2006 Legislative Session: Second Session, 38th Parliament
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON SUSTAINABLE AQUACULTURE
MINUTES AND HANSARD

MINUTES SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON SUSTAINABLE AQUACULTURE Tuesday, April 25, 2006 10 a.m. Birch Committee Room Parliament Buildings, Victoria

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON 
SUSTAINABLE AQUACULTURE

TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2006

ISSN 1718-1062

[ Page 47 ]

TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2006          

           The committee met at 10:06 a.m.

           [R. Austin in the chair.]

           R. Austin (Chair): Good morning, everybody.

           I'd like to bring this meeting to order and thank everybody for coming here today. In particular, I'd like to thank Bud Graham for coming here to make a presentation. The thrust of the meeting today is to look at one of the terms of reference, although I'm sure Bud will speak to some of the others.

           We're here to discuss and to be informed about the regulatory regime around the aquaculture industry. My understanding is that Mr. Graham has worked for many years in government and, hopefully, can give us some overview of the regulatory regime: where we have come from over the years, where we are at today and, perhaps also where we are relative to others' jurisdictions around the world. I'll leave that up to Bud.

           C. James (Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees): If I could just make a technical or administrative comment for all members of the committee and for those who may be listening to or reading the transcripts afterward, this is a public meeting, and of course, it is being duly recorded by Hansard and will be printed by Hansard.

           As I understand it, those who log on to the Internet could, I believe, listen to the audio portion of this proceeding as well. In any event, everything will be recorded, transcribed and subsequently published on the Internet and available for members as well.

           R. Austin (Chair): Thank you.

           With that I will turn the floor over to Bud Graham.

Presentations

           B. Graham: I don't know whether there was a bit of a miscommunication, but I thought what I was here today to describe for you was the role of the new oceans and marine fisheries division within the Ministry of Environment. That's the presentation I have prepared for today, and I'm prepared to go through that.

           As mentioned in the introduction, I have been involved with the aquaculture industry in British Columbia. I was the ADM responsible for that in the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries until government reorganized last summer. My position was moved to Ministry of Environment to set up this new division within Ministry of Environment.

           I'd be quite pleased to answer your questions as they may come up, but I need to be clear that the responsibility for aquaculture and aquaculture management lies with the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. I don't want to be treading on my colleagues' areas of responsibility, but I will do my best to answer the questions you pose to me today.

           R. Austin (Chair): We'll let you go on with your presentation.

           There has been a little bit of miscommunication. I was under the understanding that we were really going to look at the history of the regulatory regimes, but seeing that you are here, you can certainly answer our questions and go back and give us a history, maybe after your presentation, if we have time, on some of the regulatory regime, as to where it has come from, say over the last several years.

           B. Graham: Okay. I'll respond to those questions, but I have a little bit of trepidation. I don't want the Deputy Minister of MAL coming after me for treading on his territory, but I'll give you a historical perspective on that.

           R. Austin (Chair): Yes, thank you.

[1010]

           B. Graham: I have a reasonably short presentation I wanted to make, which I'll run through. Perhaps I'll field questions related to my presentation first. Then we can move on to the other areas.

           On the content of this presentation, you do have copies of what I'm going to present today, which have been circulated for you. I wanted to give a little bit of background on oceans and marine fisheries in British Columbia and to talk a little bit about the role of the division in the Ministry of Environment. I wanted to talk about the structure of the division and some of the activities we will be undertaking as part of this particular division.

           As far as background, when people talk about ocean resources, we're talking about approximately 29,000 kilometres of coastline in British Columbia, about 6,000 islands and approximately 450,000 square kilometres of internal and offshore waters. The distinction between internal and offshore is basically the land between Vancouver Island and the mainland.

           The seabed is provincial jurisdiction, and that would be classified as internal waters, where the offshore is the area that would be on the continental shelf and out to 200 miles. There's a bit of a jurisdictional issue associated with areas like Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound as to whether those are in fact internal waters of British Columbia. The simple issue is that there has not been a closing line put from off the Vancouver Island to the bottom of the Queen Charlottes and, subsequently, from the top of the Charlottes to point A of the IB line to designate those as internal waters of British Columbia. Then, the 200-mile limit is calculated from that particular point.

           Ocean-related industries contribute about $6 billion to the B.C. economy. That was a study done back in 2000. We're currently initiating a process to update those particular numbers, because the 2000 study is significantly old now, and we would like to have a fresh look at that.

           When I talk about ocean-related industry, I'm talking about the whole suite of industries that are out there: marine transportation; cruise ships; eco-tourism; fishing; the new technology industries, like the sub-

[ Page 48 ]

mersibles that are being used to examine the Queen of the North as B.C.'s technology.

           When we talk about commercial fisheries, there are more than 80 marine species that are harvested in British Columbia in commercial fisheries, and there are 3,000 commercial fishing vessels holding a total of 7,468 fishing licences. Why there's a difference in those two numbers is because many vessels are multiple-licensed in various fisheries, so the vessel will have opportunities to participate in a number of different fisheries. It's interesting to note that 26.9 percent of those licences are held by first nations. There are about 167 active processing plants for commercial fisheries in B.C.

           When you look at how that breaks down, the 2004 harvest and wholesale value…. What I've included in the handout to you is a copy of The 2004 British Columbia Seafood Industry Year In Review, which is a publication the ministry puts out on an annual basis that gives a snapshot of what fisheries and aquaculture contribute in B.C. If we look at salmon: currently, in 2004, it was about 25,500 metric tons, with an economic wholesale value of $219 million.

           The important issue to note is why I'm referring to wholesale value. It's because the majority of our fish products are exported. What wholesale value does is capture the value-added processing that takes place in B.C. fish plants that's added on to it. It's not just the value that fishermen receive for the sale of their catch, but also that the processors obtain as part of processing that fish and selling it in the international marketplace. What we commonly refer to as wholesale value looks at the true benefits to the province from that.

           The other point to note is that with salmon, the number is down from approximately 70,000 metric tons back in the early part of the '90s and late part of the '80s, when salmon production was very high in the province.

[1015]

           Herring, very similar volume numbers: 24,400 metric tons, $93 million. Both salmon and herring used to be the fundamental backbone of our commercial fisheries in British Columbia. Because of declines in some salmon stocks and changes in the management regime — the way the federal government manages that fishery — as well as changing taste preferences in Japan and the decline of the Japanese market, roe herring is no longer quite the valuable product that it was to us historically.

           On the other hand, some of our other fisheries have really blossomed in the province: groundfish at almost 181,000 metric tons, $261 million; shellfish at 21,600 metric tons and $195 million. And I added tuna, because people oftentimes don't know that we have a tuna fishery in British Columbia. It's reasonably small volume, only 7,800 metric tons, but it contributed $36 million in wholesale value to the economy, so it's not insignificant.

           It's one that's developed particularly after the downturn in some of the salmon opportunities on the coast. A lot of the A licence trollers turned their attention to tuna and have been participating actively in the tuna fishery. That occurs, interestingly enough, off the B.C. coast, but we have a reciprocal access with the United States so that our tuna boats can go down to the Mexican border in U.S. waters and participate in that fishery as well. The U.S. also has reciprocal access into our zone.

           Another area that's important in marine fisheries is the tidal recreational fishery. DFO sells about 330,000 tidal recreational licences annually. Of that total, about 55,000 of them are free licences given to youths under 16 years old who are participating in the fisheries with their families. You have to have a licence to allow your child to fish there, so that's the whole issue of the free licence.

           Also, there are 125 lodges and about 500 charter boat operations in British Columbia.

           Seafood processing: fresh and frozen make up 54 percent and 23 percent respectively of the wholesale value, so the vast majority of our product is going out as fresh and frozen. A large extent of that, 85 percent to 90 percent of the seafood production, is exported from Canada.

           The largest market is the U.S., followed by Japan. That trend has changed dramatically since the growth of the aquaculture industry in British Columbia. The large marketplace for our aquaculture product is the U.S. because of our proximity to the U.S. marketplace. Japan has declined in some of its value. As price competition became more intense, they started turning to Chilean coho to replace sockeye in the marketplace there. They get the nice red flesh, but it's a much cheaper product for the consumer. That certainly changed dramatically the fresh-frozen market in Japan .

           Another thing I wanted to point out is freshwater recreational fisheries. The province has a responsibility for the regulation of freshwater fisheries. I use the term "regulation" very specifically. The federal government delegated to British Columbia, back in 1937, the opportunity for the province to make the regulations associated with it, but they have not abandoned their constitutional responsibility associated with the management of fisheries. Just a portion of the authority has been provided to the provincial government.

           Responsibilities for freshwater recreational fishing lie in the environmental stewardship division of the Ministry of Environment, so it's in the same ministry but not in my division of the ministry.

[1020]

           If I wanted to describe the role of the division: responsibility for overall leadership of the provincial government's strategies, initiatives related to ocean resources and marine fisheries. Basically, our objectives are to facilitate sustainable management and development of our ocean resources; to influence federal management of Pacific fisheries to ensure that provincial objectives are reflected in a more collaborative decision-making process; and to encourage the development of a growing, vibrant and sustainable seafood industry in British Columbia.

[ Page 49 ]

           When I used the term "seafood" in this last statement, I'm talking about seafood in all of their products, whether it be aquaculture or our wild-capture fisheries. We export from British Columbia, and it's up to the consumer to determine what they want from those various products.

           The structure of the division is divided into three branches: an oceans resources branch, a marine fisheries branch and a seafood development branch. The operating budget in 2006-2007 is $2.149 million, but you got all that in the estimates debate. The staff complement is 13 FTE.

           As you can see, we are a very small unit, which also reflects the fact that we don't have constitutional responsibility for fisheries. We're trying to influence the federal government in the decisions they make and how that might influence the economy in British Columbia. The way it is organized is that I have a single director and the three branches there. Given the size of my division, it didn't seem appropriate to organize any other way.

           What I am going to do now is look at those three branches and talk about what we're trying to do with each of the branches in ocean resources, sustainability and collective management in the use of our ocean resources.

           The key strategies are to identify, coordinate and advance provincial objectives as they relate to ocean resources; to influence implementation of the federal ocean strategy by coordinating the development of six subagreements under the MOU we signed with the federal government; and to facilitate the long-term development of a shared-governance framework for oceans management in British Columbia.

           If we move to marine fisheries, we're trying to enhance the economic, social and environmental benefits of viable fish stocks and seafood industry. The strategies we're going to employ are to build structures and arrangements to ensure that federal management and decision-making reflects provincial objectives as well; to foster a positive business and investment climate in the industry; and to create an integrated management that promotes collaboration and partnership — ready access of reliable information.

           Finally, with seafood industry development, we're looking at growth and diversification of the seafood sector that offers strong competition on global markets, focusing on environmentally certified seafood products. Key strategies involve: increased access to markets; traceability of products; removing non-tariff barriers; increased participation of third-party certification processes; encouraging development of food safety and quality; facilitating investment and opportunities for the industry; representing B.C.'s interest to ensure that the seafood sector receives a fair share of federal and cross-government programs that promote research, export and inward investment; promoting industry self-sufficiency over the long term; and ensuring access of information on the market and the seafood industry.

           That's my short presentation on what the division is all about and what our role is in the Ministry of Environment. What I'll do now is throw it open for questions you may have about what I just presented.

           S. Simpson: I have a few questions, and then I need to leave for a few minutes to go and talk to the minister about a piece of legislation, but I'll be back. I have a couple of questions that relate, I suppose, to the ocean resources component of the ministry, questions around marine habitat and the state of marine habitat at this point in time.

           What analysis or research is the ministry doing, or does the ministry have available, to look at what has happened with our marine coastal habitat over the last number of years in terms of improvements or degradations and generally looking at how things are going over the last any number of years?

           B. Graham: Certainly, the provincial government's involvement in oceans is quite new. It really started with the reorganization of government that occurred last summer.

           Since the constitutional responsibility for the habitat and the oceans lies with the federal government, we depend quite significantly on information that's provided by the federal government. They produce a state-of-the-oceans report on an annual basis, which is unfortunately quite an academic piece and, in my mind, doesn't really translate into giving good public information on the state of the ocean's environment.

[1025]

           One of the agreements under the MOU is to develop a reporting system so that we can start providing public information on the state of the ocean environment, on how it's changing and so forth. Most of the fundamental research that has been going on associated with that is occurring through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

           Research scientists at the Pacific Biological Station have been looking at the ocean effects and have been talking about a phenomenon called regime shifts in the north Pacific, where you go through periods of higher productivity and lower productivity in the ocean environment. That, oftentimes, coincides with increases in production that you're getting out of your wild fisheries in the ocean. You get a very productive period followed by a decline, which is not because you've overharvested the stock but simply that the ocean is not as productive in that time period.

           That work by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is going on, and through the development of our ocean strategy, we want to work more collaboratively with the federal government to ensure that provincial interests are included in that reporting.

           S. Simpson: Maybe a second question. I would agree with you that if the state-of-the-oceans report is a more academic report, it would be a good idea to turn it into something more user-friendly so that the public could understand what it meant.

           In terms of the work we're doing around aquaculture, is your division doing work that will start to deal

[ Page 50 ]

with some of those questions? Obviously, the lice question is an ongoing issue. There are impacts on the wild fishery. Certainly, that's a major point of debate — impacts on habitat.

           Is that your responsibility from an environmental perspective? To do some assessment of that and then report back to the minister or to government saying: "Here's what we believe — from the best knowledge we have, or best information we can get — what the impacts of aquaculture are on marine habitat or the wild fishery"?

           B. Graham: As to the specific question you're asking, it's the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands to look at those particular assessments. That being said, we do have an interest in wild populations in the province. We are concerned about potential impacts. I emphasize potential impacts, because there is no definitive science on the sea lice issue at this point in time.

           Most of the research that's taking place associated with that has been funded either through the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, through what they call BCARDC, British Columbia Aquaculture Research and Development Committee. I had to catch myself there to try to remember what the acronym meant. As well, the federal government is investing money in that. With the creation of the Pacific Salmon Forum, Mr. John Fraser is also providing some funding support to look at those questions.

           Now, I think the role we have in the Ministry of Environment is to come up with a comprehensive oceans strategy for the province that recognizes that one of our objectives is to maintain the health and integrity of the marine ecosystem and to define what the legitimate uses of that marine environment are going to be. The information would feed into the integrated land management bureau, which would be responsible for coastal planning initiatives that would be coming up with some more site-specific utilization kinds of issues.

           S. Simpson: Considering what you've said — and correct me if I'm wrong — I hear you telling the committee that the statutory responsibilities rest with the federal government, primarily through Fisheries and Oceans, for our marine and our ocean habitat, the province is playing a role now. That, clearly, is where most of the resources are. As you said, you have a reasonably modest division within government.

[1030]

           Could you maybe explain: what are the expectations of the division or the ministry about what you can actually accomplish as a role for the province — the provincial role in this broader strategy — considering that you do have limited capacity, simply because of resources and also because of statutory responsibility and authority? What, realistically, can you accomplish through the work of your division?

           B. Graham: If you go back and look, the federal government passed the federal Oceans Act in 1997. It took them quite a period of time to roll out their federal ocean strategy, but they did it unilaterally, without any consultation with the province. In fact, they did it unilaterally without any consultation with provinces or territories in Canada about their federal strategy. They've also now announced a federal oceans actions plan. We're in the final year of the first two years of that.

           What we're trying to do is develop the provincial ocean strategy so that we can work collaboratively with the federal government to ensure that provincial interests are taken into account as the federal government moves forward.

           We're also looking at the kinds of governance structures and joint decision-making structures that will allow the province not to challenge the constitutional responsibility of the federal government but to play a more active role in the management decision-making processes that will affect the kinds of development activities or uses that can occur in the ocean environment.

           It's more of an influence management role, and we're trying to do that with a very small staff and working collaboratively with the federal government. I'd also note that the new federal Conservative government, as part of the party platform, referred to talking about new governance arrangements with provinces in the area of Fisheries and Oceans. We see that as an opportunity or a door being opened by the federal government to allow us to develop these new kinds of administrative structures.

           If we want to fight the constitutional battle, you know, we can do that for the next 25 years — you're never going to get there — or we can figure out how we can work effectively with the federal government and try to influence the decisions that are being made and point them in the right direction where we believe we're going to look after B.C.'s economic and social interests and environmental interests in the ocean environment.

           D. Jarvis: I'd like to ask Mr. Graham a couple of questions, but first I want to make a statement that the tuna industry is bigger than you think. Last week I was up in the Malahat, a nice restaurant up there, and their main hors d'oeuvre for the main course was fresh Saltspring tuna.

           B. Graham: I don't think they caught it at Saltspring.

           D. Jarvis: That's not my question. I just wanted to make a statement that, when I asked the waiter where they caught it, he said: "It's just offshore."

           A Voice: Just offshore.

           D. Jarvis: Again, back on the tuna. You say there's a reciprocal agreement with the U.S.A. Are the tuna just naturally running up here? I know this sounds like a very simplistic question, but are they coming up here

[ Page 51 ]

on their own because the waters are warmer? Does the fleet follow them? Does the U.S. fleet follow them?

           B. Graham: Tuna fall into what's categorized as a highly migratory species. They do follow temperature patterns in the ocean environment. When you get El Niño events, you get large populations of tuna off the west coast of Vancouver Island and up into Queen Charlotte Sound in various years.

           How that reciprocal access agreement basically developed is that the federal government arrested U.S. tuna boats in the Canadian zone. As a result of that enforcement action, we negotiated a reciprocal access agreement, which allows the tuna fishermen to follow where the main body of tuna is up and down the coast. The vast majority of the tuna are currently being caught off the U.S., but some people do specialize just staying in B.C. waters.

           D. Jarvis: Now, I wanted to know about herring. The herring fishery was pretty big here at one time, and it's still quite large, but is there any analysis or information to suggest that the food chain was damaged by the fact that there was overfishing? The reference is to the slowdown in the salmon industry.

[1035]

           B. Graham: Historically, we fished herring in British Columbia as part of what was called the reduction fishery. Herring were fished solely for the purpose of reduction, to create fish oil and fish meal that is used in fertilizers and in feed products for swine and chicken.

           The herring fishery collapsed in the mid-60s in British Columbia, and after about an eight-year period of time rebounded. The new fishery that takes place — the roe herring fishery — which is the largest herring fishery that we have in British Columbia, harvests at only a 20-percent exploitation rate on the stock. So it's a very conservative exploitation rate.

           We are seeing some very large herring populations. We believe that the sustainability of that management regime is very high. That doesn't mean that your population stays steady at all times. It goes through ups and downs, and we're experiencing some of those poorer results, particularly in the north coast and central coast herring fisheries this year. The fish were very small at age this year and were not very marketable, so the fishery declined. But the population of migratory herring that are in the Gulf of Georgia is in an historical high period.

           That was background. To answer your question, I do not believe that there has been any effect on the food chain as a result of the commercial fishery on herring.

           D. Jarvis: Just make a note that I fished the inside quite a bit and have done for 40-odd years, probably over 50 now. We don't see the herring here in the coast at all in the inland waters like they used to be before, and so….

           B. Graham: I think we have to make a distinction between a resident herring population in the Strait of Georgia and the migratory populations. That migratory one is the one that's being fished right now. I think that there are concerns about some of the resident populations. Part of that appears to be some of the changes in the temperature regimes taking place in the Strait of Georgia. We've gone through significant warming. That's also caused coho salmon to move outside Vancouver Island. What's happening is that the phytoplankton bloom is earlier in the year, and there are not as many groceries in the Gulf of Georgia, so the coho are going outside in search of that. That's resulted in a real downturn in coho populations in the Strait of Georgia.

           Mr. Chairman, if I'm going into too much detail in these answers….

           R. Austin (Chair): No, it's okay. I just want to make sure that we come back to the terms of reference here. Let's see what Scott's question is.

           S. Fraser: I'm a big tuna fan too.

           R. Austin (Chair): No more tuna questions, please, Scott.

           S. Fraser: I figure I'll bring it back to the aquaculture issue, if that's okay.

           Thanks, Bud, for your presentation. I know the work you do, and you're doing it with a very small group. Your division is small in the big scheme of things, so I appreciate it.

           Oceans and marine fisheries division — is that a referral agency in aquaculture tenuring?

           B. Graham: No.

           S. Fraser: Is there any role associated with the division — either informally, prior to an aquaculture tenure being considered, or after a tenure is in place, in dealing with some sort of monitoring or anything like that?

           B. Graham: No. The only responsibility for monitoring that lies with the Ministry of Environment is actually associated with the Waste Management Act. The farms are required to meet the Waste Management Act standards. They're required to provide monitoring information back to the Ministry of Environment but not to my division.

           In the Ministry of Environment it goes to environmental protection division. Then environmental protection division also does spot audits on farms. The way this kind of data is collected…. The industry is required to provide the data to government to show that they're in compliance with the regulations, and then you do spot audits to confirm whether the data you're receiving in fact reflects what's going on. That's the way that process is done. But that's the only role.

           For the oceans, we're to come up with a strategic plan. We would categorize aquaculture as a legitimate use in the marine environment. But it would go to local

[ Page 52 ]

planning process, coastal zone planning process, run through the integrated land management bureau, which would start to categorize areas that would be more or less suitable for aquaculture. My division is not involved with the direct either approval of sites or identifying the sites or any of that or any direct monitoring of the industry.

           S. Fraser: Okay. With that, then, if you could just clarify. Oceans and marine fisheries division — the role with finfish aquaculture, which is our mandate in this committee, is quite limited. It's not really….

           B. Graham: Very limited.

[1040]

           S. Fraser: Okay. It's not too germane to specifically what we're dealing with here. Well, then, that being said, hypothetically, if there are issues around…. I know that Fisheries and Oceans is largely responsible for the environmental assessments done around tenuring.

           B. Graham: It's a shared responsibility.

           S. Fraser: A shared responsibility, but not with your division.

           B. Graham: No.

           S. Fraser: If there were shortcomings considered in the criteria for assessment, if there were things that were being missed that were brought from the public or from other organizations or from fishermen or whatever, would you have a role there in…?

           B. Graham: If that information became available to me, my role would be to take that to the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands and have them look at it in relationship to any ongoing amendments that they might make to the regulatory regime or to the approval process.

           S. Fraser: Okay. Thank you.

           In 1997 the environmental assessment office came up with their series of 49 recommendations. Does your division have a role in trying to deal with those recommendations and/or implement them?

           B. Graham: No. Again, the responsibility for that lies now with the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. They would report on that. I'm clearly going to be aware of what's going on there, but it's MAL's responsibility.

           S. Fraser: Okay.

           Lastly, if I may, we have a new relationship that came forward early last year with first nations. Is there a consultative role that your division has identified at all?

           B. Graham: Everybody has a consultation role in the new world that we live in.

           S. Fraser: I understand that, certainly from the spirit and intent of the document. But are there specific resources that have been put…? Is it just a general understanding, or are specific resources put towards that meaningful consultation process?

           B. Graham: We have not identified a specific resource allocation within the budget associated with that. We have an obligation in the development of an ocean strategy in British Columbia to consult with first nations. We're currently discussing that through the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations — how we're going to do that consultation when you're dealing with a broad policy area that's not specific to an individual first nation. But first nations do have a very active interest in what governments may be doing or managing in the ocean environment.

           So yes, we have an obligation to consult. We will be consulting with first nations as we go through the development of a strategy, but I can't describe for you today that structure exactly, because it's still a work in progress at this point in time.

           C. Trevena: I've just got some questions, I think following on from Scott. I'm not going to talk about tuna, but I like herring.

           You talk about the department or the division pulling together a strategic plan for the oceans, and I wanted to know…. You've broken down the department into the three areas, and I just want to know a little bit more about it. How much, percentage-wise — if it's possible to say that — is working with the feds on developing, trying to get some sort of understanding that we have the shared resource that we both need to have some involvement in, and how much is actually working with the industry? Is it sort of two-thirds, one-third, as it seems to be in the presentation?

           B. Graham: Well, right now, I would say it's probably closer to 80 percent of our time spent dealing with the federal government and 20 percent with industry. We're currently going through the process of trying to understand better exactly what the true marine industries are in British Columbia and to figure out how we will work with them.

           I'm chairing an ADMs steering committee on the development of an ocean strategy, and our first step is to work on that internally, within the province. It involves a number of ministries: Transportation, Energy and Mines, Aboriginal Affairs — a true cross-section of government, because the Ministry of Environment's ocean strategy is to be the provincial government's ocean strategy. It's a document that will have to kind of flow up through the system and get approvals, as it's a work in progress at this point.

[1045]

           C. Trevena: Again, questions on the specifics of your presentation, to take it on. Looking at building up the ocean strategy, and that's a large proportion of your time…. The way that the division is described is as

[ Page 53 ]

working on developing industry. We have the marine fisheries section and the seafood industry development section. You suggest that one of your strategies under marine fisheries is to foster a positive business and investment climate, and I wondered: with whom? What do you mean by that?

           B. Graham: Maybe I'll just step back for a moment. When the division was created, some resources were transferred from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries at the time to Environment. So there were staff in MAFF at the time that were working on marine fisheries and seafood development. Those staff moved over to the new ministry and are continuing to do work in those particular areas.

           There was an increase in budget provided to deal with the oceans initiative, and one of the things we have done is take a portion of that money and put it into salary dollars to create two FTEs in the division that will be working specifically on oceans. We're going through the classification and staffing process for those folks right now. I just give you that as why there's still a significant involvement or proportion of the staff doing the job they had before, who simply got moved to another ministry.

           What we try to do with both the commercial and recreational and first nations…. Where economic development opportunities…. What are the impediments to those industries succeeding? MAFF did a SWOT analysis — where you look at the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats — on the seafood industry in British Columbia. We're trying to look at the issues that potentially might be in the hands of the provincial government to help industry improve.

           One of the key issues right now is certainty of access to the resource. We all know that governments, to meet our first nations obligations and our treaty needs, will be transferring fish to first nations as part of treaty settlements. That provides a lot of uncertainty in the non-aboriginal community about where their fishing rights are going to go. What's their access? What's their future investment? Am I going to invest in a business if that business isn't going to be there? That's to try to increase the business certainty so that people are willing to make investments to try to improve their technology or to increase their value-added processing to increase the economic value that would come out of it. Those are the kinds of things that we would be focusing on as far as improving the business climate for the industry.

           It's not improving it for one group at the cost of another but recognizing that all groups are looking for this kind of certainty in that, whether you're the recreational community or the commercial fishing community.

           C. Trevena: Okay.

           Finally, if I might, talking about seafood industry development. You mentioned that you want to focus on environmentally certified seafood products. Could you just clarify that a bit more for me?

           B. Graham: There's a major demand in the marketplace now. The consumer wants to know that the food they're eating is safe and nutritious, but they also want to know that it comes from a sustainably managed industry. There are organizations like the Marine Stewardship Council, which is a third-party-certification body that is currently certifying fisheries as sustainable. Certainly, a number of B.C. fisheries are going through either the assessment phase or the pre-assessment phase of MSC certification. It's to get third-party certification that your fisheries are well-managed, that they're sustainable, so the consumer, at the end of the day, will find comfort in buying that product and in using that product in the marketplace. It's following that through.

           The whole issue of traceability of the product. Right now, in the halibut fishery, when halibut is caught in British Columbia and sold in the international marketplace, there's a bar tag put in that halibut so you can trace that halibut to the boat it was caught on, the day it came out of the water. The consumer wants to know that.

[1050]

           When a supplier comes back and complains about bad product, and they check the bar tag, it is a counterfeit bar tag. So somebody trying to pass off their halibut as Canadian-caught, British Columbia–caught, halibut cannot do that because of those kinds of traceability issues. We have to have that kind of traceability. It's called "from the boat to the throat" in the industry. The public wants to know where that fish has been, how it's been handled, that it is safe and nutritious and that it comes from a sustainably managed fishery. That's where we're going.

           C. Trevena: That's very interesting. Just one final point on that. When we're talking about environmentally certified seafood products, we're talking purely about wild seafood, about wild fish, wild stock. We're not talking about environmentally certified seafood products that are coming from the aquaculture industry.

           B. Graham: There are a number of independent organizations. There is an independent certifier for aquaculture products. I can't remember the precise title of that, but there are also ISO standards associated with that. Those are all components of having a third-party verification of how you're doing business with that particular product. I know a number of the aquaculture companies in British Columbia have ISO 14001 certification. That's just another type of certification process that looks at very specific issues associated with the management of the product.

           C. Trevena: But it's not something that is being worked through, through your division as encouragement.

           B. Graham: No. My division is focusing on capture fisheries and the wild fisheries in British Columbia.

[ Page 54 ]

           G. Coons: Thank you, Bud, for coming today. A few questions. Some of them have already been touched on. I wanted to try to determine where the salmon aquaculture review recommendations are at and try to determine your ministry's involvement with, say, fish health, escapes, waste, risk management, predator control. Is that somebody else's area of responsibility?

           B. Graham: Well, I'll start with the last one: predator control. Marine mammals are managed by the federal government. The only way that you can deal with marine mammals is…. You have to have a permit from the federal government if you're going to deal with a marine mammal.

           As far as escapes and fish health, that all lies within the regulatory structure of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. The provincial government has a memorandum of understanding with the federal government on aquaculture that allows the province to license and set the regulations for that, and that's what the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands has done on that whole range of issues. The waste management piece came out of the Ministry of Environment, but all the other aspects of it come out of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.

           G. Coons: Okay. Thanks, Bud.

           Another thing I wanted to touch on was the first nations consultation — again, as far as your ministry. You're saying it sort of ties in with the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

           B. Graham: First nations consultation occurs at a whole series of levels. When somebody wants to actually apply for an aquaculture site and they apply to the integrated land management bureau for the Crown tenure and get an aquaculture licence, consultation with first nations occurs both by the bureau and by the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.

           The major area that I'll be consulting with first nations about is the ocean strategy and where the province may want to go with an ocean strategy. Consistent with the New Relationship document, we're trying to get started with that early on in the process, before everything becomes cast in stone, so that we can meet the obligations of consulting early on policy development.

           G. Coons: Thanks, Bud. Again, when we start looking at the duty to consult and accommodate, it's really awkward, in a lot of situations, trying to find out who's responsible, whether it's MOE or MAR or MAL or wherever you want to go. Under the duty to consult, the Haida Nation v. British Columbia in 2004 in the Supreme Court…. We've had a year and a half to consolidate this, and I think that's a push that we have to move forward towards. When we start getting applications approved and trying to figure out where the accommodation and consultation comes into effect or the Ministry of Environment comes into effect….

           Recently we did have an application approved, within the last month. What would have been your ministry's involvement in that application?

[1055]

           B. Graham: We had no involvement in that specific application or the decisions that were made about that.

           I'd like to go back, just for a moment, to your initial question about consultation. The Ministry of Environment is the lead ministry for oceans and marine fisheries issues. We are the people that the province is going to look to, to provide the technical background and direction on that particular issue.

           Every ministry has the technical expertise for a certain function, and it's important that government recognize that in aboriginal consultation the lead is through the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. They will help set the policy for that, and then each line ministry is responsible for dealing with their portion of the consultation for that.

           The fact is that you might as well just have one organization of government and say: "Well, it's all within government." It's our responsibility as public servants in British Columbia to make sure that we're communicating with our colleagues in other ministries to make sure that we meet the overall government's obligation vis-à-vis consultation.

           G. Coons: Okay. Thank you, Bud.

           Just as far as the role of your division, it says you're responsible for the overall leadership of the provincial government's strategies and initiatives and looking at making sure that provincial objectives are reflected.

           Now, I'm just sort of wondering: what are the provincial objectives for our wild fisheries, and what are the provincial government strategies and initiatives related to our wild stocks?

           B. Graham: We're working with the federal government as they develop management regimes for wild fisheries in British Columbia. We're trying to increase our involvement in the decision-making process, not the day-to-day operations of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, but in the policy decisions that are being made that affect the economic and social outcomes that will come out of those fisheries.

           What we're trying to do is to see how we can increase that provincial involvement. Where we think that there are less than optimum decisions being made by the federal government in a particular area, we try to influence the outcomes of those decisions or support positive decisions that the federal government would make in the fisheries arena as well.

           Right now we're in the development stages for our oceans strategy, so I can't give you the specific examples at this point in time. First of all, we have to reach consensus within government about what those strategies and initiatives are going to be. Then, I'll be in a better position to more fully answer the questions that you asked.

[ Page 55 ]

           G. Coons: Thanks. I just find it interesting that as far as your key strategies, it says to ensure that federal management decision-making reflects provincial objectives. Are there any provincial objectives — a list of them, along with initiatives and strategies that relate back to those objectives?

           B. Graham: Certainly, in defining a well-managed fishery, there are probably three attributes of what a well-managed fishery is going to be. You have healthy and abundant fish populations. You have an economically viable and prosperous harvesting activity or quality angling experience. And third, the governance regime for that fishery is open and transparent, is based on good science, and is effectively communicating that information to the public and the consumer that you're trying to reach at the end of the day — whether you're trying to attract anglers to come to British Columbia for the quality angling experiences in British Columbia or people in the marketplace to buy British Columbia–caught fisheries and seafood products.

           At the high level, that's where our objectives are at this point in time. We're trying to go down below that level and come up with specific initiatives that will move us there.

           G. Coons: Thank you, Bud. I'm just wondering: is there somewhere on your webpage, somewhere in writing, that I could take back to some constituents who are wondering what the provincial government's strategies and initiatives are and what the objectives are? Is there a list somewhere that we can relate to, or is it just a verbal report?

[1100]

           B. Graham: Right now, given the fact that my division has only been in existence for just over nine months, I can't give you that hard-copy piece. That's the development work that we're undertaking at this point in time to clearly define what our objectives and strategies are going to be. What I've provided you today is the high-level look at that, and the next steps are to flesh out those pieces. That will involve working with the federal government, but it will also involve working with industry groups, whether they be the tidal recreational community, the commercial community or first nations involved with commercial fishing opportunities.

           G. Coons: One last question, and I think you just answered it. As far as developing the objectives and strategies and initiatives for a provincial vision, you're going to involve the stakeholders, as you just mentioned?

           B. Graham: Yes.

           J. Yap: Speaking of working with the federal government, in your presentation you talked about your objectives, key strategies. A number of them involved working with the federal government. With the change in the federal government in January, how has this affected your strategies? If you can comment on some of the impacts on that relationship between your division of the ministry and the federal government.

           B. Graham: I think that, with the change of government that occurred federally, it is probably a bit premature to be able to give you concrete examples. As you all know, when those kinds of changes take place in governments, it takes some period of time for initiatives to come to fruition.

           Minister Penner has already met with Minister Hearn here in British Columbia. We talked about a number of initiatives that were underway that the province would like to see continued by the federal government. We made specific reference to the campaign commitments to look at new governance mechanisms that might involve a greater provincial role in that, and we emphasized that that role should occur both in fisheries and in oceans management.

           We certainly opened the door that the province is interested in exploring with the new federal government what they might have in mind or some of the options that might be there. As those begin to become apparent, we will be bringing that up through our senior management to look at whether the province is interested in some kind of new relationship with the federal government.

           Certainly, at the direct level, we have been involved with…. We're trying to look at Pacific fisheries reform, particularly in the salmon fishery. We have to find some better way of managing salmon in British Columbia. Not that we have the silver bullet that's going to fix the salmon fishery in British Columbia, but we know that what we're doing right now is not working for that industry. Some new solutions have to be there, and we're actively participating with the federal government on that.

           We were actively involved in the recently announced groundfishing integration program. As well, we played a role in trying to advise federal policy on things like hake management and the onshore joint venture operations associated with hake.

           Again, we don't have the constitutional responsibility to make those decisions, but we're trying to work on our relationship with the federal government. Certainly, I think the feds have been very open to a positive relationship with the B.C. government and are now turning to us more and more and asking for our advice or our comments before they make final decisions. It's a continuum. As you try to develop new joint management arrangements, you start with a more collaborative approach and gradually move to a more joint decision-making approach. You've got to gradually move along that continuum.

           J. Yap: What I'm hearing is that the collaboration is happening. I certainly understand and appreciate your comments regarding the new government having to settle in and take charge — and hearing that the change in government will probably somewhat delay the pace

[ Page 56 ]

of progress that perhaps you were looking for — to move forward on issues like putting together the strategies and objectives which Gary was referring to.

[1105]

           B. Graham: I'm not noticing a hesitation or a lack of progress. The colleagues in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans I'm working with are still actively working with us. I haven't seen, certainly, any change in direction or slowdown. There was obviously a slowdown during the election period. Nothing was happening in that time period.

           Now that the government has been elected and is starting to move forward with its agenda, I feel we are continuing to work down that road. I don't necessarily see a change. Time will tell whether the new government reshapes that direction in any manner.

           R. Austin (Chair): Thank you, Bud, for that very extensive briefing. I'd like to go back now and ask if you would help us with one of the major terms of reference, which is to look at B.C.'s regulatory regime as it compares to other jurisdictions, specifically around aquaculture.

           I understand, of course, that you've been in this new position for the last nine months and that you are now the ADM for the oceans and marine division, but prior to that, you were at MAL and worked there long enough to have a great deal of knowledge. I think it would be very helpful to give us at least a start on getting the background around this term of reference.

           Notwithstanding that you don't work at MAL and notwithstanding that you might appear or think that you're appearing to tread on someone's toes, my understanding is that as a committee, we can invite anybody to come here and speak to us and answer questions. You, I'm sure, have this knowledge.

           I'm wondering whether, while we've got you here, you'd be willing to share with us, starting off maybe in the '90s, what the regulations around aquaculture were in the '90s and how they've changed since that point. If you'd be willing to help us, I'd really appreciate it.

           B. Graham: I'm having some difficulty. Without a colleague from MAL being here with me, I must say I'm feeling uncomfortable trying to describe…. I've seen the presentation Dr. Castledine made to the committee, and I believe it was a very comprehensive one that talked about the evolution of the regulatory regime that took place.

           I will say of my involvement in aquaculture that I think we made significant strides in the development of a comprehensive regulatory framework for the aquaculture industry, one that is very broad-based and that, in my mind, maintains a very environmentally sustainable and economically viable industry in British Columbia.

           R. Austin (Chair): What you're telling me is that it is best that we go back to MAL and ask for a more detailed description of the regulatory regime from them. As you were involved in most of those changes over the years, if we can request that you come back to answer questions at that time, it would be better for you. Is that correct?

           B. Graham: That's correct.

           R. Austin (Chair): Okay.

           At this point, unless anybody else has any more questions for Mr. Graham…. Oh, one second. Scott.

           S. Fraser: While we're touching on the regulatory regime that's in place — and again, I'll try to be sensitive to the issues you've raised — aquaculture is a…. There's more than one piece to aquaculture. We're dealing specifically with finfish aquaculture. However, there's also shellfish aquaculture. If I'm not mistaken, they fall under the same basic regulatory regime. Is that correct?

           B. Graham: That's correct.

           S. Fraser: Has there been any consideration of that as far as…? You know, there are obviously different issues associated with finfish and shellfish aquaculture. Has there been any discussion — in your previous role of being involved in the regulatory regime, I guess — of separating that?

[1110]

           B. Graham: Implicitly, it's separated, because the management plans that are required for shellfish management are totally different than the requirements for finfish aquaculture. There's no feeding of the animals. The animals survive off natural resources in the water column. They are distinctly different. The focus in the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands is…. There are people who focus on shellfish, and there are people who focus on finfish, so they are treated differently within the ministry as well.

           S. Fraser: Does that include the tenuring requirements?

           B. Graham: Tenuring is tenuring is tenuring. If you're going to have access to a piece of Crown land, you have the same obligations to look at defining it and consulting with first nations. All those things are the same, but the actual mechanics of the aquaculture operation, the mechanics of how you grow animals there, change with the industry you're dealing with.

           S. Fraser: Okay. Thank you for that.

           If I may, the reason I was raising this is that, potentially, this committee has a role to play in making recommendations that affect…. I mean, where the Committee of Sustainable Aquaculture is laid out that way, it doesn't specifically say in the title that we have separated that out as finfish as opposed to shellfish.

           The recommendations we make here could possibly have an effect on some of the tenuring requirements that could carry on into the shellfish. Is there some way

[ Page 57 ]

to ensure we're mindful of that, in your opinion? That's why I'm sort of looking at a separation, because anything that comes out of this committee may have a larger effect than we may have realized.

           B. Graham: I think that through consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, you should be able to get at those kinds of issues.

           R. Austin (Chair): Thank you very much, Bud. Just before you leave, our best person to contact would be back to Al Castledine to get a detailed description of the regulatory regime. Is that correct?

           B. Graham: That's correct.

           R. Austin (Chair): Okay. At that time, if we ask you to come and participate in that, because you were there over those years, then of course you'd be willing to come and do that, along with Al.

           B. Graham: If the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands asked me to participate, I would certainly be willing to participate.

           R. Austin (Chair): Thank you very much for coming here today and for making your presentation. You've been very informational to all of us, and I'd like to thank you for bringing that to us.

           B. Graham: I apologize if there was confusion at the start of this.

           R. Austin (Chair): That's okay.

           Okay, we have some other agenda items today, and I think what I'd like to do, just to get the general discussion going around the table, is to move in camera. I'd like a motion to do that.           

           The committee continued in camera from 11:14 a.m. to 11:45 a.m.

           [R. Austin in the chair.]

           R. Austin (Chair): I'd like to have a motion to adopt the RFP as amended. So ordered. Motion to approve the schedule as amended.

           A Voice: So moved.

           R. Austin (Chair): That means we'll be taking those early September dates of the 11th, 12th and 13th and moving them, potentially, to the week we have off during the fall session.

           S. Simpson: And we'll be flipping the late September dates in terms of locations.

           R. Austin (Chair): Correct.

           Is there any other business?

Other Business

           R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): To update the Chair — I haven't spoken to you about this — the Pacific Salmon Foundation is in my jurisdiction. It happens to be across from my old office, so I stuck my head in the door to see what they're up to.

           As you know, the Chair and I attended quite an interesting session — when was that, Rob? — earlier in our lifetimes…

           R. Austin (Chair): September.

           R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): September.

           …and they had 60 scientists together to try and put the terms of reference together to examine the sea lice concern. It was quite an animated and interesting discussion.

           They started off with 14 and came to about 40 subgroups of study. It was really a very, very good discussion. They wanted to get it underway. I said: "Where are you with it?" Well, they have let the proposals out, and the studies will start shortly. They haven't made the public announcements. This is $600,000 in funding. Probably between ten and 20 different studies will be done on the sea lice situation, and these studies will start probably in May or June. Some of them will run till the spring of next year.

           Again, my personal editorial comment is that once the studies are out, there'll be discussion, and if you're looking for definitive answers, I think that's going to be part of the ongoing scientific discussions we're starting to learn about on who thinks what about what. Anyway, that's where they're at. They'll be announcing that.

           Chair, we might want to get an update from them and maybe meet with them at some juncture. We could perhaps plug them into the Nanaimo meeting and have an update of where they're at with it at least. It doesn't need to be a long meeting, but they're there, and we're there. They could tell us where they're at with it in perhaps an hour or something.

           R. Austin (Chair): Thank you, Ron.

           Any other business?

           G. Coons: I was just wondering. I'm not sure if I'd want to make a motion first or just sort of put it out for discussion, but I'd like to invite Kathy Evans, the section head of the licensing unit in the fisheries and aquaculture licensing and compliance branch, to attend.

           What came across my desk this morning was the Bennett Point application, and it would be good to go through that process —to be able to ask questions versus having somebody come in with a regulatory regime and hear somebody that just did one. We could get some answers, and perhaps she could fill us in on that.

[ Page 58 ]

           I'd like to make a motion that we invite her to our next meeting.

           S. Fraser: I'd second that one. I think it's necessary.

           R. Austin (Chair): Is that okay with everybody as a request?

           A Voice: I'm not sure who it is, though.

           J. Yap: Who is this person?

           G. Coons: She's the section head for the fisheries and aquaculture licensing and compliance branch.

           Interjections.

           R. Austin (Chair): Yes, Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.

           A Voice: Fish farm approval.

           G. Coons: Yes, fish farm approval.

           R. Austin (Chair): Great.

           Next meeting. Let's see. Do we need to meet again before we start travelling around? Certainly, I think it would be useful.

           C. Trevena: It might also be useful — if we can, while we're all still here — to see a couple more of the people we wanted to see, before we move on. Then we've got until…. We'll be on the road together for two months, and then we're looking through October at a time to start seeing people again. If we can invite Kathy along sooner rather than later….

           R. Austin (Chair): Okay. Can I suggest that the subcommittee get together? We'll talk and see who else we can invite and also choose a date that's acceptable to everybody. We'll let you all know, for your input. Is that okay?

           Motion to adjourn.

           The committee adjourned at 11:50 a.m.

[ Return to: Sustainable Aquaculture Committee Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

Copyright © 2006: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada