Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 7 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 29, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 5:14 p.m. to study the regulation of aquaculture, current challenges and future prospects for the industry in Canada.
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I welcome our witnesses here. My name is Fabian Manning. I am a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador. I am chair of this committee, the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. We continue our study into the aquaculture industry in Canada. I will ask senators around the table to introduce themselves before we begin.
Senator Beyak: Senator Lynn Beyak, Ontario.
Senator Hubley: Elizabeth Hubley, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Munson: Jim Munson, Ontario, but, as I always say, my heart is in New Brunswick.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Carolyn Stewart Olsen, New Brunswick.
Senator McInnis: Tom McInnis, Nova Scotia.
Senator Enverga: Tobias Enverga, Ontario.
Senator Wells: David Wells, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Poirier: Rose May Poirier from New Brunswick.
[English]
The Chair: Our guests are no strangers to our table. Welcome back. I understand you may have some opening remarks. I will give you the opportunity to make those, and then our senators will have some questions for you, I'm sure.
Ruth Salmon, Executive Director, Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance: Thank you very much for the invitation, senators. It's good to be back. I am here with the President of the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance, Clare Backman. Some of you may have seen Clare in British Columbia when you were there.
In terms of my presentation, I have been asked to focus my comments on how the industry sees an aquaculture act moving forward and what that would look like, but I wanted to provide a bit of context before I talk about that. The first eight slides are repetitive to what I presented last June. I'm not going to spend any time on them, but I thought it would be helpful to quickly run through them to provide that context, and then we can spend a bit more time on the other slides.
The first one is really just the situation right now and the critical choice that I think we find ourselves in as Canadians. Fifty per cent of the seafood sold in Canada and worldwide is now farmed, and the demand for seafood globally is rising at 7 to 9 per cent per year. With this huge demand for seafood, what is Canada's role? Are we going to meet future demand with imports, or will we assert our leadership and grow the sustainable industry? This is the choice that we face, and I know that's the choice that this committee is grappling with.
The next slide is important for us because it reminds us of who we are. We are farmers; we're not fishermen. The definition here is a definition that has been put forward by the United Nations FAO, and it talks about the intervention in the rearing process, the regular stocking, feeding and protection from predators, just as any other farming enterprise.
The next slide is one you have seen many times since you started your study. It is really just how large is the industry — $2.1 billion, 14,500 workers. We farm in every province and the Yukon. We are a third of the value of Canada's fisheries production.
The next two slides are the important ones to consider because as we grew rapidly in the 1980s and early 1990s, you can see that we actually stagnated our growth in the last 12 to 13 years. When other countries are moving forward and the demand for seafood is so high, this is a concerning slide.
The next slide is where we compare our production to that of our competitors. You can see that we're certainly falling behind. Based on FAO data from 2012, Canada's share of the world production has fallen by more than 47 per cent since 2002. That's a bit of a concerning slide, I think, from everybody's perspective.
The next slide is information about investment opportunities. For all of our salmon aquaculture members in Canada, their companies invest globally in salmon aquaculture. We were able to pull together some numbers. Over the last year, year and a half, recent investments of more than $500 million worldwide had been made into salmon aquaculture, but less than 7 per cent of that investment is coming back to Canada. When you talk to those managing directors and CEOs, they tell us that that investment should easily be 20 to 25 per cent.
The next slide highlights the major reasons that that stalled production has taken place. As you know, and I'm sure this is no surprise to you now that you've engaged in this study, our regulatory system is overly complex, uncertain, confusing, fractured some say, restricting growth and investment. Because of our unique jurisdictional structure, we have federal and provincial overlap and duplication in many areas. We're governed by the Fisheries Act, which is a patchwork quilt of statutes that was created decades ago to guide a wild fishery, long before aquaculture ever became a commercial activity.
The next slide is giving you a sense of how the industry has coordinated itself to address this issue. It is obviously of concern to industry that we're not growing, yet we have such potential here in Canada and we have such a growing demand for seafood. The market is demanding it.
We work together, from coast to coast — shellfish and finfish producers — on a national strategy that has three objectives to develop a legal framework and aquaculture act for Canada; that's our goal. In parallel to that, we're very interested in regulatory reform, and policy and program reform. I'll get into a bit more detail about how that's going to help growth and competitiveness.
I'll start slowing down a bit because the next slide is new and this talks about why we feel Canada needs an aquaculture act. First of all, I think it's important to realize there have been 30-plus years of studies, committee reports, and experts agree that legislation is required. More recently, last fall the Conference Board of Canada developed a study on fisheries and aquaculture and how to look at both of those industries from an economic perspective moving forward. They also saw the need and made a call for an aquaculture act.
I'll be going into each of these five points in more detail, but these are the key elements that we feel the legislation should address. The first is to define aquaculture in legislation.
The second is to provide clear commitment to aquaculture. We feel it would affirm Canada as a real leader in responsible aquaculture management. It would address jurisdictional overlap and duplication and provide a mechanism for cooperation with the provinces and territories. It would give us an opportunity to update old MOUs. It could address uncertainty, lack of clarity and inconsistency. The present regulatory framework is, as I mentioned, a patchwork quilt of regulations across Canada. It doesn't have any central coherent theme or vision.
We also think that an aquaculture act could recognize private property rights. Again, aquatic organisms farmed in an aquaculture operation are and remain private property, which is unique from the wild fishery.
The next slide provides more detail around those points. The first one is looking at defining aquaculture and how important this is because we are farming. Again, we have talked about that definition from the FAO, which is used in other aquaculture acts with our competitors. Everybody defines aquaculture in this same way.
We also think an act should operate within the federal legislative authority, respecting the complex constitutional division of powers granted by the Constitution Act, 1867, as they relate to aquaculture. We are not proposing a federal act that takes away from provincial jurisdiction. I think that's an important piece to remember.
We also think an aquaculture act for Canada should provide clarity for industry, governments, as well as the public, other stakeholders. Currently the management of aquaculture operations under the Fisheries Act is addressed from a traditional fisheries perspective — not surprising — without consideration of how to best address matters for aquaculture operations. Currently, no order of priority has been set for how the current regulatory scheme should affect aquaculture operations or whether certain regulations or powers should take precedence over others. Again, we're talking about clarity, not just for industry and governments, but for all stakeholders as well.
The next slide talks about how an aquaculture act for Canada should reaffirm the federal commitment to aquaculture, to promotion, to research, to enhancement of the aquaculture sector. Our current system does not commit to Canadian leadership on research enhancement promotion. Aquaculture operations do not currently have access to many of the federal programs supporting agriculture operations. But this industry is a food industry. We're producing a food product, so just like agriculture operations, we feel there need to be some parallels for support of an industry producing a healthy, quality food product.
We also think an aquaculture act would provide clarity on cohesiveness to federal department roles. I think even DFO officials themselves have admitted there is confusion within their own federal department. We see that clarity coming in a number of areas.
Currently, the federal regime creates overlap and duplication within itself and with the provincial regulatory schemes. All this of leads to delays in decision making, overly burdensome or impossibly duplicative data collection in some cases, complex and frequent aquaculture operation application and renewal processes, uncertainty over jurisdiction and the role of each level of government, and the responsibilities of aquaculture operators. There is a lot of uncertainty that an act could help to clarify.
On the next slide we have talked about the importance of addressing private property rights. We also think it would provide workable mechanisms and framework for cooperation with provinces and territories. It would give the federal government an ability to enter into harmonization agreements, laying out who does what and how the process works, which would be so important for us as industry, government, as well as the public. The public needs to know how things operate for greater transparency for our industry. That's what an act could provide.
The next slide talks about achieving sustainable growth because ultimately that's what we see as the objective of all of this. The first point is we feel that productivity improvements can be achieved through regulatory and policy and program reforms. I think Minister Shea and DFO officials are working hard on this front, and they have indicated that they see productivity improvements coming through regulatory reform.
What are some of those regulatory reforms? They include: improved access to novel, functional feeds that our competitors have access to and we don't; access to fish health products; access to new species, broodstock; multi-year licences in British Columbia; a number of regulatory reforms that would expand our industry's diversification and strength.
Also, these productivity improvements could come with transparent and timely approvals of amendment applications, and we don't have timely approvals at this stage. That's one area where we feel productivity improvements can take place, without even looking at an aquaculture act, and that there are improvements with regulations.
But where we feel an aquaculture act is absolutely critical is when we want to talk about real significant growth. That kind of certainty is what our industry needs to spur investment, new site development for existing and new species, development of infrastructure, hatcheries, processing plants, transportation and creation of jobs. It's only through an act that we'll be able to attract investment for the long term and give that kind of certainty and clarity so that instead of 7 per cent investment, we get 20 to 25 per cent investment.
The next slide is talks a bit about our competitors and what they're doing. We haven't done an extensive review of the legislation in some of these other countries. We'll be doing that in the process of the next year, but I did want to highlight a few key factors.
Norway has an aquaculture act that was established in 2005. It establishes the framework for the sector's future growth. It promotes profitability, competitiveness, and it covers all aspects of aquaculture: marine, inland waters, land- based aquaculture and sea ranching. It's very comprehensive.
The next slide talks about what they do in Scotland. They have a combined farmed and wild fisheries act that was recently improved in 2013. This particular act talks about not only farmed seafood, but also farmed and wild, combined contributions to economic growth. And they look to the issues around the wider marine environment.
The United States of America is the next slide, and it's probably most like Canada in that it has a dual jurisdiction. It's regulated at the federal and state level. Most of the regulatory activity happens at the state level, and at the federal level they are governed by the various acts such as the FDA, USDA, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Again, what's the purpose there? They want to support the development of the sector and promote coordination among various departments.
You can see that whichever country has gone forward with an aquaculture act, there are familiar themes: coordination, supporting the development of the sector, a framework for growth, promoting profitability and competitiveness, and effective management of the environment.
At this stage, that is what we have come to learn, and we'll certainly learn more details over the coming year when we talk to our colleagues.
The next slide just gives you a sense — and I think I presented this back in June, but these are still really sound numbers. Achieving real results on our national strategy, which is regulatory, policy and program reforms, and an aquaculture act, could lead to increased production jobs and economic activity. Within five years, we see that productivity coming from regulatory reform and amendments, easily moving from our current tonnage of 174,000 tonnes to 200,000 tonnes, and doubling within 10 years.
You can see the jobs and economic activity that flow from that, and the opportunities for First Nations and rural coastal communities, as well as an opportunity for us to capitalize not only on the Canada-EU Free Trade Agreement but also the Korean free trade agreement recently signed. We feel very positive and are supportive of the government in this regard, but without increased production, we really cannot take full advantage of those excellent agreements.
The last slide is just to say that the work of this committee is very much appreciated and it's critical. We feel that time is of the essence to achieve responsible aquaculture growth and development, business certainty and increased competitiveness. This growth — not just for industry — will ensure food security for Canada and will result in increased jobs and economic prosperity for rural and coastal communities.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Salmon.
Mr. Backman, do you have some opening remarks?
Clare Backman, President, Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance: I do. It was good to be invited back to speak to this group again. It was good to meet a few of you a few weeks ago.
My comments are my own and are informed by my 30-year career working with both levels of government in conserving and producing sustainable salmon production in British Columbia. In the last 15 years, I've been involved in producing salmon sustainably in British Columbia.
I will go on to these notes that I've prepared today. The aquaculture industry accepts that the Fisheries Act exists to conserve and protect Canada's fisheries through proper management of a public property resource; that is the commons. Healthy fish stocks are important to Canadians and to the many businesses that derive income from them.
But by its nature, the Fisheries Act reads as a series of ``don'ts'' — actions to be avoided, unless allowed by licence or done under regulation to protect the public property resource. The act is designed to allow for seasonal closures or permanent fisheries closures, to create limits or conditions to fishing gear and allowable catch, to prohibit certain behaviours, and levy charges for violations.
However, it is not designed to address the farming of fish, where the resource is privately owned and involves the intervention by regular stocking of fish, their feeding and the protection from predation and disease. Nor is the Fisheries Act designed to promote greater access to existing fisheries or allow the growth of underutilized species to order to find needed levels of growth and production to allow Canada to compete in the international market. Words like ``cultivation,'' ``promotion'' and ``growth'' are terms that are fundamental principles of fish farming, but they don't have a place in the Fisheries Act.
These are clear examples of some of the broad thinking that needs to be central to the coming Canadian aquaculture act.
The Fisheries Act does not and cannot consider private farming, the drivers that affect the private farming of Canadian aquaculture products, and their competitiveness in the international market. But this is fundamental to our discussion of the present industry growth stagnation. Holding the Canadian aquaculture solely within the Fisheries Act almost guarantees that its growth will be slim to none.
Let's accept two things: that the aquaculture act will be developed along the lines of the examples discussed here, and that the Canadian aquaculture industry will continue to operate in respect of the Fisheries Act. So now we can turn to the question: How can we ask for the aquaculture industry to grow while remaining environmentally sustainable?
Let's take a look at the term ``environmental sustainability'' — what it is and what it isn't. It has basically three aspects to it: economic, social and environmental. Through the economic lens, people have to grow a product that will allow them to make a profit and buy some groceries. People also need to be aware that too much production leads to an oversupply of product, decreased pricing, and a potential business failure. So economic sustainability requires that an industry grow at or just below the market growth. This ensures profitability going forward.
The second aspect is the social aspect of sustainability. This considers the growers of an aquaculture product and their neighbours; how many aquaculture operations are needed to create the minimum infrastructure to serve the sector? That is to attract contractors, suppliers and processors so that producer companies aren't forced to do all these things by themselves. Conversely, in an area, how many aquaculture operations can be present in a region before conflict with other businesses and public uses and conservation values trigger local, regional or national protest?
That's an important consideration in defining how growth in the industry can occur. Growth of aquaculture should grow at a pace that is properly integrated with the local, regional and social fabric. However, as stated already, growth can't be constrained solely by conservation concerns about the future. Good farm management and responsible regulation informed by science has to be trusted to decide acceptable risk.
Now we turn to the environmental aspect of sustainability, and this considers the physical, the chemical and biological effects of aquaculture to the receiving environment; that is the area immediately around and beneath the production facility where changes can be measured. Beyond the field of measurable effect — around 200 metres — concerns about the possibility impacts are not so much environmental as they become social in nature.
We have said the last 10 years have been stagnant in terms of aquaculture growth in Canada, but they have been busy years in terms of addressing the environmental issues. In 2014, the application process for an aquaculture site in British Columbia requires a minimum of two years to consult with the communities and collect necessary physical and biological data. The process will consider area land-use plans, it will consider local zoning and the interests of community members. The complete application will review a number of physical aspects like depths, currents, sediment chemical and biological diversity samples, as well as data collected from stream, beach, sub-tidal shoreline and seafloor taxonomy surveys. These surveys will establish baseline populations, including abalone and kelp, as well as sea lions and sea lice. The potential organic waste footprint from the farm will be modelled and must not occur shallower than 30 metres under the ocean.
The present cost of these applications is at a minimum today in B.C. around $400,000. This is before the submission goes into government for their review.
Industry, academia and government have partnered on numerous research projects that have helped further the understanding about the concerns about the risk of disease transfer and the impacts of sea lice and escapes. This research has brought clarity to these discussions and has informed both policy and licensing conditions.
Is there more to learn? Of course there is always more to learn, and the research continues, for example, on separation of farms from valuable fisheries habitats and the potential for pathogen transfer from wild to farmed stocks and vice versa.
But the measurement of the biological or health impacts on transient species — like salmon that migrate long distances and pass by a salmon farm as they travel — is a key challenge, specifically how to differentiate and measure the potential risk posed by aquaculture from the myriad other risks that migratory species face.
But the work goes on. The volume of environmental impact research now is much greater than even 10 years ago, so our regulators' understanding of risk is more robust. The consensus of research findings is not incompatible with continued, ongoing, well-regulated aquaculture operations.
If currently an area supports, say, six or so aquaculture operations, there is no a priori reason why the same area couldn't support an additional aquaculture site. The same environmental sustainability measures that were just described will be applied to each new operation. Concerns about the cumulative effects of multiple farms on the water quality leading to eutrophication or hypernutrification, while valid for lakes, is not observed in the open ocean, where there are enormous volumes of water. The water is able to absorb the released nutrients, along with the plankton that normally exists in the ocean. Each site stands alone to some degree in terms of the evaluation of whether its local impacts are acceptable and sustainable.
However, as already conceded, all sites in a region must be considered together as to their social sustainability. The social carrying capacity is often achieved before the ecological carrying capacity is reached.
In closing, I'll summarize that our regulators currently find that Canadian aquaculture is environmentally sustainable as long as it is operating in compliance with applicable regulations and the Fisheries Act. Environmental impact research is ongoing, and the scientific consensus confirms its sustainability. New information could change the assessment of sustainability, but after 30 years of research, change is fairly unlikely. Sector growth through careful review and approval of new sustainable production locations can and should proceed on a site-by-site risk assessment basis.
Finally, to provide the needed capital for industry to grow, businesses need the confidence that the assessment of environmental sustainability will not be arbitrarily reversed. An aquaculture act can and should lay out the regional expectations for Canada's growing contribution to the world aquaculture production as a principle of support.
Senator Hubley: Welcome to you both. I would like to thank you for an excellent presentation with a great deal of information, some of which we are familiar with, but it is always good to hear it again.
I'm going back to the graph, 12 years of stagnated growth, which has been an issue that we have heard in our travels. Even on the second graph, where it shows that we are falling behind our competitors, that is not going to improve unless we can come forward with an act that is going to address the many issues that the industry is facing today.
How serious is this? How quickly is Canada falling behind, and how quickly will we need to move in order to reverse that?
Ms. Salmon: It is a good question. I will start. Clare, maybe you can add in.
There are stages to how this could go. I did talk about productivity improvements without an aquaculture act, and I do think our industry feels that's a real possibility. So that without changing the footprint, without giving access to new sites but just moving forward with longstanding amendments that would make changes to the site — not expanding it, but just maybe changing the type of cage used, those kinds of things could have productivity improvements, and getting access to new fish health products. That is not talking about new sites. There are many sites in New Brunswick that are left fallow right now because the water temperature is so warm and they don't have access to a variety of fish health products, so they just can't use the site. You will hear about more of this when you are in New Brunswick.
From a regulatory perspective, if we could see that move forward, you could see pushing the bar up in terms of productivity improvements.
Where I think we really need to see an aquaculture act and even an indication that Canada is really committed and serious about moving forward is when we're going to be needing those kinds of significant capital investments.
When you are building processing plants, Clare, what is the cost of one new site?
Mr. Backman: The building of a site right now, after all that application work is done, is around $1 million, and then feed to run through to harvest.
Ms. Salmon: So hatchery sites, all of this infrastructure, will not come without some sense that there's a commitment in Canada that Canada wants this industry to grow and thrive. It could be a stage growth that we could get some initial improvements from some regulatory policy and program reforms. For this industry to be competitive with other countries, we have to have that kind of clarity and certainty through an act.
Senator Hubley: In terms of capital investment, certainly there are investors not within Canada who are investing in Canada. There are opportunities there. I know, certainly from the province that I come from, that foreign investment is something that can make a great deal of difference. I would think that aquaculture, if it can be as successful as we know it can be, could attract a lot more of that foreign investment. Would you agree? Is that something you promote, even looking at opportunities to have foreign investment in the aquaculture industry?
Ms. Salmon: I'll make a comment and then you can add, Clare.
There will be interest in Canada if the climate for investment is attractive. For example, in B.C. now, where they have yearly licences for an animal that takes two years to grow, it doesn't give you that sense of comfort and security that this is a good place to invest. But if that environment were shifted and there was a clear affirmation from the federal government that this is an industry that needs to go forward and needs support and promotion, then I think you will see that kind of investment interest, and we would welcome that as well.
Mr. Backman: As Ruth mentioned in her presentation, of the available investment annually around the world, a small proportion of that is coming to Canada. You are quite right, Senator Hubley; we would like to attract a larger proportion of that investment. We would also like to see Canadians invest in Canadian aquaculture.
As I mentioned in my presentation, we spent the last 10 years setting the groundwork with good regulation and with good, sustainable operations, so the stage is set for that growth to occur now. The inclusion of an aquaculture act will move us into a modern appreciation of what aquaculture in Canada can do competitively on the international stage.
Senator Wells: Again, welcome back, Ms. Salmon and Mr. Backman.
We would like the government to be enablers of industry, as we've seen in other industries, with updated legislation, improved regulations and supportive policies. Some of the more recent and notable ones include the changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act — CEAA 2012 we refer to it as — and the establishment of the Major Projects Management Office, the MPMO, in 2007. With that, there is streamlining of regulations and reduction of red tape. It provided for a one-stop portal in many instances and it resulted — certainly for CEAA 2012 — in one project, one assessment. I think that would have benefits to the aquaculture industry as well.
My question is: In what way would you see standalone federal aquaculture legislation alongside those watershed pieces of legislation that could enable the aquaculture industry?
Ms. Salmon: Senator, everything that you mentioned in terms of what was offered as enabling, we see the same opportunities for aquaculture. Instead of having a fractured opportunity for applications, there's one-stop shopping. If there's an agreement between the federal government and the provinces to decide who does what, that sounds very simple, but in fact right now there is confusion, even amongst governments, in terms of who does what, when. So this would provide an opportunity for that discussion to happen, not only who does what, but maybe there's something that doesn't need to be done or that's being done twice. This provides the forum to do that.
I see that everything you have mentioned in terms of streamlining and reducing red tape can be a function of developing effective legislation. We're not talking about starting from the ground and working up. We're talking about umbrella legislation that can do important things like setting the tone, the commitment, defining it, how it is going to operate, roles and responsibilities. All of that hasn't been done, and this would provide that opportunity for enabling.
Senator Wells: Mr. Backman, from an operator's point of view?
Mr. Backman: From an operator's point of view, it brings up many of the concerns we operate under, under a mosaic of regulations, which in some cases are in conflict or duplicating each other. To see those streamlined and made more efficient will recognize the rise of aquaculture and be specifically addressed by writ legislation in Canada, rather than being an afterthought.
It will bring aquaculture into a forefront position of being one of the major food production areas in Canada, and rightly so.
Senator Stewart Olsen: We asked you what you would like to see in a piece of legislation, so I am pleased to see you have come back and helped us along with some ideas.
I have a few questions, and one of them you answered about the cost of a new site setup, roughly $1 million, and then ongoing costs until the harvest, which was something like two years. It is quite daunting for people.
When I discussed my trip out West, I got a lot of interest from smaller communities who would be interested, but they haven't got the wherewithal or know where to go to get funding or to interest someone. Is there something your organization does that would assist small communities or small setups? The mom-and-pop closed containment was the one that I saw a lot of application for. Is there some way you can assist with where to go and how to proceed?
Mr. Backman: In British Columbia, where I'm from, it is the easiest to speak on. The association welcomes inquiries from people who are looking to learn or to make investment, and the association can put them in touch with the various large and small operators. As you mentioned, the closed system operators, too, there's a lot of interest right now in tank farming. It is a very expensive proposition, especially on the front end, to build and operate.
My comment on the 1 million was for the construction of a net cage operation. That doesn't recognize, as I mentioned, the feed and the labour, which at the current level of operation, 600,000 odd fish, is another $2 million to run it through; so it is a total of three. You also have to buy your hatchery fish from somewhere as well.
It is an expensive operation to start out in, but the companies have matured to the point where, for example, Marine Harvest is a publicly owned company and you can invest in it. Anyone can invest it at any time through buying the shares.
To get in on your own, people can do that at a smaller level, and if they get in touch with the Salmon Farmers Association, we would be happy to help them out with information.
Ms. Salmon: When there is going to be an environment for growth, we can play a stronger role in putting partners together. If a community is interested, we know who to put them in touch with that might want to expand into that area.
Shellfish aquaculture is much less capital-intensive, and there are opportunities there if that area is conducive for shellfish farming.
The role of our associations is to give communities that kind of ground information. We also have access and can point them in the right direction for training programs that might be appropriate if they're starting up. An association is a good place to start to put partners together.
Senator Stewart Olsen: That is very helpful.
One of the farms that we visited in B.C. mentioned that they don't pay minimum wage; they pay quite well to keep their workers, which is where we should be aiming for jobs like that. Does the association play any role in wage setting? I know that's difficult, but is there some oversight?
Mr. Backman: Marine Harvest that I work for is a good example. In order to attract the best and brightest, you have to pay a good wage. It is a year-round, living wage. The last time we did an analysis, it averaged around $17 to $18 an hour. It is just a function of where you are working and the cost of living on the coast of British Columbia, or the coast of Canada.
In terms of setting that living wage, it comes through a variety of processes. I mentioned attracting the best and brightest. Our processing plant in Port Hardy is a union-operated facility so there's a negotiation that occurs on a regular basis. It reflects the modern reality of aquaculture, especially in Canada. It is far more than a minimum wage job.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for your presentation. It is clear that your organization is in favour of a national aquaculture act in order to streamline and simplify the current process.
We know that in other jurisdictions — you talked about it a while ago — Norway, which is 2005, and Scotland was in 2013, and the United States as far back as 1980. Do you have data to see if the effects were as positive for them as you hope or claim they will be for us if there was an act in place?
Ms. Salmon: That's part of the work we are going to do over the next year. As I mentioned, we did a first scan, and we will be talking to our colleagues to get a sense of what their environment was before they moved into national legislation so that it is a good comparison. We will probably get a bit more detail and be able to answer this question probably in six months from now.
When we look at the differences between Canada and the other countries, we all operate in a fairly similar environment in terms of having some of the same critics of our industry. Some people say Canada is not moving ahead because there's controversy. In fact, there is controversy in every country. When you look at the differences between us and our competitors, it comes down to our regulatory framework and legislation.
Some of the countries had a sound regulatory framework even before they moved into an aquaculture act, so the discussion would have to be a little broader than just an act. What was it like prior to an act? We will try to tease out that information.
From our perspective, there are so many other similarities. Clare's company works in other jurisdictions, and many other companies do as well. They have firsthand knowledge of how it is different in other countries. We will try and tease that out so that I will be able to come back to you with that data.
At this point, we have a sense of it, but talking to people working in those other jurisdictions will be helpful to give you a picture.
Senator Poirier: When we're talking about the other countries, do they consider it as farming also?
Ms. Salmon: Absolutely. It's a common UN definition. When you look at the actual act, it all refers to aquaculture in the same frame of mind in terms of the FAO description of farming.
Senator Poirier: In your presentation on page 9 there was the slide on the tangible benefits of strategy. You say the achievement of real results on our national strategy ``could lead to'' and you're using those words. These projections were not based on those of other countries because you don't have that data at this point; is that right?
Ms. Salmon: We do actually know the growth. I was thinking more specifically about how they felt about their aquaculture act in terms of positive benefits and negatives. That's what we need to tease out, but we do know the growth rate in other countries. The kind of growth rate we're talking about here is very small and measured. Norway, for example, is eight times as large as us and growing at a much faster rate.
We do not necessarily want to take that model and apply it to Canada. We think it's important that growth be measured. You need to do the marketing as you grow. What we're talking about here is doubling within 10 years, which is not huge growth compared to other countries.
Senator Poirier: Within 10 years you're looking at plus 18,000 jobs as a potential possibility. I'm assuming some of these jobs are also in the farm processing plants, if we're going to use the word ``farming.''
Ms. Salmon: Right.
Senator Poirier: Have you done any analysis to see what impact that will have on manpower? Is the manpower available here in Canada specifically if you consider the average age of the population in a lot of the communities in Canada? I'm saying that because with the fish plants in my own region some of the people working there are getting into their fifties and working in the cold is getting harder. The younger generation is little bit more educated than people were in the past, so that's not the type of jobs they're looking for and the wages seem to be staying at the level of minimum wage.
Do you foresee that we could have a manpower issue in the future to supply the jobs that are going to be needed in these places? Is this something that they're dealing with in other countries too, or is that something unique to Canada with the aging population?
Ms. Salmon: That's a good question, and even now we're seeing that human resources is a key issue, including attraction and retention. That's one of the reasons why Marine Harvest and other companies are paying well to attract people to some of these remote communities. It's a great year-round job, but it's unique and has its own challenges. Attraction and retention of staff is an issue. I think if we get the kind of support for measured growth that we're looking for, then that HR plan needs to be layered on top of that, as does the marketing. There are a number of issues you need to take into consideration. Certainly human resources — attraction and retention — is a key one for sure.
Mr. Backman: The process of attracting qualified and good-quality working folks into the industry is going through a transitional time. A lot of the people who started out in the industry, like me, 25 years ago, are getting to an age where they need to be replaced by other folks. That's true of a lot of people you mentioned, with the average age being in their fifties.
Nonetheless, we have an ongoing success in attracting new and younger folks. Although we are located in British Columbia, we do sometimes conduct job fairs on the East Coast and we get good interest from folks out here as well.
To address the issue in British Columbia, we're actually partnering with a couple of universities to start training programs and to reintegrate the thinking into the younger group of people who are going into post-secondary education and technical level training. We have a program of internal training courses going on as well.
People are finding that they're looking for opportunities to stay on the coast rather than to move into the inland provinces or other places where jobs may exist. I think we're just going through a transitional stage right now. It is a bit of a challenge at this point to fill all the positions but we are meeting that, as I say, by broadening our look for folks and by working with the educational institutions.
Senator Enverga: As I can see from your $2.1 billion industry, somehow it looks like it's really big already but there's still some stagnation. What's happening to the profit? Why is it not being invested back into the aquaculture industry?
Mr. Backman: I think the larger companies that have operations in other areas, what happens sometimes at the end of a profitable year is they are looking at where that investment can go that will have a good return. For the last few years it hasn't been into British Columbia or Canada, it's been to other places where there is the potential for more growth and more return on that investment. That's why we want to turn that around here.
We have profitable businesses growing salmon and other species, and we want those who make reinvestment decisions to see the opportunity for growth and the development of regulation that promotes streamlining and efficiency within government regulation. We want to see that they're returning that profit into growth in British Columbia.
Ms. Salmon: We have Canadian companies that are also not investing more money into Canada but are investing in operations outside. Yes, there is profitability but then the decision making has to include the best place to invest. Without that kind of certainty and clarity in Canada, it isn't here.
Senator Enverga: Are you saying that our government is hindering the expansion of aquaculture in Canada?
Ms. Salmon: There are a number of things. We are working on regulatory reform, but there are many regulatory issues that have made it confusing and difficult to do business and costly to do business. Then layered on top of that, without national legislation to guide industry and set a vision, to define it, to give it some clarity, you don't want to invest your dollars into something that is unsure. Why would you do that in an environment that's going to cost you a lot but it's not growing, when you could invest somewhere else where it is growing, and they have legislation to support and promote and enable the industry? We don't have that here.
Senator Enverga: There is a framework already. We have aquaculture here, making money. Why can't we make another fish pen in the same area? Is there a regulation that says you can't do that or that you can't expand? Is there something specific that stops our aquaculture industry from making any progress on expansion?
Ms. Salmon: It's been very difficult to expand this industry. There's been a moratorium in British Columbia, and on the East Coast it's been very difficult to get new sites. Some have been waiting for years for a simple amendment to get approved. They're not just talking about a new site, but a simple amendment.
I will give you another example. We have a feed company that has put in an application for a novel feed ingredient that is approved in every other salmon farming jurisdiction in the world. It has been two and a half years and that application is still sitting in the system in Canada. This is the kind of climate and environment that makes it more attractive to invest that profit elsewhere.
Senator Enverga: Is it the regulation that is stopping us or is it some environmental concern? What are the major aspects that are stopping how regulators make more expansion in the Canadian environment?
Mr. Backman: If I look at the experience on the West Coast of Canada, the industry began in earnest in the mid- 1980s, so today is almost 30 years later. Almost half that time in British Columbia basically we have been unable to grow the industry because there has been kind of a moratorium: either a formal or informal one. That has sent a message to the investment community that maybe Canada isn't such a great place to invest for further growth.
There is no moratorium in place today on either coast; it's about having more efficient regulation and the opportunity to build on this foundation of all the good regulations that have been developed in response to the moratoria and reviews and move forward and grow this industry at a sustainable pace and at a moderate level that works on a social and environmental level, but grow it.
Senator Enverga: Talking about regulations, I read somewhere that there is a Norwegian vaccine for salmon that is approved in Canada but not in the European environment. Would you say we're more open to the aquaculture industry?
Mr. Backman: Our experience in Canada has been that we are limited in the number of things like vaccines, limited in the number of things like therapeutants that we can use to treat our fish when they need health treatment. That is because the volume of production here has been small and hasn't been enough to support the kind of research and fundamental work that has to be done to support the licensing of some of these products.
In truth, places like Norway have access to a lot more modern kinds of therapeutants for their animal health than we do in Canada. With a larger production base we would have the ability to attract more of that kind of investment as well.
Senator Enverga: Except for the vaccine, everything is still closed here in Canada? There are more regulatory issues here in Canada except for the vaccine?
Mr. Backman: Yes.
Senator Munson: I would like to explore that moratorium business. This is a moratorium by the B.C. government? Everybody's being polite around this issue today. You're using rather polite language, but I sense a feeling of frustration that nothing is moving very fast here. There is a moratorium in British Columbia and, from my perspective, you're painting a rather bleak picture.
With all this regulation and red tape and duplication, why would anyone want to invest in aquaculture today? It sounds like a big money operation.
Why is there a moratorium, just for the public to know and understand it? I think I get it, but why is it happening?
Mr. Backman: As I said, there is no moratorium now, but there has been a history of a series of moratoria through the provincial government in British Columbia. Most recently, during the period into the investigation into the Fraser River sockeye salmon for a period of a couple of years, and then a couple of years after while they considered what the Cohen Commission had learned, there was a cessation of review of new applications.
I was trying to point out that that's been part of the reason why Canada has been in this period of cessation of growth. We've had a plateauing of growth.
Senator Munson: Should the federal government be offering financial support to help people start up in this business under the present environment that you have described?
Mr. Backman: From the perspective of the company that I work for and the salmon growers on the West Coast, we're not asking for assistance in that regard. We're just looking for the opportunity to develop and create more opportunities, more working opportunities and more investment in Canada. We're not looking for government to invest.
However, that opportunity remains alive for people who would like to enter the industry and are considering becoming involved. There are certainly opportunities at different levels to create financial supports, depending on the region.
Ms. Salmon: Once we have an industry of a certain size, one that has the ability to grow, we're going to see all kinds of spin-off benefits and almost new industries that we don't have now. Clare can probably give better examples, but even in terms of shipbuilding. There will be all kinds of things that will provide new opportunities, not necessarily just farming opportunities, to support a growing industry. It's that economy of scale where we're going to be involved in doing things we don't do now.
Mr. Backman: What we're missing in Canada, specifically on the West Coast of Canada, are some of the spin-off industries that grow when you're in a growing region.
Ruth mentioned shipbuilding. Yes, there are large what we call live-haul vessels or vessels built to a large scale in order to move fish around. We're currently purchasing those from other countries. There is myriad other smaller vessels too: work boats, tenders, boats which provide freight services. They're all designed to work at a farm site, and again they are not being built in Canada but they could be. There's a whole industry there.
Things like the nets and the other equipment that are used, the frames that are used, all of these things are currently brought from other parts of the world. The industries haven't set up in Canada, but they could and they could produce those things here, right in Canada.
Ms. Salmon: Offering new jobs and opportunities.
Senator Munson: That's fine and good, and that would be a wonderful thing, but do you have people coming to you now, major investors, saying, ``Under the present environment, I don't want to take a chance''?
Ms. Salmon: I know that many of my members will tell me — and Clare can talk about Marine Harvest — that because they invest globally, they're sitting around a boardroom table with their counterpart from Chile, their counterpart from Norway and their counterpart from Scotland. When decisions are made in terms of where the money goes, Canada is at the end of the list. It's that simple. If the environment was different, if the opportunity for growth was there, if the certainty was there, the money would flow. I know, in talking to some of the major CEOs, they would like to invest more in Canada, no question.
Mr. Backman: Canada, in terms of the experience of growing fish, it's a good place to grow fish. It's profitable to grow fish here. To answer your question, there is a desire of these companies, both large and small, to invest more here. They're just looking for those signals that it will become a good place for it and return positively on the investment.
Ms. Salmon: We are in an enviable position to be so close to one of the largest seafood markets in the world, where we can produce such fresh fish that it can be in a restaurant in less than 48 or 72 hours. We are in a wonderful place to sustainably grow this industry.
Senator Munson: The aquaculture industry works with Aboriginal communities. We did see that work going on in British Columbia, but we were given an example of how this works so well in New Zealand with its Aboriginal community. I've forgotten who we listened to in our hearings about how they worked out a sharing plan and how they're ahead of the curve in New Zealand with their Aboriginal community and how well it is working. It seemed to me that that was a great example of what should be happening here.
Mr. Backman: On the Pacific Coast, all the producers there, Cermaq, Grieg and Marine Harvest, we all have ongoing relationships with First Nation groups. They vary though. I can't speak to the New Zealand experience, as I haven't worked there directly and I don't have experience there, but I do have experience in British Columbia. For example, Marine Harvest has five separate agreements which comprises 10 peoples, and each of those is based on the understanding of what that particular First Nation group wants to see happen.
For example, in the Klemtu area, they had a fish processing plant that hadn't worked in years, and they wanted to have that fish processing plant operate. The operation was contingent for us going in there to ensure that the fish flows through that processing plant so they gain that employment. From there, other spin-off jobs have come up and other spin-off activities and training and that sort of thing have become real.
In the Quatsino area, they just want to make sure that our being there benefits their programs in a way that is tangible for them, and they get the opportunity to have representation in terms of employment at every level on the farm sites. That's the same with most of the other operations as well.
We were just approached by a First Nation in the Hope Island area a couple of years ago and are working closely with them. Their intention is to have an operating salmon farm near their traditional territory so they can actually live year round on Hope Island again. They have been unable to do that for decades. We are not the only group they are speaking to. They have wind farm operations as well that they're getting involved with.
Each First Nation has their own unique approach as to why they're getting involved and engaged with salmon farms, and they are all exciting stories about seeing those folks meet the outcomes that they'd like to see while we operate a farm and learn about their area and hopefully create a positive business for ourselves as well.
Senator McInnis: A statistic stuck in my mind when talking about aquaculture in Canada and where we fit on the global scale. We are 0.28 of 1 per cent of the global production of aquaculture. China is 61 per cent. Mind you, they have more people, but that puts into perspective where we are in the world.
The Constitution not only has an effect on Senate reform, it has an effect and will have an effect on the legislation that you're asking for.
I really do agree with you with respect to an aquaculture act. I've tried to think about the best vehicle you can use. As I've said at this committee before, it should be concurrent legislation in conjunction with the provinces. To do that, perhaps what you should be doing is trying to get this on the agenda of the federal and provincial ministers. This is a long process. I would like to think all good things are going to emanate out of this committee. Who knows? But let me not be so selfish or ostentatious as to think that. I think what you should be doing is pushing for this to get on the agenda.
I take it you have a good working relationship with DFO? That's what I was wondering; not so good. But your constitutional thing has been found out by, as you know, the Court of Appeal in British Columbia in their ruling that clearly said that even your open-pen farms are a fishery, not farming. I think it's important that if you're starting that process, you should be starting it now to get that on the agenda.
Ms. Salmon, you used the word about this being a patchwork. It is a horrific set of circumstances. Even in Atlantic Canada, it is different in every province. Now in Nova Scotia, as I've said before, they'll be reporting later this year with a whole new set of regulations, and they never even consulted with the other Atlantic provinces. They may be doing a good job. I'm not saying they're not.
Another problem with aquaculture in this country is, for example, that there are about 100 groups out there that are opposed, one way or the other, whether they are tourism associations, whether they are fishermen's associations, what have you. I think that if we're going to have success in the end and do what we think we should do in a correct way, there will have to be some form of consensus. I think you have a role to play, and I'll tell you why, from a political perspective. There are more of them than there are of you. Politicians have a tendency to listen to people, and the multitudes will win the day. You should, I think, be opening up some dialogue. That's just my piece of advice, and now I can come to a question or two.
Senator Munson rightly pointed out the Natives and how effectively it appears to be working in British Columbia and seeing the Natives there and working as they were and making more than minimum wage. They were partners in the operation. Do you work closely with them?
At a panel discussion we had in Nanaimo, there were individuals on one side promoting aquaculture, and there were individuals on the other side opposed to it. Is there some kind of harmonious working relationship that you have with them? Coming from B.C., Mr. Backman, do you have a sense that there is unanimity in terms of support of aquaculture? They did specifically say, the gentleman in question, that they were opposed to the introduction of Atlantic salmon in the waters of British Columbia. Could you respond to that?
Mr. Backman: In terms of the position of the First Nations in British Columbia, there are dozens of First Nations with traditional territories on the coast of British Columbia. Each one has its own approach to what goes on in its own territory. The five groups that we currently have a relationship with have decided, amongst themselves, as a consensus in the First Nation, that they choose to be working in relationship with Marine Harvest or the other companies.
I think you visited at Ahousaht First Nation over in Tofino. They have chosen amongst themselves as a group consensus to do that. Right next door, there may be a group that has not come to that decision. They are still choosing within their territory not to work with the salmon farm. We still have work to do in that regard to engage with those folks and try and find some way that they may wish to work with us and have a positive relationship. Unanimity is not there, and I think we have to respect each individual group's right to their position.
I mentioned the Hope Island band. The chief of the band will say that for years they had no interest in salmon farming. By talking to the other bands that were working with the companies and learning from them what's really going on, they came around to a point where they wanted to give it a try, as they said. We will have to operate not only with federal regulation and provincial regulation, but also have to work with the conditions that they set down to operate as well. They have come around over 15 or so years of watching what's been going on. Every band is at a different point in the continuum of their comfort with salmon aquaculture. Some are producing salmon aquaculture products as well. That is the other side of the continuum.
Ms. Salmon: I will add a comment to your earlier comment.
It is good advice to reach out to ministers. That's part of our strategy. We're trying to meet with all of the provincial ministers and talk about what we're doing so that our goal and desire for an act doesn't threaten anyone. That's what we want to do, namely get that message out.
That is good advice. We are taking that and meeting with ministers one on one.
Senator Raine: Thank you for being here. I'm sorry I was late.
I'm from British Columbia, as you know, and a lot of people in British Columbia are against salmon farming, period. How are you going to get a social licence from those people to proceed with expansion of the industry in British Columbia?
Ms. Salmon: I will make an opening comment and then I will let Clare, who is on the ground and has a closer perspective, respond.
A variety of things are taken into consideration about where people are. Sometimes their decision making is based on misinformation just because of the media. However, when you provide accurate information to them, for example an opportunity to tour a farm, they're open to having this information change their opinion. Then there are a small handful of opposition groups that, even with information, really don't want to change their opinion. They want to be opposed. Your approach is quite different, depending on who you are talking to.
The industry has worked hard at a community level in terms of building support and that social licence to operate. I'm sure you found that in the communities, they're very excited about industry being there and being good partners. They see what they're doing to build social and economic strength in the communities.
When people say we don't have social licence, I like to try to define what that is because in areas where we operate, we do have social licence. When we do our polling in provinces and across the country in terms of attitudes and beliefs about aquaculture, it is not as negative as you might think if you are talking to those who are strongly opposed.
You have made some good comments. We need to continue to dialogue and to get our message out because this industry, as Clare said, is about 30 years old. We have changed rapidly in terms of our best practices. We know so much more now than we did 30 years ago about the best place to grow fish and what are best practices. Sometimes people's notion of aquaculture is back when we started. We made a lot of mistakes.
We need to continue to work hard at getting out information. How do we do that effectively when there's a voice out there that wants to oppose us? There is an approach we need to take depending on who we are talking to.
I do think that in the communities that we operate, we do have that social licence. We need to do more on the broader level to get out good information.
Mr. Backman: To pick up on what Ruth said, generally, it comes down to knowledge, what people understand and what they know. In my personal experience, I have worked with people who are dead set against salmon aquaculture. We take them out to tour our sites and answer their questions and they come back completely turned around. They realize that the information they were getting was coming through a fear filter. They thought they were going to lose something if salmon aquaculture was going to be allowed to continue but they realize the last thing in the world the salmon aquaculture can do is to negatively impact its environment and cause damage to fisheries.
We are growing fish and the fish come first when it comes to how we manage the farm sites. That goes down through the whole operation and the people that operate there. Once they experience that they realize that these are people that very much care about the environment and the fish they grow and where they operate.
Getting that message out is tough when you work on the farm 365 days a year, but, as Ruth has said, it is something that never goes away. The controversy probably is never going to go away entirely because people come from a place of no knowledge. They maybe hear that something is a problem and then they have to learn both sides of it.
Social licence is a moving target. Right now our social licence is at a higher place than it was perhaps 10 or 15 years ago, but it's a job that's never completely done. We will continue to engage with folks one-on-one when we can, but not everybody can come to a shellfish farm or to a salmon farm, so we will continue to go forward with websites and other sorts of opportunities and reach out to the folks that we have here in Canada who need to know more about the reality of the salmon farms.
Senator Raine: I'm reading both sides of the issue. It is very polarized. There is a lot of information out there spreading fear about the terrible things going on in Norway. Could you explain what is happening in Norway, maybe just with your company? Are the farms well accepted by the communities and are there too many of them? Has it had an impact on the regional wild fish? They're a lot further along than we are. I would like to hear about that, if you have that knowledge.
We do have a plan to travel to Norway, so if you don't feel comfortable answering, I don't expect you to.
Mr. Backman: I have been to Norway several times working for Marine Harvest. Marine Harvest has operations in Norway so I have been to several locations there.
First, we have to understand that the production in British Columbia is 60,000 to 70,000 tonnes a year and on the East Coast, if we add them both up, some years we're around 140,000 or 150,000 tonnes in Canada of production. Norway is over a million tonnes a year of salmon production. You are going to see something incredibly different from what we have in Canada. Ruth and I are not saying that's where we want Canada to be. We're just saying that Canada has a lot of unrealized potential in proper, careful managed growth.
Does Norway have problems? Sure, they do. Do they have controversy? Sure, they do. I mentioned in my presentation the social aspect of sustainability. They're looking now at having to relocate some farms that used to be in a good location but now the community doesn't think they are.
They instituted their national fjords program, which are the protected areas, just as we on the coast of Canada institute protected areas, so they're relocating farms. They can't grow the business any further in those protected areas or national fjords; you will learn about that.
They have fish health challenges with external parasites like sea lice that they're busy working on. You will see some of the novel ways they're approaching dealing with those sorts of challenges.
Also, because of the size of the industry, it is a huge employer. It is a huge economic driver within Norway. You asked if it's accepted. In terms of its integration into the fabric of the economy of Norway, it is quite accepted, absolutely.
The same as here in Canada, it has to continue to get out the positive message about what it is doing as well. There are some great similarities that you will see as well.
Ms. Salmon: The government sees it as their number two industry, so it gets that kind of national support and promotion.
When we were in Norway last summer, a bunch of us were having dinner and the waitress asked where we were from and what we were there for. We were at an aquaculture conference. She said, ``Oh, aquaculture; that's our future. That's just a small example. It has a different sense there in terms of acceptance and commitment that we don't have in Canada yet.
Senator Raine: In terms of British Columbia and how siting is the responsibility of the province and how you need First Nations buy-in now, is that working well between the First Nations and the provinces in terms of potential new siting?
Mr. Backman: Absolutely. It is job one. I mentioned in my presentation that the first thing you do is to look at the area plans and the suitability, and that involves, right away, talking with the First Nations who are in those areas and ensuring that you have their support to go forward and look at the physical locations within the area.
You start talking to and dialoguing with the First Nations, and then you move to an understanding of what the provincial government's planning processes will allow.
All of the companies now are very aware of that way to move forward.
Senator Munson: Earlier, I talked about things being bleak, and now I will talk about hope. Are you getting any indication from the government in your calls for an aquaculture act? Is the government giving you signs that the government is prepared to do it? I have been called a free reign senator. So I don't know what the government is thinking and I don't know what my own party is thinking. The system, right now, does not commit to Canadian leadership on research, enhancement, promotion, support. Is there any indication in your lobby to the government directly, to the Fisheries Department and so on, that there may be an opening for an aquaculture act? We all agree that there should be one. We can go so far in terms of what we recommend. At the end of the day, as we all know, it is the government that will say yes or no. Is there a glimmer of hope for you folks?
Ms. Salmon: We have seen a lot over the last two years. We have seen a real shift, and we're encouraged by the kind of support and interest that we are seeing in sustainable growth and increased competitiveness. Minister Shea has been quite vocal about that. That is encouraging to us.
I think that their priority at this stage is regulatory reform and dealing with those kinds things of things that they feel they can deal with in a short time frame, and we're supportive of that because those are the kinds of things that are going to give us productivity improvements.
The discussions need to continue in terms of what's next. We won't stop those discussions because we feel strongly, but we do feel that this government is interested in seeing growth return to the sector.
Mr. Backman: Yes, there is a glimmer of hope. When we talk to different groups in government and different ministries, when we're speaking to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, for example, they recognize the fact that there's a place for the act that we're talking about. DFO, as Ms. Salmon mentioned, is working on regulatory reform. They're committed to having the very best regulation they can have that we would operate under. We respect that. We're working with them on that.
They also see that there's an opportunity here to go further, in the way that we've mentioned, to establish a new understanding, nationally, of what aquaculture can be in Canada. That will come, starting off with an aquaculture act.
The Chair: I want to thank our guests for the very informative session that we had here this evening. Your experience certainly adds much to our study. We look forward to hearing anything that raises your eyebrows over the next number of months. As we go forward, please feel free to contact us and forward your concerns or any ideas or suggestions you may have.
With that, I want to thank you for appearing here this evening and thank our senators. We will have an in camera session to discuss a couple of issues. I would ask our senators to stay put.
(The committee continued in camera.)