Sure.
Evidence of meeting #129 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was aquaculture.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #129 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was aquaculture.
A recording is available from Parliament.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance
Sure.
Liberal
Liberal
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Thank you.
I want to pick up on something you mentioned before, Mr. Kennedy. You mentioned that the industry is capable of making some very dramatic changes to reduce the environmental impact of the sector.
I'm curious. Why have we not seen large-scale investments in things like closed containment—whether that's on land or in water—or semi-closed containment and some of the other technologies that can reduce farmed and wild salmon interaction?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance
That's a great question.
Mia, go ahead.
Executive Board Member, Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance
Thank you very much for that question.
I think it's very important that everybody understand the reason. You haven't seen that investment because of the transition process. The transition process chilled institutional investment in aquaculture in Canada. We have not had a dime of money in four years. We are four years behind every other salmon-producing region in the world because of the transition process. We are at high risk of being gone. That means the eggs, the brood stock, the support we give for salmon enhancement, the processing plants and the wharves we maintain so commercial and sport fishermen can land their catch. That means the roads we maintain. That means the grain we buy from Canadian farmers for feed. That means the feed mills. If we go, the feed mills will go. They don't just produce salmon feed.
Why haven't we done it? It's because we can't afford it. We can't afford it because there is no business certainty.
Liberal
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Thanks, Ms. Parker.
I want to go back to you, Mr. Bradley. You mentioned a number of things with the FAAs. One is that they're overwhelmed. You mentioned changes but also interpretation. What specific interpretation with FAAs do you see slowing down some of those processes?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Electricity Canada
What we would like to see in that space, and what would assist things, would be to put in place developments of alternative compliance mechanisms for low-risk, routine activities that would be relatively simple. We need to actually identify what those clear pathways to compliance are for existing facilities.
We should be looking at alternative compliance mechanisms, things like codes of practices and the codes that are actually useful for industry. We need the department to look at and acknowledge existing best management practices. We could look at greater use of provincial regulatory processes instead of seeing duplications. Right now, in the absence of this, a number of our members have facilities that are not in compliance. They do not have FAAs.
Liberal
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
I come from an environmental law background, so hearing some of this worries me a little bit, when you're moving into more professional reliance. In those cases, one, you might not have that watchful eye to ensure that things are actually being met, and two, oftentimes you're relying on a professional who has a bias, because they're hired by the industry.
How can you move in that direction, then, while still being able to ensure that you'll have the environmental protection that is meant to be the purpose of this act?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Electricity Canada
I think this goes back to my initial point, which was about the change in 2019 from the goal of protecting fisheries to protecting individual fish. I think the intention should go back to precisely that. From a legal standpoint, I think that would be the simplest step, at this stage. We've provided that as a recommendation in terms of the amendments. This would be really the starting point for this. It would remove the ambiguity we have today.
As I said earlier, we believe this will be absolutely essential if we're going to be able to continue to grow the clean electricity system and get good, clean electricity projects built. This legislation, other pieces of legislation, other regulations—I always see them on a bit of a spectrum. On one end of the spectrum, it's a barrier. On the other end of the spectrum, it's an enabler. If you're lucky, it's somewhere in the middle. Right now, the Fisheries Act is definitely on the side of that spectrum where it is a barrier. It could be an enabler, but it is not. We need to address this.
As I said, I hate coming back six years later and saying that we could have addressed this when we did the legislative change in 2019. I think we need to do it now.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Mr. Weiler.
Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Parker and Mr. Bradley, I want to thank you for sharing your knowledge with the committee members today. Hopefully, it will show up in the report that will be done at the end of the day on this particular study. Thank you for coming. We appreciate your being here.
On Monday, we will resume our study of the Fisheries Act. We'll have officials from DFO and Environment and Climate Change Canada for the first hour, and stakeholders for the second hour.
On the minister's appearance, the minister is available on December 4 for an hour, and officials for two hours, on the supplementary estimates (B).
The meeting is adjourned. Enjoy your evening.
