Agriculture Committee on Dec. 10th, 2013

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for coming.

I'm from Cape Breton, and our aquaculture is moving along pretty well. We've had some hiccups, but because of our clean water and our temperatures, it's doing quite well.

We had one situation with an oyster farmer. You mentioned the regulations. They're trying to get oyster seed from the States, and it's just been brutal going through the regulations. You have not only provincial and federal but also different departments. Some of them go through a Canadian agriculture agency, and the others go through DFO. This family has been going through hell in the last couple of years trying to get these oyster seeds in because they're resistant to a certain disease. They just can't get it done.

It just doesn't seem as though the government is changing. It's as if, as you said, it's stuck in this rut with old regulations from way back. With an industry growing so fast, with so much potential, who has to take the lead on this? I guess the federal government has to take the lead, but should it be a different department? Should it get out of DFO and be in agriculture? If you had a magic wand, who would you call on the carpet and say, “Okay, listen guys, this is what we have to do because Norway, Chile, and everybody else is just passing us by”?

[Ruth Salmon]

You raise a really good example of exactly some of the issues we're dealing with, and that is the duplication even within federal departments. They're arguing and fighting about who should be doing what. I think you raise a really good example. I guess that's really why we've been advocating for our own national legislation that addresses some of the unique aspects of our industry. It is a farming industry. We're not fishing. The Fisheries Act is about conservation and protection, which is critical, but it doesn't guide a new industry, as you say.

I think that piece is the foundation piece. Whose responsibility is it? We've been less vocal about that simply because I think in the past there has been a debate about whether it should be Agriculture or DFO, and as a result it got into that kind of jurisdictional debate and never went anywhere.

We've been trying to elevate the discussion to the importance for Canada to take the opportunity for increasing the production of a healthy nutritious seafood that Canadians need, reducing imports of seafood, allowing expansions, all these positive benefits. We've been trying to elevate the discussion to that so that it's a win-win and less about the details of who's responsible.

I think some of our members have specific ideas about that, but from our perspective, we really just want to have a national vision, and it really is the federal government that needs to say, “We want a farmed seafood industry. We want to be competitive. It's a growing industry. We know we need to produce protein for the world. Let's get behind it.”

That's really what we're advocating for, a national vision, and from that, regulatory reform and a national aquaculture act. It may be less important who's responsible.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

It would probably be best to start off with agriculture. This committee should look at that because many of the practices you do with seafood aquaculture are the same as the ones we do in farming, in the processing systems, anyway.

[Ruth Salmon]

Absolutely. When you look at the definition of “aquaculture” from the FAO, it's the farming of seafood plants and the shellfish and finfish. It's the activity that makes us farmers. We happen to do it in the water, but the activity is the same thing as any other terrestrial farmer.

So I agree.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Okay, I have two quick questions.

Mr. Westcott, your notes say that roughly $30 million in spirits go to Europe.

[Jan Westcott]

Approximately, yes.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

What's your comparison with the United States, or Asia maybe?

[C.J. Helie, Executive Vice-President, Spirits Canada]

It's 83% of our $520 million, so it's over $430 million.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

The United States is still our big—

[C.J. Helie]

Oh, by far: 80%.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Also Asia, Europe, China and Japan?

[C.J. Helie]

The EU would be number two as a group, and then Japan, Australia, Russia, South Africa.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

What would be a promotional thing for local wines? Sometimes we get into provinces doing their things, but we have a bit of a patchwork system with our tourism promotion. What could we be doing with our wine industry if there were a program? What would you want to see in it?

[Dan Paszkowski]

Well, one of the key things we'd like to do is what our competition does. Australia, New Zealand, France come to Canada and they do white tabletop tastings across the country in major centres. It attracts thousands of people who come and try their wines. Not only does that give exposure to the Canadian population, the liquor boards love it, because consumers are being educated about Canadian wines or Australian wines, and then they list those products and we get greater sales.

Interestingly, if you take a look at the 10 provinces across Canada, only two provinces sell VQA wines at a market share of greater than 4%. All the other provinces sell at less than 4% for 100% Canadian wines. We did this back around 2000 with the support of the federal government. The program ended. If we can do that type of what we call Canada à la carte, and take our best products and our wineries across the country on tour so people can taste our wines, it results in greater sales and greater market share.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you.

We'll now move to Mr. Preston, for five minutes, please.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for coming today. I have questions for everybody.

Aquaculture is first. Currently, there's a tariff of between 11% and 25% on Canadian aquaculture products into the EU, and you said some come off over a seven-year period, but what do we lose right away?

[Ruth Salmon]

I think 95% or 97% comes off immediately. I think we're going to see some immediate gains right away.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

That's a heck of a price decrease for Canada's aquaculture products in Europe.

[Ruth Salmon]

It's huge. Certainly, those companies that are already there will take great advantage of it. It is now a new market that others are looking at very seriously if they can grow their production.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

That was going to be my next question. I know from the industry that production has, as you said, gone up through the 1990s and into 2000 and then kind of flatlined on production, mostly because of regulation and changes, and that type of thing.

Can we ramp up as much as demand is going to be here?

[Ruth Salmon]

Our sense is that we can grow. Our focus is on growing responsibly. Even though this is a growing world market for seafood we want to ensure that we do it sustainably and responsibly. I think our companies are ready to invest with that kind of perspective in mind, without doing it too fast, too much. I think we can gain considerable ground, but in doing it responsibly.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

I understand that. You mentioned a win-win. I immediately read the numbers here, and you suggest that we currently employ 14,500 people in the aquaculture industry and with just a little push on production in where we want to be, in 15 years we could more than triple that.

[Ruth Salmon]

Right.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

That's jobs in rural communities. That's jobs in small-town Canada.

On the coast and inland, as I know in my own rural riding, the heart of tobacco country, and I've grown tilapia, we need those jobs, we need them badly, so be sustainable but be quick.

[Ruth Salmon]

The investment is there. There's no question the investment is there if there is a signal to move forward.