Fisheries Committee on Oct. 26th, 2010

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

So there could be up to a year of data gap. How will you manage compliance and transparency during that year?

[Trevor Swerdfager]

No, I'm sorry, I misspoke.

There will not be a data gap per se. I phrased my response poorly. Essentially, what we're trying to do is to build a brand-new information management system that will bring together the diversity of data, some of which you identified. There's a whole range of data and information on the federal side as well.

Complicating matters perhaps slightly is that the provincial government reorganized itself yesterday, so the responsibilities for aquaculture have moved within provincial ministries and that will be potentially an additional complicating factor for us going forward.

What we're in the process of doing is building an information management system that will take what we have already, because we've got quite a robust licensing system of our own, and we will bolt it onto that for our existing fishing licences and so on. So in terms of a lot of the licensing information, we think we'll be able to simply expand that which we have already today.

For the environmental monitoring information that comes to us, we are building the system that will effectively store, manage, and organize that, and a lot of that we already had, because a lot of the information the province got, we got as well. So that's a matter of just integrating it slightly differently, but the challenge there is not huge.

But causing all this to come together in a way whereby we can depict the full range, all the fields of the information that we need to deal with, is a major undertaking, you're quite right. I would say that in terms of making the transition from the status quo to the future, that, in the longer term, is the single biggest chunk of work to undertake.

Having said that, I misspoke, I guess, in that I wouldn't want to leave the committee with any impression at all that when information on monitoring compliance reporting and so on starts flowing into us early in 2011--if we go live on December 19, we're not going to have data reports on December 20, but as those information fields start coming, we're ready for that. We have systems in place to store it as it comes to us. We will not have the single integrating system that will allow it all to be perfectly and seamlessly integrated right away.

We also will probably not have completed building the web interface. I mentioned earlier we're planning to post all of this. We will not do that on January 1. We will do that by the spring. I'm hoping it'll be earlier than that. I don't have a date for when we'd go live. So when I said “in 2011”, I meant early...i.e., not in December.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Monsieur Blais.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Thank you very much.

I did a search on Google just before coming back to this aspect... The first time I learned about the existence of aquaculture and that it could be something of great interest was when a company set up business in Chaleur Bay in my region at St-Omer, a lovely spot in our area. The company was called Baie des Chaleurs Aquaculture Inc. It was during the 1980s. At that time, if I remember correctly, they had set up the pools right next to the company, close to the shore, and later on, the same pools were installed inside the factory. In other words, they were installed on land and supplied with salt water. This was during the 1980s, I do not know exactly when; I was just looking for some information about this.

Thus, attempts have been made. And to my knowledge, the project was aborted not because it could not make a profit or anything like that, but because the company had developed too fast. Parasites set in along with diseases and the company's financial capabilities were not sufficient to quickly face this catastrophic situation. But this did not exclude the possibility of practising aquaculture. I think that they were working with salmon or with speckled trout and they were working in enclosed pools, but with a supply of salt water. This makes me think that for all kinds of reasons, aquaculture failed in some places, but it succeeded in other places. Clearly, in British Columbia, it has been a success, because we hear about it and we know that the installations are quite impressive.

To come back to the subject that we discussed a bit earlier, namely that there was no aquaculture in enclosed pools, do the things that I say remind you of some elements, even if you have to revisit what you told me a bit earlier? Not at all? All right.

I respectfully submit this question to you, and I think it would be interesting for you to take a close look at it. I know that eventually, you might come back before this committee, and we will have another opportunity to exchange opinions about these things, but I would be very interested to know what you think.

Regarding salmon lice, to my knowledge, the products they are using are chemical. Have any new products been developed? Are they potentially less dangerous than the products currently used against salmon lice?

[Trevor Swerdfager]

The main product for controlling.... And just to make sure I was clear earlier in my other response, I'm not familiar with the particular circumstances you're talking about in Quebec. I'll go back and look, and we can get back to you on that, in terms of the pilot projects or the previous ones.

With respect to sea lice, the main product that's used to control sea lice now is a chemical, or a drug rather, called SLICE, and it's administered by the feed. They mix it into the feed. The fish eats it. Essentially what SLICE does is paralyze the louse that attaches to the skin. The louse falls off and eventually dies.

Another way of treating sea lice is through what are called pesticides. In that scenario they put a skirt or a tarp around the cage. Skirts are open at the bottom; tarps are closed at the bottom. They introduce into the water a pesticide. The most commonly used one in New Brunswick right now is something called Salmosan. There's also another treatment that's called Alphamax that has just been registered by PMRA about 10 days ago. Those are available for use.

In addition, it's not a chemical per se, but they can treat with hydrogen peroxide, which physically knocks the lice off the fish.

The more innovative way of treating these situations is with the use of what they call a well boat. Are you familiar with it? No. A well boat is a big boat with a well basin in it. They can take the fish out of the water, put them into the water on the boat, treat them with whatever it is, put them back into the water, contain the water, and deal with it appropriately. It's very much the way of the future in terms of addressing these issues, because it doesn't require putting the treatment directly into the water; it's done in a contained facility on the boat.

There are three of them operating in New Brunswick now, and that may well be the way of the future going forward. We'll see.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Mr. Donnelly.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

I just had one question, Mr. Chair.

In terms of SLICE, could you tell me the chemical contents of SLICE and if it's considered a toxin?

[Trevor Swerdfager]

The active ingredient is something called emamectin benzoate. It's not considered toxic. It has been registered in the United States for a long time and recently here. Formerly, it's been in use in Canada for a while, but its formal, full registration only occurred seven or eight months ago or so. It's not considered a toxic substance.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

I guess a follow-up is, do you know of any other chemicals used in aquaculture that would be considered toxic or a toxin?

[Trevor Swerdfager]

Part of the environmental risk assessment that's done by PMRA when they determine whether or not to register a chemical turns around some of that issue. Essentially the risk assessments that have been done by PMRA with respect to Alphamax and Salmosan have concluded that if they're used according to the label, they don't pose an environmental risk in the context of their application, in this case in New Brunswick, and possibly in Newfoundland.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

So you're saying it's the use and the application that determines whether or not it is a toxin or is toxic.

[Trevor Swerdfager]

Yes, from the point of the way they do their work, it's an environmental risk assessment as opposed to a strict hazard.

So you may be aware that one of the things the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is working on now is a new regulation under section 36 of the Fisheries Act. It will be called the fish pathogen and pest treatment regulation.

Essentially what it will do is set out the conditions under which pesticides or pathogen treatments can be used in conjunction with the regulations administered by PMRA in an aquaculture context, so that the fisheries aspect issues are dealt with as well.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Donnelly.

Mr. Kamp.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have just a couple of quick questions. I think Mr. Cannan might have a question as well.

With respect to the licence fees, we're not in a position to be able to collect them immediately, I think you said. Will they then be retroactive once we've figured out, through the use of the User Fees Act, how to do that? That's one question.

Then when the minister, as the regulations say, issues an aquaculture licence and she specifies the conditions that are attached to that licence, what's the process for that? Is it somebody in Campbell River or somebody in Vancouver or somebody in Ottawa who's kind of sitting down...? Do they negotiate with the licence holder--or the operator, I guess I should say--about what those conditions should be? How do they come up with the long list of conditions that I assume will be customized for each licence?

[Trevor Swerdfager]

With respect to the matter of fees, the department hasn't given up on the possibility that the fee structure will be ready in time for the regulation coming into force in December. It's our expectation that we'll be in a position to bring a fee proposal forward in due course and that it may in fact be ready to be imposed, if you will, as part of the going live in December.

Our understanding at this point is that if a fee is not in place as of December 18, it's unlikely we would assess such a fee in a retroactive way. Now, that's not something we've finally and firmly resolved. There's a bit of a legal issue around some of that, so I can't say for certain which way it will go, but it's certainly not clear to us whether or not we could go back and do it retroactively, or whether we'd want to. The short answer is, there's some high degree of uncertainty there, but it's not likely.

With respect to the process of establishing the licences, what we expect to be able to do is to produce a generic template for the licence conditions. They will not be new news to most operators. They'll be very similar to those that are in place now; 80% to 85% of the licence will be absolutely identical from farm to farm to farm. Production figures and local circumstances will be entered in there. I wouldn't say none, but there will be a very limited amount of negotiation back and forth with the licence holder. It will be what it is. There may be some dickering around the nuances of some of the details and so on, but they will be known to the licence holder very, very early on and they will simply be required to comply.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you very much for your insight and the very fulsome discussion on the proposed regulations. Coming from the Okanagan and representing Kelowna—Lake Country, I'm not directly affected. The Adams River salmon run this year has been a spectacular tourist draw for the Shuswap and people from around the world coming through the British Columbia market. It's hard to put that in perspective, looking at what's happening out there today, but we have to look at the future. And I appreciate the efforts of you and your colleagues who have been working diligently on the transition.

On the licence timeline, are we still anticipating a four-year to seven-year process to get a licence?

[Trevor Swerdfager]

No. Our licence regime will be one that will issue decisions much more rapidly than that. We don't have a formal service standard in place that says there shall be a decision within a certain period of weeks or months or whatever. It will be x number of months. But our goal is to get the licence decision-making process substantially reduced from that timeframe. We're not looking at licence decisions that would be more than a year in nature.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

It is, as I said, a concern to many of my constituents. They have brought this up, the whole process. They're not against it totally, but they also want to see more transparency. Will the licence conditions be publicly available?

[Trevor Swerdfager]

Yes, they will. The licence conditions, in draft, will go out this week for public dialogue and so on.

To go back to the question that Ms. Murray was posing earlier with respect to information management, our intent early in 2011 is to have something available via the website, so that when you run your mouse over Vancouver Island or Broughton Archipelago, or what have you, up would pop farm number one, two, three, four, five, and you'd be able to click on that and get the terms and conditions of the licence, the licence holder, the fish that are there, sea lice information, disease information, benthic layer stuff, all of that kind of thing. That won't be ready on February 1, but that's where we're going. The data that sit underneath that are coming to us now and will be managed appropriately. We won't have stitched it all together perfectly by then.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

One quick comment. My former provincial colleague--he's retired now. A couple of years ago the provincial MLAs did their aquaculture study. I know they travelled a long way, and I'm looking forward to seeing firsthand....

From the transition, what has been your biggest challenge in this as you harmonize and bring the two systems together, and what do you see as the biggest opportunity?

[Trevor Swerdfager]

The challenges have been mostly around some of the stuff we talked about earlier insofar as trust. I think we are encountering a high degree of skepticism—from all parts of the country, it would seem. Certainly, in terms of the perception that people have of what DFO will do, we're encountering it at all corners. It's not any one segment of society. That has been, and is, a major challenge for us to deal with. It's one that I think the regulations are starting to begin to address, because we said to people, “Here's what we're planning to do”, and then the regulations say a lot of that. The real proof will be in the pudding, of course, when we start to administer it in 2011 going forward. I'm very confident that we'll do what we've said we will, but until we actually physically do it and people can see it, there will still be a bit of “I'm from Missouri” on this issue.

From the point of view of an opportunity, I think the biggest single one here is that we will substantially modernize the aquaculture management regime in British Columbia. It will be far more effective, far more efficient, way more transparent. This is the first piece of law that's been developed at the federal level specifically focused on aquaculture. Everything else, you use other tools to get at aquaculture, and to some considerable degree the same thing is true provincially. But this one is built specifically to deal with these circumstances. Today you have to have four provincial permits to conduct aquaculture. Going forward you'll have to have one. Today you have to have four federal permits, and going forward you'll have to have two. The taxpayer, I think, will save an awful lot of money, and we'll have decisions for or against sites and so on going forward in a much more efficient and effective way, I think.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, Mr. Swerdfager. On behalf of the committee, I want to say thank you very much, as one of our colleagues said today, for your candour. We really appreciate you coming today and enlightening the committee on the process and what you've been able to accomplish in this period of time.

Thank you very much, Mr. Swerdfager.

The meeting is adjourned.