Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 2 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, March 23, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 7:03 p.m. to study on matters relating to straddling stocks and fish habitat.
Senator Gerald J. Comeau (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, tonight we will be addressing a slightly different issue. Given that our draft summary of our northern report has not been done yet, we had this evening free to have witnesses. It happened at the same time that I have been talking to Mr. Carlos Godoy, from Great Global Minds, who asked if he could make a presentation to members of the committee. I thought it was a good opportunity to welcome him here tonight to have a discussion on products that deal with fish.
Tonight we will hear about the infrastructure that goes into raising fish and the opportunities that might arise out of some of the fish-growing areas in South America and Canada. We will begin with Ms. Cheryl Taylor. Ms. Taylor, please introduce your colleagues and proceed to the presentation.
Ms. Cheryl L. Taylor, President, Great Global Minds: Great Global Minds is a public relations and international trade company based in Montreal. We have been working with South America, primarily Chile, on bilateral trade relations for the past two years. On my right is my partner Mr. Carlos Godoy. On my far right is Mr. Tor-Eddie Fossbakk, who used to be a trade commissioner in Norway for aquaculture. He now runs the aquaculture communications group and is an expert in the world of aquaculture. As well, he ran one of Canada's most successful trade commissions to Norway. On my left we are very happy to have Mr. Angel Gallardo from the Trade Commission of Chile.
We have been working on bilateral initiatives. The reason we are presenting this project is we have been working on bilateral initiatives. We were originally planning to do a multi-sectoral mission to Chile for Canada. However, on a recent trip to Chile, and in our conversations with representatives from both the Chilean and Peruvian governments, we found that there was such an interest in the political and economic issues relating to aquaculture that we thought this would be a good opportunity to focus specifically on this sector.
As well, the current media representation worldwide has been very negative and has affected the industry as it relates to salmon farming. We have been addressing political members of Parliament for the last two days in Ottawa to garner support for our mission. I must say that we have received very good support and we are very happy with that so far.
We are proposing a strategic trade mission that will send Canadian aquaculture supply and services companies to Chile and Peru. We chose these two countries because Chile has grown into the world's second-largest salmon producer behind Norway and is poised to become the world's top producer. It has an extremely developed aquaculture industry in the south. Peru is one of the largest harvesters of wild marine seafood and while its aquaculture industry is still in its infancy, they are looking to Canada to provide them with leadership and assistance to help them develop an overall framework for the sector as a whole.
These are a couple of quotes. We will ensure that you get a copy of the presentation so we will not dwell on it. We thought these things were rather important to know about the industry especially the last quote that was made last week at the Boston Seafood Show that consumption patterns with our current population mean that aquaculture is a necessity.
We need the aquaculture industry to sustain growth. If you look at the numbers for the United States — where the population is not likely to expand in the next 10 to 15 years — even that amount of consumption of fish cannot be met in the world and that does not include Asia where the numbers are astronomical.
Our objectives for our mission are twofold. We want to do a strategic mission where we will offer the sector of supply and service an opportunity to get into the South American market. We will define those objectives later. One of the reasons we are meeting with you this evening is to facilitate meetings between the governments of Chile and Peru on developing new market opportunities and for collaborative business arrangements.
There is a significant amount of expertise and information that can be achieved by these meetings. We feel that to sustain the aquaculture sector in Canada, this is necessary. There are many companies in individual areas that are interested in this mission. The one comment we have gotten from everyone is "I do not believe our government is interested in sustaining aquaculture, so why should we be."
Mr. Carlos A. Godoy L., Managing Partner, Great Global Minds: I would like to provide a brief overview of the Chile and Peru. Chile has a population of slightly over 15 million people and is located at the most southern tip of South America. Chile is an important trade partner of Canada. We have had a free trade agreement with Chile since 1997. Many goods and services are interchanged between Canada and Chile. Canadian companies are well established in Chile in various fields such as services, products, mining, and to some degree aquaculture.
Peru is located immediately north of Chile and has a population of slightly less than 30 million. Peru is the fifth most important trade partner in the Americas for Canada. Many Canadian companies are established there. For example, Hydro-Québec is present in electricity and mining projects. Canada has also a very respected presence in Peru.
Mr. Tor-Eddie Fossbakk, Advisor on Aquaculture, Great Global Minds: As Ms. Taylor said, Chile is about to take over as the leading salmon farming country after playing second to Norway for a great number of years. Chile's salmon farming industry has a higher growth rate than any of the other salmon-producing countries in the world. Chile offers a market opportunity for Canadian companies to take advantage of that tremendous growth that is expected. Canada has the capacity in the market to be competitive with suppliers from any of the other countries. In that fashion, they can sustain their jobs and growth at home.
Although Canada is not among the top when it comes to goods and products, it is a country that offers a significant amount of business in consulting and in investment. However, there is very little to be found in goods and products. Canada should have no problem to competing with Norway, Australia or any of the other countries because the technology and the expertise are there. However, Canada is hindered by a lack of aggressiveness in penetrating the market.
Peru is slightly different because it is an emerging aquaculture nation. It is a large traditional fishing nation. As most honourable senators would be aware, their main product is fishmeal and fish oil. They have expressed a great interest in developing their aquaculture sector because the traditional fisheries have levelled off, as in most other countries. In order to continue to grow and sustain, they need another leg to stand on.
The demands in Peru are slightly different than in the more technologically advanced Chile. Canada has been through all stages of developing their own aquaculture industry and has the technology, products, know how and expertise. There is no reason why that could not be a beneficial market for the Canadian industry.
Canada is not represented in the aquaculture sector in Peru. We see countries like Germany and Italy, who are further away that have found the market of interest. There should be no reason why Canada would not show up in all three of these sectors. Canada needs to be aggressive and make an effort.
Ms. Taylor: Some of the objectives of this slide are reflective of an organization in Chile called Fundación Chile. We will provide you with updated objectives for 2004. What we are showing here are the areas where Canada is currently a world leader and it should be involved in Chile. They range the gamut from diversification, productivity, sanitation and environmental. There are all kinds of improved technology. E-learning is a big issue geographically for both these countries as well. Overall improvement for transport, re-circulation systems and so forth are other issues.
Key to both these countries is infrastructure development, training programs, technology development and diversification development so that the industries are not dependent on one or two species. Attraction of foreign investors and partners is important and Canada was originally a leader in this field. There are many programs being offered now of which Canada may or may not be aware. There are national development plans such as the development of institutions. This just came to us the other day from Peru. They are interested in developing a national aquaculture institute. They would like to look to Canada as a role model for this. That would be an excellent opportunity.
In some of our meetings today, Mr. Fossbakk brought up the fact that our industry is only 25 years old but we have learned a significant amount in this time. This is a great opportunity to pass on what we have learned from our errors that we have made and start fresh in these newer countries where the industry is new. We can start them off on a better framework for their future. We can teach them about disease control and methods and means on the El Niño effect.
This slide shows the primary areas of opportunity for Canada to help both these countries. Obviously, environmental standards are a significant global issue. They are not only relative to Chile and Peru but we feel they are part of the solution to the global problem, so standards need to be attributed to the sector.
This slide is indicative of how many opportunities are available in Chile and Peru. You will notice many of them are similar, but they are obviously at different stages. Chile is in need of much more advanced technology whereas Peru is in the process of instating technology. As well, another key issue that was brought up in Peru — which is a fabulous opportunity for Canada — involves institutions and training where they have a strong desire to implement workers, farms and management but they do not have institutions in place. They do not have qualified professionals. They are interested in having some Canadians come down to help them develop an institute for learning or to train some of their existing managers. They do not have the proper tools or people right now to institute that into the farms.
Our next slide shows a brief overview of the common challenges and issues between our countries. These are indicative of aquaculture globally.
Mr. Fossbakk: As they are similar in the two countries, they are easy to handle on a trip for Canadian companies. It can be a circle trip from Canada to Chile to Peru and then back home. You can piggyback, which will make the trip more economical. Be aware that they are at different levels, so the solutions will be slightly different for the countries, but the companies providing the solutions may or may not be the same.
The aquaculture at home has seen a levelling off of the growth that the industry saw. Through the 1990s, this has tapered off and levelled off, if not slightly declined, for a host of reasons. That has affected the supply and service industry that is the undergrowth of the fish farming process. If you do not have a prospering and growing farming industry, no one will place new orders. That means that the supply and service industry is lacking work.
Their ability to develop new customers and markets — in this case in Chile and Peru, but also in any new country — will enable them to maintain and sustain their operation until the farming industry can grow and increase their need for those services in the supply of new equipment at home. If the supply and service industry does not get new markets and new contracts, we risk them falling by the wayside. The companies may shut down. They may find other industries that are much more viable and provide the money they need.
The farming industry then takes off. We are all convinced that will happen, it is a question of when. There may not be a Canadian supply and service industry at that time. We know that the world is full of companies that would love to come in and take over that market. It would be a shame not to try to prevent that from happening.
This is a list of some of the Canadian companies. It is not extensive by all means. These are the more successful ones — Heritage Aquaculture, Syndel, Cards and so forth — have found the market in Chile so interesting that they actually have set up their own operations. For Heritage, for example, it means that they can supply themselves year round with salmon; when it is off season in Canada, it is in season in Chile and vice versa. That means that the company will have security of supply.
Again, these are multinational companies operating in Canada, Chile and other countries. There is no reason why we should not see some Canadian companies that are truly multinational and operating in direct competition with these companies.
Ms. Taylor: The next slide shows a list of some cooperative opportunities that we have isolated — education, training and technical support, R&D development. We have listed some of the successful programs in Canada that we think could be adapted for South America. Policy and regulation development would be done government-to- government. Infrastructure development is more indicative for Peru. In Chile, the question relates to sustainability. They are growing at an incredible rate and they realize that they will need some regulations put in place because that sustainability question is coming up. They will not be able to continue to grow at that rate. Science and technology transfer is an area where Canada is a world leader.
The next slides relate to aquaculture and Agri-foods Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Environment Canada. Again, one of the biggest issues in the media at present has to do with environmental standards for the industry.
We would like to reiterate that our objectives with this are twofold. We want to provide the supply and services sector of the aquaculture sector in Canada with opportunities to establish business opportunities in both Chile and Peru. However, we feel that the industry needs a shot in the arm with government support, be it through committees such as yours or through the House. These can only be achieved through government-to-government meetings.
We have a lot of interest from both Chile and Peru. We feel that this will be necessary in order to ensure that the companies feel that if the government is showing a genuine interest in the sector that there will be a future for them.
Many people have asked me why the sector has not done something for their bad image. My answer to them is that I think it is a global solution, it is not a country or individual company that will turn this industry around. The best way to summarize it is actions speak louder than words. The government must play a leading role in this.
Our planned dates for the mission are October 2 to 9, 2004. We have coordinated that with the fishing agendas worldwide for all the other trade shows, and also to coordinate with the two fishing seasons.
The Chairman: In your last comment, you said that this mission would coincide with some trade shows that are going on at that time.
Ms. Taylor: No, we are trying to do it independent of trade shows in the rest of the world. There are some activities in Canada, but we have tried to separate it to allow for maximum attendance.
There is a trade show in Chile that is going on right now. We felt that there are so many opportunities for these companies — and also based on the individuals who are interested in meeting with them, particularly in Chile — that their best opportunities are to have one-on-one agendas and to really get to know the business workings of these countries as opposed to just going down.
It is a long way to travel, as some of you may be aware. A trade show is very good for networking, but if these people are serious about one-to-one business facilitation, we feel that individual agendas are the better way to go. Also, we would like to coordinate meetings with the government.
Senator Robichaud: Has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans shown any interest in such a mission to Chile?
Ms. Taylor: Yes, they have. We met with the chief of staff for the minister yesterday. We met with the department this morning. They have shown a significant amount of interest. They told us that the way we are going about organizing this is the most effective way to do so.
The biggest problem that we face at present is the industry has no money. We are trying to lobby political support first to show the sector itself that there is an interest on the government side. We want to approach the associations that provide funding for the individuals to partake in the mission.
I can honestly say that there has not been one department in the government that has not expressed very good support for this.
Senator Robichaud: When you mention to them the kind of contribution they will have to make, is the level of interest maintained?
Ms. Taylor: We have not asked The Department of Fisheries and Oceans to make a contribution. We are approaching places such as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, ACOA, and Western Diversification. We are looking for their involvement, and they are very interested in attending these meetings and being involved in helping these countries with regulatory issues and so forth.
We did meet with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, DFAIT, yesterday as well. They have shown much interest to take it directly to the minister. They were not even aware of some of the issues of this sector. When we showed them this presentation they said, "Wow, we did not even know this was happening."
The many new people in that department and the interest of that minister will allow for the opportunity for the government to be involved. However, our real interest is the industry, which has shown much support, and the individual regional agencies to get the funding to help the companies come on board.
Not one company has said that it is not interested. Many of them are not in the financial position right now to invest that money for two reasons. Either they are not doing well, or they want to see that the government is interested in sustaining aquaculture as a sector for the economy.
Senator Robichaud: ACOA organizes some missions. They recently organized one to the States.
You say that you met with them. Have they shown a bit of interest? I would think that they would because they represent Atlantic Canada, and aquaculture and fisheries is certainly a very important sector of our economy.
Ms. Taylor: Mr. Fossbakk worked directly with ACOA for Norway last year. It is very important because the entire industry affects both coasts. It is hard enough for the people to get jobs there, and we feel that aquaculture provides them with sustainable jobs that will give them more financial independence.
We have not gone directly to ACOA yet because we first want to put our pieces together for political and industry support, which we are almost at that level. Mr. Fossbakk can tell you about his positive experience with ACOA.
Mr. Fossbakk: ACOA is very receptive to aquaculture initiatives. They provided financial support to the very successful mission that went to Aquanor in Norway in August last year. More than 50 Atlantic Canada representatives went to the trade show and had one-on-one and group meetings. We viewed farm operations, R&D facilities and processing plants. We also had more or less unlimited access to expertise.
We have not approached ACOA directly with this particular initiative. That is the next round in our plan of setting this mission up, but it will have to include agencies similar to ACOA, such as Western Diversification. We feel that if we have our ducks in order, we will be ready to take it to the funding agencies and also to the provinces and industry associations. We will then present them with a package.
Ms. Taylor: We have done research on what you are working on and what kind of support there is from the Senate and the House committees on the initiative because the industry itself is very negative. If there is not much will from the government level, it is very hard to facilitate.
I have two enthusiastic governments. I have been approached by two other countries in South America who heard the rumour. Chile has already expressed an interest to do a trade mission to Canada in 2005. If we initiate these talks with the governments, one trade mission will not accomplish a regulatory network for environmental standards. We thought that would be a great way to keep the dialogue going and keep the industries boosting because it needs a global solution.
Mr. Godoy: We do realize that most of you are senators from Atlantic Canada and therefore, beyond your role as members of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, you also have a personal interest in the aquaculture industry. It is the livelihood of many people in your regions.
We have also met with MPs from Atlantic Canada and from British Columbia. We met with representatives from Shawn Murphy, Claudette Bradshaw and David Anderson's offices. Above and beyond their parliamentary or cabinet roles, they have a lot at stake in their regions. Aquaculture is an industry that employs people mainly in the coastal rural areas of this country. These areas are traditionally economically depressed.
Keeping employment in those specific sectors is a positive thing. We could increase that employment by exporting our goods and services to other countries that are in great need of this expertise to be able to develop their industries. We would be creating win-win situations both for Canada, Canada's partners abroad, and the overall industry that has been suffering over the past couple of years.
Ms. Taylor: A couple of MPs asked us what the industry is doing to help itself and why it is not doing media. That will not solve anything.
I am sure that you realize that the initiative has to come from governments getting together in the countries that are leaders in the sector to show that they are committed to coming up with a uniform way to keep the industry sustainable. Also, that will keep many of the companies here that are considering leaving Canada or just shutting up shop.
We were with Dave Rideout from the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance, CAIA, earlier today. He said that it is ultimately a group of people from a board that might wish to stay in Canada but think they should take the opportunities somewhere. We feel that by giving these companies an opportunity in South America, they will sustain Canada. Once Canada starts dialogue with countries like Chile, who is managing to flourish and become a world leader, we may find new methods to further develop our aquaculture industry from the farming point of view. At the same time, we will have the services sector there to continue to provide for these Canadian companies.
Senator Adams: I come from the Arctic. I have a little difficulty with salmon farming in British Columbia.
Do they have salmon there or are they farming for exports from Canada? What other countries besides Canada and the United States have salmon? Scotland and Norway?
Mr. Fossbakk: Chile has been the second-largest farmed salmon producing country in the world for many years. As was said earlier, it is about to surpass Norway, which had that leading position for as many years. Each country roughly produces about half a million metric tons of farmed salmon each year, which is a substantial amount of fish.
Norway does farmed Atlantic salmon only. Chile farms Atlantic, Coho and Chinook. These three types of salmon plus trout — which is also known as steelhead or ocean-going rainbow trout — are the species that are being farmed commercially in Chile today.
Peru is different. They have little or no ocean aquaculture. Their industry is primarily lake- or land-based in very small units. Their aquaculture history started back in 1928 but due to various reasons, it has not become a commercial industry. However, there is a government-expressed interest in taking it to the next level, which means that they will start where Canada started 25 or 30 years ago.
We are saying that we have the technology and equipment, the research and development, the science, the institutions and the regulations. Do not send them through that 30- to 35-year learning process. Provide them with what we have and bring them up to today's standards right away. This is a huge task that would open up a huge market for those who are interested and will take advantage of it.
There are also a number of new species that are coming along. Canada is developing its cod, haddock, turbot and other species. Chile is doing the same. In Peru they have their own species that could be commercialized. Technology is adaptable and if you know how to farm salmon by adapting you can adapt to other species — even Arctic char from your part of the country.
Senator Adams: What is the difference between the policies in Chile and Peru? Canada has, like Norway and Germany and other countries, a little more like a monopoly. If you had more help from the government, would you get more business or are the governments in Chile and Peru looking for more competition with salmon farming?
Mr. Fossbakk: What the governments there are looking for is very basic — that is, to develop their industry. They are at two very different levels. I would say the Chilean industry is very sophisticated and is, for the technology part, not behind any of the other salmon farming countries. In Peru they are using ponds and basically manhandling everything. It is an emerging industry, which must be industrialized. That has already happened in Chile.
I do not think that the governments are looking for handouts or any freebies. In Peru, they are genuinely interested in getting their industry up to a standard where it can sustain itself with all the things that go with it — that includes everything from regulations down to the nitty-gritty of equipment they need on the farm. Chile needs more equipment because they are growing faster than they can supply themselves. We see that there are other companies that have a lucrative business in Chile because it is an industry that is in the growth mode.
Senator Adams: Your project involves salmon farming. You are not exporting it back to Canada or the United States or Europe. How does it work?
Mr. Fossbakk: The finished product?
Senator Adams: Yes.
Mr. Fossbakk: It is one market. The world is one market when it comes to farmed salmon, in particular. Of course, the Chileans will continue to sell their farmed salmon where they can get the best price, as will the Canadians, Norwegians, Scots, et cetera. The fact is that the supply and equipment industry in Canada cannot sustain itself with the current activity at home, so if you want to have a viable industry that is ready and able — whether it is next year or in five years or in 10 years — they need work now and for the next few years.
Senator Adams: You mentioned the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. You are living in another country that may have its own inspection agency and a different environment than we have.
Are those salmon good for eating? Do Chile or Peru inspect the salmon before it is exported to another country?
Ms. Taylor: That comes through some of the government initiatives we have been approached for where we are trying to establish a global standard for the industry. That is a big problem right now, the tracking of data. It is very hard to come up with standard data just for the numbers in this industry.
You asked Mr. Fossbakk what the government is looking for. The government is looking for leadership and guidance from Canada. One the biggest solutions, they realize, comes from environmental standards. Canada is a leader in regulator issues. They know they cannot sustain their growth right now.
It is about establishing a global standard. It is not just developing a framework for Chile or Peru. It must be a standard that sustains the industry around the world. I think that is really what everyone is looking for and that is why there is such an enthusiastic response from the governments themselves.
Mr. Godoy: Further to your specific question, Chile and Peru both also have the equivalent of our Canadian Food Inspection Agency. One of the key things at which Canadians excel is exporting our expertise in the areas at which we excel. If that is some specific things that Canadian Food Inspection Agency does, or Agriculture and Agri-foods Canada does, it is a great opportunity for Canada to say that we are helping the Government of Peru revamp its regulations to this effect based on the Canadian model.
That is one of the most important things our government has to do today, such as what we have done with Chile in the past, harmonizing our construction codes. It is key that the Government of Canada assume its place as a world leader in transferring technological know-how and the way we do things here at home and for which we are recognized.
Senator Cook: I am attempting to understand why we are having this dialogue. I am seeing it as an opportunity for Canadian entrepreneurs to avail themselves of an opportunity to be partners with Chile or Peru to grow the Canadian economy and to enhance the Chilean and the Peruvian economy.
What is it we are attempting to achieve here? What are the goals? The goals are fuzzy. Your notes say that Chile at the moment is the second largest farm producer in the world behind Norway, so that tells me that they are doing okay.
There must be an appropriate infrastructure; there must be a regulatory regime. How would Canada fit into an industry in a country that tells me that it is doing very well, or are you going beyond the level of your sustainability? What is it we are looking at here?
Ms. Taylor: As we explained at the beginning, our objective is for Canadian aquaculture companies to supply services to benefit from the great growth in the Chilean industry. Chile is interested in how they will sustain the momentum they currently have in place. It is going to be next to impossible, and they have recognized that. In one of the last documents I looked at, they predict they will start to have a decrease in growth by 2008. They can manage only so much expansion. Chile has a huge problem with environmental regulations that the government is mandating they put in now. This is where Canadian technology and transfer know-how can help.
Peru is at a totally different place, so many of the same companies that will benefit from the products and services have even a greater opportunity in Peru. However, we also feel that technology — be it biotechnology or e-learning — training systems need to be set up in Peru from the infancy.
Also in Chile, because of distance and e-learning there is an abundance of technology software. The bigger your sector is, the more you need to have it serviced. That is the area that we are focusing on in this mission, in addition to the governmental side that we explained. Due to the whole problem with the industry right now, we feel that bilateral discussions between these countries to initiate global initiatives for a standard regulatory framework are necessary. We have had that expressed from all of the governments.
Senator Cook: You will need to be patient with me and help me to understand because I am the uninformed. At one point, I was seeing that we are free trade partners, and I could see aquaculture in both countries interfacing and benefiting from that relationship. Now I hear you talk about the IT industry, which is a completely different piece. Are we saying that it would be a benefit to the Canadian IT industry? You moved me away from the aquaculture.
Ms. Taylor: I am referring to biotechnology and IT within the aquaculture industry. We will put up the slide that shows the opportunities for Canada for both. If we pull that up, I think that will better define it.
I understand what you mean by IT. Mr. Fossbakk can give us more background on technologies that are just for the aquaculture industry, where Canada is a world leader both institutionally and for products and services.
Senator Cook: Let me take it one step further. We have this information. How receptive would industry and the government be in both of these countries to this kind of dialogue? Do they know they need it?
Ms. Taylor: Actually, that is where the idea came from. We have been working on a multi-sector mission, and it is because of our dialogue with the governments that this has come about.
There is a government will there. There are two arms in both these governments that have investment programs where they are dedicating millions of dollars to develop these sectors. Those programs offer the opportunities lie for Canadian companies. It is those initiatives that we are discussing with these governments currently.
Aquaculture has become extremely sophisticated and IT is really the future. The bigger your industry, the more fine- tuning you need. This includes better technology, tracking, traceability, and software. Canada has been leading in this way, but we have not been promoting this a lot in Chile.
We have some other slides and you have some data that we have given you. Other countries that have taken advantage of this initiative, even though we are a big free trade partner and have no tariffs on these products and services.
Senator Cook: So it is something like two solitudes, is not it? We have something that they may need or may not know they need, but if they knew it was available, they could benefit from it. How do we get a meeting of the minds?
Ms. Taylor: When we were in Chile in January, we were working with a private company from Quebec. That is where we were starting to work a lot with companies in the 10th region. They are aware of how great Canada is in these areas, and we have had a lot of demands to find them oxidator units. They would prefer to do business with Canada.
Canada has not really worked hard in the products and services sector. Why is that? There is only so much we can focus on as a country. Aquaculture has a lot of negativity now. Mr. Fossbakk has referred in a few meetings to the fact that it is not the sexiest industry in the world. The other problem is that Chile and Peru are very far from Canada and there is a linguistic problem. I am not trying to make excuses but these are commonalities we have come up with.
You might say then, why are the Americans there? My answer would be they are a little more aggressive with marketing than we are.
I know that the bulk of the people in the 10th region, where Mr. Gallardo comes from, are unilingual, and that makes it difficult. They can go on the Internet, but they cannot pick up the phone to facilitate this. That is why we feel there is a greater opportunity if we have a mission that is focusing strictly on these objectives.
Many of these people meet around the world at trade shows, but that is not the only necessary goal to facilitate the business. When Mr. Fossbakk had his mission in Norway, Canada's Commissioner for Aquaculture Development had facilitated talks with his counterpart in Chile; unfortunately, his mandate is ending and the dialogue has ended.
We were reminded of this when we were in Chile. We decided, as part of our mission, to reopen that because the will from these countries is there. We get calls every day about products and services for this industry right now. However, it will take one-on-one meetings to get the two countries together.
Senator Cook: Are there any Canadian companies operating in either of those countries at the moment in aquaculture? If so, who are they?
Ms. Taylor: Yes, there are some very successful ones — Heritage Salmon is probably one the greatest success stories. I would say that there are perhaps 10 that are doing very well.
Senator Cook: I believe I saw that in my supermarket last week.
Ms. Taylor: They are a very large company that goes through Loblaws. They are a farmer, and they benefit from opposite seasons so they have product year round. They have managed to be sustainable in British Columbia and keep all their jobs intact. They employ some of the greatest minds — I am dealing with one of their top veterinarians right now on a sea lice project in the industry.
That is from the farm perspective. However, as we were pointing out before, Canada is not a leader in products and services. That is the industry we feel really needs the most help to stay around in Canada.
Senator Cook: I see disease control in farmed fish. How are we doing down there with it?
Ms. Taylor: We are not involved in too many projects down there right now. The government needs to open a dialogue in that area. That is a very touchy issue in every country.
We are working with a company that may have developed a natural product to help cure sea lice. We want to get it tested in Canada. There are different testing guidelines, so that is another area where the countries should come together, but not everyone is willing to share that information. I think that takes a government dialogue versus individual companies.
I know we have some pharmaceutical companies down there now doing some projects but, again, is it enough? No, because it is a global initiative. It will not require only companies going down. It involves the governments getting standards together as well.
Senator Cook: Is there a will to do that?
Ms. Taylor: Yes, there is.
Senator Cochrane: In Canada we have witnessed quite a few challenges with our aquaculture industry in the salmon fishery in B.C. You have just mentioned the lice that are found in the salmon that have gone through the process of aquaculture. What types of challenges have arisen in light of the aquaculture boom in Chile?
Ms. Taylor: There are many challenges there. That data is very hard to obtain. There is a significant amount of interest to meet governmentally. However, that is not something that they discuss with companies. They have their challenges and issues. They think it stems from environmental standards, as we do. They want to speak more from a regulatory point of view rather than isolating issues.
A lot of reports will say that there are some problems with use of malachite green, which is banned. If it you talk to an individual farmer in Chile, he would tell you that they are not using it any more. That is an issue. If you have a standard in place with the governments for the products, the problems will more often come to the surface. The government must take a leading role with that regulatory network.
Individual farmers have told us that HASEP is a standard that they want to put in place in both countries. They do not have sufficient trained individuals at present. Canada is very good in that area. Through regulatory issues and environmental standards, you will accomplish many of the environmental issues. As far as I know, sea lice are not a problem down there. They have expressed interest in knowing know which products we have used in Canada. Again, that is something that individual farms will not address. The governments will discuss.
"Green technologies" is the big buzzword in aquaculture. That is a global initiative. If Canada, which is leading in R&D, biotechnology and all of the regulatory issues gets together with the soon-to-be world leaders in salmon production, that will do much for the industry globally to set a standard.
Senator Cochrane: Aquaculture is tapering off now in Chile. Did you say that?
Ms. Taylor: No, it will taper off. They predict it will taper off between 2008 and 2010. They have incredible growth. It averages 10 per cent a year. There is only so much you can develop.
They are working on projects in the eleventh region now. You can only develop so much of the water and the land. They have to keep in place new environmental standards. They are looking for sustainability, which runs through all of the other issues we discussed with you.
Senator Cochrane: You are telling me that they have used all of the acreage and water, in order to expand. Why would someone else try to start-up an industry in the aquaculture field?
Ms. Taylor: I do not understand your question. For products and services, they will help the existing farm development and sustain it through better technologies, standards, equipment, feeding methods, health standards, HASEP, et cetera.
Canada has the opposite problem. We have strong regulatory controls with little development. If anything, Canada has more to expand. However, we have different standards. They are looking to us. We will probably be a bigger leader in the future, because we have more water available. However, Chile has taken the opportunity to expand but has not put in place all of the technology and so forth that we have developed by limiting the expansion of our industry.
Senator Cochrane: What about the governments of Chile and Peru? Have you initiated any of your expertise in Peru? Is there camaraderie between the governments to help the people in Chile?
Ms. Taylor: There are private companies working in aquaculture in Peru. Germans and Italians are also working there. They have their own agendas. Canada can help by helping to develop a regulatory framework.
Senator Cochrane: The Peruvian government is open to that, are they?
Ms. Taylor: They need the help more than Chile because they are at an earlier stage of development. Peru and Canada already share cooperative understandings with their Aboriginal peoples. Many of the people in the government said to us, "Well, you are creating aquaculture to help sustain the Aboriginal persons. Why can we not take that relationship one step further?" The majority of the population in Peru, including their president, is Aboriginal. They are the people in the 45,000 aquaculture jobs that currently exist. They see that we are trying to help our Aboriginal population gain sustainable jobs, which means that they would be less dependent on the government in the future. They see us as having a role in Peru.
Chile is much different. They have 100,000 people in jobs. They need more technical training.
The two countries are at very different levels. We have a sophistication that would benefit both.
Senator Watt: Like Senator Adams, I am from the Arctic.
I understand what you are talking about. You are talking about goods and services being provided from Canada to those two countries.
At the same time, we are also involved as one of the representatives of the system. We have a responsibility to protect interests here in Canada. That is to say that we have companies trying to survive in this particular area. We may not be, at this point, very successful in terms of production for a number of the companies that exist in Canada. However, it has started. That is quite new in Canada.
If we are to provide goods and services outside Canada — and at the same time move in the direction of stabilizing the Chile and Peru — one concern comes to mind. How would we deal with competition?
The Canadian government is providing goods and services outside of this country. We might be successful in providing goods and services that will lift up other companies and give them more staying ability for their projects. In return, it could have an effect on our market in Canada. How do you deal with that?
Ms. Taylor: We met with the industry earlier. The industry is in a very bad state right now. If they do not get opportunities in other markets, they will not be around to service the Canadian market.
Mr. Fossbakk: This is a very complex issue. All industries compete in a world market. Aquaculture and farmed salmon has always been a world market.
We showed a slide that showed that the demand in the U.S. alone would grow by 1.1 billion pounds of seafood in the next few years. The increase in demand for seafood will be higher than the increase in production for a great many years. There is room for growth in Canada. There is room for growth in Chile and in other countries.
Any growth to satisfy the demand for seafood must come from aquaculture. The oceans have reached a level where they can only yield about 90 million metric tons each year. We cannot take more than that today, tomorrow and in the future if we want to sustain the oceans. To satisfy growth, you must develop and farm the ocean, the lakes, tanks on land, et cetera.
I am not afraid that by supplying Chile, Peru, Uruguay, Argentina or Brazil with technology that we will put the Canadian industry out of business. There are greater concerns that could put the Canadian industry out of business. That is a different issue.
There will not be a supply industry if we do not help them to become a sustainable industry. We need to help them by bridging them over this hurdle. They have a farm industry that is at limited growth and not giving them the work that they need at this time. Most of us here are convinced that this will change. It is a matter of time. Our concern is that when that change happens, there will not be a supply and service industry in Canada if we are going to isolate it to the Canadian market only.
Senator Watt: Are you quite confident that both sides would benefit?
Mr. Fossbakk: Absolutely.
Ms. Taylor: It must be beneficial because the sector needs bilateral initiatives.
The other important thing to realize is that Canada could learn a significant amount from Chile. They are doing many things right as well. If we get the governments and companies working together, we could learn a lot from each other. That will provide us with a competitive advantage.
Industries such as aquaculture are too competitive and that is a hindrance to their global development. Certain companies will not give you that data. Mr. Fossbakk will tell you that. He is one of the authorities for collecting data on the industry. That is very important for the future, yet everyone is protective against that. If we break down the barriers, this will only help our industry. Why is it that Chile has grown so much and Canada has not? There must be some common ground. It will only benefit Canada if we take a leading role in developing that framework. That shows that we are a world leader and that we are serious about the sector, whether it is from the farm standpoint or from the supply and service standpoint.
Senator Watt: Does your development plan clearly state what Canada has to gain in both the short term and the long term? Have you walked it through in terms of weighing the two factors? What are we doing here? You are asking us to look into the possibility of providing goods and services to other countries that are quite a distance away from us. At the same time, we must also provide goods and services to our own people. What do you have to say?
I would also like to return to the subject matter of Norway. They are currently the number one producers and Chile is number two. I know Norway. I have visited the farms and I know how they operate. I would like to return to that later on.
Ms. Taylor: Our short-term objectives are to save the aquaculture goods and services in Canada.
Senator Watt: Economically what do we gain in the short and long run?
Ms. Taylor: We will have jobs and a supply and services sector that will be able to continue to service the Canadian aquaculture business. That is first objective.
The second objective is to open the dialogue to show global initiatives between these world leaders in the sector and to put a positive media spin on aquaculture. That is very important. Someone today indicated that there would be an incredible drop in the next six months in salmon sales just because of the negative publicity. That is the other reason for the urgency for the government to speak.
We can hire PR firms and put out press releases, but a positive action between governments will show a serious stand. This will show that the sector is serious about having standards and that the product is safe for consumption. Those are the two short-term objectives.
The third objective is to have an open dialogue where Chile and Peru would be welcome to come to Canada to learn from our model and keep facilitating the dialogue on a regulatory framework for global rules and environmental standards for aquaculture worldwide.
Senator Watt: Have you done your numbers in terms of what the real economic gain would be 10 years down the road?
Ms. Taylor: No, that is hard to know.
Mr. Fossbakk: There are more factors involved than resources to be able to assess this. We are trying to meet an expressed interest and demand from the industry that is struggling to survive. We are convinced that the aquaculture industry is here to stay. In that regard, we are trying to assist part of that industry to become sustainable, not only in the short term but also over the long term. Whether we are talking about 100 jobs or 5,000 jobs, in order to have a Canadian aquaculture industry, you need a supply and service industry for the farmers and for the farm operations. If you do not have that, there are two things that will happen. Either the farmers will have to shut down, which is unlikely because they are determined and are the last ones to leave the ship, or other countries will come in to provide the supply and service industry. There are plenty of countries, including Norway, the U.K. and the U.S., that would love to come in here and take over that market when the farmers are given the opportunity to expand and grow.
We are looking at the short term, because the industry will grow in the long term. It is in the short term that they need help.
I am convinced that when they have some assistance and when the Canadian farming industry is up and running and growing at a sustainable level, they will be strong enough to help themselves. That is the long-term perspective. They will not need our help or anybody else's help in the long term. It is in the short-term that they need to be carried over the hump.
Senator Watt: Since Norway is the biggest producer of salmon, have you dealt with Norway? I believe you said you are from Norway.
Mr. Fossbakk: I am from Norway.
Senator Watt: How would Norway treat you? If you made a similar presentation to the Norway government, how do you think that they would receive you? What would they do if you were to ask them to provide goods and service to another country?
Mr. Fossbakk: Asking Norwegian companies to go to Chile and Peru?
Senator Watt: To provide goods and services.
Mr. Fossbakk: They are already there in droves. As the slides show, Norway is among two if not three of the categories that we showed. I worked eight years with the Canadian embassy in Oslo. I was responsible for the aquaculture and fisheries portfolio. I do not know how many hundreds of Canadians — aquaculture representatives — have come to Norway, but they have never been turned away when it came to discussing technology, looking at equipment, or getting in on things.
The mission we had last August, we climbed all over the equipment, all over the farms, and took pictures with no restriction. They are somewhat more aggressive. I will not say that they are as aggressive as the Americans. At least they have seen that Norway, even with that high level of activity in the fish-farming sector, is not large enough to sustain a viable supply and service industry. They need to continue to be close to the number one producer or take over as number one, depending on how we look at the numbers in the future.
Norway has also reached a level in salmon farming and is looking at other species to concentrate their development on new technologies to move even further. They are ahead of the pack. They can always supply new technology, but also, they can also always develop new technology to move ahead.
Norway would not hesitate to take the opportunity in any country.
Senator Watt: In other words, it is not only an opportunity to provide goods and services. There is also potential to make an investment, if I understood you correctly?
Ms. Taylor: There would be joint objectives.
Senator Watt: There is also room for joint ventures?
Ms. Taylor: Yet.
Senator Watt: You also mentioned that there is a large segment of the population that are Aboriginal people.
Ms. Taylor: In Peru, in particular.
Senator Watt: Is there any possibility of linking the Aboriginals from the Arctic to Aboriginals in Chile and Peru and work that out through CIDA?
Ms. Taylor: Absolutely. Again, the president of Peru is an Aboriginal. I am sure he would be more than excited about that.
Senator Watt: As you know, we have a very short season in the Arctic. Senator Adams and I go on missions at times to determine where there might be a potential for investment. We recognize that a large group of people have deep pockets. We are very interested in that.
Ms. Taylor: Peru would be very interested.
Senator Hubley: I am from P.E.I., one of the East Coast people here.
Could you give me an idea of the aquaculture industry as it relates to the total fishing industry?
Ms. Taylor: To which country are you referring?
Senator Hubley: Let us say in Chile. How large is the aquaculture industry? Could you just give me an idea of how important the aquaculture industry is in your economy?
Ms. Taylor: In Chile, aquaculture would be the number two industry at present for exports.
Senator Hubley: What is first?
Ms. Taylor: Wine was the number one export from Chile. Mining is also a major industry.
Senator Hubley: You also mentioned three species of salmon and one of trout. Is that the extent of the aquaculture industry or are there other species as well?
Mr. Fossbakk: That is the extent of the commercial industry at the moment. However, there are also shellfish.
Senator Hubley: What varieties of shellfish?
Mr. Godoy: Lobster, shrimp, molluscs and clams that are mainly targeted at the domestic market.
Senator Hubley: You have been very successful with salmon farming. You are obviously looking for new markets. What have you learned about value-added? Do you pursue that in specific ways?
Mr. Fossbakk: Looking at salmon, Chile has developed a sophisticated fillet industry. Their largest market is the U.S. for Atlantic salmon. Their Coho and trout are going to the Japanese market.
The Canadian and Chilean share together is about 92 per cent of the total U.S. market for fresh and frozen farmed salmon. Chile supplies the majority of the fillet. Canada supplies the majority of whole fish. That is partly due to the proximity to the market. Also, it is partly due to which country has developed what parts of the U.S. and the demands there.
We have seen canned salmon in the U.S. market lately, which a company such as Costco is pushing from Chile. Costco is also the largest single distributor for Chilean farmed salmon.
There is difficult competition in that. You can buy Chilean salmon in the U.S. for as little as $1.99 a pound. That is very cheap. They are looking at value adding, just as Canada is looking at more value adding. One of the other buzzwords in the industry is to do more valued adding. We need to move from the traditional way of value adding fish by cutting fillets or steaks to making use of what we used to throw into a landfill or dump into the ocean. There are parts that are not used such as the heads, tails and belly flaps. A new industry is emerging in trying to make use of those products. We need to get the utilization of the fish up to a level as close to 100 per cent as possible.
One hundred per cent may not ever be achievable, but we could improve from the 60 to 75 per cent that has been the norm for the industry.
Canada is working on that. They have developed technology in this regard that can be used by other countries, such as Chile.
Senator Hubley: This is a very interesting initiative. Does the industry contribute to a significant amount of its research and development funding?
Mr. Fossbakk: In Chile?
Senator Hubley: Yes.
Mr. Fossbakk: Yes.
Senator Hubley: The industry supports the trade missions financially. You would be looking to them for the funding. Generally, it comes from the industry funding for these special projects.
Ms. Taylor: For the special projects, that is true. However, their funding would not pay to bring Canadian companies down. They are good at facilitating other businesses. The area of the government in which Mr. Gallardo works conducts missions all over the world. Fundación Chile, with which we are working directly, is setting the objectives for the industry, and that is how you get investments into R&D. There are many opportunities for foreign partners to come into play.
Peru is working on that. Last year, they invested U.S. $80 million. They are looking to attract more foreign partners by investing in the industry themselves — moreso than Canada is.
Mr. Godoy: The industry in Chile, specifically in the tenth, eleventh and twelfth regions, is also offering to foreign companies financing opportunities, such as loan guarantees with the banks, to encourage companies from Canada to establish themselves in Chile for joint ventures, partnerships, and operations for export markets from which the Canadian operation is supplying. Those monies are being allotted by the Government of Chile.
The Chairman: As I understand it, the fish farmers in Chile — I am not sure about Peru — would probably be the same farm owners that are farming in Canada right now. I am thinking of Stolt and Heritage and so on. I do not think I am wrong on that.
Would those major producers not be aware of Canadian products, services and advances in medicine and environmental standards? Would they not receptive to using products available in Canada now?
Mr. Fossbakk: They may be aware of it, but if it is not represented locally —
The Chairman: They would have a natural inclination to want to use Canadian products because they are using them in Canada now — or I think that they are. We have much better products than the companies that you listed, including those in Germany, Italy and a few other countries that are not into aquaculture or finfish. I would think they would have a natural desire to use the products with which they are familiar — products they are using in Canada.
Mr. Fossbakk: It might be true that they know about our products. However, most of those multi-nationals are not Canadian.
The Chairman: I agree.
Mr. Fossbakk: They operate in Scotland, Norway, Chile, and Canada. Those companies will look for the optimal product in their location based on their experience. However, when sourcing the equipment, they will look at the best quality at the best price at the time locally.
The Chairman: "Locally" is the key word.
Mr. Fossbakk: If you have a local representative, who has the best Canadian product —
The Chairman: That answers my question. We are not even present there. You have to peddle the product.
Mr. Fossbakk: Exactly. We have far too few products there compared with what could be there.
The Chairman: I am not a biologist but I believe Mr. Fossbakk knows a little more than you are letting on. Perhaps this is something that I should ask a biologist. Would cod, haddock or a product of that nature grow faster in southern waters than in northern waters? Is that how it works biologically?
Mr. Fossbakk: It is easy to think that way but some fish cannot handle warmer water. There is a degree of temperature that they can handle.
The Chairman: I believe that Atlantic salmon is being grown in Chile?
Mr. Fossbakk: Yes.
The Chairman: My guess is that it probably grows faster there, somewhat like a pine or spruce.
Mr. Fossbakk: It grows faster than it does in Newfoundland or Norway, yes.
The Chairman: Does that change the consistency of the meat to the point that a connoisseur might be able to tell the difference between a Chilean Atlantic salmon and a B.C. or Atlantic Canada salmon?
Mr. Fossbakk: No.
The Chairman: Good. You would have to have a good pallet.
Mr. Godoy: You would have to be a salmon sommelier.
The Chairman: Over the years — and I have been around for a long time — my experience is that whenever I go to another country I get the sense that the trade officials — not a reflection on Mr. Gallardo — are ready to talk Bombardier or Nortel but the second you start talking potatoes, trees, lumber, and fish, their eyes glaze over. They go into a different mode to say, "We are generalists. We do not really know that much but about it." I have that sense when I talk to Canadian trade officials in those countries.
Am I wrong about this? Have you had any kind of experience with this?
Ms. Taylor: We answered that with DFAIT because they had a representative from the trade commissioner's office there. We have been working with the embassy in Chile for two years now. We have just started a relationship in Peru. The problem is not related to an interest level but to the resource situation.
We try to generate interest in initiatives like this and give information that may not be readily available, because this kind of information is not something that you can just put together overnight. We try to make it a more interesting sector for the trade offices.
In our last meetings in Chile, we brought forth many different sectors in which they were very interested. Perhaps they do not have the resources or manpower to do that.
The Chairman: My experience has shown they always refer to the usual suspects. They might know everything about Bombardier, Nortel and so on. However, it stops there.
I have always had the impression that our trade officials do not seem to know all that much about resource products and services attached to them. That has been my experience. I may be completely wrong; I may be biased.
Mr. Fossbakk: That is an issue. I have firsthand experience.
The Chairman: I am not completely wrong on this then?
Mr. Fossbakk: No, you are not. However, that does not say anything about the quality of the service that they provide. It is a matter of choosing what you want to be when you grow up. Do you want to be a fisherman or an astronaut? What do you choose? As you grow up, you may not be exposed being a fisherman or workings on a fish farm. Personnel recruited to our missions abroad have made choices in life based on their own experience and exposure.
Officials at our posts say they never have enough personnel. Why do not they have enough personnel? They have 75 different industries that they need to service, each of which thinks it should be number one. Officials must make choices — sometimes these are very personal choices. When I was hired at the embassy in Oslo, I did not have the choice. I was handed what the others did not pick because I came in as the last one. Therefore, I was handed all the resource industries, plus a handful of other smaller portfolios.
I put a positive spin on it. I knew absolutely nothing about aquaculture when I started in 1990. However, I found it interesting. It challenged my mind. Your observation is absolutely true.
The Chairman: You mentioned that Canada has some image problems now with the finfish farming. The Canadian producers have had to adapt and become extremely vigilant with their environmental standards, probably much more so than anywhere else.
One of the areas in which I can see Canada helping other countries is in the development phase. This relates to the whole question of regulations, medicines, vaccines, and the environment area, which we have been very mindful of in Canada. Much of the criticism, even to this day, that may be not have all been earned, is making our producers very wary of how they produce.
This should be one of the areas that the Government of Canada should want to join, especially with what you are proposing: to tell Chile and Peru and we have to offer. If the production out of Chile and Peru is seen as positive, then we benefit. Obviously if the production out of those two countries is not seen as positive and we are not there, we will lose. Is that what you got from DFO?
Ms. Taylor: We not only got it from DFO but also from a lot of the ministers who come from the ridings. Even Environment Canada was very interested. This comes from Chile and Peru as well. Actions speak louder than words. Canadians, by and large, do not brag about doing things that show leadership. Implementing new standards on a world-wide level will benefit a lot of farmers here.
The Chairman: Have you talked to universities? P.E.I. is putting together a science program for medicine for fish. I assume other universities are on the West Coast are also doing this.
Ms. Taylor: We are working a lot with associations now because many of the biotechnological initiatives in both countries will involve institutions and e-learning initiatives. That will be a very large component.
The Chairman: I have one last point. You just mentioned that we do not brag often enough. Very few people realize that it was in fact Canada that developed and did the research into finfish farming; we were the very first ones to develop fish farming. Of course we were so proud of ourselves that we published all the data on it. Norway picked it up, applied the research, came back and purchased most of our small farmers because we had not made any kind of effort to place it into actual farming, So, Norway did it and grew much faster than we did because we were to busy snapping our suspenders in pride that we had neglected to apply the research we had done. Probably we should brag a little less and use what we know. We are experts at it.
Senator Cook: It would be helpful if you put up your map that shows Chile. I am trying to understand. Yes, it goes all the way down. Do you know the temperature of the southern most part in relation to the Grand Banks of the North Atlantic? It seems that one is far as south as the other is north. Would that area lend itself to cod aquaculture?
Where is the concentration of your present aquaculture operation in Chile? Does it extend all the along the coast or is it concentrated in the Santiago area? Where is it?
Mr. Fossbakk: To answer your first question about cod, I am not aware that cod has been tried, but I do not see why it should not grow there.
Senator Cook: I would think you are pretty cold down at the tip.
Mr. Fossbakk: It is pretty cold around Newfoundland and Labrador as well. If you are talking about farming cod, the problems in Newfoundland will be higher or more problematic than it would be along the Chilean coast because of the ice and the cold temperatures.
Senator Cook: However, a greater part of that coast is uninhabited. I am looking to see where the concentrations of your aquaculture sites are in Chile.
Mr. Fossbakk: Currently, Chile is divided into 12 different regions. The concentration is in what is called region 10, which is a flight of about an hour and one half south of Santiago. That is probably where 80 to 85 per cent of current production takes place. They are looking at region 11 and pushing towards region 12 but that is all. I think they are pushing their luck a little as well. However, you never know with the technology in the future. By the time they get to that point, the technology maybe there.
Senator Cook: Your concentration is in the south in Chile and yet there is an emerging aquaculture industry in Peru, which is quite north of Chile.
Mr. Fossbakk: Yes.
Senator Cook: Is there a reason for that?
Mr. Fossbakk: These two countries do not necessarily need to farm the same species, and currently they do not. As I pointed out earlier, Peru's current aquaculture is not found in the ocean. Their aquaculture is in lakes and ponds inland. However, they have that long coast, which is not utilized for farming and this is where they see potential to benefit from ocean farming technology that has been developed in Canada.
Mr. Godoy: We can see from this slide that Peru mainly farms scallops, trout, tilapia, lobster, giant paco — which is a vegetarian members of the piranha family — and other species that are mainly tropical species in continental aquaculture. This is done mostly inland in the Amazon and is mostly ornamental fish — those that are exported for fish tanks and aquariums, et cetera. However, most of it is done continently. Very little marine aquaculture has been done in Peru and it is mostly tilapia, a species that probably would not live or survive in the cold of southern Chilean waters or the cold of northern Canadian waters. That is why there is no salmon farmed and most likely why no salmon is found in the wild in Peru. It is too warm.
Senator Watt: Only in Peru, there is no wild salmon.
Mr. Godoy: No there is no salmon. It is too warm. Peru is much warmer than Chile.
Mr. Fossbakk: Are there no wild salmon in the south?
Mr. Godoy: Those are introduced species.
Senator Adams: Ms. Taylor, you mentioned Aboriginals. I do not know if you understand what is going on in Canada between Aboriginal land claims and everything. In Chile and Peru, do they recognize Aboriginals harvesting and hunting?
I am living in Nunavut right now. We settled over 10 years ago and we are not living on reserves like other Indians do across Canada. You mentioned some of the opportunities for aquaculture. We do not grow anything up where we live, except for animals. Do the Aboriginals have the rights in the areas where they live?
Ms. Taylor: Mr. Godoy will explain about Chile. It is very different in Peru because most of the people there are Aboriginal. They are not a minority. The president is an Aboriginal, so there are not those same issues.
However, there are problems relating to education, standards, and jobs. Many of these people are natural fishing people and can benefit from job creation. I think that is what is of interest to the current president. Chile is a very different situation.
Mr. Godoy: To add to Peru, what Ms. Taylor omitted to mention is that Quechua, which is an Aboriginal language of the peoples of the Andes, is an official language in Peru, as much as Spanish is. It is the same as if Cree was an official language with French and English, or Inuktitut or Mohawk. That really speaks very much in Peru to which role or what integration in Peruvian society Aboriginal people have.
As for Chile, the situation is slightly different. There are very many less people of Mapuche descent. They are mostly located in the south, and are very much involved in aquaculture farming as workers in the industry. They are also very present in other industries such as forestry, some mining, et cetera.
However, the issues that Ms. Taylor mentioned concerning the economic development of the Aboriginal peoples equally applies. We are talking about education, training, sustaining of high paying employment — those issues are shared across the globe for Aboriginal people, whether in Australia, Canada, the United States or South America.
Senator Hubley: Are the farmers in the aquaculture industry Peruvian or Chilean, or do they come from somewhere else?
Mr. Godoy: They are definitely locals — in Chile they are Mapuche; in Peru they come from various Aboriginal nations.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. It has been a most interesting evening. We have been able to cover areas that we had not covered when we did our aquaculture study.
Judging from the questions and from the interest of members, I believe most members are leaving tonight with much more appreciation of what you are proposing. I imagine we will be speaking with people who are the decision-makers in Ottawa — the ministers and officials and so on — to try to be helpful in what you are attempting to do to help our service and products industries to have access to a greater number of markets than they already have in their limited market at this time.
You are absolutely right, there needs to be access to more markets. If they are out there, especially in the American continent, I do not see why we should not be taking advantage of it. Thank you very much for making your presentation this evening. I hope we can be of help.
The committee adjourned.