Fisheries Committee on May 15th, 2007

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you.

Mr. Murray, we had a group of people from the west coast here talking about some concerns over the Larocque decision. The transcripts—the blues—were sent to you, and you indicated you were going to give a written analysis of those comments. When would the committee be able to anticipate that written response to their questions?

[Larry Murray]

I think it's a fairly complex piece of work. We'll do it as soon as we can.

David, do you have a sense of timing, since you're working on it?

[David Bevan]

We could try for the end of the month or the first week of June.

[Larry Murray]

We'll do it as soon as we can, but obviously there are some real legal edges around all this stuff, and we have to be careful.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Yes; that's understandable.

Madame Watson-Wright, my discussion with some folks at BIO and across the country is that, as in any public service department, there is a concern about retention and recruitment.

Put aside for a second the financial concerns the Larocque decision has placed on the department regarding science and research funding. In terms of human capital, in terms of people, what is the department doing not only to retain the current scientists and researchers the department has, but for future scientists down the road—not just for BIO, but for the Lamontagne centre in Quebec, as well as for the west coast?

[Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright, Assistant Deputy Minister, Science Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Thank you very much for the question.

In fact, the human resource strategy for the science sector within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has been discussed most recently by the science management board. This is a small committee, chaired by the deputy, that includes the ADMs of the client sectors, some of our RDGs, and some of our senior scientists.

This was discussed about two weeks ago by the science management board. It will be coming to the departmental management committee the day after tomorrow. We're hoping to receive support for the plan there.

In terms of retention and recruitment, we initiated last year, for the first time in a few years, a modest recruitment of research scientists, and we were able to hire 13 across the country. We intend to proceed with hiring in those classification groups within which we have the largest gaps, and certainly now we recognize that we need to recruit in the technicians group—what's called the EG group, our largest group within the sector—as well as recruit biologists and some chemists.

Within our resource levels we intend to allocate toward recruitment. In terms of retention, there are a number of different initiatives that will be underway. Most importantly, we wish to retain the knowledge of some of our more senior scientists, who are eligible to retire in the near future.

Luckily for us, we have a very effective scientist emeritus program, and we're intending to expand it beyond the research scientists to other sorts of classifications. These people agree to stay on if we provide them with a computer and a place to sit without having to actually pay their salaries.

In fact, in two weeks I'll be going to BIO, where one of our hydrographers is moving from paid employment to emeritus status after 43 years of service. So we can retain some, but we recognize that we have to be more effective in retaining some of the younger ones. A lot of it has to do with resources, and I think the injection of resources in budget 2007 is helping us to proceed.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you.

My last question for you for this round is this. In Newfoundland, in New Brunswick, and in Nova Scotia now, especially.... Look at the future of Canso, one of the oldest fishing villages in North America; this year it will have no fish processed at all in its plants. It's the first time in its history, and it's really quite sad. But there are an awful lot of plant workers and fishermen, not just in the Maritimes region, but in Newfoundland and Labrador. They've been asking for a possible—and I know it's fiscally quite constraining—pension buy-out for older workers in the fishing industry.

Have there been any discussions at the federal level with the provinces and with other agencies, such as HRSDC or Service Canada, to assist those older plant workers and/or older fishermen to exit the industry with some form of financial dignity?

[Larry Murray]

Maybe I'll start and then ask Mr. Bevan to add to this.

In terms of plant workers, I think Parliament has been discussing this issue, to some extent, and the federal government does have a study under way on older workers. I may be wrong, but I believe that study is due to be completed this fall.

In terms of fishermen, certainly the minister's “Ocean to Plate” strategy and a number of the initiatives announced in Newfoundland—not only in relation to Newfoundland and Labrador, but also Atlantic-wide—focus on trying to put in play mechanisms that would allow some kind of self-rationalization, if I can say that. Certainly the combining initiative in Newfoundland and Labrador, which the minister is open to hearing about from other fleets around the Maritimes, is part of that, particularly when married with the capital gains tax measures in the last two budgets. Those measures mean that fishermen can either pass it on in the family, with no tax hit, or if they're selling outside the family, they have a $750,000 capital gain, which could translate into $180,000 in the pocket of a licence holder, so it's not loose change.

So there are a number of initiatives trying to assist the demographic shift that is going to happen in this industry, as will happen in a number of others, just given the age and the nature of the work.

David, do you want to continue?

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Raynald Blais]

I would simply like to point out that we have gone well over time. Given the importance of the topic, I would ask that Mr. Bevan be allowed to conclude.

[David Bevan]

I think there are two issues. One is displaced workers and towns where there are no longer any fishing or fish processing activities; the other is the older worker issue, which the deputy has talked to.

There's actually a growing concern in the industry about labour shortages, both for crew as well as for processing jobs. You see advertisements now for foreign workers; that's been a practice in the past. So there is a need to really look at how we manage both the processing and the harvesting. The federal government looks after harvesting, and we are introducing measures to preserve the independence of the inshore fleet in Atlantic Canada, trying to make sure the enterprises rest with the inshore fishing fleet and at the same time allowing combining, so that those who remain in the industry will be able to get the crew and make the livelihood necessary to attract and retain workers, both in harvesting and processing, where the same thing will have to be contemplated. We aren't getting younger workers into the fish processing business, and unless that happens, obviously there's going to be a labour shortage shortly.

So both of those are elements of the April 12 announcement.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Raynald Blais]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just have a few quick questions, and a number of them deal with aquaculture. I'm just very curious. I went through the estimates and I noticed that there's not a whole lot of spending or full-time equivalents on that; I think there are 29 full-time equivalents, if I remember correctly, and about $3.8 million spent annually in aquaculture. I'm concerned about it from a food supply and food safety perspective.

I just want some clarification before I go any further, though. I get reports from the B.C. Ministry of Environment, and obviously Fisheries and Oceans Canada has a role to play in this, and so does the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. If I could get, as quickly as possible, some clarification on where the jurisdictional boundaries lie, I would appreciate that.

[David Bevan]

When you look at the main estimates, you're actually looking at the budget of the aquaculture management division. Those are the people who look at coordinating support for the industry, etc. There are a lot of other people, obviously, who are engaged in the regulation of the aquaculture industry. Habitat is involved. We also have CFIA, as you noted. There's a role for Transport Canada, in terms of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and CEAA, etc. When you look at all of those pieces of other organizations, there are substantial resources. We just don't have them captured that way, because it's a matter of a piece of somebody in Transport Canada, CEAA, and so on.

So the people you're looking at, the FTEs, in the budget are the ones who are dedicated to helping deal with the issues, coordinating the work of the various departments and involved in managing aquaculture, etc. So they are catalysts, and their numbers don't reflect the actual amount of work done by the federal government or the provinces in managing the aquaculture industry.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Given that, fish obviously are the jurisdiction of DFO when they're in the ocean, right? So we're talking about one of these aquaculture facilities, one of these floating ones that's out in a fjord or something like that, and I'm just trying to get a fair understanding of this. When does the salmon obviously fall under the jurisdiction of DFO? When does it become food? Obviously after it's been killed and is going to market. But how does that happen?

[David Bevan]

It's a fairly complex jurisdiction. When somebody comes forward looking for an aquaculture site, they come to Fisheries and Oceans relevant to the Fisheries Act and habitat provisions. The Navigable Waters Protection Act is administered by Transport Canada. That may trigger a CEA, which is administered by the agency. Once all those steps are gone through, in most provinces, with the exception of P.E.I., the sites are actually provided by the province. So all of the steps then lead you to the province, which approves the site based on all the criteria they have along with the criteria that we have, as a federal government. When the fish is in the water it's property, so that means it's joint federal and provincial jurisdiction. Once it starts to come out of the water, it's property. It goes into a processing plant, subject to registration by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and they apply standards set by Health Canada. So it's a fairly complex array of agencies and groups involved in the regulation of the industry.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

My concern here is—because it's very complicated, I'm sure that there are qualified, competent people looking after all of this—I've heard, as we're all aware, there's been some melamine found in wheat gluten that has found its way into pet food supplies and so on. There was a report in the media a little while ago out of the United States that farmed fish in the U.S. were fed a meal spiked with an industrial chemical linked to the ongoing recall of pet foods. I'm just wondering what role DFO have, if any, in deciding what these fish that are raised in aquaculture are fed.

[Larry Murray]

Thanks very much. I'll hand off to Wendy to answer that specific question, but I wouldn't mind picking up where we left off the last one.

The minister has been pushing hard, working closely with his provincial colleagues to bring forward something called an aquaculture framework agreement. It's a three-part thing, but the first element of it is around governance, which is code for sorting out all this regulatory stuff that David talked about, so that we and the provinces and everybody involved work very closely together so that, from the industry's end of this thing and from environment groups and others, it's clear who's doing what to whom. And we do it in the most effective manner possible. And there are timelines around it as well, so if that if you're thinking about investing in this industry, you have some confidence that you're going to get an answer of yes or no, as opposed to maybe for an extended period of time. The minister has been pushing this very hard, and he has total support from all his provincial colleagues that this does need to move forward. It also has attached to it additional science and R and D.

We do additional development work in support of aquaculture from our science sector as well, and the elements of trying to give that industry some of the same kind of protection around crop-risk insurance that agriculture has.

So there is an initiative underway to try to come to grips with this kind of spaghetti mix of regulatory stuff. But in relation to the specifics of the most recent thing you raise, which was a really good question, Wendy, do you want talk to that?

[Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright]

Certainly. It is a CFIA lead on this, but we work very closely with CFIA. If it has an impact on the health of the animal, of course the national aquatic animal health program, which again is a CFIA lead with DFO support, is in there. Many of the same people are involved in all of these things.

In terms of the nutrition and feed for animals, we do work on the research side, in conjunction with industry, academics, and the National Research Council, for example. Currently, one of the initiatives is looking at alternatives to fish meal, for example, looking at vegetable products that go into the feed.

But when something like melamine happens, it's immediately a CFIA lead with support from DFO science and support from other scientists who we know would have the expertise necessary. Of course, on the human health side, Health Canada has a role to play there.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Good.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Raynald Blais]

Three minutes thirteen seconds, twelve seconds!

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thanks.

I want to go on, and hopefully you'll have some latitude with me, seeing as how you've had some latitude with some of the others here.

I want to talk from a cost-effectiveness point of view. I have a report here from the Vancouver Sun that came from the B.C. Ministry of Environment. It says that the total wild salmon harvest in 2005 was 26,300 tonnes—I believe that's accurate—and farmed salmon was 70,600 tonnes, so a little more than double. When you look at it and do the cost-out, the wholesale value to the province of captured wild salmon was $212 million, while the farmed salmon was $371 million. Wild salmon was worth about $8 million a tonne, and farmed salmon was worth about $5.2 million a tonne.

I'm wondering if there are any programs looking at that through the estimates here. Maybe we're going about it the wrong way. I'm also wondering if there is any money being spent to look at either adding value to the aquaculture or perhaps investing in the wild salmon, which seems to bear a better value on the open market.

[David Bevan]

Right now, the price for aquaculture products is fairly good compared to recent past numbers, and it's a very profitable process. The wild salmon is sockeye, and there are a lot of sockeye there, and there are other species in that mix that are very desirable on the market. There is a niche market for wild fish that provides more value.

So both sides of that equation are doing quite well, and it's difficult for us to add more value through government programs. On the aquaculture side, they're finding it quite profitable at the current prices.

[Larry Murray]

I think you've hit the nail on the head in terms of what we should be doing. That's why we're trying to look at this ocean-to-plate approach and bring value to the fishery.

There's no question that notwithstanding the challenges, the wild salmon fishery is kind of a derby-run fishery to some extent. That's what we're trying to have a look at, because troller-caught wild salmon is worth a lot of money, and salmon caught by seiners as well.

We need to figure out how to work with industry to enable them to catch the fish at the right time to get maximum market value. It's a question of how we manage the fishery to give those people the best possible living with high-quality wild salmon that is worth a lot of money.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

That was my point, and I'm hopeful and optimistic that maybe through some of the changes and evaluations you're talking about and going through, we'll take a look at that, because the sport-fishing industry also faces some challenges on B.C.'s west coast.

It's very lucrative when you look at the price per pound of wild salmon. So I'm certainly hopeful and optimistic that we'll make sure that everybody gets their fair share on the west coast.