the regulated commercial fishery. Rather, they are concerned about certain events in recent years when the rules were somewhat poorly understood and there were no fishery officials around to enforce the regulations.
Catches and gear were often seized and then given back to the fishers. This climate of uncertainty is extremely worrisome to the fishers. This is especially true in northeastern New Brunswick where the lobster fishery is scheduled to open in May.
With respect to resource sharing, a highly lucrative fishery, the snow crab fishery, operates in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Are any negotiations under way to share this fishery? Are any persons who are not currently license holders included in these negotiations and will they be participating in the fishery this year?
[English]
Mr. Dhaliwal: First, let me say I was in Moncton on Sunday. I had a meeting with the executive of the MFU, the Maritime Fishermen's Union. I had an opportunity to make a speech to their members and hear their questions. Yes, there is a certain amount of uncertainty out there. We are trying to deal with that by attempting to get negotiated agreements with the aboriginal communities and the First Nations bands. I hope in the near future that we will be able to make some announcements, however, I cannot promise that we will have an agreement with everyone, because these are negotiated settlements.
Should we fail to come to an agreement, we will need to provide access and we will be ready to do that. We will also have a framework to deal with the situation where we are not able to get agreements. I am fairly confident, however, and I have been informed by our representative, Mr. McKenzie, that talks are going very well. We will need to follow through. We also have our assistant representative, Mr. Thériault, who is consulting regularly; therefore, everyone is well informed as to what is happening. I am making every effort to do that.
We must work through this process. There are no quick fixes or easy solutions. It is a question of sitting around the table and negotiating in the interim and having a regulatory framework to ensure that we can deal with that matter.
The other question is in terms of seasons and fishery regulations. Part of our negotiation is to negotiate having similar seasons and similar rules. That is part of what our negotiator is looking at, as suggested by many of the groups out there, and certainly from a management point of view that is the best way to deal with the matter. Part of the negotiation also is capacity building, to ensure that the aboriginal community can truly benefit from this treaty right.
The negotiation includes a variety of options, including the access to the resource, but also the capacity building for them. We have indicated that other options are available because each band has its own set of priorities and what they think they can benefit from in this treaty right. Therefore, we must sit down and negotiate and look at the needs of the different bands and what their expectations are, and we must meld that in with the access that we can get. The process is not easy; it will be complicated, but I think we are on the right path.
Senator Watt: I received a letter from the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council. I think just about every parliamentarian received a copy of the same letter. As this letter reads, it seems as though you are talking about negotiation; you are negotiating with band councils, tribal councils, the people left on the reserve, and establishing agreements under the Indian Act. This letter claims that off-reserve people are not being dealt with. This particular person was off-reserve and a descendant of, I believe, Mi'kmaq and Maliseet treaty descendants.
Why, Mr. Minister, are the prescribed subject matters not being dealt with for those particular groups?
Mr. Dhaliwal: Senator Watt, with respect to the native council, I am familiar with their opportunity, and I have always said that we need a process by which we can examine it. Under the legal interpretation, the native council itself is not considered a modern manifestation of original signatories of the treaty of 1760. In fact, they may be members of the native council. They may be entitled to the treaty right. Because it involves a number of different departments, the PCO, the Privy Council, has organized a meeting with them I believe in the next two weeks in Halifax. There will be representatives from my department and the Department of Justice and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development so that we can discuss with them their concern. I believe that there should be a process for that. I have always said that from day one, and that is what we are doing.
Senator Robertson: I have a supplementary that relates to Senator Robichaud's question. I want to raise an issue that has been characterized as controversial by some industry participants. I noticed in the news comments of some of your meetings down east that this has been discussed. I am thinking of the plan to buy boats and gear and licences from existing participants and give them to the native fishers. On the surface, it sounds rather good. However, some of the established participants went heavily into debt to get into the industry and feel that they will be at a competitive disadvantage because others in the industry will not be making the big payments that they are. How do I respond to the fishers who come to me with that problem? I do not know how to respond to that.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Thank you very much, Senator Robertson. First, we must keep in mind that when we provide access to the First Nations, it is for the community. The access is provided to the community, not to individuals. The boats or gear or licences are not given to individuals but are in fact given to the community, and the community determines how those are divided up. In some cases, if we buy a licence the boat comes with it. You cannot buy the licence by itself, so in some cases we do not have a choice. In order for the communities to benefit from the treaty right, we need to ensure that they have training so that they can be successful in their fishing operation and, if they need it, we need to provide equipment, but that will be part of a negotiated settlement. That is part of the negotiation.
The negotiation for the fishing season is an interim agreement without prejudice to the long-term agreement. Therefore, these licences and the opportunity for the First Nations bands are not a licence that can be resold, whereas an individual fisher who feels like selling his or her licence can do that. This goes to the community.
Of course, if you provide more than what the treaty right provides for in legislation, there is give and take and negotiation for it. That is what we are trying to do. Different bands have different needs, and we are trying to look at what the needs of the band are as far as equipment. For example, if we say it is important for us to have these seasons and the same rules, even though the treaty right is that they must get a modern livelihood -- and we are not clear on that -- that will be where the negotiations come in. We can say, "We will provide you with training and some other things, but we need to ensure that there are certain rules and regulations that you should follow as well."
Senator Robertson: Thank you. That is somewhat helpful. We will have to watch this very carefully.
I have two questions following our meeting last week with the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance. On page 7 of your opening statement, you say that your vision is to improve and enhance aquaculture so that the Canadian industry reaches its full potential in a sustainable way. I do not think anyone would disagree with that vision statement. However, to achieve it, you would have to concentrate on the health of the stock and the control of disease. Our witness last week told us that fish disease management is a major issue in the industry.
First, can you tell me if there are sufficient well-trained veterinarians working in the industry? And second, could a better job be done in preventing outbreaks of disease in the stock?
Of course you are well aware of the major outbreak of ISA, infectious salmon anemia, off the Charlotte County coast of New Brunswick. There is great concern around this issue. Perhaps you could help me by suggesting the direction that you are moving.
Mr. Dhaliwal: I am quite familiar with the ISA infection that happened and the serious problems with that. We must respond much more quickly than we have in the past. Fish health is extremely important, and we need to ensure that there is an appropriate insurance system to respond to that and that we have appropriate inspection systems. Part of the problem with aquaculture is that some jurisdictions are divided between provincial and federal governments. We need to look at how to harmonize some of those. We also need to spend more money on research and development. That is why I am seeking from my cabinet colleagues additional resources to do more research and more development, have a quicker response time and better standards to work with the industry, and try to come to grips with the different jurisdictional problems that we have at the provincial and the federal level.
Do we have enough veterinarians? Maybe one of my colleagues can answer that. First, though, David Bevan may have a comment on your earlier question on the buyback. I perhaps do not have the technical knowledge, and he could give you some additional information.
Mr. David Bevan, Director General, Resource Management Directorate, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: With respect to buying back both the licences and the equipment, we are obviously trying provide real access in time for this spring fishery. They have a treaty right to access, and obviously it is not good enough just to give a license. There must be a capacity actually to catch fish. Furthermore, we are buying out entire enterprises, and that is not just one licence. It is a suite of licences. We are also buying the vessel, because we do not want to see licences split. If we buy one licence from an enterprise with a number of licences, we leave a vessel in the water with another group of licences attached to it, and then the purchased licence is given to a band and a further effort is put in the water. In order to provide access without increasing overall effort in terms of more boats, we want to buy out that entire enterprise, vessel and all, and make it available to the First Nations.
Senator Robertson: Thank you. That is helpful.
Ms Iola M. Price, Acting Director General, Fisheries and Oceans Science Directorate, Science Sector, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: There are excellent veterinarians who work in the industry. Some of them work for the aquaculture companies, and others are in private practice, like those who practice dog or cat medicine. There are also veterinarians attached to each provincial department of fisheries and/or aquaculture. The provinces have licensing jurisdiction for veterinarians. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans also has at least one and I believe two veterinarians on staff, as well as fish health pathology diagnosticians who do the laboratory work in our own laboratories and who are responsible for the Fish Health Protection Regulations under the Fisheries Act. We do have trained diagnosticians at all levels -- the private, the provincial, and the federal level.
Senator Robertson: Have you resolved the mussel problem? Every once in a while on the Island, we have a real problem with mussels. Are there veterinarians where there are fish farms?
Ms Price: Yes. Veterinarians are available to every fish farm, either through the private sector or the provincial agencies. DFO also helps out where there is a need for it.
I am not sure to which mussel problem you are referring, Senator Robertson. I know Mr. Rideout referred to an incident in 1988. However, I do not believe it is likely that that is what you are talking about. Are you talking about clams?
Senator Robertson: No. I will get you the information, just so I am exact. Last week, the witness touched on the issue of insurance for the aquaculture industry. He said that an operator had to have dead fish in order to get a claim, which is rather weird. Contrast that approach with what happens when farm animals get sick. As we all know, the farmer is obligated to report such an occurrence. If a vet comes in and the animals are found to be diseased, then they are destroyed. Why do we not have the same system in aquaculture? Are we getting closer to a system that is comparable to that involving other farm animals?
Mr. Dhaliwal: That is a very good question, senator. In fact, one of the recommendations of the task force on aquaculture that I co-chaired was that the aquaculture industry should be able to benefit from similar agricultural programs. I certainly think that is something that should be looked at. I would be very supportive of it. We will be working toward ensuring that the programs in agriculture and aquaculture are not that much different. There should be opportunities in both.
To this point, we have not succeeded in getting there. It is certainly a goal we should be working toward in order to give greater stability to the industry. I am sure it is something you will want to include in your report as a strong recommendation. I hope you go back to look at the task force that made a similar recommendation.
Senator Robertson: Keep trying, because we will keep asking.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Bevan has said that in buying a license, one is buying a fishing operation. In my neck of the woods, along the Richibouctou River, two native communities are participating in the negotiations. In the case of this small zone within the larger one, do you favour the purchase of local businesses to avoid too great a concentration in this zone? Perhaps fishing licenses could be obtained from the south zone. Some are now for sale because recent seasons have not proven to be very lucrative.
[English]
Mr. Dhaliwal: We wanted to consider the local effect of the purchasing of a licence and of conservation. That is why it is complicated. After all, how do you provide access to First Nations and what will be the impact on the local area? That is why we must have the options and flexibilities open to work with them.
The final resolution will not come about next year. It will have to be a phased-in process. We cannot have the final solution tomorrow. With a phased-in process, the impact will not be disruptive. It will take into consideration the effects on the local area and ensure that conservation is a number one priority in determining the final solution.
Senator Meighen: Mr. Minister, in one of the committees on which I have the privilege of serving we use the term "groundfishing". We use that term in the Banking Committee, where it does not really seem to fit. It fits more appropriately here. I am reduced to groundfishing since Senator Robertson, who is a full-time resident of New Brunswick, as opposed to me who lives part time in Charlotte County, has asked many of the questions I wanted to ask about aquaculture, a subject to which I should like to come back.
Without seeking to cast any blame, there are two things that strike me. First, it is obviously a vitally important industry. It is a growing industry. As you noted in your statement, it provides protein to a hungry world. I recall that when it started out, one of the great attributes ascribed to it was that it would relieve the pressure on wild stocks of fish. Therefore, I see it as a very necessary industry that I personally support. As it continues to grow, it raises more and more difficult and challenging problems.
At the same time, I notice that, just as in our response to the Marshall case, we seem to be scrambling to catch up. Perhaps it was impossible to foretell what the Marshall decision would be. Perhaps it was premature for you, your predecessor or the department to get out in front of the issue and start widespread negotiations with a view to getting a handle on the matter when it was still before the courts. Nevertheless, we are scrambling, I think it fair to say, without being in any way critical. Senators Robichaud and Robertson have pointed out that the season is upon us.
Thus, we have these two issues before us. Let me deal with the negative effects of aquaculture as I see them. I should like your response in terms of how you are getting on, primarily with New Brunswick, since provincial jurisdiction has a great deal to do with this matter, at least on the East Coast, and the sense of urgency you feel about these issues, if you have such a sense of urgency.
First, there is the question of the environmental sustainability of the industry. I refer to the waste from the fish themselves, the chemical residue on the sea bottom from excess feed and vaccines and the growing evidence of disease to which you alluded spreading from raised fish to wild stocks. I think it is fair to say there is growing evidence of that. Is there not the possibility of a growing contradiction between the DFO's mandate to protect and manage Canada's wild fish and the promotion of the aquaculture industry? Are the two not coming into conflict? If they are, as I think they must to some extent, what are we doing to ensure that both can survive as we go forward?
I noticed somewhere that $300 million to $400 million, which I was pleased to see, is being spent on the West Coast over a three-to five-year period to protect and restore habitat. As you are well aware, minister, habitat protection on the East Coast is equally important. I have not seen a similar ad for the East Coast yet. I wondered whether you could tell us tonight when I might look forward to seeing one.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Senator, yours are extremely important questions. I should like to address your last question first.
In 1999, this government committed itself to ensuring that we have a sustainable fishery. Under the CFAR program, we announced almost $1.1 billion, $750 million for the East Coast, which included a variety of buybacks and other programs, and $400 million for the West Coast. The program on the West Coast involved $200 million in buybacks, $100 million in restoration and habitat enhancement and $100 million in a variety of areas, including community development, selective fishing gear and so on.
As you can see, it was a very big commitment on behalf of the government to develop this fishery of the future, to reduce the capacity and have it sustainable on both coasts. I am implementing that CFAR program, so these are funds invested both on the East Coast and West Coast of the country in habitat restoration, community development, buyback -- all of those areas. We can get you more details on the East Coast if you prefer, without my going through the details.
This was a big commitment to ensure that we make the investments in the wild stocks. To me, it is not a trade-off. We are not trading off aquaculture in terms of fin fish, to which you have directed your questions, as opposed to the wild stock. I do not believe it is a trade-off. It is in addition to what we have in the wild stock, and we have to continue to ensure that we make the right investment and that we manage the wild stocks appropriately.
Aquaculture, by the way, is more than just fin fish. It is shellfish as well. People tend to think of aquaculture as only fin fish but aquaculture goes beyond that and is much larger. The issues you have raised are more towards the fin fish.
Yes, there are environmental concerns. In British Columbia, as you know, we are extremely concerned about the environment. The Province of British Columbia did a long and comprehensive review of the effects of fin fish on the environment. They did a three- or four-year comprehensive review. Recently, they lifted a moratorium that they had on new fish farming, and they are now looking at a strategy for how to have the right locations, how to deal with the industry, in terms of environmental pollution, and they have come to the conclusion that this is an important industry and that we can deal with the environmental concerns.
The resolution that all ministers of fisheries from across Canada, from the provinces and territories, adopted was that we want to become a world leader in aquaculture. We want to ensure that it is developed in a sustainable way. We are committed to that.
We have a commissioner of aquaculture who is working at a variety of things, as I have noted, in terms of regulatory framework and how to work with the provinces. We have a task force of ministers, a council of ministers from across the country, to look at aquaculture and see how we can move it forward. We have to deal with the jurisdictional problems that exist, but it must be done in a sustainable way. If it is not sustainable, we will have problems. The province looked at self-contained systems, and it can be a goal that we can work towards.
I think we have addressed the fundamental question. We want to be global leaders and ensure that we develop aquaculture in a sustainable way. There are many questions. Transfer of disease is an important issue. We need to do more research in some of those areas so that we can be assured that this will not have a negative impact. We do not have conclusions on some of those questions. There are speculations, and environmental people put out all sorts of information that they say is conclusive. It is not. I do not see fin fish aquaculture as a replacement for wild stock but only as an addition to economic opportunity.
There is another thing that is important -- and just as relevant on the East Coast as it is on the West Coast -- for our smaller communities, which are being hit very hard. I know that in British Columbia this will create tremendous opportunity, good jobs, good-paying jobs, long-term permanent jobs. We feel it can be developed in a sustainable way. Will it be a totally 100 per cent clean industry? We have pulp mills out there that have limits on them as to what effluents they can put out. If we wanted zero tolerance, we would have to shut them all down in British Columbia.
Certainly, I am concerned about the environmental issues, and we must deal with them in order for the industry to develop. If we do not, the industry will not develop.
Senator Meighen: Thank you, minister. That is helpful. I share your objectives. I do not know that we differ at all. I am very concerned with the environmental problems, evidence for which appears to be growing.
Did I hear you say that there was a moratorium for a period of time on the West Coast, which has only just been lifted, on the establishment of new fish farms? Are you considering a similar move for the East Coast?
Mr. Dhaliwal: No. Actually, when I became Minister of Fisheries, I encouraged the Province of British Columbia to lift their moratorium because of the opportunities in aquaculture. In September or October of last year, they lifted that moratorium, and are looking at new sites, but they are not just going to open the doors to have sites everywhere. They are considering moving some existing sites that were not in an ideal location. They are now looking at developing the industry. We need to work together to determine how to respond when there are problems. For example, if there are fish escapements, we need to have a program to be able to respond immediately so we can mitigate.
Senator Meighen: They are hard to catch.
Mr. Dhaliwal: They seem to hang around in the same area. Because the feed is there, they do not move around quickly, so there are opportunities to respond. What we need to determine is how to mitigate when there are problems. Those are some of the important issues that we need to look at, both at the federal and provincial levels and jointly. That is why we are working on these task forces, to deal with some of the challenges you are talking about.
Senator Watt: Coming back to the Marshall case, I understood you to say that they are trying to find some way of dealing with the off-reserve Indians. I think they definitely must be dealt with. Otherwise, a surprise will come back to the country. I do not think they will accept this situation lying down. They are very much in a fighting spirit, from what I understand. That is one point.
In terms of the negotiations that are being conducted with the two band councils, I am not too clear as to your explanation of what you are negotiating. Are you negotiating subsistence rights or are you negotiating commercial rights, or is it a little bit of both? It is important to understand the difference between the two.
Mr. Dhaliwal: What we are negotiating, senator, is an interim agreement providing access to fish under the 1760 peace and friendship treaty right, which provides a treaty right to fish.
Senator Watt: Subsistence or commercial?
Mr. Dhaliwal: We are not putting any figures on the definition of a model. They have a moderate livelihood. We are not negotiating that because there is a larger negotiation in terms of the long-term negotiation with Indian Affairs and Northern Development, because the treaty right includes fishing, gathering and hunting. The gathering and hunting do not fall into my bailiwick. I am responsible for the fishing part of it. What we are trying to do is agree on something for the interim, and it is without prejudice to the longer-term solution as to how we fulfil the treaty right under the Supreme Court ruling.
Senator Watt: I think I understand what you are saying but I do not think you understand the questions I am putting forward to you. Subsistence is classified as something that you take for yourself. It is not for commercial purposes.
Mr. Dhaliwal: I was just thinking in terms of sale.
Senator Watt: That is what I am asking.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Is it for sale?
Senator Watt: Are they allowed to market the product that you are negotiating with them? Are they also negotiating to have the subsistence right to feed themselves? What is it? What is happening?
Mr. Dhaliwal: Perhaps I did not understand. This is for commercial purposes so that they will be able to sell their product just like anyone else. We have two forms. One is for food, social and ceremonial purposes, which is different.
Senator Watt: That is what I call a subsidy.
Mr. Dhaliwal: It is for commercial purposes, not just for food, social and ceremonial purposes.
Senator Watt: There is another subject that is very bothersome for the people living in the Arctic -- namely, the fact that commercial activities in the Arctic were practically killed overnight when the farm concept was introduced at the southern end of the Arctic. By that I mean the aquaculture side such as farming. When they undertook to re-establish that a few years ago, it killed all the commercial activities that we had in the Arctic. The transportation costs and other factors were such that we could not compete.
You said that you would like to protect both -- that is, raise new stocks and utilize the wild stock. Is there a possibility, minister, at some point down the road, that we could try to discuss the concept of how we can market the wild stock maybe as an exotic animal or something? I will leave that with you. That is one problem that comes from the Arctic.
Another problem coming from the Arctic is the Marine Mammal Protection Act. You are probably very much aware of it. That is a discriminatory law that was passed by the American government; however, the Americans have exempted the Alaskans. I guess the Alaskan Eskimo can easily buy a skin from Canada and then transport it down to the United States. When it is a finished product, it can then be returned to Canada because we are not restricting the Americans in terms of what they can import to Canada. That whole area offers in-depth economic opportunities.
Seals are so numerous that they are our number one competitors in terms of eating the fish. Let us face it. If we want to restore the wild stock, we better start reducing the number of seals. However, the only way that we can begin to reduce the number of seals is by marketing them to our neighbours. We would like your help in that area, minister, to find some solutions.
Mr. Dhaliwal: I wish to thank you for drawing my attention to that point. This issue is raised quite often with our members from the North. Just this week, I had an opportunity to meet with Mickey Cantor and I raised this very issue with him. I was saying, "Our First Nation and aboriginal people do not understand why they cannot export their seal products to you and to your market." I will certainly raise this matter with my colleagues, the Minister of Trade and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, to see how we can work on the MMPA. The entire cabinet is very much aware of this issue and would like to work towards a solution.
In terms of the seals, on every trip I make to Newfoundland, Mr. John Efford makes me aware of it. In fact, I am following the recommendation made by the House of Commons committee. We will be appointing an eminent group of people to look at the seal situation and to give me some advice on that issue. As you know, it is both an emotional and a controversial issue. That is why we have asked an eminent group to look at it and make recommendations on that area.
Senator Mahovlich: Is it easier dealing with either the First Nations or the unions?
Mr. Dhaliwal: That is what makes this job tough.
Senator Mahovlich: Are they both aware of the problem that we are having in the world?
Mr. Dhaliwal: I think they are. The only thing with the fish situation is that everyone feels that if someone else is fishing, it will take away from his or her livelihood. That is why it is such an emotional and explosive issue. People feel that their livelihood is threatened. We saw the tension that happened last year. We are working to make sure that that does not happen again and that people abide by the law. The rule of law is extremely important. My job is to try to balance those things and to communicate and let people know the issues. We are making every effort to do so.
One of the ways we are providing access to the aboriginal communities is to provide existing licences so that there is not new pressure on the resource. That is to say, we are giving those people who want to get out of the business on a voluntary basis an opportunity to retire. As a department, we have been doing that through the AFS, the Aboriginal Fishing Strategy.
Senator Meighen asked, "Why are you not ahead of this game?" That is a very good question. I have been in politics since 1993 and I have learned that doing something that is quite dramatic is extremely difficult. Imagine if we did not have a Supreme Court ruling and we said to the fishing community, "We will provide this access because there is an existing treaty from 1760." We would not be able to do it. We would not be able to get the resource nor would we be able to get people to agree. Their argument would be, "Why are you going beyond the courts? Do not go beyond the courts." People say that to us about the Aboriginal Fishing Strategy on the West Coast. They say that the government is going beyond what the courts are saying when we try to have the aboriginal community participate. You must be suicidal as a minister if you try to bring in those policies that are quite a change for everyone. However, sometimes the courts force us by saying that this is the rule of law. That is the difficulty.
Discussions occurred prior to the ruling, but it needed the approval of the provinces, the federal government and the aboriginals. The provinces were not willing to be a part of that discussion. They were not willing to sit at the table. There have been efforts to solve this problem. Through the Aboriginal Fishing Strategy and the allocation transfer, we tried to include the aboriginal community. However, politically, I do not think any fisheries minister would have taken on what the courts are forcing us to do. Frankly, anyone who would have tried to do so would have been laughed out of the cabinet meeting if he were to say, "I need this much money to do this." The members of cabinet would have said, "Get out of the room."
Sometimes the courts make us do things that we should have done a long time ago. On the aboriginal issue, it is the courts that are making governments move forward. It is not that, all of a sudden, governments have woken up and said that we must deal with this; it is that the courts are saying, "You must move on this thing." That is why we are moving.
Senator Mahovlich: When will the courts move on the seal problem?
Mr. Dhaliwal: I hope we can get a good report from the panel so that we can have some resolutions on that issue, but it is a controversial issue. The environmentalists will tell you, "No."
Senator Mahovlich: If the courts say "Yes," then the environmentalists cannot say anything.
Mr. Dhaliwal: That is right. I do not think there is a matter before the courts on what the total allowable catch should be for the seals, but we have some people, such as Senator Watt, who are saying that we need to reduce the number of seals out there.
Senator Watt: That is right.
Mr. Dhaliwal: We have a total allowable catch of 275,000. However, I do not know if they have already been taken, because we do not have a market for it out there and we need to develop one.
The environmentalists will say that if you take into consideration what Greenland takes, we are taking more than we should. Therefore, it is not a sustainable resource, and we are taking more than we should on a sustainable basis. I do not have a scientific background, but I am always leery of trying to fool around with the ecosystem and thinking that we can change the ecosystem.
Senator Watt: You have to help now.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Sometimes when we change the ecosystem we create other problems that we do not anticipate. We must always be cognizant of that. Sometimes nature may not work as quickly as we want it to, but there is a balance that we must be extremely careful not to tamper with. Some people advocate a huge seal cull. The seals eat herring, the herring eat larvae, and that affects the cod. You disrupt other things that you do not want to, and that may be detrimental to your goal. I am always leery about trying to control the ecosystem. We must ensure that we have sound science before we make these decisions.
Senator Mahovlich: There has been a catastrophe in the Danube. There is cyanide in the water killing all the fish. Could that happen here in Canada, in British Columbia, for example, with all the industry that there is on the rivers there?
Mr. Dhaliwal: I am certainly not aware of that possibility. That is a huge catastrophe on the Danube. It has basically killed the river.
Senator Mahovlich: Yes, the river is dead.
Mr. Dhaliwal: That is right, and no one knows how long it will take to come back, or if it ever will.
Senator Mahovlich: We had a problem in the Miramichi a few years ago, although I hear that it is cleared up now.
Mr. Dhaliwal: There is some problem with pesticide run-off from farming. In the entire fisheries area there is a variety of problems. There are pesticides in the water. Municipalities dump raw sewage into our oceans. The thinking is that it is a big ocean, but that eventually catches up to us.
Part of my agenda is to protect our oceans for future generations, because if we do not have healthy and productive oceans we will have problems with our fish. One of the problems in B.C. for certain species is that the number of fish returning has dropped. It used to be that 15 of every 100 fish that went out to the ocean returned. In some cases, now only one fish comes back. The productivity of our oceans is extremely important. One of the things on my agenda is to talk both domestically and internationally about how we can protect our oceans for future generations, because if we do not protect them we will have serious problems in the future.
Senator Johnson: I should like to bring the discussion to my part of the world, Manitoba, and the problem we are having there with the desire of the state of North Dakota to divert Devil's Lake water to Manitoba and into our Red River-Lake Winnipeg system. I spent considerable time last week at the Freshwater Fish Institute in Winnipeg, which is, of course, part of your department. It is doing an incredible job regarding freshwater fish in a number of areas.
I will focus for the moment on this problem. I am sure you are aware of it. Many of us who live in Manitoba and are in public life there have been talking about it for some time. Governor Schafer of North Dakota is in a running battle with us. He has said that any biota in the Devil's Lake watershed had has had many opportunities in the past to move into Canada. The scientists of the institute tell us that that is simply not true, that the water from that particular lake has never been transferred into Manitoba in the past. The intention now is to do this.
Evidently, if you test the water quality of Devil's Lake you will find that the fish in that water are unable to reproduce and the fry are unable to survive. So for him to suggest that this biota is a great idea for Manitoba distresses us greatly, of course.
North Dakota also wants to freshen Devil's Lake once the level of the lake has been reduced, using Garrison diversion water from the Missouri to do this. Of course, we are then again into the whole issue of species and diseases present in the Missouri system that are not present in our lake in Manitoba. Linking the Missouri with the Red River-Lake Winnipeg system would be an ecological nightmare waiting to happen. I do not think that people are aware of what a disaster this could be. We just cannot take the chance.
In fact, the President of the United States, in his executive order 42 on February 3 of this year, ordered all federal agencies to meet criteria to prevent the introduction of invasive species. He then made a commitment to the prevention of further introduction, export, or internal transfers of non-native species and will not authorize any diversion that would threaten Canadian waters. Despite that, when Minister Axworthy was in Washington last week I do not believe that he got any reassurance. In the face of executive order 42, the state of North Dakota is breaking the order that President Clinton himself has issued.
What is Canada going to press for now? Before construction was even started we should have had an environmental assessment of this project, and we must have one before there is any further construction. We need to be very proactive. Can you help with this issue? Is there any legislation in Canada covering biota transfer and relating to what President Clinton has done with his executive order 42?
I wanted to put that story from Manitoba on the table today. Some of the things you were speaking of in terms of disease and transfer of waters is extraordinarily relevant on all shorelines across the country. With big oceans on both coasts, people often forget about us in the middle of the country. We have a lot of water and significant things happening that we need to deal with.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Senator Johnson, I spoke on Monday to the 10th International Aquatic Nuisance Species and Zebra Mussel Conference. There were people there from all over the world talking about that. One of the topics for discussion there was the Red River and how this situation would affect the ecosystem. I am very much looking forward to learning the results of their deliberations, as I am sure you are. This is very important.
Minister Axworthy is dealing with this file. Therefore, I do not know enough of the details of the file to be able to respond to your question. I am certainly willing to get more information on what Canada is doing and what we can do under the legislation. I would be very concerned about what the effects of this will be on the ecosystem.
We have seen nuisance species change the whole ecosystem. The zebra mussel is a good example, and the sea lamprey is another. We spend millions of dollars in the Great Lakes to deal with the sea lamprey because it would destroy our sports fishery if we did not. It is an extremely important matter. I will ask my staff if they can give further detail in response to your question.
Mr. Bevan: We will have to get back to the committee on that.
Mr. Dhaliwal: We will have to speak to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and get more information for you on this, but I am certainly aware of the issue.
Senator Johnson: The major urgency in my province is to have an environmental impact assessment before anything else happens. I am asking you to push that and to get back to us about that. I know that Minister Axworthy is on the case, but at the same time the environment and the water and the fish in the oceans are the responsibility of your department. President Clinton is even concerned. If we do not keep up the pressure, this country will be in deep trouble.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Senators, I would be happy to come back at any time.
The committee adjourned.