---

Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries

Issue 7 - Evidence for May 29, 2001

---

OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 29, 2001

The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries met this day at 7:10 p.m. to examine matters relating to the fishing industry.

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

[Translation]

The Chair: This evening, our first witness is Mr. Sylvain Vigneau, Coordinator, Association des pêcheurs de pétoncles des Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

Last year, on March 2, 2000, a few committee members travelled to the Magdalen Islands to gather more information on a unique form of cooperation between commercial scallop fishermen, DFO and other stakeholders to establish a scallop enhancement business.

We were quite impressed by the presentation given by Mr. Vigneau, and that is the reason why we have invited him to appear before us here, in Ottawa, so that his ideas and documents may become part of the record.

Mr. Vigneau, I will let you make your presentation. We will then have a question period. You now have the floor.

Mr. Sylvain Vigneau, Coordinator, Association des pêcheurs de pétoncles des Îles-de-la-Madeleine: I am pleased to have been given this opportunity to describe our system of aquaculture in support of the fishery in Quebec, more particularly in the Magdalen Islands.

I graduated from Laval University in 1989 with a degree in biology. For a few years, I was employed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as a research assistant; I worked with the biologists who were responsible for assessing the scallop, shrimp and crab stocks. I was then hired by Roche Environment where I worked as a biologist on projects involving the cultivation of scallops and lobsters. In 1993, I went to work for the Association des pêcheurs de pétoncles as director and coordinator of a project to cultivate scallops which was intended to determine the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of seeding as a solution to the falling natural stocks. We have, since my arrival, worked very hard to establish the technical and financial feasibility of seeding, as well as on the management of the seedings and the legal structure.

I am, at this time, director of Pétoncles 2000, a business that does the seeding. I am also one of the administrators of a development corporation called SODIM, la Société de développement de l'industrie maricole. I am also an administrator for the Regroupement des mariculteurs du Québec and vice-president for aquaculture for the Réseau pêches et aquaculture Québec.

I will begin by telling you about sea farming in Quebec and about REPERE, a program introduced by Pétoncles 2000 whose acronym means "Recherche sur le pétoncle à des fins d'élevage et de repeuplement" (scallop research for cultivation and re-stocking). I will explain the mission and objective of Pétoncles 2000, the action plan for 2001-06, and I will give you an example of our harvesting plan and the way in which we try to link the fishery to aquaculture. Finally, I will elaborate on the Japanese example, on their operations and the success that they have had in this field.

Quebec is now taking a second try at sea harvesting, after a failed attempt in the early 1980s. People from the industry as well as the partners, the MAPAQ and DFO, have come together to implement a strategic plan for sea farming.

This plan led to the creation of a development corporation, SODIM, and to a coordinated approach called "Table maricole québécoise." The plan provides for continual development, until 2003, and a production of 4,000 metric tons of scallops and mussels. Even if this is not large in terms of production, it is still important for us to set goals. The plan also provides for the development of two new types of mollusks.

In Quebec, these businesses are located mostly in the Gaspé and on the North Shore. Their product involves mostly mussels, scallops and other species of common sea urchins and clams. There are 35 companies covering an area of 12,000 hectares operating in this field in Quebec. Closer to us, in the Magdalen Islands, there are six companies working in sea farming - two for scallops, two for mussels and two other companies that will be producing other species.

The strategic plan led to two structures, the Table maricole québécoise which brought together fishers, sea ranchers, representatives from the Quebec Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, DFO, Economic Development Canada, the Centre spécialisé des pêches from l'Université du Québec à Rimouski, the Conseil régional de développement Gaspésie-les-Îles, the Société de développement and, finally, Environment Quebec. All of these people worked together to develop an action plan for the development of sea ranching. Two initiatives resulted from this round table on sea ranching; they are a code of ethics for sea ranchers and a draft regulatory framework.

A regulatory framework is a proposal that is submitted to the two levels of government. Such regulation could foster development while respecting neighbouring industry sectors such as the fishery, marine transport or tourism.

This regulatory framework provides for sea ranching activities, for example, mussel farming, that do not directly affect the fisheries or the sea ranching activities that support the fishery. While officials work on development management plans, other groups work in the field to develop new technologies, new ways of operating.

Following a trip to Japan in 1989, some people wanted to meet with the fishers to propose another way of doing things, that is, to use aquaculture or mariculture techniques that would allow for the regeneration of fish stocks. That is what I call sea ranching in support of the fishery.

The group known as REPERE (Recherche sur le pétoncle à des fins d'élevage et de repeuplement) has adopted a three-pronged approach. The first one involves research, that is to say, anything related to production, the natural habitat, etc. Added to that is a pilot project on the industry, which tested the results of the research project as they became available. A feasibility and cost-effectiveness study on mussel seeding to replenish the stocks represents the third part of this approach. We also studied a seeding management plan so as to determine the ideal management structure for our system. All of the provincial and federal regulations relating to the management of this structure were thoroughly examined.

With respect to the legal structure, we wanted a company that would reflect the image of Quebec. We used Japanese and New Zealand models and adapted them to the Quebec reality, more particularly, that of the Magdalen Islands. The legal entity is called Pétoncles 2000. It is 60 per cent owned by scallop fishers from the Magdalen Islands. This company will be doing the seeding. It holds all of the permits. The aim of this undertaking is to link the investment made by the fishers to a yield capacity. How can you encourage fishers to invest in a resource when they are more accustomed to investing in their equipment or in their expected yield?

We followed the business model from New Zealand. This model is based on the fact that a fisher has a purchase option for a percentage of the quota relating to the percentage of shares that he holds in the company. The more shares the fisher buys, the greater his purchasing power for the global quotas issued for each harvest. That is the key to making these seedings a reality.

The pilot project has allowed us to undertake four seedings. The first stock of 4.6 million scallops was seeded in the south part of the Magdalen Islands, about five miles from the coast, in 1996. This stock should be harvested in the summer of 2001. A second seeding of 1.8 million scallops was carried out in a zone a little further west. The four seedings represent in total 26 million scallops that will be alternately harvested on a yearly basis. This will allow us to have five sites where fishing and seeding will alternate.

The company's mission is to increase and stabilize the scallop landings in the Magdalen Islands as well as to increase and stabilize the average income of the scallop fishers. The catches for these fishers are not very large. For many, this is a secondary fishery. This could, however, become a burgeoning fishery. Overfishing has diminished the stocks, and were it not for this project, the zone would be closed to fishing because of the very low yields. These fishers do not earn large incomes. They have very little to invest, nevertheless they have a keen interest in protecting their industry.

Our production goal was 200 metric tons of scallop meat, firstly, because we thought our investment capacity would allow us to fund the production of 200,000 tons. Then, we thought that the area had sufficient capacity to support 200 metric tons since up to 350 tons of scallop meat per year were landed in the Magdalen Islands.

This graph shows you the landings between 1965 and 1998. A steep drop in the stocks, due to overfishing, appears at the beginning of the 1990s. The stock was never able to recover on its own.

Our action plan to regenerate the scallop stock consists firstly in closing a small zone called "refuge zone". This zone will remain untouched in order to favour the reproduction of the stocks. It was enlarged in 1998 and covers all of the eastern Magdalen Islands, from l'Île de la Grande-Entrée to l'Île d'Entrée. The closing of these zones will foster natural recruitment and the capturing of young scallops on the collectors, which will enhance production.

The cornerstone of this production rests on young scallop supply through capture in their natural habitat. The closing of a zone will allow the spawners to grow large enough for reproduction, which will eventually lead to a profitable fishery. In order to increase the supply of young through capture in their natural habitat, we will use 60,000 collectors per year. These scallops are left to gestate in a protected area, the lagoon at Havre-aux-Maisons. We use baskets, which is a Japanese technique. Then, the scallops grow during the pre-harvesting period that can last from six to eight months.

Thirty million scallops will be left to grow to a size of 30 to 40 millimetres. The seeding density, each spring, will be five scallops per square meter, which will give us the necessary yield to make the company cost-effective, while ensuring that the fishers will be interested in fishing, meaning, in buying quota.

We expect an increase of 200 metric tons in landings and yields of 100 pounds per hour. At this time, fishers harvest about 10 pounds per hour, or an average of 150 to 200 pounds per day. Based on what we have seen in Japan and New Zealand, fishers should harvest about 100 pounds of meat per hour, which would allow them to pay for the quotas and ensure the cost-effectiveness of the seeding operation.

The price for that has been set at 30 per cent. The company will share the risk with the fishers. That is 30 per cent of the landing value. If the landing value drops, the fisher will pay less for the quota. If the price increases, he will pay more. The company will share the risk with the fishers by agreeing to a percentage of the landing. That means that the fisher keeps 70 per cent of the value, 18 per cent of which will pay for production costs and 12 per cent which will be taken in profit.

The action plan for 2001 to 2006 includes five seeding sites designated from A to E and located in the southern part of the Magdalen Islands. We aim to establish a harvesting zone each year with seeding of the same zone the following year so that, after four years, harvesting can resume. We are trying to avoid a break in the system in other to ensure a yearly harvest.

We can see here that the seeding sites are not chosen at random. In the Magdalen Islands, there is good cooperation with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, l'Institut Maurice-Lamontagne and the ministère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation (Quebec Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food). We are, at this time, working on a project that is already underway; we are gathering all available data on predators, as well as data on stock evaluation, which will be put on data bases, with geographic references, so as to create maps to indicate the type of sea bottom, the number of predators and the number of scallops. This will not apply to a specific year, but will continue from one year to the next, so that we might choose the best seeding sites. We are in partnership with these two departments to pool the data that will allow us to choose the best sites.

I will now show you the harvesting plan for 2001, to demonstrate the relationship between sea ranching and the fishery. Up until now, we have discussed sea ranching in terms of production, but we will now deal with harvesting. The company will have to evaluate the stocks, the issuing of quotas and the management of the landings. This is also done with other species such as crab or scallops in other zones, much like what is done by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

With the payments made by the fishers, the company will undertake to manage the harvest, and the same will apply for the fishing zone. In fact, the 2001 harvest will be carried out where 4.6 million scallops were seeded in 1996. This zone was seeded with a density of five scallops per square meter. The seeding was accomplished with 28 north-south tows, which means that the seeding was carried out from the surface with a boat that followed a specific seeding plan whereby a certain quantity of scallops were dropped in order to meet a given density.

After that we undertook an evaluation of the stocks. When I say we, that includes our partners, who are very valuable to us. This stock evaluation allowed us to estimate the number of scallops on the seabed as well as the quantity that were considered usable.

Since the fishery is done on a rotating basis, we are responsible for rebuilding the recruitment. By seeding the scallops, we harvest as close as possible to 200 per cent of the scallops that are available, much as one plants new seeds in a garden after a harvest.

Therefore, we estimate that about 66,000 pounds of scallop meat will be available from the site that has been seeded. If the fishers are 80 per cent efficient, we hope to harvest about 44,500 pounds. Based on those numbers, we have set a global quota of 40,000 pounds, which will be divided on a pro rata basis according to the share that is owned by each fisher. A fisher with 5 per cent of the company can exercise an option to purchase 5 per cent of the quota.

In closing, I would like to tell you about what is being done in Japan, near the island of Hokkaido. It was seeded in 1993-94 with up to 3 billion scallops at a density of between 5 to 10 scallops per square meter. These people are somewhat ahead of us because they have been doing this for 50 years. Their results have been extraordinary. We do not expect to recover 100 per cent of the scallops that are seeded. In order to be profitable, our goal is 25 per cent of the scallops, that is, one scallop out of four would allow us to be cost-effective. In Japan, the harvest rate is 35 to 45 per cent of the scallops that are seeded. Their lengthy experience allows them to be way ahead of us. It is not because they are more intelligent, only because their stocks began to dwindle before ours did.

We visited one company in Japan that owns four sites, each one 48 square kilometres in area, on which 350 million scallops are seeded per year. They harvest - and this is not a fishing story because I was there, on the boat - 1,000 pounds of meat per hour. They have a quota of 5,000 pounds of meat per day per boat. The company owns 16 boats and has an annual yield of 8 million pounds of meat. This is only one such business among the many that are located near the island of Hokkaido.

This company does not do any seeding. In Japan, the legal entity is somewhat different from ours. They work with cooperative systems that fall somewhere between our cooperatives and our private businesses. The members of the cooperative are at different levels, which means that they are closer to our private companies than our cooperatives. We did not try to import their cooperative system, but we did import their technology. They can have their cooperatives. They have a very interesting system. Our operation is somewhat the reverse of what they are doing because they are fishers who have undertaken aquaculture some years ago and these fishers are all involved in aquaculture. However, they do not call themselves sea ranchers, they are fishers. The type of fishing has changed. They no longer use the same technique.

These fishers lease the sites from the company and pay for the lease by doing the scallop seeding. The scallops are harvested by the company four years later, with a return of 35 to 45 per cent.

The company also buys the production from the fishers. The one that we visited harvested, through suspended ranching, 8 million pounds of meat, which means that it produced a total of 16 million pounds of meat. That is an impressive quantity.

As you can see on the slide, a wharf on the island of Hokkaido is quite similar to some of our own wharves. On our wharves, that are crawling with activity at this time of the year, there are about 125 lobster fishers. It is fascinating to watch. On the island of Hokkaido, rather than lobster fishers, we see scallop producers. It is just as busy as it is here with our lobster fishers.

Senator Robichaud: It is encouraging to hear what you have to say, especially because you come from New Brunswick, where, during the 1960s, along the Northumberland Straight, the scallop catches were quite high and profitable for the fishers. Since the collapse, or at least since the drop in the stocks, the luckier ones might be able to harvest 150 to 200 pounds, while others only catch 35 or 40 pounds per day. However, in order to do that, they have had to update their equipment. I know that there were once great quantities of scallops in the Straight. The stocks cannot regenerate without help, and some fishers are now attempting to do that through seeding.

What is the percentage of scallop fishers involved in your regeneration project at this time?

Mr. Vigneau: At this time, in zone 20, around the Magdalen Islands, 23 license holders fish for scallops either full-time or part-time if they also fish for other species. Among these 23 fishers, 21 have joined the company, but we still have room for 23. Those who have decided not to invest in this sector the first year probably had other priorities. However, they have not been excluded from the project, because we intend to issue shares in the business for the next six years. Nevertheless, 21 fishers have decided to invest considerable amounts.

The fishers must invest a total of one-half-million dollars in the company, and these are investments, not payments.

Senator Robichaud: How is the investment made?

Mr. Vigneau: The fishers pay cash for shares in the business. The fishers would be even more interested in investing if tax credits were available for investments in sea ranching. And even though such credits are not available, the fishers are still willing to invest.

Senator Robichaud: You are quite right to mention it. The fishermen invested in the beginning and had to wait at least five years before benefiting from their investment.

Mr. Vigneau: The biggest problem in scallop farming is caused by the length of the reproductive cycle, which takes a minimum of five years. In fact, from the first collection to the harvest, it is more like six years. You therefore must seed six stocks before the first harvest. You have to invest again and again over the first six years before benefiting financially from that.

That is one of the reasons why we started slowly. Clearly, the fishermen started out by investing cautiously, and we are not referring to investment of their time or otherwise. We are talking about an investment of half a million dollars.

Senator Robichaud: Did the 21 fishermen invest $500,000 in all?

Mr. Vigneau: Yes. The investment is approximately $525,000 for the 21 fishermen.

Senator Robichaud: It is not, however, sufficient to run your business. Have you looked elsewhere for financing?

Mr. Vigneau: We have now lined up approximately $500,000 from our private financial partners, from venture capital firms. We have another significant partner, the Société de développement de l'industrie maricole. They are a good private partner, and stakeholders hold preferred stock. This is a business with capital stock and the fishermen are the owners. Their option to purchase issued quota is commensurate with the percentage of the business they own.

Senator Robichaud: You are talking about scallop fishermen, but you also have many lobster fishermen. The shareholders are not limited to scallop fishermen, are they? You have some scallop fishermen who also fish lobster?

Mr. Vigneau: One of the conditions of the shareholder's agreement is that you must hold a fishing licence. We have no control over fishing permits, that is to say that we cannot oblige a person to sell his permit, nor can we take it away from him. On the other hand, we can require that a person, in order to be a shareholder, hold a licence. We wanted this business to be for the scallop fishermen, and not for people who would withdraw from the fishery later on, therefore we tied the ability to be a shareholder in the business with the holding of a scallop fishing licence. When a fisherman gives up his licence, he must also sell his shares.

Senator Robichaud: When it is time to harvest, do the fishermen do so individually with the equipment that they already have, or do you group the fishermen together on one boat in order to minimize the expenses of the harvest?

Mr. Vigneau: At the moment, according to the harvest plan, each shareholding fisherman has a quota purchase option. This is transferable, which means that there could be five boat owners fishing for the total of the five quotas. This could bring about significant savings, but this would not prevent a fisherman who wished to do so from fishing his own quota himself, even if he is smaller and perhaps less profitable.

[English]

Senator Callbeck: Mr. Vigneau, you say that there are 23 licensed fishers in your area and that 21 of them are in the enterprise. They own 60 per cent of the stock and the other 40 per cent is owned by outside people. You mentioned venture capital. Was it difficult to get that venture capital?

Mr. Vigneau: Oui.

Senator Callbeck: That must be extremely difficult. You mentioned buying the quota. The more stock they have, the more quota they have; is that right? Is that how it goes? If they own 10 per cent of the stock, then they have 10 per cent of the quota? I am not sure how it is divided up but that must be difficult because of your venture capital.

[Translation]

Mr. Vigneau: There is one point I left out, and I did so intentionally. In fact, the fishermen are grouped together in a management corporation, which is the business that is 100 per cent owned by fishermen, and the total of their individual shares equals 100 per cent of the enterprise. There is an agreement between the production side and the fisherman's management body according to which the total production will be sold to this enterprise in order to be redistributed according to the percentage of the business they own. I can understand that you had trouble with that point.

[English]

Senator Callbeck: What about finding markets for selling scallops? Is it difficult?

[Translation]

Mr. Vigneau: For the moment, we are not involved in marketing. Perhaps that will come later. Fishermen harvest scallops annually, and they deal directly with their buyer or their producer. We do not have a scallop processing licence, nor do we have a buyers' licence. We sell the quota to fishermen, and the established businesses working in marketing take over from there. We must maximize our returns with 30 per cent of the landed value. It would be in our interest to work on marketing, because 30 per cent of a weak price will always be a weak price. For this reason, it will be a priority for us to work on marketing in conjunction with buyers who are already in the industry.

The Chair: Mr. Vigneau, did the Japanese that you visited share any information that might be difficult to find? Are they receptive to the idea of sharing technical information?

Mr. Vigneau: I will try to answer your question by telling you an anecdote. When I went to Japan, I had an idea in mind that stemmed from a scientific article on floating longline anchoring systems used in Japan. At that point in time, we had problems anchoring our systems in Quebec. The anchoring team had to use cement blocks that became heavy and dangerous. One of the goals of the trip was to learn how to use the floating longline anchoring system. We knew how it was made, but did not know how to use it. Despite the language difficulty - because you do not learn to speak Japanese in a week - we met with Japanese people who were using the system. They explained to us how it worked, more or less. We came home and we experimented. The system did not work. I communicated with my contact in Japan, who speaks English very well, and explained the problem to him. He got back in touch with the person over there, who drew him a plan which of course was written in Japanese. He had it translated into English and sent it to me by fax. One week later, I started setting up the anchors and it worked. It is a very simple system; sometimes we ask ourselves why did not think of it earlier.

The Chair: Yours is a form of aquaculture - I do not know the exact expression - which seems to have few critics. People do not seem to be against your system. I am thinking here about the people who fear for the environment. If I understood correctly, you may potentially create a lot of jobs. You have a product that is in great demand, and I see the potential of your venture. It could take you far. To what degree can we imagine this business progressing? How many jobs do you foresee? What will the yield be? Do you have any potential figures?

Mr. Vigneau: At the present time, in the production business as such, the jobs are directly related to the production. We are talking about approximately 40 jobs lasting from four to 12 months per year. Of course we are also talking about jobs for fishermen on board the boats. We have 21 businesses that are harvesting with three employees each. We are also talking about processing. I do not have any figures in mind, but we were assessing the potential number of jobs including processing. We estimated that each kilogram of fish produced corresponded to a number of plant jobs, a number of plant-job hours, and it is quite impressive. We could multiply the number of jobs created in the production business several times. We are working with small scallops. We are dealing with a large volume of scallops. We can deal with up to a million scallops per day. It is quite an impressive figure.

To give you an idea of the scale, the 23 fishermen land approximately 2 to 3 million scallops annually. We process one million scallops per day, usually. In terms of numbers, these are small scallops as opposed to big ones.

The Chair: If I understand correctly, the areas that DFO has reserved for you now are quite limited. If you had a much larger area for your stocking operations, would the potential be even greater?

Mr. Vigneau: Our production goal of 30 million scallops is connected to our investment capacity. The fishermen absolutely wanted to maintain control of the production business. In order to do so, they had to be able to put in 60 per cent of the capital. We therefore worked from the amount they were able to produce. Our financial partners were able to go out and find other money and the financial structure that supports the business, for a production that could reach 200 metric tons. It is not an objective related to the capacity of the area, but to the fishermen's capacity to invest.

There is another aspect we have not yet explored, but which we intend to over the next few years, that of suspended culture production. As a young scallop and seedstock producing enterprise, we would like to supply people interested in suspended ranching. We have the infrastructure and the spat collection capacity to do so, and we have enough sites to do it.

You are right concerning the site and the opportunity to get a lease from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. These are stocking sites, and they are the cornerstone that link all of this work. If there is no lease on a stocking site, there are no property rights. If there are no property rights, there are no quota sales, and if there are no quota sales, there is no production. All of this rests on the ability to get a lease. It truly is the cornerstone.

There are other ways. I say that the cornerstone depends on the ability to get a lease because it is our choice to work within a system, if you will, that is completely private, with private financial partners.

This is not the system in use in New Zealand. There people talk more about the delegation of management from the Department of Fisheries. It is a co-management system that we can almost imagine here through partnership agreements. This is a partnership agreement that is renegotiated every year. The enterprise, which is called Challenger Scallops Enhancement in New Zealand, negotiates with the Department of Fisheries for this management authority and it takes care of stocking and the harvest itself. It not only manages the lease areas, but the entire fishing zone around the southern part of New Zealand.

The Chair: You have been developing your own technology on the Magdalen Islands for some years now. You now have very valuable knowledge. Would you be prepared to share your technical knowledge with other regions, such as Northumberland or other areas, where you would be able to help producers use the approach that you have followed?

Mr. Vigneau: We are already working closely with them. There is nothing official in the documents, but still we are working in collaboration with the people who are taking care of the Maritime Fisherman's Union project, who are coordinating the scallop farming project activities in New Brunswick. Recently, the coordinator called my office while he was out on the water. He had a little problem with scallops and he wanted my opinion. There are not a lot of people working in this area in Canada. We pretty much know each other and we speak quite regularly.

Senator Robichaud: Are the zones that you control and where you have a lease areas where scallops were fished in the past?

Mr. Vigneau: There was an agreement between the fishermen and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to close a zone in order to be able to stock it.

Senator Robichaud: Has it been difficult to have controlled access to this area?

Mr. Vigneau: On a scale of one to ten?

Senator Robichaud: Yes.

Mr. Vigneau: I would say 9.99.

Senator Robichaud: What sort of difficulties were there?

Mr. Vigneau: The problems were mainly because of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We had tried to obtain control not through a private lease, but through a partnership agreement, through co-management between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Industry to manage the resource. The plan was set up, it was filed with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and it included the same payment system. The plan was meant to self-finance the stocking. In fact, the payment for the stocking was considered to be a conservation measure and that is what did not work out.

After a year of discussions, we finally realized that it would never work. We did some research on how leases work in oyster farming. We asked if it would be possible to have a lease, and this is how you get property right over the organism. In order to have a lease issued, it took a lot of discussions and working together with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the ministère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation du Québec and the ministère de l'Environnement du Québec, which issues the leases.

The Chair: We thank you for your testimony, Mr. Vigneau. I hope that in a few years time, we will be able to invite you back so that we will be able to put a precise figure on your scallop harvest. Please be advised that you will be invited again.

Mr. Vigneau: Thank you for your invitation. I would also be very pleased to have you visit the Magdalen Islands.

The Chair: I would now like to welcome Mr. Yves Bastien, the Commissioner for Aquaculture Development. In 1998, Mr. Bastien was the first person appointed to the position of Commissioner for Aquaculture Development. The commissioner, on behalf of the federal government, is responsible for overseeing the development of the aquaculture industry. He has extensive experience in aquaculture, in project management and in aquatic and wildlife resources management. Mr. Bastien last appeared before the committee on February 22, 2000. You may now make your presentation and afterwards we will have a question period.

Mr. Yves Bastien, Commissioner for Aquaculture Development: Mr. Chairman, it is indeed a pleasure to appear before you once again and to have the opportunity to contribute to your study of the fishing industry and aquaculture. In the last year, a large number of developments have taken place and I would like to speak to you about the most important one tonight.

[English]

One major development is the release of the report on the legal review of aquaculture. I understand that you have received copies of the report.

The report contained 36 recommendations that were submitted to Minister Dhaliwal in June 2000. The review focussed on three main objectives. The first objective is to provide the aquaculture industry with clear and transparent rules and to ensure that there are no surprises in how the rules are applied. These rules outline just what is expected of aquaculturists. The second objective is to ensure that there is a stable environment in which aquaculture businesses may operate. The third objective is to provide government officers with clear and consistent guidelines on how to apply current policies and regulations to the aquaculture sector.

[Translation]

It is my view that implementation of these recommendations will contribute to reducing frustration and improving the satisfaction of both the industry and government regulators by streamlining and harmonizing processes and ensuring that these processes are more efficient at fulfilling all government responsibilities, including protection of the environment, food safety, and navigation.

[English]

Since most of the information you have received has dealt with interactions with the environment, I would like to highlight that an important part of the legal review focussed on environmental management and protection.

I believe that when they are fully implemented these recommendations will contribute substantially to addressing most of the issues that were raised before this committee during the last year. Environmental protection is a concern to all stakeholders, including aquaculturists, and it is certainly a concern to me.

Sea ranching, or enhancement, of public stocks of fish and shellfish was another important part of the legal review. I mention this because it is closely related to the excellent presentation given to us tonight by Sylvain Vigneau. The report from the legal review recommends that an enhancement strategy be developed and that the strategy be supported through policy and regulatory changes. I will not elaborate on this proposal in my formal remarks. However, I will be pleased to have a discussion of this with the members of the committee.

When the federal aquaculture development strategy was launched in 1995, the federal government made the following commitment.

The federal government will:

undertake a comprehensive review of all federal legisla tion and any accompanying regulations to identify and remove, where appropriate, constraints to aquaculture devel opment;

work to ensure that all federal legislation and regulations are applied equitably across Canada.

[Translation]

The report you have in hand represents a first step in carrying out this commitment. I consider this report as stage one of a comprehensive review process that is aimed at providing the aquaculture sector with a modern legal framework that is well adapted to this new sector and that is designed to enable it to address the challenges it faces.

It is important to understand that at the federal level, the legislation and the regulations that currently apply to aquaculture were not drafted with aquaculture in mind. This causes significant problems for both the regulators and the industry.

[English]

This first phase of the legal review focuses mainly on policies and simple regulatory changes instead of major changes in legislation or regulations. As is explained in the report, a second phase in this legal review process will be necessary to address more fundamental legal issues or gaps. Before carrying out this second phase, it is essential to establish the policy framework that will provide direction as to how these more fundamental gaps should be resolved.

In concrete terms, we need to decide if we will manage aquaculture as a fishery, as part of the agriculture department, or as a unique and growing sector with its own needs. We must make that decision before we decide on the final form of the legal framework that we will use to manage the sector in the years to come.

I would now like to focus on the other initiatives that my office has taken. The legal review was our first priority. When my office was established in January 1999, I set two other priorities. The first priority was to improve the perception of Canadians toward aquaculture. The second priority was to foster better collaboration between the fisheries and aquaculture sectors in Canada.

Now that the first phase of the legal review is completed, my office will be able to invest more energy in addressing our other two priorities. We already have several initiatives underway to deal with these.

One other major initiative that my office has undertaken is the Aquaculture Partnership Program, or APP.

This program, which is cost-shared with industry, provides financial support to projects that are proposed by the aquaculture industry. These projects, which are in line with the goals of my office, promote collaboration and partnership within the Canadian aquaculture industry. Under the APP, total funding of $600,000 per year is available for projects in each of the three years.

[Translation]

There is not enough time to speak about all the other initiatives my office has undertaken but I have provided the clerk of the committee with copies of my office's mid-term report for the information of the committee. It provides details about all our activities and I will be glad to answer any questions you may have about these.

In speaking about what has been accomplished in the last year, I must stress that there has been a great deal of work by the industry and by both levels of government to move forward on aquaculture.

[English]

As you know, jurisdiction over aquaculture is shared between the federal government and the provincial governments.

Fortunately, through the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers, or CCFAM, there is a positive climate of collaboration on aquaculture. Both levels of government are actively working to streamline processes relating to aquaculture approvals, to coordinate R&D and, more broadly, to harmonize administration relating to aquaculture.

Governments are also supporting industry in developing a code of conduct, the basic principles of which are the subject of a joint agreement.

It is my view that the federal and provincial governments have put or are currently putting in place the regulations, policies and procedures that are needed to give the industry predictable and affordable access to marine and freshwater environments. They are doing this while they are also ensuring that these environ ments are adequately protected.

Much of this attention is more than overdue. However, aquaculture is finally being recognized as a legitimate user of our aquatic resources and as a significant industry in Canada, with its own needs and problems.

As you have heard from Liseanne Forand, Fisheries and Oceans Canada has developed an action plan to deal with the recommendations made in the legal review of aquaculture. While DFO cannot address all the recommendations at the same time, it has established priorities. I understand that you have been briefed by DFO's representatives about their department's initiatives. DFO's $75 million Program for Sustainable Aquaculture is another major element of this action plan.

In the past, it was said that there was a vacuum regarding policies and regulations for aquaculture. I must say that the current situation is quite different.

In my opinion, aquaculture is well regulated. There are mechanisms in place to examine the environmental impact of proposed operations before projects start. There are also measures in place to monitor the effect of operations on the environment during these operations.

Moreover, the federal government is launching several research and development initiatives to improve scientific knowledge of all aspects of aquaculture, including environmental impact. Through its action plan and its $75 million Program for Sustainable Aquaculture, I am convinced that DFO is in a position to address all the issues that were raised by the Auditor General in his report on "The Effects of Salmon Farming in British Columbia on the Management of Wild Salmon Stocks." I must mention that some of these same issues were also raised in my report on the legal review.

[Translation]

One aspect of my job is to keep DFO's feet close to the fire so that the department meets all of its goals with respect to its action plan and its $75 million program. I am planning to continue to fulfil this function energetically and I look forward to the Auditor General reviewing this again soon and concluding that all the issues have been addressed.

[English]

I would also like to highlight that Aquanet, the National Research Council's Centre of Excellence for aquaculture, is another major federal initiative that will provide all Canadians, including fishermen, First Nations and environmental NGOs with independent, university-based scientific knowledge on aquaculture. The Aquanet program is carried out under three themes: animal production, environmental integrity, and socio-economic aspects.

Research and Development will contribute to providing this promising sector with all the sound science that is necessary to make aquaculture a model of sustainable development.

It should also be mentioned that this research and development work is to be carried out in collaboration with industry, other stakeholders, First Nations, and the provincial governments.

I look forward to the day when all Canadians will be proud of their dynamic and environmentally sustainable aquaculture industry. The aquaculture industry has the potential to provide economic activity in both rural and coastal communities. This economic opportunity enable them to enjoy a satisfactory work life in their communities.

This can be done in a perfectly complementary way with the traditional fishery sector. Many fisheries of the future will be the result of mixed technologies involving aquaculture techniques and traditional harvesting techniques.

[Translation]

So I foresee the day where these two sectors will be fully integrated into a seafood sector where the distinction between an aquaculturist and a fisherman will not be important anymore because everyone will be involved in producing wealth from our oceans cooperatively, in a sustainable manner.

[English]

I want to mention that I have provided the clerk of this committee with copies of the remarks that I made before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans on April 26. When I spoke to the standing committee of the House, I clarified some misunderstandings regarding statements I made in Victoria at the Aquaculture Canada 1999 Conference. My remarks to that committee have been provided to you for the same purpose.

In closing, I would like to thank you for inviting me to address you. It will be a pleasure to answer any questions that you may have.

The Chairman: I thank you, Mr. Bastien, for agreeing to appear tonight and for sharing this information with us.

I have been negligent forgetting to introduce your colleague, Mr. Jack Taylor, Executive Director of the Office of the Commissioner for Aquaculture Development.

Senator Carney: There are so many questions to ask you that I have asked the chairman to submit our researcher's questions to you for written responses. Otherwise, we will never get through all of the questions tonight. Our researcher has spent a lot of time focusing on some of the key points. I think the chairman may speak to you about that. Is it appropriate to ask you to respond to the written questions?

The Chairman: After this meeting tonight, yes.

Senator Carney: I have four questions, Mr. Bastien. The first one relates to the incredible differences among our three coasts, the East, the West and the Arctic. I find fascinating the scallop farming techniques that were explained to us. It is difficult to relate the scale and that kind of operation to the West Coast. We have an entirely different situation on the West Coast than the one on the East Coast. We have 25,000 kilometres of coastline, most of it without road access.

We have at least four fisheries, which people overlook, and we have the traditional commercial fishery. In spite of the often-held myth that we do not have any fish left in the West Coast, we have healthy commercial fisheries in salmon, halibut and other stocks. We have the recreational fisheries, that are even more loud and outspoken than the other fishing groups. We have an aboriginal fishery, basically a food fishery, which is very healthy, and we have aquaculture. We have all of these groups competing for both the space and aquatic resources that you talk about.

Something I have learned in this committee is that we have a strong aboriginal participation in the traditional commercial fishery.

We have a problem in this country in regards to our fisheries because what works for the East Coast is irrelevant to the West Coast and vice versa. I will not even get into the Arctic. One concern that I have heard about your particular office and your appointment in particular, is a feeling that you are not really familiar with the West Coast. You have an excellent background and very extensive experience, but not in terms of the West Coast's unique problems. Could you address that, please, Mr. Bastien, because it is a question that has been raised with us? In the same context, can you also address how you can have a national policy that encompasses these specific regional situations that require different regulations?

Mr. Bastien: You have raised many points, senator. I suggest that there are many parts of Canada that are considered as very distinct. Each part of Canada is very different.

When we created this office, we created positions for three regional officers. I have one person on my staff who is located in British Columbia. We communicate daily. That person has worked for many years on the West Coast and is well aware of what is going on there. I also have contact with members of the West Coast aquaculture industry. We maintain good relationships with all kinds of stakeholders there. We try to ensure that we know exactly what is going on and that we take into consideration the differences between the different regions of the country.

We know very well that depending on where you are in Canada, in Newfoundland, British Columbia, or Quebec, some interpretation, or some adaptation is needed to blend the local context to the national policies. This is sound and correct. I will always support it. In terms of developing or suggesting national policies, it is important to ensure that if, for example, we applied the Navigable Water Protections Act somewhere in the country that we try to do it the same way everywhere. It is the same thing with section 35 of the protection of fish habitat of the Fisheries Act. If we apply it somewhere in Newfoundland, it has to follow the same kind of general principle everywhere in the country. There will always be some local differences in the way we do things, which is very healthy and sound. I do not know if I have completely addressed your question, senator.

Senator Carney: I think you have done a good first cut, Mr. Bastien. I urge you to personally get out into some of these areas in British Columbia. Some of the areas may not be easily accessible, but you will not really be able to talk to the stakeholders outside the aquaculture area unless you get into some of the coastal communities, into some of the traditional fisheries and into the aboriginal communities. It is as incomprehensible to try to visualize that as it is for me to visualize some of the other areas of this country. I welcome you to do that.

Mr. Bastien: There are some concerns that I am always on the West Coast. There are people on the East Coast who wonder why are I spend so much time on the West Coast.

I would also like to mention that we are currently doing a study on the potential of cultured-based fisheries. That is what the scallop experiment is on the East Coast. We are trying to find out how it can be applied to two species on the East Coast and four species on the West Coast. The four West Coast species are, the geoduck, Manilla clam, Pacific scallop and the abalone.

The result of those studies will be given to us soon. We hope that by June we will be able to provide the results that show the potential for those culture-based fisheries on the West Coast.

Senator Carney: I am conveying to you the concerns that I as a British Columbian hear and through my presence on this committee I am passing on to you. Going to the West Coast does not necessarily mean going to Bella Coola if you are in Victoria. It has been said to us that you have never been north of Campbell River.

My second question deals with convergence. This differs from your earlier remarks to us. You have said that you think that aquaculture can be done in perfect complementarity with the traditional fisheries. You foresee the day when these two sectors will be fully integrated into a seafood sector where there will be no distinction between an aquaculturist and a fisherman. First, there is an enormous cultural difference between a fisherman and aquaculturist. One is a farmer in the West Coast view and the other is a fisherman who is in command of his gear, boat and lines. I do not think we can deal with all of this today, but there is a cultural difference between the two. It worries me that you think that convergence is possible. First, you stated that you do not have a mandate for convergence. You have explained to us that your mandate is for aquaculture. DFO's mandate is for the wild salmon and the halibut and the other things. Given the different mandates and the different jurisdictions between the provinces and the federal government, can you elaborate on how you see this convergence taking place? It is an ideal goal and something that we have to achieve. How can you do that? What can you contribute to it?

Mr. Bastien: That is a very important point, senator. The traditional fishery captures fish and kills them whereas farming keeps the fish alive. I agree with you that these are two different ways of thinking. I would agree with you that there are two fundamentally different philosophies. However, there exists the potential for collaboration between the two philosophies. When I say that I foresee that we may get there, I am not talking about soon. I am just saying that, for the benefit of both the aquaculture and fisheries sectors, we should work on the potential collaboration to see if we can find some common ground.

I will give you one concrete example. In the seafood sector our main competitors are poultry and beef. To more effectively compete with poultry and beef we could get the aquaculture and the fisheries sectors together and agree on a generic marketing campaign that would say "eat fish because it is good for your health." The two sectors could continue to disagree on some issues while at the same time uniting to promote their products. That is just one example. Tonight's example illustrates that in other countries in the world there is no distinction between fishermen and aquaculturists. In Norway, in 1990, there was major fighting between the fisheries and aquaculture sectors and the government decided to foster better collaboration between the two. The Norwegian government initiated many incentives to bring the two sectors closer. It issued cod farming permits on the condition that the permit go to the project that showed the best integration between the two sectors. That is to say that the fishermen would be part of the project and so would the aquaculturalists. There is a role for the government.

Regarding my mandate, I agree with you, my job is to foster the development of aquaculture. However, I set a priority in my office to foster better collaboration. I am not there to create it or impose anything. My office can create the conditions for those two sectors to sit together, and to find common ground. This is the only thing I would like to do.

[Translation]

Senator Robichaud: When I asked Mr. Vigneau whether it was difficult to get a lease, he answered that it was very difficult. Is it any easier now? It was a difficult obstacle to overcome, and it created big problems for fishers who wanted to practice aquaculture.

Mr. Bastien: Thank you for asking me that question. This will allow me to speak about my role in this program as a conciliator in the negotiations between fishers and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. During the negotiations, scallop fishers wanted to work in partnership. As Mr. Vigneau mentioned, according to this agreement, fishers would manage their own funds without any privatization.

At the time I was working for the Quebec government, for the ministère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation. I was involved with that file. I met with the regional director of the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans to try to convince him to go ahead with a public seeding plan, like the one in New Zealand. For various reasons, this suggestion did not go over well with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. They concluded that it was impossible and that they did not have the legal means to do it. I then put a recommendation in my legal review.

Supposing that one fisher out of 23 does not want to participate in this program, we cannot use any legal pressure to force him to pay the same rate as the other fishers who participate in seeding the territories. If we do not have the required legal means, then what happens when this fisher decides to go fishing without having paid? We cannot force him.

These legal means still existed in the last version of the Fisheries Act tabled by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, but it died on the Order Paper. This provision in the bill amending the Fisheries Act would have allowed the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to levy some kind of tax on landings which could have been used for funding seeding operations, as is done in New Zealand. This process would have remained in the public domain.

My recommendation seeks to develop a new seeding strategy specifically for mollusks, because they do not move. If you seed salmon, it could travel all the way to Greenland, for instance. Thus, it can be fished by several jurisdictions. But since mollusks generally do not move, they are less difficult to manage. My recommendation seeks to develop a strategy for this and to see what policies and legal amendments would be needed for it.

Let me tell you that these days, it is not always easy. The notion of seeding is still rather controversial with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, especially when it involves fish. For instance, the seeding of salmon is perceived as a major cause for the decrease in wild salmon stock. The scientific debate that is going on within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans explains why seeding programs, or activities of this kind that are practiced in other countries, are not all that popular. It is still a difficult thing.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is currently in favour of private operations: this involves granting a lease and allowing interested fishers to rebuild their stock, and to work in a private way.

Senator Robichaud: Is it easy to get a lease privately?

Mr. Bastien: All I can tell you in answer to that is that only one has been granted so far. Each time an aquaculture lease is granted in Canada, we can see the difficulties it involves. This is considered as a privatization of public territory and it is always very difficult. This was observed again recently on the East Coast, and the same is happening on the West Coast. Communities have a great deal to say in this matter.

Let me simply refer to an anecdote that this committee recently heard from Mr. Peter Underwood who was the actual deputy minister in Nova Scotia's Ministry of the Environment and who is currently the actual Deputy Minister for Fisheries and Aquaculture. He told you recently that he had found that it was more difficult to grant aquaculture leases than to find places in his province for landfill sites. This goes to show how difficult it is to ensure that aquaculture can legitimately use our resources.

This is quite normal. This is a new activity that needs space at a time of fierce competition for aquatic space among all users. We should not think that it will be easy. All the users will have to come and sit at the planning table. And this is another recommendation of mine, namely to get away from a reactive mode and to do what I would call pro-active planning to try to plan a zoning system where aquaculturists could have attractive and viable territories while still respecting other users and the environment. However, this is not easy.

Senator Robichaud: I can understand that people who want to build a summer home on a coastline do not like to see certain kinds of operations going on right in front of their property, although I do not think that this is enough to disqualify potential aquaculturists. I understand how some objections can be raised.

Let us talk about a scallop-seeding operation in a marine environment where there are no cottages in the vicinity. There are areas on the seafloor that we do not know how to use and other areas that are not productive in some cases. However, there are difficulties in accessing these areas. It is not as if we were trying to invent a new rocket to go to Mars. Experiments have already been done in Japan and elsewhere. There is even an experiment going on in our country in the Magdalen Islands. I do not understand why these difficulties exist. If there are groups who want to get involved in this kind of development, they need every kind of help that the government can give them so as to have a reasonable chance to succeed. In many cases, when things get too difficult, they become exhausted and run out of energy just before coming to the fifth or sixth year which would be really productive. They suddenly lose all their momentum.

Mr. Bastien: Often, the strongest opposition comes from colleagues. When we presented, with Sylvain Vigneau and others, the idea of the REPERE program to fishers for the first time, they just stared at us as if to say: "Where did these Martians come from? What planet do they come from? What do they want to do?" For many years, this was considered a crazy idea. Today, scallop fishers in the Magdalen Islands will not let go of this idea. They will defend it at any cost.

You always need government support to implement new ways of doing things. Government involvement gives a certain credibility to an initiative and if it is not there to support it, it becomes very difficult to convince people. And that is why one of my recommendations is on that very fact. The government must allow a number of these initiatives to come to pass. We are not talking about an "at-large" policy, we are talking about a pilot project that would be successful, like the one in the Magdalen Islands, but elsewhere in Canada, with other species. A project that would enable us to open up new avenues.

Senator Robichaud: This recommendation that you are referring to, what stage has it reached in the acceptance process by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans?

Mr. Bastien: This is not part of the recommendations that the department deemed to be a priority for the first phase. However, it is very dear to my heart and I bring it up regularly within the department. I would like to point out that the next international symposium on seeding and stock improvement will take place in Japan in January 2002. The first such symposium took place in Norway in 1997 and Canada had very little representation. I hope that next January, there will be a larger Canadian delegation. I am working toward that. This is a gathering of all countries involved in this kind of activity to allow them to share their findings in this field every three or four years. The last time, 21 countries described their seeding results. This enables us to familiarize ourselves with the problems encountered in various countries and to find out how they manage to solve them. If a member of your committee is interested in attending the next symposium I will be pleased to provide you with additional information about this meeting.

[English]

Senator Watt: I do not believe I have ever had an opportunity to meet you Mr. Bastien. I listened to your presentation. I am quite encouraged by what I have heard thus far.

I shall be blunt. What do you know about the Arctic?

Mr. Bastien: That is a short question.

Senator Watt: I will go on from there.

Mr. Bastien: Unfortunately, I am not good at giving short answers.

I was in Iqaluit last summer and had a good exchange with the Minister of Sustainable Development, Peter Kilabuk. We discussed an initiative that was undertaken between Nunavut and Northern Quebec. In those areas people have installed incubation boxes in some Arctic rivers to try to improve their enhancement program. In the incubation process wooden boxes are installed in the gravel of the rivers to improve natural spawning and achieve a better survival rate. This in turn helps the population survive better. Nunavut was eager to import this technology. I was a kind of facilitator between Nunavut and Nunavik to try to carry out that exchange of technology. The project it is still ongoing.

I do know a bit about the North. I have also had discussions with people in Northern Quebec regarding the potential for mussel farming in their regions. I gave them advice on how to get started, what the potential might be and information on the life cycle for mussel farming in their regions. I pointed out that they could not really compete with what is being done in the South. However, I suggested that they could develop some kind of farming that would provide a good supply of mussels to the Northern communities.

Senator Watt: That should give you a pretty good idea of what is up there. Nunavik is where I come from. Nunavut is part of what used to be the Northwest Territories.

In Nunavik, we used to have an abundance of Atlantic salmon. Over the years, it has been declining very rapidly. We are starting to experience Atlantic salmon but they seem to be mixed with the ouananiche salmon more and more every year.

When you are located in the Arctic, with the high cost of transportation, and high cost of everything else, it is hard to compete with southern partners, especially with regard to marketing of the product. Our market was basically destroyed when they began to import Arctic char eggs into the south and raise the char there. There was no way we could compete with that due to transportation costs. For a few years we tried to compete with southern partners in Atlantic salmon but we were not successful with that either.

I would like your organization to look for solutions in those areas. I want you to enable us to produce our product and get a reasonable return for it. Something has to happen. The status quo is not acceptable because we are not getting a fair shake. The potential for marketing our product to the South is getting slimmer and slimmer.

That is on traditional commercial fishing activities. On the aquaculture side, in Kuujjuaq they are raising small Arctic char now quite successfully. They have to become involved with an organization like yours to find both short-term and long-term solutions, be they natural or man-made. If we are to continue to harvest char for our own purposes and for marketing purposes, we will definitely need some assistance.

The promotional material you have provided is entitled "Building on the Momentum." In order to find a solution to the problem I have just raised we will have to become involved with a larger group instead of keeping ourselves isolated from the organizations with which you deal. We will only survive economically if we become involved with the bigger players.

As proof of that, as you are probably aware, we used to market our sealskins all over the world. Today, we cannot do that because the American Marine Mammal Protection Act prohibits us from marketing our stock into the United States. If you cannot market in the United States, you cannot market anywhere else.

Mr. Bastien: Another priority of my office is to develop a First Nations strategy for getting involved in aquaculture. We have been working on that strategy for some time now. Again, it is like fostering better collaboration between fisheries and aquaculture. I do not have a mandate for First Nations. However, as soon as we have an idea of where we want to go regarding a First Nations strategy, we will get all the important partners together. Those partners will include the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

In that strategy we will try to take into account what you just mentioned, Senator, that is to say, a method of marketing that will help you to compete fairly with your product.

There is an important First Nations interest in aquaculture. We have looked at all the First Nations initiatives in aquaculture in Canada. There are at least 16 good, strong First Nations initiatives in aquaculture that cover a range of species that include salmon, mussels, scallops and sturgeon. Many First Nations communities have an interest in aquaculture. Others do not, and that is okay. That is their decision.

We will definitely try to address that in our strategy. When we can convince some people, especially at the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to get involved with it, we will act as a facilitator. We cannot do more than that. The first thing will be to consult First Nations to see what they want to do with aquaculture. I cannot do that without the full support of this department, but I will do my best.

Mr. Jack Taylor, Executive Director, Office of the Commissioner for Aquaculture Development: Our office has just completed a study on char. We brought together all the char producers in the country, including Icy Waters. Icy Waters is a company in Whitehorse that produces char eggs. This meeting brought producers together, many for the first time. The study will be released soon. It is currently being translated. It will contain information on the status of our industry. It will provide some very good technical information for those interested in this industry. It should form the basis for further development of the industry. We will follow up on these initial meetings with the char producers to help them create a char association to share information on a continuing basis. That is an encouraging aspect and is something that we are funding for under our Aquaculture Partnership Program.

Senator Mahovlich: I recently read a newspaper article about the shortage of Atlantic salmon for commercial fishermen in the Bay of Fundy. I got the impression that they were blaming aquaculture for the shortage.

During our visit to the West Coast, we got a lot of static from fishermen who were said that the coho salmon and the fish that spawn up in the rivers were escaping from aquaculture hatcheries and going up the rivers and having an effect on different salmon. Has the government found any proof of this having an effect on the wild fish? Is there any scientific proof, that aquaculture or farmed fish have any effect on wild salmon?

Mr. Bastien: That is a very important question. Many people ask that question. There is a lot of debate on it.

Senator Mahovlich: Is the study still going on?

Mr. Bastien: Yes and I can highlight that there have been two important workshops, one on the West Coast, and a similar one on the East that have dealt with this very issue. The workshop on the West Coast concentrated on the ecological interaction between farmed and wild salmon. This workshop took place in March 2001. The 30 participants included John Volpe from UBC and members of the Universities of Toronto and Victoria. Also included were representatives of both levels of government, of First Nations, of the aquaculture industry, of the Alaskan Department of Fisheries and Game, of Trout Unlimited, of the U.S. National Marine Fishery Service, representatives of the Auditor General, and researchers from Norway.

On the first day, one of the workshops looked at defining the interaction between wild and farmed salmon. On the second day, they looked at the Atlantic Salmon Watch Program to review the program and to see what they had achieved and what they could possibly achieve in the future.

A poll was conducted to determine which fish culture issue was a greater threat to the integration of wild Pacific salmon in Pacific Canada. Farming of Atlantic salmon in British Columbia had zero respondents, indicating that no one in this workshop thought it was the greatest threat to the integrating of wild Pacific salmon. The culture of Pacific salmon in British Columbia had eight respondents and was considered the greatest threat. In other words these respondents saw the enhancement of salmon through the hatchery and then its release into the wild to be the greatest threat. This is considered a greater threat because of genetic concerns. Farming of Pacific salmon was in between the two. This gives you an idea of what the scientists and all the specialists in this sector believe is the greatest threat to the West Coast salmon.

I just read a paper by a well-known scientist who studied this matter in great detail. In his four to five-page paper, he talked about the causes of salmon decline on the West Coast, and he never once mentioned salmon farming.

I think there is a consensus that there may be some impact, but in the global list of causes that affect salmon, salmon farming is very low on the list.

I would also like to mention another report that was released in 2000. It is a research paper from the West Coast presented by Noaks, Beamish and Kent. The title was, "On the Decline of Pacific Salmon and the Speculative Link to Salmon Farming in B.C." Beamish is the scientist who discovered the affect of acid rain in in our lakes, so he is a very well-known scientist. The conclusion of Noaks, Beamish and Kent is that combined evidence indicates that salmon farming, as practised in British Columbia, causes a low risk to wild salmon stocks, particularly when compared with other potential factors. This is their conclusion, and this is taking into account the fact that some Atlantic salmon have successfully reproduced in some rivers. Some people told you that Atlantic salmon do reproduce, but overall it is low risk compared with all the other causes.

On the East Coast, it is the same thing. I am a salmon specialist on the East Coast. I have managed salmon rivers in the Gaspé Bay area for four years and worked for the Atlantic Salmon Federation on interception of mainland origin salmon in the Newfoundland fishery. The causes for salmon decline on the East Coast have nothing to do with salmon farming. I will not say that there may not be some impacts. However, the real reason for salmon decline has nothing to do with salmon farming. It started 30 years ago, and it has continued. Even if you close down all salmon farming on the East Coast of Canada, the decline will continue. I am convinced of that. There may be some local impacts on some stock that is very low. Further, escapees from aquaculture could have an impact on local stock. However, in the global picture, salmon farming is insignificant compared to the major causes. The major causes include unexplained ocean mortality, habitat degradation that is the result of dams being built and the effects of forestry on our waterways. Another cause is the spraying of chemicals on the forest that has had a negative impact on the salmon. It is a huge debate.

Senator Mahovlich: Is the government going ahead with the research?

Mr. Bastien: Definitely. On the East Coast, there was a similar workshop that brought together many scientists from the north Atlantic and other northern countries. Together they developed 15 research projects to study the causes of salmon decline. They are trying to get the funding to do that research. The newly announced $75-million program of DFO will look at interaction and impact. This is part of that $75-million program.

Also, Aquanet is starting research from a university point of view on those aspects, too. They are currently doing some of that research. You will have the first annual general meeting of Aquanet next September in Halifax, and I encourage you to listen to their results. They will show results from their environmental integrated team, and they will look into some of the interaction aspects between farmed and wild salmon.

Senator Carney: In the year that we have been on this study we have been unable to find a clear scientific field study describing the impact of farmed fishing on the migratory habits or on the wild fisheries of the salmon. John Volpe, as you know, is only one doing work in that field. We have anecdotal evidence from Simon Peter in Ucluelet who told us that even though we were told that fish could not escape from the net farms they did. They told us that the Atlantic salmon would not spawn in the Pacific rivers, but they did. They told us that Atlantic salmon would not establish themselves in Pacific rivers, but they did.

All of these reports say that there is no impact or limited impact on the wild fishery and yet all of our work indicates that the science is uncertain, non-existent or minimal. We would certainly appreciate your comments on that.

Why does Alaska, discourage aquaculture?

Mr. Bastien: With regards to your first point, there is a lot of scientific information. For instance, in the Salmon Aquaculture Review of 1997, it was mentioned that salmon were escaping from the cages and that there was a risk of establishment.

I agree that there are not many precise studies done. Many projects are looking at the issue from different angles. This is difficult research to do because it involves genetic interaction, and that involved a long-term study, and you do not necessarily have all the answers at one point.

Senator Carney: We could not find any DFO studies on the impact of fish farming on migratory routes. My question is, if you have that information would you give it to us? I also asked you about Alaska.

Mr. Bastien: Alaska does not necessarily have the same system as we have. They are investing all their energy in hatchery salmon in the Alaskan program. They have developed a huge hatchery system where they grow the fish for a short period of time and then release them to the ocean. This has produced a huge return.

That system is viewed, by our Canadian scientists, as dangerous. Alaska chose a different form of farming. Some people say that their success depends on the conditions found by their fish in their migratory roads and in their access to food in the ocean. It seems that some West Coast stocks of salmon do have access to different conditions and some perform better than others. The Alaskan stock that is enhanced with hatchery fish is doing very well. For that reason the Americans decided that they do not want aquaculture. They want to stay with what is functioning for them. They do not want to see salmon farming developed in Alaska. That is their point of view and it has some merit.

Senator Carney: Given the Auditor General's report on the impacts on the wild fishery in British Columbia, do you feel that the DFO is meeting its legislative obligations under the Fisheries Act to protect wild-fish stocks and habitat from the effects of salmon farming?

Mr. Bastien: A year ago I would have answered no. Today I am saying that all the measures are currently being put in place to ensure that DFO is capable of fulfilling all of its mandates under the Fisheries Act, especially regarding section 35 and protection of fish habitat. Any new salmon farm going into the water for on either coast must go through an environmental assessment.

Senator Carney: That is for screening only. It is a limited screening process.

Mr. Bastien: It is one method of analyzing the impact. That does not mean it is not a comprehensive review. It takes a lot of energy. It costs a lot of money to the industry and to government offices. Environment Canada and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency view the process as adequate.

Moreover, after an environmental assessment is done, any salmon farm that goes into the water must follow a monitoring program. That will highlight any unacceptable impact under section 35 of the Fisheries Act. This is currently being done on both coasts regarding all salmon projects.

Senator Carney: Are you saying the Auditor General was wrong?

The Chairman: I am going to Senator Watt at this point and we will wrap up with him. That will be it for tonight.

Senator Watt: Your presentation states that the projects are approved by the aquaculture partnership program. You mentioned the different companies in the different provinces that fall under the criteria of a partnership program. Could you elaborate? What does it mean? Does your commission have a role to play in terms of what is acceptable and what is not?

Suppose we want to conduct a pilot project to gain more scientific information and we want to limit the pilot project, how do you fit into that?

Mr. Bastien: Our aquaculture partnership program is limited to our office objectives. It is not a program to support R&D, research projects or pilot projects. It is to help aquaculture industrial partners in their initiatives, like developing a database for their fish health. There are other programs for research and development that are available in other departments.

Our program criteria is very specific. If you are interested, Mr. Taylor can explain it to you. He is the manager of the program.

Senator Watt: Perhaps Mr. Taylor would meet with me to discuss the details.

The Chairman: Thank you, witnesses.

We hope to have our report out fairly soon, perhaps by late June. We will study our first draft next week.

Mr. Bastien: I definitely look forward to your report.

Senator Carney: I understand there is a report from British Columbia. Can we have copies disbursed this evening?

The Chairman: A distribution is being made now. Honourable Senators, is it agreed that the material received this evening can be filed as exhibits in the committee records? That is the material from the Government of British Columbia, a letter from the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance, material from Sylvain Vigneau, and material from Commissioner Yves Bastien. Is it agreed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The committee adjourned.

---