Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries
Issue 4 - Evidence of May 1 meeting
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 1, 2001
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries met this day at 7 p.m. to examine matters relating to the fishing industry.
Senator Gerald J. Comeau (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Our witness tonight is the Executive Director from the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance, Mr. David Rideout.
Mr. Rideout spent 26 years as a public servant with the Government of Canada working in the areas of fish inspection, international relations and fisheries conservation. He has held the positions of Executive Director, Fisheries Resource Conservation Council; Director General, Fish Inspection; Acting Director General, Economic and Policy Analysis; and Director General, Aquaculture Restructuring and Adjustment. In January 2000 he left government service to become the Executive Director of the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance, which is a national industry association headquartered in Ottawa that represents the interests of Canadian aquaculture operators, feed companies and suppliers, as well as provincial finfish and shellfish aquaculture associations. Welcome, Mr. Rideout.
Mr. David Rideout, Executive Director, Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance: Honourable senators, I did not prepare an opening statement per se. I thought it would be useful to present a slide deck that I prepared to point out some of the accomplishments that we have achieved in the past year or so.
The Canadian aquaculture industry has a farm gate value in excess of $600 million per year, which represents about25 per cent of the landed value of fish in Canada. We have more than 14,000 people employed, including professionals such as veterinarians, feed technicians, divers and husbandry experts.
This industry has a significant presence in coastal and rural Canada, and we are a major net contributor to the Canadian economy. It is interesting that there is a 10 to 20 per cent growth in the market per year.
The Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance is a not-for-profit National Industry Association headquartered in Ottawa. It represents the interests of Canadian aquaculture operators, feed companies and suppliers, as well as provincial finfish and shellfish associations. Essentially, these associations make up the board of the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance or CAIA.
CAIA is an association of associations that has a bottom-up structure. The board does not look to me to tell them what should be done, but rather it is the contrary. They are working towards developing particular approaches that are relevant to their areas, and they are trying to draw together a national approach to the development of national standards in conjunction with governments and others.
It is a partnership approach. We want to build relationships with decision-makers. We would like to see harmonization - one-stop shopping - whereby our industry would deal with one level of government in the local area and would be able to take care of the bulk of the issues that they need to resolve before proceeding.
We have human resources programs that we promote within the aquaculture industry alliance. We are looking to have partnerships to raise the profile of aquaculture and enhance a positive public image.
Our goal is to work with all stakeholders in the resolution of any issues that might exist.
In terms of our focus, the bottom-up approach recognizes the unique situations in each area. We also try to have an open and transparent approach - my so-called "no surprises policy" - in terms of our dealings with other stakeholders and government. We look for consistency of policy and regulatory implementation, and we want to see an elimination of ad hoc approaches, when it comes to the implementation of policy and regulations. Overall, our focus is to increase public and government confidence in aquaculture.
One of the things that I have learned in the last year is that there is not a good recognition of the industry cycles and the timeliness of decision making. In our current situation, with the application for new sites in finfish aquaculture on both coasts, we have smolts that are ready to go into the water. We are preparing for that to occur based on discussions and expectations that were created about one year ago. It is a loss to the industry of about $20 million, if we cannot proceed. Possibly I can touch on that further when I answer your questions.
This industry does not have parity with either the wild fishery or with the terrestrial farms, so there is a competitive disadvantage that this industry faces.
I said at the outset that I would like to talk about some accomplishments. I am certain that the committee will agree with me that some of these areas are quite important in terms of moving the aquaculture industry forward.
We have worked with governments, non-government organizations and specialists on a national aquatic animal health program. I raised this last year as a very critical issue with high cost to the industry and we have seen a tremendous commitment by government and industry specialists to developing a national aquatic animal program and make it operational.
We have also worked with the various governments, NGOs and specialists on the national code and introductions of transfers, which is very important for protecting wild stocks.
We are in the process of developing a national code of sustainable aquaculture. This is being done in cooperation with the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture ministers and their aquaculture task group.
We have also worked to establish cooperative arrangements with conservation organizations, and we are hoping to sign, in the next few weeks, an agreement with the Atlantic Salmon Federation on cooperation.
We have worked with the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization and the North Atlantic Salmon Farming Industry to establish a liaison group, which has developed international guidelines on code of containment. We did that in Ottawa in early February of this year. As an example, the guidelines will require that the level of fish losses be as close to zero as practicable. That is the kind of stringent guidelines that have been developed by this committee. The North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organ ization was established by the various governments in the North Atlantic areas that have salmon-bearing streams.
We have worked with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada to compile industry data that will assist in the risk assessment process that they have had in respect of some contaminants.
We have been striving for coordination, which I think is an important issue. We see coordination of all aquaculture research and development to assure efficient, effective and economic approaches. We have done this by: participating in Aquanet, which is focussed on research respecting production, environ ments and social issues; by working with the national steering committee of the DFO's Aquaculture Collaborative Research and Development program; and by working with the office of the Commissioner for Aquaculture Partnership Program steering committee.
We are also working on a project to develop on-farm HACCP in the aquaculture shellfish industry. We have participated as a member of the Seafood Inspection Policy Advisory Committee, which deals with food safety issues.
We have a strong industry in Canada, but our advantage is primarily due to our proximity to markets. We are one of the highest-cost producers in the world. This is a problem for us and we need the tools to attract investment dollars. Those tools include disease management approaches and biosecurity, crop insurance and an ocean management strategy, which could yield better access to sites. We need public confidence and public institutions. We have seen approaches that appear to diminish the food safety system in this country, which is critical to the overall marketability of our products, confidence in our products and confidence in other food products. We need a credible, focussed research community in Canada.
Good government coordination is critical to this success, but it must be positively focussed. A successful industry requires positive government coordination and leadership. The Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers is a well-accepted process that is supported by the industry, but that has not yet translated into sound decision-making related to industry cycles. This has resulted in frustration, financial loss and reduced investor confidence.
The next slide is, "Positioning of Canada." I believe that Canada can position itself appropriately. In that way, the Canadian aquaculture and wildfish industries can benefit from Canada being the best in the world in terms of ocean management, food safety, environmental quality, aquatic animal health and overall industry services. However, it requires an open and transparent process, and it also requires a partnership between government, industry, environmental groups and specialists.
The next slide refers to Canadian needs in aquaculture. The first thing we need to do is focus on what we do well. Canadians are good fish farmers; Canadians are good researchers in this area. We are good at environmental stewardship and we also have open and transparent processes. While sometimes they will seem frustrating for individuals in reality, we pretty much know where everybody stands on the issues.
We need an ocean management strategy with integrated coastal zone management; we need to have all stakeholders involved in this and we need to have DFO move on this file with some urgency.
As well, we need to see cooperation between governments; we need to establish regional and national strategies; we need to reduce the dependence on government by industry; and we need to engage all stakeholders in an open dialogue.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Rideout.
Senator Carney: In the year since you last appeared before us, we have learned a great deal about your industry. We have heard much about the problems of split jurisdictions - provincial and federal. We have heard about the many problems and the lack of enforcement of existing regulations. I do not want to discuss the areas where there has been some agreement, however, I have three questions.
First, the essential issue is whether industries such as yours, which started out as small-scale and community-based such as the one at Tofino, are developing into huge industrial feedlots in some parts of the coast and are becoming too big for the available marine resources. Could you comment on that? Do you think there is a finite limit to aquaculture, at least in net farms or in the water, in both British Columbia and the East Coast?
I mention British Columbia because, although it looks like a huge coastline, not all of it is suitable for either wildfish or aquaculture.
Do you see the development of your industry into big feedlot-type operations? Do you see it out-pacing the available marine resources to house it? If so, should it be positioned on land?
Mr. Rideout: Honestly, I do not see them as big feedlots in that sense. These are farms and they are run professionally. Granted, there are large industrial players in the industry, but there are also smaller players. I hesitate to use the example, but in British Columbia, many people have said that if all the farms were combined in one spot, they would not cover Stanley Park. If there are limits to growth, I am not certain whether we have achieved those limits, yet.
Senator Carney: The committee was told that this is developing in the Atlantic area in particular. Do you believe that there is a spatial limit of marine resources for this industry?
Mr. Rideout: Yes, there is a spatial limit for marine resources in all industries that use the oceans.
Senator Carney: My second question refers to the issue of the wild fishery and aquaculture. Of course, it applies mainly to the West Coast, where the First Nations and the coastal communities point out that aquaculture operations and the wild fishery often occur in the same area, which is causing problems because of the escape issue.
I have not had time to circulate this because it was in my papers in Victoria but John Volpe, who we met on the coast, is continuing his work on what happens with the Atlantic salmon when they escape the net and get into the steelhead streams. His initial work indicates that the Atlantic salmon will win. I will not take the time of the committee because I will circulate this document.
Basically, you have a big escape problem. They have found Atlantic salmon now in 70 B.C. rivers, mostly on Vancouver islands. That is a large number of rivers to find Atlantic farmed salmon. According this, they have counted 7,000 of them in those areas.
This raises the fundamental question of whether or not aquaculture and the wild fishery are mutually exclusive in the way in which it is now being managed and regulated. Could we have your views on that? This is the key issue on the West Coast.
Mr. Rideout: I understand it is an issue that some have raised as being, as you say, senator, a key issue. However, in reality, there have been attempts to establish sea run Atlantic salmon over the last 100 years.
Senator Carney: The research deals with that. I will not second-guess the researcher. He explains what has happened in 70 years and the difference between now and then. We all admit that there is not enough science in this area. We have been told that constantly. I am asking you, from where you sit, is the aquaculture industry on all three coasts - the B.C. coast in particular - and traditional and wild fishing mutually exclusive?
Mr. Rideout: I think that the wild fishing industry and the aquaculture industry can coexist quite well, yes.
Senator Carney: However, it may need changes in the way in which it is managed, located or regulated?
Mr. Rideout: Certainly, the new policy framework that was established by the British Columbia government is taking a look at those kinds of issues. We will see what comes out of the work that they are doing.
Senator Carney: They do not have any jurisdiction what soever over the wild fishery. DFO has the mandate for the wild fishery but you have said that they could coexist, and you may want to elaborate on that later.
My third question comes down to the identification of farmed fish. The minister has told us that he agrees with the concept of labelling of farmed fish, but it is not his jurisdiction. Everybody says it is not his or her jurisdiction. Some of the concerns that this committee has heard are that the farmed fish receive antibiotics; there is a pollution problem associated with the confinement in the net. Under certain situations, they are inoculated.
I have been told by a British Columbian that about 25 per cent of animal carcasses rendered in B.C. goes into farm fish feed. It is a big industry. We are told that the farm fish pellets are actually dyed. You can dye your farm fish to your market requirements. We dye red for Japan and lighter for some place else.
Given this public concern about what goes into the food chain, do you agree with the minister that there should be labelling of this product and there should be identification of what the inputs into it are? The antibiotics, inoculation and dye should be identified. Do you agree or not?
Mr. Rideout: I will be frank with you, senator. I do not agree with what you are saying. I do not believe that blanket expression with respect to antibiotics, pollution or rendering of animal carcasses. I understand it is what you have had heard from witnesses.
Senator Carney: Do not say you do not agree with what I am saying. I am trying to encapsulate what we have heard in a year of hearings. There are transcripts on this. Mr. Dhaliwal says that he supports the idea of labelling. Regardless if you do not agree with the other witnesses, we are not here to argue for or against. Do you agree with the labelling of this product? Should people know what it is that they are eating?
Mr. Rideout: If you are working from the assumption based on the testimony that these products have antibiotics, create pollution and are fed from rendered animals, absolutely not. I would not agree because these animals come from sophisticated farming practices. Antibiotic use is much less in this type of farming than it is in other types Antibiotic use in terms of enhancement in the wild fishery, I would say, is equivalent to that used in aquaculture before we put the animals out to sea in our cages.
The answer would be that if it were to try to identify those issues that you have said people have mentioned, then I would say no.
Senator Carney: I can buy cat food and read on the label what is in it. To what would you object about labelling farm fish?
Mr. Rideout: I do not object to anything. I think that at some point we probably will get to labelling the farm fish because we will be showing that it is a high quality product produced in a environmentally sustainable fashion. That kind of labelling will probably be of benefit to the industry.
Senator Robertson: I am with Senator Carney on the labelling. I think that it should be an easy matter, but we will come back to that another time.
I will first ask a very general question, Mr. Rideout; please answer it any way you wish. We will be studying the Auditor General's report on West Coast aquaculture in the next day or two.
Use your imagination a bit here and suppose that the Auditor General had studied the Bay of Fundy salmon farming. What do you think that his recommendations would be? Before answering this question you might wish to touch upon a couple of things that I think are important. First, is DFO fully meeting its legislative responsibilities? Second, is DFO adequately monitoring the effects of salmon farms on fish habitat and the marine environment?
Mr. Rideout: I cannot prejudge what the Auditor General would find in New Brunswick.
If I have read the Auditor General's report correctly, they are saying that DFO needs to do more work in this area. We have seen in the last 12 to 18 months that DFO is putting an astounding effort into the aquaculture file.
I commented in my opening about the industry cycle issue. We are trying to get access to new sites. Every site that we apply for has to undergo a CEAA, or Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, assessment. That is a recent occurrence on the part of DFO. It was started, as I understand it, because there was a legal opinion within the department that said that the Navigable Waters Protection Act triggers this assessment with respect to aquaculture facilities. That trigger has resulted in a tremendous effort to get our siting approved. It has been at tremendous expense by industry and tremendous effort by the DFO to ensure that the CEAA process has been followed to the last letter of the law.
My view is that if the Auditor General conducted the evaluation of salmon farming on both coasts on April 1, 2001, the Auditor General would find that there has been a significant effort by the department. While there may be some issues that are still outstanding, that the bulk of the issues have been resolved and that we are making some significant progress forward.
Senator Robertson: That is interesting. Perhaps I will come back to that issue on the second round of questions.
I will turn to the issue of the industry expanding in the Bay of Fundy. The New Brunswick Conservation Council asked how much fish could be grown without degrading the marine environment. What is the industry association's answer to that question?
Mr. Rideout: In terms of the limits to growth, I do not have the answer. I know that there is a tremendous amount of research being conducted on various aspects of the impacts of the aquaculture industry on the marine environment. I know of the significant work that the industry has gone through to pass this CEAA approval process. The industry is cognizant of the issues associated with farm operations. We have seen from the data that we have that with six to eight months of fallowing, and in some cases up to a year, we will see the bottom recover to its original state.
We have supported strongly initiatives both in British Columbia and the Atlantic Provinces that result in better planning with respect to where a siting should be. I had said in my opening remarks that one of the key things for us is an ocean management strategy. We have an Oceans Act. We are one of the few countries that has such legislation.
We should get into discussions on integrated coastal zone management. All stakeholders should be involved, and talk about what is doable and what is not, in relation to not only aquaculture but to other industries, including eco-tourism, fishing, oil and gas and whatever industries may evolve into terms of ocean industries. We could then decide whether or not aquaculture should be occurring in one area or another with those stakeholders and with the scientists and professionals within the government organizations.
Senator Robertson: I have another question or two in respect to the New Brunswick Conservation Council, which appeared here a short while ago. What is your response to the argument that salmon farming in the Bay of Fundy has exceeded the limits of the ecology system to support it? That was one of their concerns.
Mr. Rideout: I would not agree with that.
Senator Robertson: Do you have scientific data that supports your position?
Mr. Rideout: I do not. However, I do not think that they have scientific data to support their position. We need to do science, that is for sure. We need to work together to try to resolve these issues. However, the Bay of Fundy is a big body of water. One thing that we know for sure is that if something is wrong in the ecosystem our animals suffer fairly quickly. They are good indicators for us of what is going on. We need to be responsive to that.
That is one of the reasons why, for example, in British Columbia, our farmers are pleased with the new policy framework. They are moving away from sites that they know are not good. They are moving to sites that they know will be healthier for the animals.
Senator Carney: However, the sites would not be better for the wild fish.
Mr. Rideout: That is debatable, senator.
Senator Robertson: I have other questions, chair, but I will wait for the second round.
Senator Adams: Mr. Rideout, I do not know if you are familiar with where I live. There are a quite a few Arctic char farmers between Lake Ontario and Manitoba. I went to Whitehorse in March when the government changed. We went to check up on some of the windmills in Whitehorse. There was a farm factory in Whitehorse farming Arctic char.
I think that char is growing slower than any other fish because they like to live in cold water. I was wondering what those other farmers use for char that they send south. From where do they get it?
Some of the fish are being taken from eggs and being shipped down to farmers. How are people getting it?
We have few commercial activities. Some of the members of the community have tried it out without much success because the shipping costs are too much. There are better quality fish. I tried a few farmed char. It has no taste, to me.
We have a limit on the commercial fishing in some of the communities because the fish are so slow growing, unlike salmon. Char is different. According to scientists they grow only one inch a year. If you get a char that is one foot long, it is 30 years or 40 years old.
Perhaps you are familiar with how people are able to raise char and release them, and not sell them. Perhaps it grows faster in rivers.
Mr. Rideout: Unfortunately, I cannot elaborate too much in terms of Arctic char. It is an evolving industry. Some companies have done very well in terms of developing brood stock for Arctic char. I know that in the Yukon there are many farmers who are using the so-called pot lakes for growing Arctic char. They are trying to see what they can do to get to market, and how they can work with the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance on some of those issues.
As I understand, it is a sophisticated market for Arctic char. The people who do buy it and serve it in their restaurants like it. They think it is an excellent product.
We have Arctic char farms from east to west and in the North. There are some problems associated with the separate or different genetic strains; some grow better than others. The industry is grappling with those issues.
Senator Adams: I heard that it is easier to grow salmon, because some Arctic char pick up from the bottom food that is thrown in the pond, and salmon do not. Is that true?
Mr. Rideout: I cannot answer that, although I believe that there are some issues with Arctic char in terms of their going off their feed.
I would like to point out that we have a sophisticated salmon farming industry in Canada. For the feed to go to the bottom is unacceptable to our industry. Thus, we have techniques in place that would prevent that from happening.
As well, we have learned a great deal about the husbandry of these animals, and those techniques are being passed from one group to another in terms of the various developments within the whole of the finfish aquaculture industry.
Senator Meighen: I have a point of clarification on something that I believe you said - that the industry is at a point where little or no feed escapes from the nets to the bottom of the ocean floor?
Mr. Rideout: Yes, that is what I said.
Senator Meighen: That will be welcome news to lumber people in the Bay of Fundy area. How is that containment done? There is no containment net around the sites with which I am familiar in the Bay of Fundy?
Mr. Rideout: I understand that the committee went to the Bay of Fundy. Did you have a tour when you were there?
The Chairman: Yes, we did.
Mr. Rideout: Did you go out to the sites?
Senator Meighen: We went to Minister's Islands.
Mr. Rideout: You saw the feeding approaches that they have and the cameras that they use to survey how the animals are feeding, et cetera.
Senator Meighen: Yes. But I did not see what has been proposed and which I fully understand is a large expense - an exterior net around the primary net, if I can express it that way, to catch any of the faeces and unused foods, et cetera that otherwise fall to the ocean floor.
Mr. Rideout: In terms of the food, we are confident that we are able to contain most of it. I cannot say that zero food escapes, but I was on one farm where the technician on that particular day calculated that 35 pellets got by the net. They watch this very closely. One of the key reasons for that, aside from environmental concerns, is the cost of the feed itself.
Senator Meighen: Are you saying that they avoid the escapement of the pellets by putting in an appropriate number of pellets that can be eaten by the fish before they fall through? Or are you telling me that now, since I have seen these sites, they have a containment net around them?
Mr. Rideout: There is no containment net around them. The apparatus used to monitor the feeding is sophisticated enough that they can determine what their loss is in the run of a day, and it is minuscule. The feed is eaten.
Senator Meighen: Thank you. There are two different stories circulating about that one.
Senator Carney: They are well-trained fish.
Senator Meighen: Mr. Rideout, you said that guidelines require a level of fish losses, which I take to mean "escapees " to be as close to zero as practicable. My anecdotal information is to the effect that the number of escapees has climbed substantially over the past couple of years - at least in the Bay of Fundy - with which I have passing familiarity. Senator Carney has said that that happens in B.C. as well.
If the industry has subscribed to this, what measures will they take to avoid increasing fish losses by way of storms or whatever?
Mr. Rideout: The fish loss issue is big one for the industry in terms of the actual costs. As well as being an environmental issue, it is an economic issue. In working with the governments of the North Atlantic under the North Atlantic Conservation Organization, which has as its mandate the conservation of wild Atlantic stocks of salmon, our industry has agreed to guidelines that we will implement over the coming months. The question is: "How do we move on that?" Those discussions are ongoing in the industry now.
While we have not completed those discussions, we have codes of containment and the question is: "Do the codes of containment adequately deal with the requirement of the international guidelines? " Those guidelines were completed in February. However, we have to wait to see whether the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization accepts them; this will happen in Spain in June. Then, we will proceed to see how we can move to implement the guidelines.
There has been a decline in the fish losses, as opposed to an increase.
Senator Meighen: My friends in the industry tell me that, as you have said in your evidence, their greatest frustration is the time that it takes to obtain decisions from the decision-makers as to site locations and grants. Could you tell me, in your view, what is this caused by? Is it caused by overlapping jurisdictions or by multi-jurisdictional turf wars? Is it caused by poor administration at the provincial and/or federal level? I understand that it is a problem.
Mr. Rideout: The most recent reason was a decision within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans relating to a legal opinion, as I understand it, that stated that a particular section of the Navigable Waters Protection Act would trigger a CEAA assessment. While we were moving forward to have new sites approved, we now had a whole new regime that we had to follow. Aside from the costs associated with the regime, it takes time. The problem that we face is that we have smolts ready to go into the water, and we do not have the appropriate sites in which to put them.
With respect to that, we have seen considerable federal and provincial efforts to determine how government can turn to those issues to expedite the process without compromising it.
Senator Meighen: That is "foresight allocation," is it?
Mr. Rideout: That is correct.
Senator Meighen: What about the grants?
Mr. Rideout: Which grants are you talking about?
Senator Meighen: I am talking about grants in New Brunswick.
Mr. Rideout: Do you mean a licence?
Senator Meighen: No, I mean money to the fish farmers. There are grants that flow through ACOA, through the provincial agency as I understand, to the fish farmers. The complaint of the fish farmers is that they put in an application, begin rearing their fish and the fish grow. They need to do something with those fish, but they do not have an answer from the authorities as to whether their grant will be approved or rejected.
Mr. Rideout: I cannot comment on that. That is not an issue that I am prepared for.
Senator Watt: I will focus mainly on the Arctic and Subarctic. I understand that your organization is a kind of umbrella organization of all the different sets of associations; is that correct?
Mr. Rideout: Of those associations that are members, yes, it is.
Senator Watt: Your responsibility, as a non-profit organiz ation, is to help those people, is that correct?
Mr. Rideout: We try to enhance the perception of decision-makers on aquaculture. We try to answer questions here in Ottawa related to the aquaculture industry.
Senator Watt: I would imagine that your membership is important to you in order to have an overall picture of what every one is doing in regard to fish farming.
Mr. Rideout: Yes.
Senator Watt: We who live in the Arctic and Subarctic have been impacted by the extracting of eggs from live fish and transplanting them down south. That started some time ago, and it has practically killed the wild stock in terms of price.
The longer we remain silent and out of the overall picture, we will continue to be impacted by unknown factors. For that reason, I am wondering whether you have ever been contacted by the people who are dealing with the enhancement programs in the Subarctic?
Mr. Rideout: No, I have not.
Senator Watt: It is a small group of people taking it upon themselves to deal with the enhancement issue in two ways. For the first time this year they decided to take the eggs, put them into containers and raise them under their own roofs rather than planting them in the river system or lake system, which also takes place. For the very first time, I have seen a small Arctic char having two heads and one body. It seems to be quite successful.
I would recommend to you - I could help you on this - that you contact those people because they certainly need some help. If they are planning to market that stock one day down the road, they will definitely need to be noticed by the other players so that their market can be protected, especially those who are dealing with the wild stocks. They will need help with transportation costs and things of that nature.
They also need some government input from time to time in regard to funding requirements. I believe at the moment that DFO is not on top of this particular project, nor are they providing any financial aid. At this point they are doing it locally with a bit of help from the provincial government.
It is an interesting concept because they are also planning to take the eggs out of the live fish and planting them right into the river system and into the lake system. It will not be known if it is successful or not until a few years down the line. We have been doing that for the last five years and we need a couple more years to know if there will be a successful number of fish returning into the river system that never had Arctic char before.
We are trying to do our best to increase the stock because it takes a long time for Arctic char to grow. When they deplete; they deplete. They also move around. These lakes and river systems never had Arctic char before. We are starting to see some successful results but I think that it would be good for your organization to get some information on that so that these northern char farmers could call on you from time to time for marketing purposes.
The government should provide some technical or medical assistance or whatever they might need. I think that it would be worthwhile for you to know them.
Mr. Rideout: Thank you. I would appreciate getting information on that group. However, I must tell you that we are not really a marketing arm for the aquaculture industry. We will deal with issues such as the development of codes and those kinds of tools that will be important to the industry in terms of the marketing of their products. We do not, however, go out to try to find markets for the industry.
Further, I am not sure that there is any government money that goes into the marketing end of the fishing industry or the aquaculture industry. If there is, it is minuscule amounts for booths at trade shows and that sort of thing. I know that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is working on a collaborative research and development program. I know that because I am part of the steering committee. That may be an area where farmers in the North might be able to do some additional research.
I understand that the commissioner for aquaculture development sponsored a workshop for Arctic char growers. I do not know if your group was involved in that, but certainly I could speak to the commissioner. I believe that the commissioner has been before the committee.
The Chairman: He will be coming back on May 29, 2001.
Mr. Rideout: You may want to mention it to him at that time. I will certainly let him know because I know that there was an interest in what could be done respecting Arctic char.
Senator Watt: It would be of help. The farmers already exist. There is nothing we can do about that the point. Do you know from where they got those Arctic char? I am not saying that we have rights to make a compensation claim on that.
Coming back to the marketing issue, it is not so much for marketing purposes that I would like for you to be in contact with them. If we were not isolated from those players, there would be some sensitivity when the time comes to deal with the market aspects. That is basically what I am trying to say. I do not want them to be excluded. I would like them to be part of the overall proceeding in terms of whatever is taking place in that regard.
Senator Mahovlich: The Bay of Fundy was mentioned. If I recall correctly, the Bay of Fundy has some of the highest tides in the world, does it not?
Mr. Rideout: Yes.
Senator Mahovlich: Would that not be an ideal place for fish farming?
Mr. Rideout: That is our belief, yes.
Senator Mahovlich: With the flushing in and out, there would be no limit to fish farming in the Bay of Fundy. If it cleans out every day, it should not be a problem. It would be an ideal spot.
Mr. Rideout: Thank you very, much senator.
The Chairman: You could not have said it better.
Mr. Rideout: That is correct. However, we are interested in developing and having a responsible aquaculture industry in Canada. While the conditions in the Bay of Fundy and in British Columbia are ideal for the raising of Atlantic salmon, we must be cognizant of the other users. We must be cognizant of the issues associated with ocean management and ocean use.
Certainly, there is enough room for a fairly significant expansion. If the government determined that it really wanted to see a strong and vibrant aquaculture industry - an industry that can compete worldwide - then we would see some movement on this file in terms of getting more sites and more farms.
Senator Mahovlich: When I was out on the West Coast with the fish farms that were tucked in and around some of the inlets, the tides were not as strong there. I thought that there might be a lot of damage done by the fish farming.
Mr. Rideout: Any studies of outputs from a farm and the effect on the water bottom have shown that they generally are contained in the area underneath the farm. They disburse within six to nine months so that the bottom is basically returned to its original state.
Senator Mahovlich: Have there be studies on that?
Yes, there have been. As I understand it, there are some areas that have bigger problems than others are. That is the value of the work that is happening in British Columbia now, because we are getting out of those poorer areas.
It is also important that our farmers are engaged in fallowing - leaving farms vacant for a period of time to allow the ecosystem to return to its original state.
Senator Mahovlich: How old is the fish farming business in Canada? I heard that it has been happening for 70 years.
Mr. Rideout: Yes, it has been for many years.
Senator Mahovlich: However, we have not been doing research all that time.
Mr. Rideout: There has been much research, but it has been evolving. We did some tremendous research and development in the area of salmon farming and then we took the results to Chile. Now, they are beating us out in the marketplace. They have four to five times the production that we have in Canada. That is Canadian technology that they are using.
Senator Mahovlich: They have taken our technology, have they?
Mr. Rideout: Yes. Our industry began in the 1980s, essentially, and it has grown considerably.
Senator Mahovlich: Is that because of Chile and Norway? We started them in the business.
Mr. Rideout: No. It is because Canadians are good farmers. They know what they are doing, and we have excellent scientists and research. There is a huge debate and I am hoping to get away from the polarized view to try to find a way to the centre so that we can have a good discussion and resolve the issues.
We are good farmers in Canada. If we are given the chance to really show what it is that we can do, we will be a strong economic driver in coastal and rural Canada, with minimal, if any, environmental effects.
Senator Mahovlich: When we were visiting some of these places on the West Coast, we sensed that there was not enough research done on some of the farms.
Mr. Rideout: When I began this evening, after giving my presentation, I showed some of that emotion. Concerning the issues that exist, there are two points of view that are far apart. We need to bring those views to a common point so that we can find out what is right. We hope that science will help us to accomplish this.
I have a point of view, and if you were to ask someone from the environmental communities, they might say that I really do not know - that the point of view is elsewhere. This is why we are working on cooperative arrangements with conservation organizations. We have just completed the first discussion on cooperative arrangements with the Atlantic Salmon Federation. We are looking to see where else we can do similar things, because we have to dialogue on these issues. The situation in the wild stocks is not acceptable to the aquaculture industry. The situation that the aquaculture industry faces today is not acceptable either. We need to grow and compete in our marketplace.
Senator Mahovlich: Have many farms been sold, or turned over?
Mr. Rideout: There has been some consolidation, yes.
Senator Mahovlich: Have there been sales to larger corporations?
Mr. Rideout: There have been more on West Coast than on the East Coast in respect of international corporations.
Senator Hubley: Would you comment, please, Mr. Rideout, on your slides? Aquaculture needs parity with wild fisheries and terrestrial farms. Would you explain that to me, please?
Mr. Rideout: I am not 100 per cent correct on this one. In most of the fisheries that exist, there would not be a fishery without a fisheries management plan. DFO is in sync with what occurs in the fishery, and fishery management plans are issued at certain times of the year.
In the aquaculture industry, there is not an understanding of the cycle within our industry, which includes the need to grow the animals so that we can put them out on lines. For example, the shellfish and oysters must be grown, and the smolts need to be readied for the water, which is about a nine-month process. That whole cycle issue needs to be resolved.
The terrestrial farmers in Canada have access to crop insurance, the Net Income Stabilization Account - NISA - account, access to industry development and officers who assist when they have issues to face. The aquaculture industry does not have that same kind of parity with the agriculture industry.
Senator Hubley: Concerning diseases, is there any indication that farmed fish are more susceptible to diseases than fish in the wild?
Mr. Rideout: At the outset of this industry there certainly were some issues associated with diseases. The industry, through the assistance of veterinarians, researchers and fish pathologists have developed new ways to approach the way we farm; for example, the uses of vaccines and antibiotics. The use of antibiotics in this industry is, I believe, the lowest of any animal food industry in Canada. We have learned a great deal in the last 15 years.
Our animals are pretty much the healthiest animals in the ocean. We do much to manage and husband the growth and development of the animals, because if we do not, the animals go off their feed and the farmers are will face significant losses - productivity, et cetera. Thus, it is in the interests of the farmer to nurture these animals and to see solid growth right along to the market.
Senator Hubley: You mentioned that it takes six to nine months to rid a harmed area of the by-products. Does that ocean floor, or seabed, sustain any kind of marine life at all?
Mr. Rideout: Yes, it does. I am not a specialist in this area, unfortunately, but I know it is an important question. There are issues where you may see the flora and fauna change from aerobic to anaerobic conditions. That condition changes back, but, yes, there is life underneath and around the fish farms.
Senator Cook: Mr. Rideout, my concern is in the area of fish health. Given that you represent the interests of Canadian aquaculture operators and feed companies, I am concerned about two things: the health of the salmon and my own health, when I eat this product.
Do all salmon growers in Canada adhere to a code of conduct? If so, generally speaking, how were the codes developed? How are they enforced? Are salmon farmers required to provide to the government - federal or provincial - or to the public, a record of diseases and drug use?
My own personal concern is inherent because I come from a long line of medical people. They are advancing the theory now, in general conversation, that we may be building an immunity to drugs from the food we eat. That has given rise to the new viruses that we will not be able to resist with the help of drugs in the future. That is an off-the-wall statement, but on a more practical note I would like you to answer my first two questions, please.
Mr. Rideout: We do have codes of conduct. They have been developed by the industry and in some cases, with governments. We are working on a major initiative to develop a code of sustainable aquaculture. It will be a national code and we are hoping that all the local codes will nest into it and there will be a linkage between them.
We want this code to be world-class. We are looking to find strong language for this code that ensures that all readers understand the seriousness and the responsibility that the aquaculture industry takes for its activities. We will be working over the summer to try to get the national code concluded. However, there are many local codes that have been developed.
In terms of a record of diseases and antibiotic use, if I understood your second question, senator, there are essentially two systems in play - at least in terms of the salmon industry, if I can use that as an example. In British Columbia there are regulations that require reporting. The government is involved in managing that issue. Just standing back from it, no drug is used in the aquaculture industry unless a veterinarian prescribes it. It is a tightly controlled element of fish farming.
On the East Coast, that government control is not there so the industry has implemented what is called a "healthy salmon program," particularly in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. It essentially mirrors what goes on in British Columbia but in this case it is done by the industry. It is seen to be quite effective.
In terms of drug residue in our farmed products, we have, I think, the longest withdrawal times of any of the animal food production areas. By that I mean that the time from administering the drug until the animal can be slaughtered is longer for aquaculture products than it is for any other animal product. My understanding is that it is in the order of about 45 days.
Senator Cook: I notice that you use the word "hope" when you talk about the code of conduct. Is there somewhere in the big picture for enforcement? If so, who should be responsible for it?
Mr. Rideout: That is where there will be a debate, and that is where I think the issue will really turn. The discussion on compliance, reporting and enforcement will be a dynamic discussion. It is my view that the industry can implement this code with third-party auditing, whether it be auditing by government or by some other recognized organization outside government. That is a discussion that the industry will need to face over the next few months as we work to develop this code.
Senator Cook: How much research is being done to support the hypotheses that I read in all the reams of information? Do you have ongoing research? Does DFO or your association do that research? Where is the research done to ensure that this is a healthy industry?
Mr. Rideout: That is something that is quite near to my heart. There are several bodies working on research; there are several government-funded research areas. It is my hope that we can see coordination to ensure there is no duplication and that the research is focussed on the issues that will ensure environmental sustainability, public confidence and a food safety system. We want to ensure a highly productive industry and improve our status in the world in terms of being vibrant producers of great food products.
The Chairman: Are any of your members involved in sea ranching activity? Are they involved in the enhancement of the ocean floor, such as scallops?
Mr. Rideout: Some of the industry is involved in that. There is a significant amount of that work going on in the Gaspé. A new association has been created in the Gaspé in the upper reaches of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. As yet, they are not part of CAIA but certainly, we talk. I went to the Gaspé last summer to meet with their president.
The Chairman: I had not been aware that you were about to sign an agreement with the Atlantic Salmon Federation. Could you explain briefly what it is that you are signing with them?
Mr. Rideout: It is an agreement on cooperation. It is to represent that both the reparation of the condition of the wild salmon and the development of a sustainable aquaculture industry can go hand-in-hand. We need to work together to do that. There are pieces of research and other things upon which we need to cooperate.
In terms of initiatives, we have agreed to establish a management committee for areas where we could work together.
The Chairman: Is this a follow-up to this committee's visits to Saint Andrews a couple of years ago when we met with both the aquaculture people and the federation. Some advance work was done so that the when we did meet as one group that we would not go on all kinds of directions? We would come up with a series of common positions. Is this kind of a follow-up to our committee's visit to that area?
Mr. Rideout: The leadership provided by this committee and the attempt to get different views to a common understanding of what is best for the industry and the wild stocks has helped.
The Chairman: At the time, Professor Anderson indicated that the two groups might not have come together had it not been for the preparation of their proposed meeting with us. Even though there was no agreement completely on all the issues, at least they agreed to agree on the parts on which they agreed.
Mr. Rideout: Even in our agreement, we agree there might be times when we might disagree. Nevertheless we have common purpose, both in terms of aquaculture development and restoration of the wild stocks.
The Chairman: I have one final area to discuss. I know that it is getting late in the evening and there may be other questions from other senators. However, the question of research comes up quite regularly. I am sure that your group would like to see research and development of the industry in marketing, markets, and development of better products, et cetera.
Many of the people who are opposed to aquaculture of any kind point out some areas of concern where we know that there has been little research done. ISA comes to mind. The possibility of Atlantic salmon developing on the West Coast rivers is a concern.
I know that a young fellow by the name of Professor Volpe has been doing some work on this. He will be talking with the committee in future.
There are indications that Atlantic salmon may be producing in some of the rivers in B.C. However, there is no way to know because there has been no research done. There are other areas that need to be examined but are not.
Earlier this evening, the limits of growth in the Bay of Fundy was brought forward as one of the areas in which research should be done. Research is one of the common themes that keeps coming back before this committee.
Both sides of the argument are in agreement that there needs to be more research.
DFO, being the lead agency and the promoter of the industry, is also losing credibility with Canadians. Being the lead agency for and also the regulator of the industry at once is causing credibility problems that are of concern to us. If DFO does not have credibility within the community, it may become ineffective as a spokesperson for either regulation or promotion. Could you try to respond, please?
Mr. Rideout: Our industry has been able to establish an ISA management plan that has been the most effective in the world. We have moved faster than any other country to bring this disease under control.
One of the areas that is such a problem for our industry now is ensuring that we have access to sites so that we can continue to manage through single-year class management, which is a known critical factor in terms of eliminating, or greatly reducing, ISA occurrence. We are good at what we do in respect of disease management. If we could have a national aquatic animal health program, in which federal and provincial governments, industry, veterinarian colleges, private laboratories and research institutions can all work together, then we will be the leaders of this industry.
We should be the industry leaders because we have all the qualifications to show people how this can be done and done properly. It is not that other countries do it improperly, but we can be proud of our methods and proud of who and what we are.
In terms of Atlantic salmon in West Coast rivers, there is a salmon watch program that exists on the West Coast. From the statistics that I have, the number of juvenile Atlantic salmon spotted in B.C. rivers has declined from a high of 101 in 1999 to just 10 in 2000. That issue exists and it requires research.
My view is that the point is not just to show that this exists, but to show that there is not the problem that people claim. It is a benefit to the industry to resolve that issue.
I do not think that DFO is a promoter of aquaculture, rather it is essentially an environmental department. It no more promotes aquaculture than it promotes the wild fishery, in terms of setting fish management plans for harvesting in local areas. DFO has conservation and habitat protection as its primary mandate, and it does that effectively. Some of the frustration that you see in the aquaculture industry is because DFO does it a little bit slower than what we would like.
Nevertheless, this is a sound institution that has good scientific rigor and it is improving in the area of aquaculture. The fact that it has brought aquaculture into focus and is dealing with aquaculture as an industry - as opposed to an orphan - is a positive thing for the industry and for Canadians.
There will be issues, which is why I have strongly suggested that we need to have an ocean management strategy, whereby we can determine the issues and debate them in the communities. That way we can begin to manage the oceans from the point of view of environmental sustainability and we can also develop the wealth from those oceans to get coastal communities back on an economic footing. Our industry represents a real opportunity for those communities.
Senator Meighen: Can you tell me how the CAIA is funded? Is it funded by its members, or by members combined with other sources?
Mr. Rideout: Our funding comes from members, industry supporters and the contract work that we do. For example, I mentioned the human resources side. We administer a program for human resources development. We take university or college graduates and bring them into the industry in apprenticeship positions. We pay 30 per cent of the initial salary for six months. It has been an effective program that has been running for about five years.
We were a sector council about one and one-half years ago, under human resources development. The industry determined that it would be better for us to try to be self-sufficient, and that is what we have been working at. We have, in fact, been self-sufficient since April 2000.
Senator Meighen: Do you receive anything from DFO, or for that matter from the commissioner, for aquaculture's budget for research? Do you receive any compensation?
For example, if a storm destroys farm sites, or if fish are to be destroyed, or if you wish to undertake some research, can you receive funds for any of those activities from elsewhere?
Mr. Rideout: If a storm destroys a site, then the member absorbs the loss, unless they have private insurance. The private insurance costs are very high.
Unlike storm damage, for example, to a terrestrial crop.
There are the two programs that I mentioned in my opening statement. There is the Aquaculture Research and Development Collaborative Research and Development Program - part of the $75 million that I mentioned - a $20-million program over five years to which the industry has access, if it collaborates and puts money into it. It is similar to the matching investment initiative that Agriculture Canada has with its industry. There is also the Aquaculture Partnership Program to which industry can apply as well.
I talked about moving toward on-farm HACCP, which is a project under the Aquaculture Partnership Program. However, we must contribute in-kind support. We need to show how much we will contribute through the use of farms, administration and all of the issues that would be part of the development.
Senator Robertson: Late last fall there were about 15,000 fish that got loose in the Bay of Fundy from Nantucket Sea Farms off the eastern side of Grande Manan. I have been led to understand that one of your members has been working on a code for local growers and a contingency plan for when escapes happen. Could you bring us up to date on the issue of fish escapes, since you have somebody working on it?
Mr. Rideout: There is a code of containment, and we need to examine it in the context of the new requirements that we negotiated internationally under the NASCO/NASFI arrangement. That code will be revised according to the new guidelines. I have missed the second part of your question.
Senator Robertson: I was advised that one of your members was working on that code for the local growers, after that disaster. That person was not only working on a code for local growers, but a contingency plan in the event of escapes. Could you provide me with an update of that activity?
Mr. Rideout: There is a containment committee under the New Brunswick Salmon Growers Association. One of the issues is that if we do have a loss of animals, is there a way to recover those animals and get them back to the farm? One of the problems that we have is that in trying to recover the animals we must ensure that we are not recovering any wild fish. That is a significant issue that we are working on with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
In the case of that escape, the animals were there. They wanted to try to recover some of them. They could not because they could not get a permit to do it. Part of the whole containment code would be emergency response, if there were an incident.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Senators, I would like to know if I have agreement from you to file three exhibits with the committee? The first is the material from the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance that was presented this evening. As well, I would file the material from Richard Moccia from the University of Guelph, one of Senator Mahovlich's friends. Mr. Moccia could not appear before us at this time but he would like to append his material. Finally, I would append material from the Lake Winnipeg consortium. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: I would like to thank Mr. Rideout for having spent the time with us this evening. Your enthusiasm for the association has not diminished in any way, Mr. Rideout. We appreciate the time that you have taken. It has been an enjoyable evening for us.
The committee adjourned.