Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries

Issue 8 - Evidence

The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries met this day at 7:00 p.m. to examine matters relating to the fishing industry.

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

[English]

The Chairman: I will call the meeting to order.

Tonight, we are continuing with the examination of matters relating to the fishing industry. We have as our witnesses, from the British Columbia Shellfish Growers Association, by video conferencing from British Columbia, Mr. Sam Bowman, president of the B.C. Shellfish Growers Association, and Ms Ruth Salmon, executive director of the association.

We welcome you to the committee. There will be several senators joining us shortly; they are a little late arriving because of other commitments.

My understanding is that you have an opening statement, which we will follow with questions.

Please proceed.

Ms Ruth Salmon, Executive Director, B.C. Shellfish Growers Association: Thank you very much. I will begin by telling the committee a little bit about the background of our association, and then go into some of the constraints that we are currently facing.

Pacific oysters have been farmed in B.C. since the 1920s, making shellfish culture the oldest sector of the aquaculture industry on the West Coast of North America.

From the late 1970s through to the present, several factors have led to significant growth in the industry. Some of those are production improvements, through research, technology transfer and development, such as inexpensive and reliable hatchery seed stocks, mechanization, and new culture technology. There has also been a shift in the structure of the industry to younger companies with a technology orientation and a business and environmental focus. We are seeing air freight services opening up our export markets. We are also seeing a diversification of the industry into higher value product forms.

Today, the industry involves the production, harvesting and processing of a natural product. It is an environmentally sustainable industry that is steadily growing. In B.C. today, there are over 250 licensed shellfish companies, controlling over 400 culture sites on Crown land leased from the government. Currently, there are only 2,000 hectares of foreshore land tenured in B.C. for shellfish farming. About 25 per cent of this land is off-bottom culture; the other 75 per cent is intertidal.

The industry is now a major exporter of an environmentally sustainable product. Approximately 90 per cent of our production is represented by Pacific oysters, which are sold live in the shell or processed into fresh shucked meats and frozen product forms. There is also a variety of shellfish species being cultured in small or experimental quantities, including sea cucumbers, sea urchin, geoducks and abalone.

Clam farming is a relatively new venture in B.C. As the market demand and value of Manila clams increased in the mid-1980s, oyster growers became increasingly interested in culturing them commercially. Since 1988, production from B.C. clam farms has increased steadily. In 1994 to 1995, production increased over 60 per cent. The cultured industry now generates the equivalent of 80 per cent of the value of the wild fishery from only 10 per cent of the area.

Production comes entirely out of rural coastal areas where shellfish farmers generate sustainable economic opportunities for residents of these communities.

Maintaining and ensuring product quality is the responsibility of every link in the farmed seafood chain: grower, harvester, processor and shipper. The designation of safe growing waters and the harvest, shipping and processing of shellfish are highly regulated. B.C. has one of most comprehensive shellfish sanitation and inspection programs in the world.

The economic potential for the industry is very strong. With its vast, protected coastline and temperate waters, which are free of pollutants, we have the largest potential of any region in Canada.

At this point, I will take a couple of minutes to look at the employment situation. Currently, as I mentioned earlier, about 95 per cent of all the jobs are situated in coastal communities. Because the industry is technology-driven and has high labour demands, this does provide year-round, sustainable employment.

The industry currently employs about 1,000 people. Employment equity is high in the industry. First Nations groups are increasingly exploring our industry as a means of sustainable economic opportunity.

B.C. is currently undergoing a restructuring of its resource-based economy. Therefore, coastal communities historically dependent on the forest and wild-capture fishery sectors are facing significant decreases in employment. Shellfish aquaculture is increasingly seen as one of a variety of means of providing sustainable primary and secondary employment.

Let's take a moment to look at the market outlook situation. The world demand for seafood is steadily increasing, at a time when virtually all traditional and wild harvest fisheries are on the decline. Aquaculture is recognized globally as the only viable means by which seafood production will continue to meet growing consumer demand. In 1994, the United States Department of Agriculture predicted that to supply the world seafood need by the year 2020, in the face of declining fisheries, aquaculture production would have to increase to a value exceeding today's global wild fishery.

The strengths of the B.C. farm shellfish industry include strong market demand and excellent product quality and image. The United States is currently the largest single export market for our products. Other important markets include Hong Kong, Taiwan, and other Southeast Asian countries.

It is an industry with great potential. In 1997, Coopers and Lybrand were contracted to do a study of the economic potential of our industry for Industry Canada. The study evaluated the economic potential of oyster, clam and scallop production within capable marine lands on the west coast of Vancouver Island. That study found that the B.C. shellfish farming industry has the potential to become a $100 million industry over the next 10 years. Currently, it is about $10 million.

The study also found that realizing the industry's potential could create another 1,000 new full-time jobs in coastal communities. This potential could be realized with only a doubling of the existing land base. The study also indicated that there were significant long-term market opportunities for B.C. shellfish products in the U.S. and the Pacific Rim. It was also found that productivity was increasing rapidly as a result of investment technological improvements. In addition, the study found that the new shellfish species also held further promise for economic expansion.

As a result of the Coopers & Lybrand report, in November 1998, our B.C. Ministry of Fisheries announced the Shellfish Development Initiative. Through this new initiative, the provincial government intends to double the amount of land available for shellfish aquaculture over the next 10 years.

The first phase of the Shellfish Development Initiative has been the allocation of Crown lands to several First Nations for the development of shellfish farms. The second phase has been the granting of 66 expansions to existing tenures, which we will talk about later. This will be followed by the allocation of new sites for shellfish farming. The new sites along the B.C. coast will be identified through a community consultation process.

The committee should now have a little background about the industry. I would now like to talk about some of the constraints that this industry is currently facing.

The first constraint is the difficulty of diversifying into new crops. In order to improve the overall competitiveness of B.C. shellfish aquaculture industry, growers must be able to manage their existing operations and diversify into new species. As we mentioned before, new species such as geoduck, abalone, sea urchins and sea cucumbers do hold promise for economic expansion.

At this time, shellfish farmers have been allowed to farm only certain species. A new species, a foreign species, the varnish clam, has invaded the clam farm beaches. As the farmers harvest the Manila clam, which is their commercial species, the varnish clam moves in, takes over that ground, and out-performs the juvenile Manila clams. Shellfish farmers need the ability to manage their operations and remove the varnish clams.

If this were any other farming activity in the province, it would not be a problem. Clam farmers must bear the labour cost for diggers to dig the varnish clams. The clam farmers would like to recoup that cost, by being permitted to sell the varnish clams, if there is a market and if all other health conditions have been met. DFO is refusing to allow shellfish farmers to harvest this species, which is on provincially tenured farms covered by provincial legislation and under provincial jurisdiction.

How then are farmers supposed to protect and manage their beaches if they cannot harvest the competing species? Why should DFO's determination to have a wild fishery prevent provincially managed businesses from assuming best-farm practices? Shellfish farmers need the right to farm any resident species on their tenures under provincial guidelines and conditions.

Another example of this frustration is the inability to import seed stocks such as geoduck clams. This importation has been blocked by DFO because of genetic concerns. It is interesting to note, however, that the department imported the same seed stock 10 years ago. It seems that those imports were justified for fisheries enhancement reasons; however, now that the farmers want to import seed stocks the opportunity is denied. This is in spite of the fact that there is no evidence that we have been able to find that shows that the geoduck stocks in Puget Sound, Washington are any different from those in Georgia Strait, B.C. In fact, there is overwhelming evidence that they are the same. Farming geoducks will improve the competitiveness of our industry and it will also help to increase and diversify the market supply of geoducks.

Another constraint that I would like to talk about is the discussion about the Federal Aquaculture Development Strategy, about which I am sure you have heard. Over the past 20 years, DFO has been involved in numerous reviews and studies that reinforce the potential of the aquaculture industry in Canada. As a result of these reviews, the federal cabinet approved the Federal Aquaculture Development Strategy, commonly referred to as FADS, in 1995.

That strategy is a very clear policy statement in support of the aquaculture, and outlines very specific federal government responsibilities for industry development. Two fundamental principles in the FADS document are as follows:

1. Aquaculture Development is a priority of the Federal Government and will be given specific policy and developmental considerations.

2. Aquaculture is a legitimate user of land and water; consequently, industry deserves equitable access to the aquatic resource base.

However, five years later, nothing tangible has been done to move the Federal Aguaculture Development Strategy forward. Further to that, the recent attempts by fisheries management of DFO to stall the approval of approximately 40 shellfish tenure expansions in B.C. is evidence that there is no willingness to support the principle of "equitable access to the aquatic resource base," as outlined in FADS.

I mentioned earlier that there were 66 expansion approvals. Some of those were pending approval from DFO. These 40 expansions that I am talking about are still unresolved.

Further proof that DFO does not support the equitable access principle for aquaculturalists is the fact that DFO continues to serve only its traditional client base. Through the alienation of common ground to the depuration clam fishery and approval of enhancement activities in the geoduck fishery, DFO alienates production ground in the public system on a regular basis.

The tenuring of land is clearly a provincial jurisdiction, not the authority of the federal government. DFO has the responsibility to act in the interests of all parties, including aquaculture, and not discriminate against one particular client group.

The recent appointment of Yves Bastien as federal Commissioner for Aquaculture Development, the establishment of the Aquaculture Directorate within DFO, and Minister Dhaliwal's public support of the aquaculture industry have been very encouraging to our association. However, strong opposition to aquaculture within the DFO bureaucracy has thwarted any positive actions that these initiatives may have had. Our association has received confirmation that senior and mid-level Pacific region officials are strongly opposed to the development and expansion of the shellfish farming industry in B.C. In fact, different standards operate on the West Coast as compared to the East Coast. Any faith in DFO's commitment to the sustainable development of our industry has been lost at the regional level.

Further confirmation of DFO's resistance to shellfish aquaculture development is evident when you examine the recent B.C. Shellfish Development Initiative. The initiative was announced to the DFO Pacific Region staff at a meeting hosted by the B.C. Ministry of Fisheries in December 1998. Rather than cooperate with the province on a joint industry development activity, fisheries management staff has resisted getting involved and 15 months later are still stalling the process.

Our association requests that steps be taken by DFO to move forward with the implementation of the Federal Aquaculture Development Strategy. We would hope that this committee might influence DFO to effect radical change to the way in which shellfish aquaculture is handled in the Pacific Region. Shellfish aquaculture cannot continue to be discriminated against.

Expansion of shellfish tenures is the most cost-effective and reliable means of increasing shellfish production and employment in coastal communities. Expansion of intertidal tenures will remove only a small fraction of the total ground utilized by the wild clam fishery. However, this will provide a disproportionately larger return in terms of increased production and employment due to the greater efficiency of farming relative to fishing. For example, converting 10 per cent of the ground currently used by the wild fishery to farming will result in at least a tenfold increase in clam production -- approximately equivalent to the entire present clam fishery. The shellfish farming industry in British Columbia is at a critical juncture in its development. It deserves fair and equitable access to the marine resource as well as federal support for its development. Whether it is providing access to brood stock or seed stock, or providing room for tenure expansion, the working policy of DFO has been consistent and remains unchanged, in spite of the adoption of the Federal Aquaculture Development Strategy in 1995.

When there is a conflict with traditional fisheries, no matter how small or insignificant, aquaculture is the loser. Fundamental change and leadership is required within DFO. There needs to be a developmental attitude towards this growth industry, rather than a regulatory attitude.

Thank you.

Senator Perrault: This has been an upbeat report. It is good to hear one that is not doom and gloom disaster. At present, how many different varieties of oysters are raised on the West Coast?

Mr. Sam Bowman, President, B.C. Shellfish Growers Association: We have mostly one species, the Pacific, or Japanese, oyster, smaller amounts of another species of Japanese oyster, and some European oysters.

Senator Perrault: The Atlantic representatives on this committee continue to tell us that Malpeque oysters are the best. Now that we are bringing Atlantic salmon to British Columbia, would you bring Malpeque into British Columbia at some point? Is it possible?

Mr. Bowman: It is unlikely. They are a much slower growing animal and actually a lower-valued animal in the market. We can grow Pacific oysters faster and sell them for more.

Senator Perrault: The Malpeque are pretty tasty, though.

What is the total value of the industry to Canada at this time?

Mr. Bowman: For all of Canada, I am not sure. British Columbia is about $12 million.

Senator Perrault: That is important money.

Mr. Bowman: For all of Canada, it may be $25 million. Most of the rest is from Prince Edward Island, $12.5 million, mussels.

Senator Perrault: In your presentation, you seem to be critical of some of the federal initiatives. What is the first thing that should be done if we are to give an extra boost to shellfish farming? What is the first step that the government should take to improve your productivity and to make the industry even more successful? Is it in scientific research?

Mr. Bowman: No. The biggest problem is that aquaculture, including shellfish aquaculture, falls under the mandate of DFO, as the federal lead agency for aquaculture. Despite the Federal Aquaculture Development Strategy, as Ms Salmon has already stated, development is not part of the mandate of DFO. Rather, the mandate is the protection and conservation of existing wild fishery resources. The development of new seafood resources through farming is just not practised within DFO, in terms of how the policies at the regional level, particularly the Pacific Region, are actually delivered to our industry.

Senator Perrault: That attitude is difficult to understand, in view of the fact that it can be a very valuable resource to the province and the country.

Some have suggested that "eco-certification" programs should be established to inform and reassure consumers that the aquaculture products that they purchase are grown in a environmentally sound manner and to give aquaculturists incentives to produce products that can bring higher prices. Do have you comment on that?

As genetic manipulation of vegetables is an issue, is there anything that we should reassure consumers about, as far as shellfish production is concerned?

Ms Salmon: It is interesting because there is nothing more natural than farming shellfish. There are no additives or feed, so it is a natural product. We try to remain aware of just how to label the products as organic.

Senator Perrault: At point of sale, would there be an informational pamphlet or something similar that could be distributed?

Ms Salmon: The focus of our association to this point has not been on marketing. Rather, our focus has been to try to develop the industry, to get it operating. Certainly, there is much work to be done in the area of marketing. I think the product is one that is appropriate for that kind of eco-organic information, because it already is organic.

Senator Perrault: I vacation near Denman Island in the summers. Many people up there say that there are fishers who come out early in their boats and take undersized clams. Do you think there are any abuses of the system? Have you had any prosecutions?

Mr. Bowman: There is a real problem in the West Coast clam fishery, which spans both the farming of clams and the wild harvesting of clams. The problem is that the wild fishery is a very wide open and diverse fishery. The DFO fishery officers do not have the resources to properly enforce that fishery, so there is a lot of poaching.

Senator Perrault: There is poaching. Okay.

Mr. Bowman: In the wild fishery, there is definitely poaching. There is black-market product, which harms both the farmed resources and the legitimate wild resources. Poaching is a big problem, which, at present, has not been solved by DFO. More control could be put in place in the tenuring of land for the greater production of clams through farming practices.

We are over-regulated but happy to follow the letter of the law. The Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program is what we follow. We are inspected regularly through the Food Inspection Agency, and that works.

Senator Perrault: It is a great product.

The Chairman: Senator Perry Poirier from Prince Edward Island might take exception to the rate of growth of the oyster industry, and the taste test, but we will see what he says about it.

Senator Perry Poirier: Why is it that the Malpeque oyster is worth less than the B.C. oyster? Is it related to size, or taste? We generally hear that in terms of taste the Malpeque oyster cannot be beat.

Mr. Bowman: We would be quite happy, as a marketer of shellfish talking to customers everyday, if P.E.I. raised their prices.

Senator Perry Poirier: It is Prince Edward Island's fault then? If Prince Edward Island raised its prices, they would beat out the B.C. oyster.

Mr. Bowman: It is a friendly rivalry.

Senator Perry Poirier: Where does geoduck come from? What is the origin of the name? Is it a gooey sort of fish?

Mr. Bowman: You got me there. It is an Indian word, but I am not sure exactly what it means. It is commonly referred to as the giant clam.

Ms Salmon: It is a type of clam.

Mr. Bowman: It is a species natural to the British Columbia waters.

Ms Salmon: It is a very lucrative product, and it is in demand from Japan. Most of it is marketed in Japan.

Senator Perry Poirier: I saw a picture of a geoduck, and it looks more like a wet blanket than anything else.

Senator Cook: I hear on a regular basis, at meetings such as this, about being over-regulated. It seems that this new industry, which is the way of tomorrow, is being smothered, as it were, with over-regulation.

Would you comment on that and then make a suggestion about a solution?

Ms Salmon: I do not think that the industry has a problem with regulation. What is important is that that regulation be appropriate for the industry. What has been frustrating is that much of the regulations were originally designed for the wild fishery. As aquaculture comes into development, there is not a place where it naturally fits. Therefore, it has tended to receive the same regulations as the wild fishery, and that does not work for aquaculture.

That is from where the frustration comes. It is not that the industry minds being regulated. As Mr. Bowman indicated earlier, we do not mind following the letter of the law and producing a high-quality, safe product. That is important. However, the regulations need to be appropriate. In many cases, they have not been.

Mr. Bowman: One good example is an important piece of federal legislation that directs our day-to-day activities in the shellfish industry. Three federal agencies are required to administer the Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program: Environment Canada, on water-quality testing; DFO, which has the authority to open and close shellfish harvesting areas based on water quality; and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which is responsible for all the food safety issues, related to the safety and wholesomeness of the shellfish going to the consuming public. In other words, we have to deal with three agencies, one on one, to follow the federal regulation that they jointly administer. It is burdensome for an industry to have to deal with three bureaucracies for just one program.

Senator Cook: From the perspective of an entrepreneur, is it realistic to expect that we could ever get to one-stop shopping, to do it all? Do you see that as a possibility?

Mr. Bowman: Are you referring to the ongoing regulatory issues, or applying for sites to develop aquaculture? Or both?

Senator Cook: If tomorrow I decided to get into this industry, to make a living, it appears that I would have to deal with a multitude of agencies. In the future, do you think it would be possible for me to get all the information necessary to honour all the rules and regulations attached to aquaculture in one place?

Mr. Bowman: Theoretically, there is a new one-window approach, through the British Columbia Assets and Land Corporation, which administers all of the Crown lands for the province and allocates land for economic development purposes, and so on. That is the central window for new applicants in the shellfish and other aquaculture industries to approach for a licence on Crown land. They deal with all of the referral agencies, including DFO, the Coast Guard, DFO fish habitat and fish management, and other user groups, including the commercial fishing sector, the recreational boating sector, and native bands, the Ministry of the Environment provincially, and so on. To a certain extent, B.C. Assets and Land Corporation downloads some of the responsibility to the applicant, in terms of finalizing approvals with the Coast Guard and dealing with certain conditions that may be imposed by DFO fish habitat, for example.

They are working toward an one-window approach. Our experience in the last 18 months is that it has been a bit of a halting process, in terms of actually getting through all those referrals. We have not been able to rely on that provincial agency to do all of that, on behalf of private-sector individuals or applicants.

A possible solution exists if DFO can work with the British Columbia Assets and Land Corporation to develop a single package for shellfish farming applicants. That would work.

Senator Cook: You see DFO as taking the lead role in getting to where I would like to see this industry go?

Mr. Bowman: If they would just take the 1995 Federal Aquaculture Development Strategy and do it, yes. Some significant changes are required at the regional level here in the Pacific Region.

In my opinion, from what I have been through in the last 15 years in this industry, if DFO is not willing to change they should give authority to another federal agency to take the lead role for aquaculture development. In our view, agriculture would be the obvious choice, although that has not really gone anywhere.

Senator Johnson: I am not as familiar with the West Coast shellfish as I am with the East Coast. How much shellfish is farmed, as opposed to wild, in terms of production? How much are you producing?

Mr. Bowman: The wild shellfish industry is a $90 million industry; the farmed shellfish industry is about $12 million currently.

The wild shellfish industry is a declining fishery; it generated larger revenues in previous years. Most of it is made up with non-farmed species. There are geoducks that are captured wild. There are the spot prawns, the crab. In the past, there was abalone. Those are the more valuable species that make up the $90 million of annual landings in the fishery. There are much smaller amounts of wild clams, about equal to the amount of farmed clams, a $4 million to $5 million value per year. Oysters are very minimal in terms of the wild fisheries.

Senator Johnson: Therefore, most of the shellfish industry is now farmed?

Mr. Bowman: More than 90 per cent of oyster production is farmed. Clams are about 50-50.

Senator Johnson: Could you tell me what extent of water is used in the farming of these shellfish? There are filter feeders; therefore, they would not be absorbing the nutrients or biota that flatfish or finfish would be.

I know that in Thailand, for example, they are cutting down trees to make shrimp farms. What water supply and how much is needed to farm these shellfish?

Mr. Bowman: Currently, the industry has a footprint of about 2,000 hectares to produce approximately $12 million of farmed shellfish. That is equivalent in area to the new runway at the Vancouver International Airport.

We are talking about doubling that land base in the next 10 years to generate $100 million in revenue. That comes with some other high-value species, like geoduck and scallops, as well as oysters and clams, with some further intensification of production. However, it is a very small part of the 27,000 kilometres of coastline in British Columbia. I think it is about .1 per cent of the total land under tenure.

Senator Johnson: How do you keep the water fresh?

Mr. Bowman: We keep it fresh by keeping people from polluting the water. That is a struggle. Despite all the environmental laws and the regulations under the Fisheries Act that are there to stop people from polluting, the City of Victoria pumps raw sewage into the ocean. Hence, water quality, keeping the water clean, is bit of a struggle.

Senator Johnson: Are you concerned about being able to keep this level of cleanliness, to keep your shellfish healthy or disease free?

Ms Salmon: Maintaining water quality is certainly a priority of the industry and our association. That is why in this industry there are such good environmentalists. They are the first ones to be sensitive to any shifts or changes in water quality. Water quality will continue to be a focus. However, there are many remote areas that could easily be moved into shellfish aquaculture.

Therefore, yes, we need to be diligent about the existing areas and maintaining water quality, but there is also much room for expansion in remote areas.

Senator Johnson: You are being very vigilant in your work in terms of overseeing this?

Ms Salmon: Absolutely.

Senator Johnson: Are you happy with the regulations, or do you think there should be new ones?

Ms Salmon: There are enough regulations. Enforcing those regulations is probably the biggest concern.

Senator Johnson: It is my concern, too. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: I forgot to note that Senator Johnson is from the largest fishing area in Canada, which includes the inland fisheries all the way up north. There are many freshwater lakes up there. We tend to forget that there is a vast inland fishery up north.

Senator Watt: You might find my questions very difficult to answer because I am from a part of Canada that has a very cold climate.

We do have shellfish in the Arctic. In terms of your experience in finding solutions to problems you probably have encountered over the years, do you have any knowledge or experience about whether the same kind of shellfish you farm in B. C. could be adapted to the Arctic? Is it too cold or is the ice too thick? Do have you any knowledge in that field?

Mr. Bowman: I have no real knowledge other than to say that Pacific oysters are farmed effectively in Alaska. There are differences in water temperature regimes, and I do not know what those might be between the Arctic and parts of Alaska. While the Japanese oyster does not spawn naturally in the colder waters in Alaska, it does grow well on the natural food supply in the waters when the seed can be brought into Alaska. We do that in B.C., as well; we purchase seed from hatcheries to put into the waters to feed naturally on the algae and plankton that is available.

Hence, as long as there is an adequate food supply, the filtered feeding shellfish will consume it and grow based on what nature provides. Although they are cold-blooded animals, they will grow much more slowly in colder waters than they will in warmer waters.

Senator Watt: That is important information, because we are also doing some experimental work in regard to the fisheries.

Are saltwater shellfish adaptable to a freshwater lake? In terms of alternatives, is the saltwater species adaptable to freshwater?

Mr. Bowman: No, for the existing commercial species that we deal with. The Pacific oysters, the Manila clams, which is a Japanese little-neck clam, the Pacific scallop, which is also a Japanese scallop, would not be adaptable.

However, there are fresh water shellfish, mussels and clams. Again, it is just a question of finding the right species for the existing environmental conditions. In our case, the Japanese oyster, little-neck clam and scallop happen to do very well in British Columbia, which is why the existing shellfish farming industry is based on those three non-native species. This is one of the issues that we are always up against with DFO in protecting and conserving the natural resources, however small or inconsequential those might be in terms of a commercial fishery. We cannot get the new exotic species that may be commercially viable and right for North American conditions and markets. That is a problem in trying to diversify and grow the industry based on the commercial nature of the animals that we have at our disposal.

Senator Watt: Thank you for that information.

The Chairman: I have a few questions before we continue. Ms Salmon mentioned in her presentation, a species called "varnish clams." I would like to know a little more about them. How did they get here and where are they from? Are they what one might consider a foreign, exotic species? Is there any danger from them? Please tell me more about them.

Mr. Bowman: They are an Asian clam species that is conquering the world. They have spread very rapidly in British Columbian waters. As well, they are out-competing some of the native and commercial species such as the Manila clams. They are becoming a real problem. We have other, similar problems, like the European green crab that has colonized British Columbia to a limited degree. That crab has come from San Francisco Bay, all the way up the coast. Now the varnish clam is populating the southern B.C. coastline where the conditions are very good for it. It has become a nuisance species that we cannot seem to get DFO to act on to enable us to remove the competitor and sell it if there is a value to it. That is because there is a cost associated with removing it. More importantly, we need to get rid of it so that we can produce the animals for which we have a business plan.

The Chairman: Have you tested the marketplace? Would there be a market for this species of clam? Would it be productive for you to harvest the varnish clam?

Ms Salmon: We have not because we do not have the ability to actually harvest it. You are right, however, all of those things should be tested. Until the farmer has the ability to do that, that process is not available.

The Chairman: I still have a little difficulty wrapping my mind around this, since a species that is not native to the West Coast of British Columbia, is an invasive species. Could you not get almost immediate permission from DFO to harvest these clams, if for no other reason than to get rid of them because they interfere with the farmers' longer-term species that have been there for ages? It boggles my mind to think that you would even need permission to do it.

Ms Salmon: Absolutely. In any other farming activity you would be able to deal with a predator, but because this is in the marine environment, you have to get authority from DFO to harvest a certain species and it does rest in their jurisdiction.

The Chairman: If you had a chicken farm and racoons attacked the chickens, you would obviously not chase down an agriculture specialist to give you permission to get rid of that varmint. You would do something about it immediately. This is one of the areas that we will pursue, especially if there is a possibility of marketing this clam. I would suggest that the name be changed from varnish to something else, however.

Ms Salmon: Absolutely. Senator, you are a good marketer. That name does not sound very good, but that is the name that has been given to it.

The Chairman: We will have a focus group and find a fancy name for it, like they did in France when they named the "Coquilles St. Jacques."

In respect of the marketing issue, I understand that it is still early in the game, judging from previous comments. How are you attempting to do that? Is it by way of generic marketing ?

Ms Salmon: We have not been involved in generic marketing, although there is an understanding that that is an effective approach to marketing B.C. shellfish. Until now, the individual processors have had their own marketing strategies and marketing campaigns. When an industry starts to grow and evolve, there is a realization that perhaps there is some value in joint initiatives to promote a B.C. product. Thus we are moving in that direction, but in the early stages each individual company has done their own thing.

The Chairman: It certainly worked well for the Atlantic Coast shellfish. It served that purpose well. It should also serve B.C. well, especially given the good image abroad of B.C.'s clean waters. We hope to keep it that way, of course.

Ms Salmon: That is an important thing to play on -- that all the processors can end up benefiting if they jointly promote some of those larger, broader issues.

The Chairman: My understanding is that shellfish growers on the West Coast grow the spat in hatcheries. Is that correct?

Mr. Bowman: Yes. There is very little wild collection of the oyster clam seed. The industry is mostly built on hatchery seed.

The Chairman: That is quite different from the East Coast, where most spat is actually wild caught. Why would this be -- that the West Coast evolved by growing its own spat rather than collecting it from the wild?

Mr. Bowman: That is because the Pacific oysters, or Japanese oysters, while they colonized Southern B.C. waters quite well, are not guaranteed to spawn every year. For example, the water temperature has to be warm enough for a long enough period of time to induce the spawning event. While that occurs most years, it does not occur every year. Thus, it is an unreliable source of seed for an annual harvest.

The Chairman: I understand.

A group of us were in the Magdalen Islands some weeks ago where we witnessed an experiment in scallop enhancement seeding that is being worked out between fishermen. That is because fishermen off the Magdalen Islands were not very receptive to the whole concept of shellfish farming up to that point. Therefore, they got together with an enhancement group, where they are actually seeding former scallop beds that had been absolutely wiped out -- there were no more scallops at all. Now they are seeding those beds and the fishermen are buying into it.

Have West Coast fishermen taken a similar approach? I know that most fishermen initially resist aquaculture, whether shellfish or fin fish. Has anything like this been done on the West Coast yet? It seems to be creating positive results on the East Coast.

Mr. Bowman: Nothing in terms of a specific project or longer-term strategy for enhancing shellfish stock. We certainly have a number of former commercial fishermen who now run their own shellfish farms. There are those from the commercial fishery sector who are interested in the farmed shellfish sector.

The Chairman: This is quite different. We will be looking at this more closely, but this is quite different in that the fishermen continue to be fishermen -- they are not getting involved in aquaculture or shellfish raising. Actually, they will invest in the operation and they will fish it with their scallop boats once the product comes to market size. It is interesting and we will look at it further because it has great potential. The process will include the commercial fishery without turning the fishermen into farmers.

Ms Salmon: I have one caution. We have looked at the farmers' substantial capital investment -- from the purchase of tenure to the purchase of the seed -- and if others were able to enter the process without making that same level of investment, it would not be fair.

The Chairman: Yes. You are dealing with two different groups in the case of the East Coast, next to the Magdalen Islands, where the fishermen themselves are the owners. Therefore, it is a different concept.

You did refer to the question of tenure, or land ownership, where the scallop beds would be recognized as under the ownership of the farmers. I know that there has been resistance from many quarters to the possibility of claiming undersea land as private property, in spite of the fact that it only covers roughly the same area as the Vancouver airport runway. There is still quite a lot of resistance to making this private property.

Have you considered using a different approach?

Mr. Bowman: While that would be desirable, and I think that private investors would be willing to pay a good value for that land up front, we have not really pursued that.

The Chairman: I am not suggesting that it become private property. I am asking if you have thought of a different approach, such as a long-term lease?

Mr. Bowman: Yes, that is the situation we have, where we are the tenants and the province is the landlord of the Crown land that we utilize for shellfish farming. Therefore, our emphasis is on greater security on our tenure. A 20-year period of time might seem long, but when you are making a lot of investments to improve the land and produce seafood from that land, or water as the case may be, a 20-year lease does not provide a lot of security with which to approach the bankers. It is fine to say that there is a long-range plan, but after our experimenting we are 5 years into the 20-year licence and so we really only have 15 years left. We are not sure what will happen at the end of that term, but we are hoping that the lease can be renewed.

Until now, this industry has been built on hopes and dreams with not a lot of support -- in fact, with many obstacles thrown in our path. However, we are pioneering Canadians and we will continue to fight the good fight.

Senator Perrault: Members of the committee have been told by an official of DFO that the First Nations have very mixed feelings about aquaculture. Some First Nations are participating in the expansion of shellfish farming, which was mentioned very briefly during the presentation. Are First Nations generally more supportive of shellfish aquaculture than of salmon aquaculture? If so, what is the extent of their involvement in shellfish farming?

Ms Salmon: Yes. I think that they view shellfish farming as closer to the kind of activities in which they have traditionally been involved. There is increased interest from bands in getting involved in aquaculture.

Senator Perrault: They are good fisher people, are they not?

Ms Salmon: Yes. I think that if there is a problem, it is that the mind-set needs to be shifted from fishing to farming. While they are interested, there is a learning curve in understanding what farming is, what it involves and how to go about it. Certainly, they are good fishermen and they do have an interest in the whole area of shellfish production. There is a mind-shift required.

Senator Perrault: In British Columbia, the sad fact is that there is a shortage of some species of fish and the fisher people are not going out in the boats as they used to. We have encountered some real human tragedies, in a sense. This may be a way to provide alternative employment.

Ms Salmon: Absolutely. That is one of the strong pluses for this industry. We see declines in the wild fishery, even though there are attempts to maintain it. We see those declines happening internationally, not just on the coast of British Columbia. Given that, this would provide an opportunity to increase seafood product, and also it is based in rural communities.

Senator Perrault: That is an interesting idea.

Ms Salmon: The jobs are not happening in Victoria and Vancouver, but they are in remote coastal communities where people need employment and where the First Nations are located.

Senator Perrault: Where are your markets for the B.C. product? I suppose that the challenge is to produce high quality and establish various markets to obtain your maximum dollars. Where do you sell most of the B.C. shellfish?

Ms Salmon: Most of it is sold to the United States.

Senator Perrault: Is it flown to the restaurants in Los Angeles, New York or other places?

Mr. Bowman: From my company's experience, about 80 per cent of our sales are to the United States. That includes all of the Western U.S. states, as well as part of Eastern Canada, although those are newer markets for us. As well, there are markets for us in New York, Boston, Chicago, and then about 5 per cent goes to the Asian markets such as Singapore and Hong Kong. We are just about to open up the Japanese market as well.

Senator Perrault: Is most of the shellfish frozen when it is shipped?

Mr. Bowman: We provide three main product forms of shellfish -- frozen, life in the shell, and fresh meat that has been taken out of the shell. The frozen oysters go primarily to Asia. There are other processors with larger businesses than ours in Asia. Generally, about three-quarters of the products from B.C. go to the U.S. market.

Senator Perrault: Are most of the shellfish farming operations in B.C. owner-operated? Is there a substantial foreign investment in the industry yet?

Ms Salmon: There has not been, to date. The majority have been owner-operator businesses.

I think that as the industry grows, we will see larger companies getting involved, but at this time it has been the owner-operated, family-based operation.

Senator Perrault: This seems to be an industry with great potential. It is very impressive. You have brought a good body of information here for which we are very grateful.

Senator Johnson: Could you tell me how many operations there are in British Columbia now?

Ms Salmon: There are about 267 companies that hold about 400 tenures across the province. There are just over 250 companies.

Senator Johnson: You said many of those are in the coastal communities?

Ms Salmon: The majority are in coastal communities. That is where the water quality is; that is where the farms are based. They are not based outside Vancouver or Victoria. They are more in the rural communities.

Senator Johnson: How much expansion of this industry do you think there will be in the next 10 years? What would you estimate?

Ms Salmon: The projection is that the land base will double, moving from about a $12 million industry to $100 million industry. There is still a lot that needs to happen in order to get to that level, but that is the goal. Our provincial government has supported that commitment. We are hoping that the federal government comes on stream with that kind of a vision, because that does require a developmental attitude.

Senator Johnson: Would you comment on the quality control of the product? We are very concerned in our environmental work, both on this committee and others, with water as the most important resource of this century, we feel. Some people might argue that, but I do not think it is arguable. The quality of the water is critical to your industry. As you expand, what do you think is the most important thing we can do to avoid contamination and other problems and keep this product a healthy industry for you, for British Columbia, and for Canada? Are you strong environmentalists?

Ms Salmon: Absolutely. You do not go into this industry without that kind of a perspective.

I would like to mention several things. Actually, our industry has been fairly proactive in the whole area of environmental management systems. We are putting together codes of practice for the industry that are not necessarily dealing with water quality specifically, but with practices that are environmentally sustainable. We are taking that initiative so that as new entrants come into the industry, there is a something of a guide on how to run an operation in an environmentally sustainable manner.

In terms of water quality, one of the important things that our association and the industry need to do is to increase public awareness. The public needs to understand that shellfish are filter feeders, and since they are what they eat, the cleanliness of the water is of primary importance. If that is understood, people will appreciate the importance of it.

As we said earlier, we have regulations. We have legislation in place that is not being enforced or monitored. If we could have that along with the positive public awareness, we would go a long way.

Senator Johnson: I am very encouraged by what you say. I know you are people of the sea and of the water in British Columbia, and I am very encouraged. I hope you will be very vigilant. Thank you.

The Chairman: As you noted, Ms Salmon, these shellfish are filter feeders. It is even been suggested in some quarters that it would be a good idea to locate such farms close to fin fish operations in order to help clean up the environment around the fin fish farm. It speaks well for the future of your industry. We have heard positive comments about the image of the industry. We hope that as members of this committee, we are able to help enhance that image.

Are there any remaining questions?

Senator Perry Poirier: You mentioned all kinds of shellfish but you never said anything about lobster. Could lobster be grown on the West Coast?

Mr. Bowman: It has been tried. There was a Department of Fisheries and Oceans project dating back many decades where Atlantic lobsters were brought out. The lobster were flown out to the West Coast and taken to some remote coastal location by float planes. They were off-loaded at various locations and left to colonize the waters.

Unfortunately, when they went back to find out how many survived, there was not one remaining. They forgot to remove the little wooden pegs in their claws and the lobster could not catch any prey. They starved to death.

Senator Perry Poirier: Was it not tried again, having found their mistake? It is odd that they did not try again.

Mr. Bowman: I have not heard of any other tries. One cannot say that lobster would not do well in British Columbia conditions, it has just never been tested.

These are some of the opportunities that I think a viable shellfish farming industry needs. We need some options. We need to do some research and development work with commercial species that may be declining in wild fisheries in different parts of world, and that we could grow very well commercially in British Columbia under properly controlled conditions and with an eye to environmental issues.

Senator Perry Poirier: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. If you were to in fact try to reintroduce lobsters on the West Coast, it would be almost considered an introduction of an exotic species, would it not?

I would like to thank the witnesses this evening. It has been most informative and instructive. We regret we were not able to visit one of your sites when we were on the West Coast a few weeks ago. That was not done with any ill intention at all. It was just not to be at that time. I hope it does give us an excuse to return and to visit some of your sites and your growers to see the work you are doing.

I think everyone on the committee is very much interested in seeing your industry do well. It would be good for Canada and for the waters of the West Coast. Having said that, we hope to see you on the next trip. If you are in Ottawa, please drop in and see us. We would be very glad to see you. Keep up the good work.

Ms Salmon: We appreciate your time and you are absolutely welcome when you come out next time. I hope you do visit us. It is best to see it firsthand. It is a fascinating industry.

Mr. Bowman: We appreciate any support that the committee can provide the shellfish farming industry in British Columbia. We certainly need support. I am not talking about financial support; we need a clear path, with a vision for Canada as a seafood-producing country. We need to do some things differently, because we have been losing our place as a seafood-trading nation year after year to other, more progressive nations that are doing things in aquaculture that we should be doing in Canada. Thank you for your support.

The Chairman: Thank you again.

Senators, we would like to seek your authority for the clerk to be able to commit funds in my absence. It is creating a small problem. Last week, we needed to authorize funds for the video conferencing arrangements, and it was necessary to track me down. I am easy to track down, so we were able to do it. However, I would prefer, if we were agreed, to provide the clerk with that kind of authority.

The proposed motion is that pursuant to section 32 of the Financial Administration Act, authority to commit funds be conferred on the chair, the deputy chair, and the clerk of the committee. We would be adding "and the clerk of the committee". Would anyone care to move the motion?

Senator Johnson: I so move.

The Chairman: All those in favour?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Carried.

Everyone has the list of the exhibits of the committee to be filed with the clerk. Would you be agreeable to having these filed with the clerk?

Senator Perry Poirier: I so move.

The Chairman: Is that agreed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Carried.

The committee adjourned.