Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries

Issue 6 - Evidence

The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries met this day at 6:00 p.m. to examine matters relating to the fishing industry.

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

[English]

The Chairman: I call this meeting to order. Before we begin, I wish to advise members that the minister was supposed to arrive here at 6 o'clock. He is at a vote, however, and will be here immediately following that vote.

Mr. Leclerc, please proceed.

Mr. Michel Leclerc, Special Advisor, Aquaculture, Policy Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans: I would like to speak to you about what has happened to date in the comprehensive legal review and answer your questions on the regulatory framework governing aquaculture.

[Translation]

Three documents were provided to the committee's clerk prior to this meeting: a list of provincial acts and regulations that impact on aquaculture in Canada, a list of federal departments and agencies that have a role to play in aquaculture and a copy of our opening statement.

[English]

When Yves Bastien was appointed Commissioner for Aquaculture Development on December 16, 1998, he had three objectives. The first was to undertake a comprehensive review of the legal framework governing aquaculture. The second was to improve public perception of aquaculture. And the third was to convince the fishery sector of the benefits of aquaculture and of the advantages of participating more actively in aquaculture.

The legal review team consists of staff from the Office of the Commissioner for Aquaculture Development, or OCAD, which is managing the project, and the legal personnel and staff from all DFO sectors. Other federal departments with an interest in aquaculture are also participating to improve the regulatory framework governing aquaculture.

Two teams were created to examine aquaculture issues. The first examined specific regulatory issues for aquaculture, such as fish health, in general, and the need to consider an approach involving ordered eradication of diseased fish, The second looked at environmental regulations such as sections 35 and 36 of the Fisheries Act. Section 35 deals with harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, while section 36 prohibits the deposit of deleterious substances in waters frequented by fish.

A third group is studying the relationship between the navigable waters protection programs and aquaculture.

All three of these groups report to a steering committee of assistant deputy ministers from several federal departments.

[Translation]

The legal framework for aquaculture is much more complex than the average Canadian might believe. At the federal level alone, there are seventeen federal departments and agencies that manage programs having a direct impact on aquaculture in this country.

In addition, all provinces and territories play a direct role in the industry's management and development. To date, the legal review has focused exclusively on federal legislation and programs. An exhaustive study of provincial legislation and management practices was not part of OCAD's review.

A review of provincial legislation and regulations would most likely be undertaken by the federal-provincial working group on aquaculture, which reports to the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers (CCFAM).

[English]

The Commissioner's primary finding in the review is that, while regulation is necessary, most of the current legislation was adopted prior to the development and growth of aquaculture. Therefore, the current regulatory framework is not entirely appropriate for managing the aquaculture industry; it needs to be adjusted. With approximately 20 federal acts and an even greater number of regulations involved, there are obvious targets for regulatory reform. This will not be accomplished overnight.

DFO, the commissioner's office, and other federal departments are now in the process of evaluating whether and how the federal regulatory framework should be adapted to regularize the situation. Among other options, the department is considering whether aquaculture-specific federal legislation should be developed to support the growth of the industry. As Yves Bastien reported when he attended before you, no decision has been made on that score.

Whatever changes are made to federal regulations respecting aquaculture, they will be made to recognize the legitimacy and promote the sustainability of the industry while acknowledging and respecting other interests.

All provinces and territories have legislation that has an impact on aquaculture. Aquaculture activities are subject to the legislation and regulations of the federal government and the province in which an aquaculture site is established.

The federal aquaculture development strategy is quite clear that efforts should be directed at streamlining regulatory frameworks and making them consistent. Given the shared responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments, collaboration with the provinces will be achieved through the aquaculture working group, which reports to the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers.

There are also memoranda of understanding signed by the federal government, seven provinces and territories: They are British Columbia, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E.I., Newfoundland and the Yukon. In general, these MOUs assigned joint responsibilities for research and development to both levels of government. Federal responsibilities are exercised in connection with the administration of leases and minimizing the risk of introducing a new fish disease into Canada or its transfer from one province to another. All provinces are responsible for issuing licences in respect of aquaculture operations, except for P.E.I., which decided in 1928 to leave that responsibility with the federal government.

[Translation]

My intention today is to briefly sketch the jurisdictional context in which aquaculture operates, and describe the approach that the federal government is taking to increase the relevance and the effectiveness of the legal framework that surrounds aquaculture activities in Canada.

Senator Robichaud: You mentioned that you have MOUs with all provinces except Prince Edward Island. Can you tell me how in fact the aquaculturists are served, on the one hand, by the provinces the federal government transferred responsibility to and, on the other hand, by the federal which still exercises responsibility in PEI? Is there a difference in the delivery of permits or leases?

Mr. Leclerc: The federal government signed a memorandum with Prince Edward Island. That memorandum assigns responsibility for the delivery of permits to the federal government so that aquaculturists can operate their sites. This is unique. In all the other provinces, the permits for aquaculture sites are delivered under provincial legislation.

The second part of your question concerned aquaculturist business relations in their daily operations. The Commissioner touches on that problem in his legal review. We still have not received his recommendations. We know that this is an issue he examined in order to facilitate the operations of aquaculturists who deal with a large number of federal agencies and with the provincial governments.

Senator Robichaud: There is an experiment going on in my area -- more or less a pilot project of scallop seeding in the Northumberland Strait. There are New Brunswick people harvesting the seeds in the part of the strait that is closest to New Brunswick but they are looking for seeding places that might be closer to Prince Edward Island than to New Brunswick or the other way around. Can that create a problem in terms of which authority can authorize these activities?

Mr. Leclerc: This problem has to do with simultaneous double jurisdiction. The other aspect of the problem you are talking about is that seed harvesting is a fishing activity. It is true that aquaculturists are not harvesting the spats, the seeds and the eggs at the same time as commercial fishermen. We must solve that issue by having regulations to facilitate the life of aquaculturists. This might cause problems but the commissioner will see to it when he makes his recommendations to the minister.

Senator Robichaud: Was the question ever asked?

Mr. Leclerc: I am sure it was. There were numerous consultations with aquaculturists. I do not remember which year exactly. There was a study including a business impact test in which aquaculturists were asked what regulations were undermining their functional capability. Access to eggs and spats was one of the problems mentioned. I do not have the details. The issue that you are talking about would be considered a problem by the aquaculturists.

[English]

Senator Carney: I was struck by the fact that, in our visit to the coastal communities last week, there was a continuing expression of concern about the development of aquaculture where there are migratory wild fish and salmon. It was constant, up and down the coast. In the objectives for the Commissioner for Aquaculture Development that you outlined, this issue was not mentioned. All of the objectives advocated for aquaculture. None of these objectives relates to the assessment of whether it is appropriate to have aquaculture on the West Coast, where you have Atlantic salmon intermingling with native Pacific salmon.

For instance, the first objective is to "undertake a comprehensive review of the legal framework..." You make the point that, because the framework was there before, the aquaculture is probably not adequate. The second objective was to "improve public perceptions of aquaculture" -- another way of saying public relations. The third objective was to "convince the fisheries sector of the benefits of aquaculture and the advantages of participating more actively in aquaculture," which is a position of promoting it.

Nowhere in the objectives is there the goal of determining whether positioning aquaculture in the same water as migratory wild fish, particularly salmon, is the right thing to do. In your written presentation, you say:

Whatever changes are made to federal regulations respecting aquaculture, they will be made to recognize the legitimacy and promote the sustainability of the industry --

Those are two advocate positions.

-- while acknowledging and respecting other interests.

Why is your department avoiding the issue of the conflict between having Atlantic salmon in net pens, escaping from their nets and establishing themselves in the streams where Pacific wild salmon spawn? Why is that not one of the objectives?

We were stunned to find how little research is being done on this -- and I think I speak for the group. We were stunned to find how the advocacy position is being forwarded without knowledge of the impact of aquaculture when it is taking place in the native waters of Pacific salmon. Could you explain the omission?

Mr. Leclerc: It is probably more of an omission from the text I drafted than an omission in terms of what the government is considering when it wants to create an appropriate legislative framework for aquaculture.

Senator Carney: What does that mean? You have not discussed whether DFO is looking at whether or not it is a good idea to raise farm fish, with all the attendant problems, in the natural habitat of wild fish. Could you address that problem? Why is your office, or DFO, not dealing with this?

Mr. Leclerc: During the legal review conducted by the commissioner, the issue of balancing environmental interests has come up. As a matter of fact, the issue of siting aquaculture facilities, while respecting other uses of the aquatic resource, has come up. In terms of migratory birds --

Senator Carney: We are not talking birds; we are talking fish, salmon. We are talking about farm fish in creeks established as wild habitat for wild fish. We are not talking about birds. Could you address the question, please. Why is your department not looking at the impact of having farmed Atlantic salmon positioned and located in the streams, rivers and ocean waters used by migrating and spawning Pacific salmon? It is quite simple. You are not addressing it in these goals. Why not?

Mr. Leclerc: That is not a question I can answer because I have not had much involvement in fisheries management issues and the efforts being made to integrate the decision making with aquaculture and wild fisheries. If the committee would like, I can get more detail on that for you and come back later.

Senator Carney: I would like to know if you are aware of any research whatsoever in DFO dealing with the impact of farmed fish on wild fish, period. That issue concerns the native and non-native coastal communities.

There was quite a bit of support for closed systems onshore, but there was heavy, practically unanimous, concern about the location of the farmed fish in the waters used by wild fish, which are under enormous attack by habitat problems, natural disasters, and fishing policies.

You are the Special Advisor on Aquaculture to the Assistant Deputy Minister on Policy at DFO. What studies are taking place in DFO on the impact of the introduction of Atlantic salmon in a wild fishery?

Mr. Leclerc: It is unfortunate that the Director of Aquaculture and Ocean Sciences is not here tonight, because she could have provided you with that information. It is not an area in which I am an expert.

Senator Carney: The only evidence we got was a $5,000 to $10,000 study by a regional office in DFO. There is a doctor at the University of Victoria who is conducting a study. He is the only one, as far as we are aware, studying this area. He is not funded in any way by DFO. We would appreciate knowing what studies are taking place, and if they are not taking place, why? Why are the three objectives of the Commissioner for Aquaculture Development all advocacy positions?

Mr. Leclerc: There are two elements to the objectives of the committee. I do not want to speak for the commissioner. There is an advocacy role involved in the role that he plays. In fact, he has two roles: one dealing with promoting the interests of the industry, the other to create a regulatory framework where the needs of the aquaculture industry and the other users of aquaculture resources are balanced.

Senator Carney: They are in conflict. I would suggest you look at that.

The Chairman: The Acting Deputy General, Iona Price, was to have appeared before us tonight. She would have been able to answer the questions, I am sure, but she could not make it because she is ill. We put you on the hot seat, asking you to answer questions that are not part of your mandate. We do take that into consideration, and hope you pass on the questions to the acting director general.

Senator Robertson: You are strictly in aquaculture?

Mr. Leclerc: My specific role is to advise on policy, legislative, and regulatory issues for the Assistant Deputy Minister of Policy. I am not an expert. I am gaining knowledge in this area, but I am not an expert in fish sciences or the actual operations of aquaculturists.

Senator Robertson: The committee went out East, where we talked with fishers and met with research people. It was a most interesting time. I want to ask you about the Botsford professional fishermen's association. Are you familiar with them?

Mr. Leclerc: I am not.

Senator Robertson: No sense in me proceeding then with my question.

The Chairman: We might be able to ask the minister later on, or the director general.

Senator Robertson: My other question related to the changes in administration of the fisheries on the East Coast. There were concerns related to that expressed to us when we were on the East Coast. The researchers, in particular, who were accustomed to working with the Halifax and Moncton offices, were affected by those changes. I should like to know what that was all about.

Mr. Leclerc: David Bevan, who will be attending with the minister later on, may be able to answer those questions.

Senator Perrault: Members of the committee will be in accord with the view that we had a useful and valuable visit to the West Coast last week. There is obviously a substantial difference of opinion between those who fish wild salmon and those who are involved in aquaculture. I hope that all aspects of this issue are being studied.

We heard disturbing testimony about diseases in the aquaculture pens; on the other hand, we heard from people who say that it is the way of the future. We were given assurances that not one case of infection has been brought to the West Coast by the introduction of Atlantic salmon. There are so many questions that need answering.

As a British Columbian -- I know that my B.C. colleagues here feel the same way -- it is of tremendous importance to us that the right decisions are made, and made quickly.

The fishing industry on the West Coast is valuable. A $100 million was allocated a few months ago toward a salmon enhancement program. At the same time, the Maritimes received upwards of $700 million for their needs. Why the disparity between the fish producers on the East Coast and those in British Columbia?

Mr. Leclerc: Again, you are asking me a question that is more science-oriented, in terms of the answer that you are looking for. However, I will endeavour to get the answers to those questions, particularly on the research and the funding for the enhancement program.

Senator Perrault: Our chairman was advised, by letter, that the $100 million program, announced June 19, 1998, to rebuild the fish habitat on the West Coast was part of a $400-million allocation to rebuild the resource, restructure the fishery, and help people in the communities adjust to the change in the fishery. On the same day, the government announced $730 million for restructuring the Atlantic groundfish fishery. Both of our industries are important. We fully understand the difficulties that face the East Coast fishers.

Senator Cook: The third objective set out by Yves Bastien is to convince the fisheries sector of the benefits of aquaculture and the advantages of participating more actively in aquaculture. Is there a resistance to aquaculture? Is it not the way of the future?

Would you help me to understand what it is you are saying here?

Mr. Leclerc: This committee has heard from commercial fishers. They have a concern related to aquaculture-bred fish. Their concern is about diseases. They are concerned about allocation to sites. They are concerned that aquaculturists will be given privileged access to marine sites. The objective you cited is the Commissioner of Aquaculture Development's objective, but the department's position is that we must recognize all the users of aquatic resources. The third objective you cited is an advocacy objective.

The department's response would be to take a balanced approach to all interested parties. The objectives that I referred to are those of the Commissioner for Aquaculture Development.

Senator Cook: It helps, but let us look at it from another perspective. Let's assume that I am a fisherman who can no longer fish for the cod that I traditionally fished; I am looking for a new way of earning a living from the sea, albeit in a different manner. Before I can start up a scallop bed, for example, or a mussel farm, I am confronted with 17 federal departments and 20 federal acts. This is completely opposite to the only lifestyle I have ever known. I use that example to try to understand whether DFO has any understanding or awareness of the impact of this type of thing on fishers. It is so complicated, where it should be just another way of earning a living.

On whose shoulders does this rest?

Mr. Leclerc: That is a very real problem. We recognize that the complexity of the legislative and regulatory framework complicates the life of people who practice aquaculture. It is probably very intimidating to people who must get into it if they want to find another way of earning a living.

There are multiple objectives that are achieved by realigning the legislative framework and simplifying it. The approach you suggested, that it might be better if it were a lot simpler, may come up as we rearrange that framework and the responsibilities. Ideally, for anyone dealing with the government, service delivery should be simplified and effective. An aquaculture site operator would be dealing with permits under Navigable Water Protection Act or possibly with a fisheries licence under the Fisheries Act. He would have to comply with the Migratory Birds Convention Act in terms of siting. There are a large number of regulatory requirements that have an impact on them, so that is obviously something that must be an objective for the department.

Senator Cook: Millions of dollars is being spent, it seems, but not in concert with the people who need to be taken care of, that is, the fisherman, who is basically a very simple person who knows the land and sea and water and is part of it. We are complicating a very simple operation; we are not providing enough direction. The money is being spent in other places, rather than on what we are hoping to achieve.

Mr. Leclerc: I am not sure I understand your comment. If you are saying that the money should be allocated to developing opportunities for wild fishermen to get into the aquaculture industry --

Senator Cook: If this is viable -- and I am not even sure it is. It seems to me that we are not focused on that which we would like to do, and that is to provide another way of earning a living from the resource of the sea. That is my dilemma.

Mr. Leclerc: It is an interesting comment. I am not sure that I can provide a solution at this time. I wish I could because the whole system is very complicated. It is not fun to manage it, and I am quite sure that it is not a whole lot more fun at the receiving end either.

Senator Cook: In my opinion, it is so complicated that the fishers in my part of the world will not dare risk trying this new thing called aquaculture. We are over-regulating it, making it very complicated. We are not making it easy for fishers to earn a living from the sea in this different manner.

The Chairman: As you can see, Mr. Leclerc, we are not all of the same opinion on the subject.

Senator Mahovlich: Norway has been in the aquaculture business for over 25 years, and they are way ahead of us. They are very aggressive. They are having problems over there with their wild fish, but it does not seem to bother them. They continue with the aquaculture. Is this the policy we are heading for? In order to compete with Chile and Norway, will we forget about our wild fisheries in British Columbia, not protect them at all, and go into aquaculture?

Mr. Leclerc: That is never a direction in which the Department of Fisheries and Oceans would go. Aquaculture is an important industry. It is growing. We must provide the legislative framework to support it. We must have the programs in place to support it, but not at the expense of the wild fisheries. The challenge here will be to balance the interest of both and to integrate them into our management.

Senator Mahovlich: You will try to have a balance?

Mr. Leclerc: Yes.

Senator Mahovlich: When we were in the West, we found that communities were really suffering. Villages that were once fishing villages are now relying more on tourism. The boats are gone. The old ways are already on the way out.

The Chairman: Honourable senators, the minister has arrived. I will interrupt at this point and ask the minister to proceed with his presentation.

Welcome, Mr. Dhaliwal.

Hon. Herb Dhaliwal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans: Thank you for inviting me back to appear before your committee to discuss the important work of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We had a very good first round in February, and I look forward to your questions as we continue to explore current and upcoming issues of interest.

I wish to touch on two important subjects of interest to all committee members. The first is aquaculture. I want to applaud this committee's ongoing study of aquaculture in Canada. I understand that you have just returned from an intensive week of hearings in my beautiful home province, British Columbia. My staff was active in supporting you while you were there. I am sure you understand why I am so excited about this emerging area in the fishery, an area that enjoys an annual growth rate of 15 per cent and has the potential to be even more dynamic. You also have a better view of the challenges that I face as minister. If aquaculture is to reach its potential, we must balance further development with the utmost protection of the environment. The challenge for the government is to build both public and industry confidence. Aquaculture is growing in Canada, but it is a success story at another level as well.

The federal government and the provinces are working in close cooperation with industry across the country to plan, promote, and develop aquaculture's great future. In fact, at the last Council of Fisheries Ministers meeting, we adopted a resolution that Canada become a world leader in the development of sustainable aquaculture. In the coming months, I hope to have more to say about the federal government's role in aquaculture.

The second area I want to discuss today is the Marshall decision. This is one of the first challenges I faced in my new portfolio last fall. I say "challenge" because, while affirming the First Nations' right to fish commercially, the Supreme Court also reaffirmed my authority to regulate for conservation and to regulate for an orderly fishery. As minister, I am doing my part to combine those two fundamental principles.

I have just returned from a very successful trip to the East Coast, where I was encouraged by the positive attitude of the majority of those in the industry. I visited the Miramichi area, which some of you are familiar with. I visited Nova Scotia -- the Southwest Nova area and Halifax. I had an excellent meeting. It reinforced my view that through dialogue we can resolve our differences and make this process truly work.

For example, more than 1,000 fishermen in the Maritimes and Quebec have indicated that they are willing to retire more than 4,000 licences. These licences could be transferred to aboriginal communities to help us adapt to the Marshall decision. Such a transfer would have two positive benefits: First, aboriginals would enter the commercial fishery and work side by side with non-native fishermen; second, there would be no additional strain on existing fish stocks. Negotiation, not confrontation, has been our style from the beginning and is beginning to show positive results.

The purpose of these negotiations is to provide commercial access, training, and economic development for native fishermen. As of today, I am happy to report that we have six signed agreements and seven agreements in principle. I am confident that we will have agreements with the majority of bands in the near future.

Honourable senators, I wish I could give you more details, but we are breaking new ground and the outcome is not entirely predictable. There could be more bumps on the road, but we will ensure that fisheries are properly regulated and that conservation will be achieved. Accommodation of the treaty right can only be achieved through dialogue, negotiation, and cooperation on everyone's part. This takes time, but there is no other way.

The Chairman: Last week you were in Nova Scotia. You came to my home community, where you met with federal, provincial and municipal politicians, including councillors. As Chairman of the Senate Fisheries Committee, I felt left out; I thought I should have been invited to the meeting in my home community. Senators should rate as high as municipal councillors when it comes to meeting on such important subjects.

Second, on the question of the Marshall decision, I thought you were miserably served by your department -- a brand new minister coming into the department, with no contingency plan whatsoever. I am thankful that the fisheries groups in western Nova Scotia had intervenor status, to be able to request the Supreme Court to make a clarification on the initial decision. It provided the Supreme Court, therefore, the opportunity to make a clarification, which gave you some breathing room. Had it not been for the clarification, you would have been up the creek without a paddle. Thanks to the intervention, you have gained some time.

My last comment is that, last year, this committee issued a report on individual transferable quotas. That report asked the department to wait on transferable quotas, to refrain from promoting transferable quotas until a decision had been made. I would like to summarize what one of your officials said at a symposium in Australia on the subject. Your official said that the appearance and growth of individual quotas in Canadian fisheries has not been the result of a formal national policy to move in that direction. Your official also said that many of the benefits of full property rights have been achieved without the upheaval associated with trying to change laws to permit property rights in fishing.

This is all being done without public discussion on the subject, and without parliamentary approval of such policies. I would ask you, Mr. Minister, for any comments you might have.

Mr. Dhaliwal: I apologize for not extending you an invitation. You would have been very welcome. There are people who arrived without an invitation, and we welcomed them. I apologize for not extending an invitation to you; however, had you been there, I would have welcomed you.

The Chairman: Next time, that is what I will do.

Mr. Dhaliwal: The next time we meet in your area of Nova Scotia, we will be sure to send you an invitation.

Your second comment related to a contingency plan. This issue was raised by many people at the time. I had just become minister. I was about five weeks or six weeks into the job. It is always difficult to predict what the Supreme Court will rule, as well as the details and wording of the ruling. I certainly am not a lawyer, but every word makes a difference. Had many people predicted correctly, we would have seen newspaper articles as to how we as a government should have been ready, et cetera. Journalists and those in the political arena were not talking about this case. It was only after the courts ruled that it became a discussion. As a government and as a department, it is difficult to plan for things we do not know about.

As a department, we have tried to integrate the aboriginal community through our aboriginal fishing strategy. There has been an attempt on both coasts. We have bought up licences through the allocation transfer program. However, Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of resistance. There has been a lot of resistance from people who say that we are trying to bring people in. I have seen that on the West Coast. Sometimes we need the courts to push us in a way that is extremely difficult politically because there is so much resistance. People want to maintain the status quo.

I would have liked to have a plan in place. It was difficult to predict the decision and its wording, recognizing the treaty that was signed in 1760. I do not think anybody out there would have predicted that. I did not see anything before the hearing came down. It is not always possible to do that.

With respect to individual quotas, I do not know a lot of the details so I may ask my officials to comment. Individual quotas were brought in in consultation with the industry. Individual quotas were not pushed by the department. They were brought in having had due consultation with the industry, with them very much involved in the process. One of the problems we face in the fisheries is that everybody tries to catch everything they can within that opening period, whether it be for six or eight hours. They are all trying to catch as much as they possibly can and bring it in at the same time. It is not a good way to manage your fisheries because everybody is trying to grab the most in the shortest period of time. It is always tough to manage that as well.

In some areas where we were able to get cooperation with the industry, we went to an IQ program. It is not a requirement to catch it in one day, within one hour. That catch can be made over a certain period of time. There is not a huge rush.

Senator Cook: I am trying to understand, from my perspective as a Newfoundlander, just what aquaculture is. One part of me wants aquaculture to be a way for the displaced fishermen of Newfoundland to earn a living in the new economy. However, I am beginning to feel that aquaculture is not an industry for fishermen per se, as I would like it to be, but rather an emerging industry with shared jurisdiction across 15 federal departments, covered under 20 federal acts.

Who is able to come into this industry and make a decent living? It seems very complicated to me. The emotional side of me wants this to be a place for the displaced fishermen who can no longer fish because of moratoriums or whatever.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Some jurisdictional problems do occur between federal and provincial governments. There has been a task force set up to report back to us when the fisheries ministers from across the country come together to talk to about some of these legal problems. There is also the Commissioner for Aquaculture, who is looking at the legal framework to see what changes are required in the legislative framework, so that we can get rid of some of the hurdles.

Aquaculture in B.C. has been growing 10 to 15 per cent, in spite of some of the hurdles you are talking about. There was a moratorium on finfish, but that moratorium has just been lifted by the Province of British Columbia. Aquaculture has been growing leaps and bounds if you look at the last 10 years of fish farming. The shellfish aquaculture is also doing very well.

In New Brunswick, aquaculture has been a very successful industry. They have been some hurdles, in terms of fish disease. However, in New Brunswick -- and my staff will correct me if I am wrong -- they have $160 million sales a year from finfish farming. In British Columbia, we have had a huge increase over the many years.

We are trying to deal with the hurdles. I hope your committee will establish recommendations as to how we can move this agenda forward and deal with the legal hurdles that occur. The industry is moving very well.

I do not know if you had a chance to visit Fanny Bay Oysters. When I visited that company back in 1994, they had a little trailer and employed about 10 people.

Senator Johnson: Where is this?

Mr. Dhaliwal: Vancouver Island, near Courtenay. When I visited them four years later, they had a 10,000 square foot building and 20 people processing oysters. The owner said, "I wish I could more land was available because I cannot fill the markets in Asia. I am afraid to take orders because I cannot fill them." There is a real opportunity in finfish as well as shellfish.

The other area of interest is "grow-outs," where they catch the smaller fish, put them in pens, and feed them until they get bigger. When I was at the Boston Seafood Show, which is one of the largest international seafood shows, there were people there who do grow-outs. They told me that they could make a lot more money by doing grow-outs.

There are many examples of aquaculture doing well.

Senator Perrault: Our visit to the West Coast last week was a very educational experience. We visited Prince Rupert, Port MacNeil, and many other communities. It was very revealing with regard to the concern being felt by the people about the future.

In one emotionally charged session, one of our aboriginal Canadians said that his family had been fishing all of their lives in this community but his boy has yet to go out on a boat. I guess the tradition ends with him. There is fear about the future of that community.

Yes, preserving fish runs is important, vital, and necessary, but the program to help people must advance at the same rate of speed as our attempt to promote aquaculture or wild salmon or anything else.

There is an effort being made to enhance the tourist industry up there. That will help. There is a long way to go to before we will see thousands of people waving their American express cards up there.

Then we received diametrically opposed views about wild versus aquaculture salmon. Aboriginal people by and large are careful. The proposal was advanced that we are not building these structures in the right place. I would appreciate your comment. They say they should be on land. Some countries are putting them on land. They will not allow the aquaculture facilities to be put in the water. One enthusiast, the committee will remember him, said that there is not one proven case of infection ever being transferred to the wild stock.

Senator Meighen: This was on the West Coast?

Senator Perrault: Mr. Minister, the program must include more than just enhancing the fishery. I would like your comment on that.

Mr. Dhaliwal: I commend you on the work you have done in this area. You have taken a real interest. You have talked to me many times on this important issue.

The federal government has made a huge commitment on the West Coast, where we are investing $400 million in a variety of areas, including habitat enhancement, community development, buyout of licences on a voluntary basis. There is a huge commitment by us for the future of the fisheries.

Some of our coastal communities are being hurt because the sockeye salmon run last year was much lower than predicted. There have been a few bad years in the southern part of our province. That concerns me.

I see aquaculture as an addition to the fishery, not in any way a replacement of our wild stocks. We will work on making sure that we concentrate on habitat. We have also reduced the fleet by 50 per cent on a voluntary buyout program, so that we have a lower capacity. We are doing everything we can to preserve our fish farms, because they are so important for British Columbia.

In terms of location of structures, this is something that the provincial government determines. They are now -- since they have lifted the moratorium -- conducting a review as to what the ideal location of those structures should be. I know that they did a very comprehensive review before they lifted the moratorium, a three-year review, on environmental effects and a whole variety of issues. We are working with them to make sure we have sustainable aquaculture. We need to do more research in certain areas. There is no doubt about it. I am working very hard to put more funds in that area.

In developing sustainable aquaculture, we want to make sure we deal with the environmental concerns. For local and coastal communities, there are tremendous opportunities. We have the longest coastline of any country in the world. We have three oceans around us. This is a huge asset for Canada.

Protecting our oceans is one of my top priorities, because if we do not we will not have fish resources.

Senator Carney: It is never a good idea to contradict a minister, particularly one from B.C. The moratorium was not lifted, it was simply hoisted in certain areas, but there are restrictions on it in other areas. I did not want my committee members to feel that it is fair game for aquaculture.

On our tour, we were unable to find any evidence of any studies by DFO on the impact of farm fish on the wild fish. We were told repeatedly that DFO said that Atlantic salmon and the fish farms would not escape, but they did. We were told they would not spawn in the coastal streams, but they have. We were told they would not migrate, but they have been found in Alaska. No one is doing studies to find out if the Atlantic salmon are a threat to the wild salmon. Fish farms are in the migratory route for the wild salmon. That is one of the problems. It is made worse by shared jurisdictions.

What studies are you doing on the impact of farm fish -- which as you say are expanding at a great rate -- on the wild fish, which will return? It is a sunrise industry. What studies are you aware of?

Mr. Dhaliwal: The farm fish in British Columbia have been around for quite awhile. It is not something that popped up three or four years ago. They have been around for a number of years. When fish farming, there are risks of escapement. No one can say there will not be escapement. There will be storms or predators will break in. There are all sorts of ways for escapement to happen.

What we need to do is ensure that we have a proper response to some of these situations, so that we can respond when there is an escapement to minimize this. That is where we need to do some work with the provincial government, so that we agree on how to deal with some of these situations.

I will ask Mr. Davis to comment further.

Senator Carney: Are studies being done?

Dr. John Davis, Assistant Deputy Minister, Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans: I would like to elaborate a bit.

Senator Carney: I will ask you to address the second question. You can send any further information you might have by way of a letter to the committee.

We spent a lot of time on habitat and very little on humans. One of the impacts of fishing policies in the past has been the devastation of coastal communities and the loss of the community's small boat fleet. There has been a concentration of fishing licences into the urban areas and fishing communities. Aboriginal communities have lost their ability to fish their income.

Have you looked at community licensing, which is the new push on the coast? Communities want to have the right to allocate fish themselves and maintain the home fleet. Is the issue of corporate concentration a problem to you?

Mr. Dhaliwal: I am concerned about the way the fisheries have hurt the communities. I was in Campbell River and met with the local people there. We have a number of adjustment programs, the funding of which has increased, to help those people who have been affected in the coastal communities. The retirement program is on a voluntary basis. With respect to licences for the individual coastal communities, it is always difficult. You cannot isolate into small regions because fish move up and down the coast. Management cannot be done on a local basis. The very nature of salmon is that they move up and down the coast. It is extremely difficult to start doing management on a local basis, but we want to be sensitive to those local areas. We may want to look at some species, but it is not something that is a priority in that area.

The Chairman: Mr. Davis might take the opportunity to send a letter to the committee on the research question posed by Senator Carney. It is important to the committee.

Senator Meighen: I want to direct my question towards the East Coast, which I know better than the West Coast. I would be interested in comments on the question of disease. My clear understanding is that organizations such as the Atlantic Salmon Federation and others have scientific documentation that ISA has been transmitted from caged fish to the wild stocks and that, coincident with that, wild stocks in certain rivers appear to be plummeting. Whether there is a direct cause-and-effect relationship, I do not know. We should all be aware that escapees are large in number. That is the way it is. I gather from Senator Carney's remarks that the case is the same on the Pacific.

I would like to know about strains of Atlantic salmon. My information is that, in Maine, which is about 25 yards from New Brunswick, there are European strains being imported. Obviously, they are escaping as well; and obviously, they are interacting with the wild fish.

Third, I know the aquaculture industry is working very hard to come up with some regulations. When can we expect some sort of regulations in terms of bags or something around the cages?

Mr. Dhaliwal: Self-containment?

Senator Meighen: Yes. Obviously, there is a severe problem with pollution.

Finally, what about financing, Mr. Minister? Aquaculture is half agriculture, half fish. Why not the FCC? We heard on our initial tour that many shellfish raisers and finfish were having difficulty getting financing, particularly in the startup phase. It takes two or three years until the returns come back. Fish do not grow as quickly as some other beasts. It takes time before you see a return on your investment.

Mr. Minister, those are my concerns -- the pollution, the escapement, and the financing.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Let me start with the question on the FCC, the Farm Credit Corporation. You will be happy to know that FCC does finance -- and I believe $50 million has been allocated towards aquaculture. This is a result of the task force, which I co-chaired, that went across the country on aquaculture. One of the recommendations we made to the Prime Minister was that FCC take a part. They did. There is funding available now, and I believe it is $50 million that the FCC funds for projects.

There is also funding through their regional development agency. A number of projects have been funded by that.

One of the things the industry does want is some sort of insurance. You are right when you say that agriculture has policies. Aquaculture is similar, but we do not have insurance. One of the task force recommendations was to provide aquaculture with a similar type of program.

Senator Meighen: Crop insurance?

Mr. Dhaliwal: Similar to that. It would create stability, which would also help them to receive financing. It would help to create stability and help to deal with some of the risks that are there through the insurance policy. I hope this committee will come forward and make recommendations on that. I will be supportive of what we can do in that area. It could be important for the industry.

Mr. Davis: We certainly share your concerns about doing more work in this area, dealing with the escapes and also study the disease side of things. That is a major issue for us.

In the Pacific sense, the Atlantic salmon has been part of a program that I will report on for Senator Carney. We have had an Atlantic salmon watch program. We have looked at the genetics and the behaviour of the Pacific and Atlantic salmon and what that might do.

With respect to the Atlantic situation, the answer lies in better containment, in terms of the design of the facilities and trying to minimize the escapes. There is a lot of interest in closed containment systems. However, those have yet to be economically proven, and we are busy studying what is available in the industry, as well as in other countries, with the hope that we can do some developmental work on this area.

Senator Meighen: Would you also include in your letter a report on the importation by the U.S. of European strains? My understanding is that we are not allowed to do that in Canada, but the Americans are.

Senator Robertson: You talked about 4,000 licences that are retiring in the Maritimes and Quebec. How many licences do we have in total -- 4,000 of what?

Mr. Dhaliwal: There are tens of thousands of licences. I could not tell you the exact amount; however, I can get that for you. Every species has a licence.

Senator Robertson: I did not know there were that many.

Have you heard about the Botsford professional fishermen's association?

Mr. Dhaliwal: No.

Senator Robertson: Botsford is on the East Coast, 40 or 50 miles from Shediac. Regarding the status of the proposal for a fisheries complex submitted by the Botsford professional fishermen's association, both the federal and provincial governments -- if approved -- would provide the necessary space to carry on with their Northumberland Strait aquaculture proposals.

What is involved in arriving at the decision regarding the complex? How long will it take for a decision? What is the present status?

My final question is this: Could someone explain to me a restructuring of the fisheries on the East Coast? I have had a lot of complaints about that, especially from research.

Mr. Dhaliwal: On your questions regarding the specific project, I will have to get back to you.

On the restructuring of the fisheries on the East Coast, this government has invested $1.1 billion in restructuring. Of that, $400 million went to the West Coast and $700 million went to the East Coast. The restructuring was based on buy-back of licences in those areas where there is overcapacity, so we could deal with that, as well as training programs. A variety of things are being done to ensure a sustainable fishery in the future. It is a big commitment.

That does not include other programs, such as TAGS-1 and TAGS-2, NCARP and a variety of other programs to deal with the cod crisis that existed. The Tory government put funds into it, and then we followed up with a TAGS program. There has been a substantial amount of investment in a variety of areas in the East Coast fishery, but our last major investment of over $700 million was aimed at having a sustainable fishery for the future.

Senator Robertson: I am aware of the dollar amount. However, the research facilities in Atlantic Canada seem to have been fractured in their coordination and cooperation because of this restructuring. Why? Is there something we can do to ensure that the research facilities work in cooperation?

Mr. Dhaliwal: I have had the opportunity to tour some of the research facilities. We have some excellent facilities. One of the areas that we need to strengthen is research and development. In fact, the last budget has provided me opportunity to spend more resources. I will be announcing those in due time. There will be more funds put towards research and development. That will be good news for Atlantic Canada and the West Coast.

As you may know, I announced $13 million in conservation enforcement just two weeks ago. That was welcome news. This was an issue that had been raised with me on many occasions. Both of those will be very good news for the fishing industry.

Senator Johnson: First, do you have any plans to visit Manitoba in the near future to have a firsthand look at the Devils Lake diversion problem? You and I discussed this at our last meeting. You did provide me with some answers to the question of biota and the environmental impact study that we are trying to insist on in the province. On this issue of biota, you refer mostly to the federal aquatic nuisance species act, which is an American piece of legislation. This tells me that we do not have any Canadian legislation on this issue. You say that some provinces are meandering around policy development in this area. What is Canada going to do about this? I do not feel we should use pieces of legislation from the United States. You are still not insisting on an economic impact study. You tell me that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade has the lead on biota. Two days ago, the governor was saying, "We still want this diversion, just trust us. We will do the best things for this country." I cannot believe that we in Canada will allow this kind of thing to go on.

Clinton's executive order of a few months ago is not law. It talks about not wanting to put harmful biota into each other's water systems, but it does not have the teeth to stop it. Nobody on either side is stopping or doing anything about it. Meanwhile, North Dakota continues to dump or plans to divert water into our water system in Manitoba. We cannot allow that precedent. It will be catastrophic to Lake Winnipeg. The lake is already fragile. The International Joint Commission is reporting on April 17 about the effects of the 1997 flood on the lake. We are dealing with a fragile lake, a delicate ecosystem, and we can still not have government support on this.

Would you consider coming out to see us? We want to take a delegation to Washington.

Nobody ever comes to see our problem. I think you have an understanding about what I am saying. The government is not doing what needs to be done to put pressure on Washington and the President of the United States to stop that water from being put into Lake Winnipeg.

Mr. Dhaliwal: You raised this issue with me the last time, and I know we have responded to you. DFAIT is taking a lead role on this issue. We will support them and play a supporting role. It is not a file that I spend a lot of time on because they take the lead role and we work with them.

First, no diversion will take place until there is a full environmental assessment. Two, my understanding is that Canada has the opportunity to approach the International Joint Commission.

I do not take a lead role on this file. Ours is a support role. Minister Lloyd Axworthy would be the lead on that file. I can assure you, however, that I will provide Mr. Axworthy with all the things he needs to deal with this file and do it in an effective way for Canada.

Senator Johnson: So Minister Axworthy is the person we should talk to about this; is that correct?

Mr. Dhaliwal: He is the lead on the file; as such, he will be in a better position to inform you of the details. However, we will provide whatever supporting role he would want us to on this file.

Senator Johnson: Why is it the Government of Canada is so reluctant to press for the environmental impact?

Mr. Dhaliwal: We will do everything we can to contact DFAIT.

Senator Mahovlich: The attitude of the Americans and the Governor of North Dakota is that their problem stops at the border.

Senator Johnson: Perhaps Minister Axworthy should be invited to address this matter.

The Chairman: That will be done.

Senator Mahovlich: In terms of aquaculture, there was a seashell farm in B.C.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Yes.

Senator Mahovlich: It failed. They moved out of there, but I am told that they did not clean up the mess, that everything was just left behind and that it is still there.

Will we clean that up or will it just be left the way it is?

Mr. Dhaliwal: I do not have any knowledge on the specifics of where that site would be. Sites do move around, and sometimes as a result of water flow the sites are not properly positioned. The Province of British Columbia, who provides the permits and decides on location, is reviewing the location of sites.

However, I do not have any knowledge concerning the site you are talking about, senator.

Senator Mahovlich: The rule in Norway was to keep the farms away from rivers, maybe 20 miles, and away from other farms. We have a larger coast, but our farms are not that far away from each other.

Do we have anything in place regarding this matter?

Mr. Dhaliwal: You have hit the nail right on the head. One of the things we do need is an aquaculture strategy developed by the provincial and federal governments. That is one of the things being worked on right now through our Council of Fisheries Ministers. It includes all the fisheries ministers from across Canada. A task force of officials is working on the whole area of aquaculture. I would like to see us develop a strategy with respect to location. Some of the communities are not interested in aquaculture; therefore, we should not be putting it in those communities. If we do not have community support, we should not be putting aquaculture in those communities. We need to have a strategy to determine these things.

Senator Mahovlich: Mr. Davis, the aboriginals feel that science is encroaching on their spiritual beliefs. Do you share those beliefs?

Mr. Davis: Not in the sense of science encroaching on spiritual beliefs. There is a huge amount of controversy about the impacts and concerns raised. There may be comments coming from First Nations as a result of fish farming occurring in their traditional territories, and this comes back to some of the issues the minister raised. We need a dialogue about the location of these facilities. We need community involvement and consultation with the First Nations. That would help in airing these sorts of concerns.

Senator Mahovlich: Are you aware that there is a demand for octopus? In Prince Rupert, there is a lady who is anxious to start producing. She is waiting for your department to do a study on it. She is waiting, but nothing is being done. I do not have my notes, so I cannot tell you her name or her company's name.

Mr. Dhaliwal: There are a number of projects that we are looking into. That may be one of them. For example, someone is interested in doing land-based aquaculture in talapia. Land-based aquaculture does exist in Canada. Someone raised this as one of the options. What I want to do is focus more on emerging fisheries, new fisheries that we can take advantage of. Too often, we suffer from tunnel vision; we only look at our existing species. We need to look at other opportunities. For example, on the West Coast there is the geoduck. Until now, nobody ever paid any attention to the geoduck; all of a sudden, it is commercially very successful.

As minister, I want to look at the economic opportunities in emerging new fisheries that we can take advantage of. We have not been focusing on new and emerging opportunities; we have been focused on existing areas. The example you are giving is another area we need to look at. We have to ask ourselves: What other emerging fisheries can we take advantage of, such as the geoduck, to advance opportunities in coastal communities? That is where a lot of opportunity may exist.

The Chairman: A geoduck is a type of clam.

Senator Mahovlich: I recommend they change the name.

Senator Perry Poirier: You were in Shediac, and you never jumped the puddle -- you never went to P.E.I.

Mr. Dhaliwal: There was an election there.

Senator Perry Poirier: There is an election coming up. Would it have made a difference? There is $700 million allotted to the Maritimes. Of that, how much was allotted to P.E.I., for fisheries?

Mr. Dhaliwal: I would have to find that information and get back to you.

Senator Perry Poirier: Back home, people say they will fish when the season opens, come hell or high water. Will you put the army out there?

Mr. Dhaliwal: I hope not.

Senator Perry Poirier: They say they will fish.

Mr. Dhaliwal: I wish I had had an opportunity to visit the island. I was looking forward to my P.E.I. visit. However, I was told that, as a normal courtesy, I should not make any announcements during an election period. I will be back. I have been there many times since becoming the Minister of Fisheries.

Second, with respect to the second question I presume you are referring to the Marshall decision. You will be happy to know that with respect to the two bands on P.E.I. -- Abegweit and Lennox Island -- we have signed an interim agreement with Abegweit and Lennox Island has approved the agreement. I am not sure whether Lennox Island has signed the agreement. However, I have met with Chief Sark and he was going to go to his community. I understand he has full support from his community to sign an agreement and move forward.

Senator Perry Poirier: That is not what I hear.

Mr. Dhaliwal: My understanding is that it has gone very well. In fact, I would like to give a lot of credit to the commercial fishers and to Rory McLellan for their work in trying to bring communities together. They actually sat down with the aboriginal communities right from day one and started working on a community solution. I was in constant touch with them for a long time. We have signed six agreements. We have seven more agreements in principle, and I hope I can make more announcements this week. We are creating momentum.

There will be some who will not want to sign because they fundamentally believe that I have no powers to deal with it. The Supreme Court said otherwise. I have the power to regulate and to ensure conservation. The Court said that in the first judgment, and clarified it again for those people who were not clear in their reaffirmation. I have said that we will have a regulated and orderly fishery, and I will ensure that.

At the same time, we want to make sure we fully comply with the Supreme Court ruling in that the aboriginal community can benefit from this treaty. We are working with all of them, to ensure that they can truly benefit from this treaty right and sign one-year interim agreements to make sure that we have peace on the water and communities working together. This is a very complex issue. We have 34 bands; it will not be easy. We will have some tough times, but I can assure you that we are doing everything we can. This file is on the top of my desk and the top of my agenda.

Senator Perry Poirier: We were in B.C. last week. You mentioned something about voluntary retirement of licences, but some of the people out there did not seem to think it was voluntary. They were telling me that they were forced into it because they owed money to banks and so on, that they had to sell in order not to go bankrupt. This is one of the remarks made to me.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Our program did not force them. However, I can understand that some people were in difficult financial straits. We provided an option, if they so wished, to move out of the industry if they did not feel there were any future opportunities. This provided them with an option where they could submit a proposal, and based on the best proposal, we would take them. It provided an option where, if they felt they wanted out of the industry, we would buy back the licence from them. Many licences that were given originally were for insignificant amounts of money, so a lot of them could benefit from this opportunity that we provided to the fishing community.

[Translation]

Senator Robichaud: I would like to talk to you about aquaculture. I think that there is an enormous potential to be developed in seeding. You will certainly hear a lot about it in the future. But the Marshall decision and your visit to New Brunswick prompt me to ask your comments on that visit. I thank you and I congratulate you for coming to the area to meet communities who are extremely worried about the impact of that decision before the opening of the fishing season.

The Supreme Court clarification confirmed your right to regulate that fishery. Will the regulations that you can put into place apply to food fishery? I think that the problem does not concern native access to commercial fishing. You said that fishermen are willing to share that resource as long as it is done according to regulations. Food fishing could start now in my area as there is no more ice on the river and in the strait. You announced that you had money for protection and monitoring. How will that work? The communities feel the need to be reassured.

[English]

Mr. Dhaliwal: I am sorry you were not invited to any of the meetings. You are not alone.

Senator Robichaud: I had the general invitation.

Mr. Dhaliwal: This is a very important point. You are talking about what is called food-fish food for ceremonial purposes. The food fishery came about because of the Sparrow decision in British Columbia, which provided a right to fish for food for social and ceremonial purposes.

Senator Robichaud: It is not to be sold.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Correct. In British Columbia, we had pilot projects, but those are pilot projects reviewed on a year-to-year basis. We must be very clear that the Sparrow decision provided a right to fish for food for social and ceremonial purposes. This is ongoing; it is not new; it is not as a result of the Marshall decision. This is an ongoing food fishery that exists out there.

That is the law. I cannot change the law of the Supreme Court. However, as part of the negotiations, if some of the bands feel that it is important to convert that into a commercial fishery under the Marshall decision, where they can fish during the regular season and should have the opportunity to do that, our federal representative, when he is talking to them on a band-by-band basis, will be saying that to them. He will be looking to see if they can roll that up into the commercial fishery. Under the Sparrow decision, they have a right under the law, and many say that they do not want to give that up. This is very important for them. They want to continue to fish for food.

There are limits. You set limits as to how much, because it is based on the fact that this is for food purposes. We negotiate that. It is important to look at the food fishery to ensure that it is truly a food fishery and that it is reasonable. At the end of the day, the First Nation community will be making that decision at the table where they are negotiating with our federal representative.

As the Fisheries Minister, it would make my job a lot easier if we had one commercial fishery where we had to try to integrate it. I must ensure that I comply with the law and follow the Sparrow decision. I will do that.

Senator Robichaud: It will still be regulated. Nobody will be able to go out there and just fish any number of traps?

Mr. Dhaliwal: It is regulated because we provide the number of traps. It has always been that way. The food fishery is provided with limits as to the number of traps they can take out. That was before the Marshall decision. There is nothing new there. Even in British Columbia, every year, based on the abundance of the fish, we say, "You will receive a certain amount of fish, the total allowable catch, called TAC." They can fish that amount, but it is negotiated on a year-to-year basis based on the abundance.

Under the Sparrow decision, this is a priority right. It only came after conservation. After conservation, next came the right for the food fishery. With the Marshall case, it is a constitutional right because the aboriginal people are protected under the Constitution, so we must remember those things when we talk about the aboriginal fishery and about integrating them.

Your point is a good one and we are focused on it. How do we ensure that a food fishery is reasonable and is maintained as a food fishery?

Senator Carney: Canadians are concerned about the food they eat these days. One of the things I was surprised to find on this last trip was the fact that they put dye in the food pellets for the fish farms to colour the fish. That is, of course, wild fish. We were shown a palette where the Japanese can choose to have red, because sockeye is red, and they can choose what colour they want to dye the fish. The dye is mixed in with the other fish products that are fed back to the fish as food.

An issue that has arisen from that is the question of labelling. Surely, if it is a matter of eating dyed salmon, I should be able to determine from the can that it contains farm fish; it should say so. For pet food, I can look at the label on the can and find out if there is dye in the food. Surely, we should be able to look at a can of fish and know if there is dye in it. Would you support such labelling?

Mr. Dhaliwal: Canadians generally are very concerned with food, just as I, my children and my wife are. We need to know more about what we are eating so that we can make choices. I have no problem with comprehensive labelling, but that is not my mandate; that is not in my area. It is for the Minister of Agriculture and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency with Health Canada to determine the labelling and all that. However, I would support any comprehensive labelling.

Senator Carney: In your review of aquaculture regulations, which involves the 17 acts and the 20 government agencies, I would appreciate it if you would pass that concern on.

Dealing with another point, you may be aware that some aboriginal fishermen had to sell their boats in the buy-back because they did not have the money to buy the extra licenses and gear. Another result of the buy-back is that there are now dentists in Toronto who hold fishing licenses and lease them out, while people in the communities, both natives and non-natives, have lost the capacity to fish.

When Senator Perrault and I went to the Aboriginal Fisheries Commission on the coastal tour, we heard again that you cannot expect native fishermen or natives in communities to sit idly by on the docks while American tourists come in to fish with their power boats, because dentists in Toronto are holding the fishing licenses. That is something they will not tolerate; and they will not tolerate overcanning.

I urge your department to look at these issues, because if something is not done, we will have problems in these communities on the West Coast with natives who have so far been extremely cooperative. They will not stand for it, and I do not blame them. The B.C. fishing caucus would ask you to take a look at this matter, because it is not a sustainable policy.

Senator Perrault: One of the people who testified threatened violence. People have said there will be violence.

Mr. Dhaliwal: There may indeed be some cases of leased licenses. That has been a long-time issue that I have heard about for many years, but I have been told that there are only isolated cases, that it is not a general situation where people are leasing their licenses. I am informed that there may be isolated situations in some fisheries, and that it would not be a large amount, but I will look into that.

With respect to canning, that is an ongoing problem. Also, there are limits on what American tourists can catch. They are subject to the same rules and regulations. Sometimes the problem is having enough enforcement to ensure that people do not go beyond their limits. I am very attuned to that. That is why just last week I announced $13 million in enforcement for the country. Some of that money will be for the West Coast as well, to make sure we have more enforcement there.

We are also working with the province to establish a protocol by which their fishery officers can work with ours so that we have more officers out there to help us enforce. I am working with them to establish that protocol agreement to work jointly with the province so that we can have more enforcement. I hope we can complete that during my tenure as well.

You have raised some good points and I will look into those issues.

Senator Carney: You, as minister, received very good press on our tour. DFO did not, however, and perhaps you could address that too. I want to assure you that our comments do not reflect on your character or responsibilities; but there are some problems in your department, as we all know.

The Chairman: Mr. Minister, I am pleased to note that you did have some positive comments. We certainly appreciate your providing time like this for us. Thank you for your comments this evening. We appreciate your enthusiasm. We wish you continued success and we hope we are able to work with you in the future on behalf of the industry.

Mr. Dhaliwal: I am always impressed with the calibre of questions and the knowledge of this committee. The issues you have raised here are extremely important for me and my department, and I will do everything I can to address them.

I look forward to your report on aquaculture. It will be helpful to me in moving this agenda forward. There are tremendous opportunities, but we must be aware of the environmental concerns and make sure that we move forward and develop aquaculture in a sustainable fashion.

I should like to ensure that we protect our oceans for future generations. None of what we talk about can be accomplished if we do not protect our oceans. We must stop the pollution; 80 per cent of all pollution entering our oceans is land-based. We need to work as a country to ensure that there is in the Oceans Act a program that provides an opportunity to do that. I am now working on a strategy to better implement the Oceans Act. Not only is that important for me as the minister, but it is important to all Canadians. We must protect our oceans from pollution and contamination, otherwise we will have serious problems in the future. I hope that I can deliver to my grandchildren oceans that are as good as those our generation received. We have serious problems in our oceans.

The Chairman: Are committee members in agreement that we place as exhibits the Minister's letter and his comments tonight, as well as the presentation by Mr. Michel Leclerc. Would that be agreeable?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Next week, we will have two witnesses on behalf of the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters. We might wish to discuss leasing of licenses.

Senator Robertson: Coming back to Senator Johnson's concern with the pollution in the lakes around Winnipeg, obviously we are barking up the wrong tree here. We should somehow persuade Minister Axworthy to come. If he cannot come here, we will meet him in Winnipeg.

The Chairman: If it is the wish of the committee, the invitation will be sent. Is it the wish of the committee?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Robichaud: Before we call on the minister, I should like to have a little more information so that when he comes we are in a good position.

Senator Johnson: There is a tremendous amount of information available. I will give you a large package.

The Chairman: I recommend that Senator Johnson distribute that information package to committee members. In any event, could we make the final determination next week? That only delays matters by a week.

Senator Johnson: Would it be possible to invite the premier of the province?

The Chairman: We will make that decision at next week's meeting.

Senator Johnson: He could really inform us on the details before we talk to Minister Axworthy. That probably would be the better route.

The Chairman: We will make a final determination at next week's meeting.

Senator Johnson: In the meantime, I will provide you with a package before you leave.

The committee adjourned.