Fisheries Committee on March 22nd, 2010

[Trevor Swerdfager]

I can never decide whether to use the translation or not. I'm about three-quarters there, but not quite.

On the situation from a division of responsibilities for the management of aquaculture in B.C. today, pretend that the decision isn't there. Quebec is somewhat different. Obviously in Quebec we have a situation in which the inland fisheries are managed by the province, and so on. Fresh-water aquaculture, which is a significant component of the aquaculture industry in Quebec, is managed provincially and will continue to be.

The finfish aquaculture industry, which is the main focus of the decision in British Columbia, is not a significant industry in Quebec. I stand to be corrected, but it's essentially non-existent. Jurisdiction for the finfish industry is therefore not an issue in Quebec.

On the management of the shellfish component of the industry, in Quebec it's something of a shared jurisdiction. There is collaboration there. The base in Quebec in some respects is similar to B.C. and elsewhere, but not identical.

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

Something else is bothering me. I read the documents and I am worried about the challenges faced by fishermen and the aquaculture industry in British Columbia. There is talk of a lot of conflict or areas of turbulence, shall we say. Whether regulations are provincial or federal, their purpose is to improve the situation and provide penalties when needed. In my opinion, the fact that the federal government is responsible for the actual regulations will not necessarily solve the fundamental problem.

How do you perceive the federal government's responsibility in that area?

[Trevor Swerdfager]

The answer to your question of whether federal regulation and involvement will improve the situation is clearly yes. The involvement of the federal government will certainly bring more clarity around some of the regulatory aspects of the industry.

If you go back to the business of potential conflict between the wild capture and aquaculture industries, it is very important to keep returning in the British Columbia context. Jurisdiction over the land base and where aquaculture takes place remains with the province. So the resource land-use conflicts, to the extent that they exist today, in theory at least will exist in the future, but will be mediated or addressed primarily by the province.

The federal government today has a significant role in helping to contribute to provincial decisions and ensuring that new sites don't negatively affect fish and fish habitat. So there is some role there already. But by virtue of the federal involvement in licensing individual sites, we will be in a situation where once the province zones or allocates a particular part of the province for aquaculture, the individual site decisions will be much more directly made through licences from the federal government.

Some of the conflicts will certainly remain. The federal government is going to have a different role to play now, and will probably move to a model similar to the commercial fisheries, in which we develop integrated fisheries management plans and put those in place for aquaculture.

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

As you mentioned in one of your answers to my colleague, you were talking about some kind of overlap, meaning that the province will not necessarily be taken completely out from aquaculture. There will always be people working on it, perhaps to a lesser extent, but there will always be some responsibility.

Could you point out the things the province will still be doing in relation to the new responsibilities you are going to have?

[Trevor Swerdfager]

The province is going to remain quite heavily involved in the land allocation component of it. They will continue to have the fish health responsibility with some of site inspections and that kind of thing. The province also has people who are devoted to the marketing and promotion of the industry in trade shows, communication materials, and that kind of thing. That will continue.

Part of the decision is to issue a lease to aquaculture operations. Provinces consult extensively, particularly with first nations, so that will continue. Much of that role will continue. As I say, I don't know how many people there will be. There will be fewer than they have now, but it still will be quite a few. Our role will intersect with that quite closely, I think.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Mr. Donnelly.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I had a couple of questions I wanted to ask you, Mr. Chair, before I ask my four questions. I'm wondering if I should just ask all four of those questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Fill your boots.

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

All right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

You have five minutes.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Five minutes? It'll be less than five minutes.

Also, one or two are slightly broader than this decision, but they still relate to aquaculture.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Sure, Mr. Donnelly.

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

Thanks.

Thank you for appearing and for your presentation.

Here's my first question. You mentioned the aquaculture regulations. You're working on them. I'm wondering if you could comment on the timeline. When do you think they will be ready for implementation? Also, would they be coming in independent of the work on the Fisheries Act that is possibly being addressed or is being addressed?

Secondly, in terms of the emerging issue of SLICE resistance, could you comment on how the department is dealing with it? There have been some comments or allegations that there's some resistance to that being developed. Perhaps I could get your comment on that.

Thirdly, could you mention the relationship to the inquiry and how you see aquaculture fitting in, and if there's any decision to wait for the outcome of the inquiry before dealing with, for instance, the issue of SLICE, or other emerging issues that may need to be dealt with prior to the outcome of the inquiry?

Finally, there is interest on both sides, I guess, in the issue in aquaculture of looking at closed containment. I'm just curious to hear if you have a comment on what the impact would be of the transition from open net to closed containment. Perhaps you could provide comments on that.

[Trevor Swerdfager]

Thank you very much for those questions. If part-way through I can't read my own writing, I'll call on you to address them.

The first one has to do with the timelines for the regulations. The minister announced that the development of the regulations would begin in October of last year. Public consultations began on December 10. In Campbell River, we met for two days. I won't go through the whole list of meetings we've had, but we've had a number in Campbell River, Nanaimo, and Comox, of a fairly large and public nature. We've also had a series of bilateral meetings with more or less anybody who has asked us for such so that we have had plenty of feedback on what people feel should be in the regulation, what should not be in it, what it should do, and so on.

We are expecting that those consultations will wrap up, as I say, by the end of this month or maybe slip slightly into early April. We have established a regulatory drafting team now, and they are in the very preliminary stages. They haven't put fingers to keyboard yet on any of the stuff, because we still have feedback to come from the consultations, but they are doing the initial preparatory work, collecting data, comparing to other regulations, that kind of thing.

The regulation will be drafted over the course of the next six to eight weeks. It is our expectation that we would bring forward a draft regulation for consideration by Treasury Board in the late May or early June timeframe. I'm recognizing of course that we're not in complete control of that schedule, so I'm giving you all the approximations as we go. Assuming Treasury Board is comfortable with the proposal that the minister makes to them, the regulation probably would be tabled in Canada Gazette sometime in around mid- to late June, perhaps slightly earlier, if we're able to accelerate some of the internal process work.

We are anticipating a 60-day public review period for the regulation. The requirement under the federal regulatory policy is 30 days, but it has come to our notice that aquaculture is occasionally controversial in British Columbia, and there may not be a unanimous view, in terms of the commentary received, so we're affording more time for commentary to come in.

Once that period closes--so now we are, give or take, talking about the end of August--we will analyze the feedback that's received, both the information from the public review of the regulation itself and anything else we learn as we go forward. Our anticipation is that, based on that analysis, the revisions necessary will be proposed back to Treasury Board for consideration as a final rule that would come forward. This is dependent obviously on Treasury Board's timing. I don't have a specific date by any means for this, but it will be towards the end of October. Our intent is that the regulation would come into effect on or before December 18, 2010.

In parallel with that, I should just point out that, to go back to some of the questions from earlier on, we are simultaneously building a program to implement all of that, and the timelines for that are moving apace in terms of booking office space and people, and buying boats and trucks, and all those kinds of good stuff. So that's happening in parallel with it.

Does that answer the question on the timelines okay?

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

There is just the additional comment on the Fisheries Act.

[Trevor Swerdfager]

Sorry.

In terms of the link to the Fisheries Act, at this point we are on a court timeline and deadline, so we think the game plan I've outlined to you will just continue regardless. If at some point the Fisheries Act comes along on a parallel or a separate track and amendments are made to it at some point in due course, obviously the government will respond to that or put in place a different regime. But it's possible that the Fisheries Act changes would not occur before the end of the calendar year, and we have to have this regulation in place. So at this point anyway, the plan is that the regulation will continue as is, and then obviously it will deflect off course, so to speak, if the Fisheries Act process requires that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Swerdfager.

Mr. Kamp, do you have any questions?

We'll be able to return in the second round. You can get the rest of your questions.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Trevor, for coming. I appreciate your input on this.

As you've mentioned, it's a fairly controversial issue in B.C. I think my colleagues have asked some very cogent questions, and we appreciate the answers.

I don't think I heard the amount of the additional A-base funding in order to manage the new regime. Do you know that amount?

[Trevor Swerdfager]

The initial amount in year one will be $12.7 million. There will be $8.3 million annually going forward from that. There's a small spike in the first two years to allow for acquisition of equipment, office space, one-time costs, and then that will continue in the A-base of the department going forward.

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

Is there a revenue stream as well when we take this over? Or is it mostly just an expense?

[Trevor Swerdfager]

There is a revenue stream. I can't tell you what it is because we haven't figured out the revenue system or the fee structure yet, but the new federal licence, if there is one--and there is likely to be one in the regulation--will have a fee attached to it. I can't tell you what that fee would be. It will be substantially more than zero. It will not be a nominal, trivial, or administrative type of fee, but there will be a certain revenue. The program is not being set up, though, on a cost-recovery basis, so the revenues will not equal the expenditures.

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

The judge's decision to allow an extension until December also came with some conditions, I think, in terms of the expansion of the industry. So that's being followed, I assume.

[Trevor Swerdfager]

Yes, it is.

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

So the industry hasn't been expanding during that time.

Can you, just for our benefit, compare and contrast the old system where, from an industry point of view, a fish farmer wanted to start an operation, what they had to do, what hoops they had to jump through, and what it would look like under the new system?