[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, November 26, 1996
.1105 
[English]
The Chairman: Order, please.
The natural resources committee is continuing its study on the issue of rural development. Today we have three witnesses with us. I'll introduce them briefly.
From the Mattawa and Area Forestry Committee we have Michael Brophy, Bill Steer, and Carmen Demarco; from the British Columbia Shellfish Growers Association, Ruth Salmon; from the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association, Marcel Gijssin; and Sharon Ford from the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance. Welcome everybody.
We'll ask for opening presentations. I'd ask the presenters to keep it down to around ten minutes. We'll do each group in turn. We'll start with the Mattawa and Area Forestry Committee and ask them to do the first presentation and then move along the table. Then we'll turn it over to the committee for questioning of all three groups.
Mr. Brophy.
.1110
Mr. Michael G. Brophy (Chair, Mattawa and Area Forestry Committee): Thank you very much for allowing us to come to speak to you.
We come from the rural community of Mattawa outside of North Bay. We are representing an organization entitled the Mattawa and Area Forestry Committee. We think we have a good story to tell. We think we've had some significant positive things happen and we'd like to give you some information as to why we think we've had success.
One of the strong reasons we've had success is our MP, Bob Wood, who's sitting here. It's probably inappropriate, Bob, but my accolades.
My name is Mike Brophy. I'm chair of the Mattawa and Area Forestry Committee. I'm a chartered accountant. I live in the Mattawa area sustainable forest on a small farm, and have enjoyed the two years I've been working as the chair of the committee.
Bill Steer has been a significant contributor to the committee. He's a local environmentalist and an educator with our enlightened Nipissing Board of Education, a very successful board of education.
Carmen Demarco, who is a federal civil servant, is with Human Resources Development Canada. Carmen is one of the really important reasons for our success, and I'd welcome you to ask Carmen later why he thinks we've been successful and the important part he's played in it.
We represent a forestry area. The area has been a mixed area for a number of years, but mostly has forest industry. Our success, we think, is based on solutions and what we might call the grassroots model - effectively from the bottom up. We have a situation where many people in our area have come together and we're all going down the same road, in the same direction, working toward success. We think we've had a great deal of that happen.
We believe in this concept of strengthen before you diversify. That's often a need that's overlooked. I comment to you that's important. We also believe very strongly in the term ``sustainability''. We think sustainability is important in the forest industry. We've been preaching the concept of sustainability. In fact, we have been very strong in naming our area the Mattawa area sustainable forest.
Part of our presentation today is a video we've had produced, and I'm not sure if it's available or not. We're prepared and pleased to use our ten minutes or so to show that video because it will explain so much about our success. Your clerk has suggested to us that would be appropriate, although strange. So if we may.... Thank you.
.1115
[Video Presentation]
.1120
Mr. Brophy: Mr. Chairman, I'll take perhaps two more minutes and then we'll conclude, if that's okay.
The Chairman: Yes, please.
Mr. Brophy: The material we've handed out to you includes a tremendous number of press clippings in the rear two-thirds of the document. The first two pages are on the start of our new ecology centre, which you may hear about, and we'd be happy to talk about it later if you'd like.
Our presentation to you, I'm afraid, is in English only. I understand there is a copy that's been translated into French. Some of the materials in the package are also in French.
We hope we've proven our bona fides. We are a success. We have a lot to do, but we have a model.
I'd ask Bill to comment about consensus environmentalism, which is important. We really think it's part of the basis of our success so far.
Bill.
Mr. Wilston Steer (Educator and Environmentalist, Nipissing Board of Education; Mattawa and Area Forestry Committee): As an environmentalist, I don't hug trees, but I do embrace the concept of sustainability. Those economic, social and ecological values that are part of the forest ecosystem are the foundations of our community development.
We've started something called consensus environmentalism. It's the Canadian way to arrive at solutions in our own communities. If we hold those values high and ensure that those urban environmentalists and people who live in other parts of Canada, and I'd say around the world.... Our Canadian image of cutting down trees and sustainable development will be fostered in the long term. That's something that starts on a community basis.
The other thing is, with regard to education, we've initiated training that is forestry-driven. In other words, maybe educators shouldn't develop the curriculum packages, the modules. Maybe industries should come on board, whether you work in a mill or you work in the forest, and whether it requires specialized education or not. They can develop that, and in conjunction with the institutions, make this a part of our young people's educational development as they enter the world of work.
I want to finish off with something the Wildlands League says: ``In reality, healthy forest ecosystems are often the very foundation of vibrant community economies''. That's where we're headed.
Mr. Brophy: Thanks, Bill.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we'd be happy to answer questions later. We believe we have a model that other communities can follow. We've very strongly recommended a number of things we think can help Canadian rural economic development, and we'd be happy to give some further thoughts on our successes a bit later in the meeting.
Thank you.
.1125
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Brophy.
For committee members, there are three pages of very specific recommendations.
We thank you for those. I'm sure we'll discuss them in questions.
I'd like to now ask our next witness, Ruth Salmon, to provide her opening statement on behalf of the British Columbia Shellfish Growers Association.
Ms Ruth Salmon (Executive Director, British Columbia Shellfish Growers Association): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On behalf of the B.C. Shellfish Growers Association, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity of being here today. We believe the work the committee is undertaking is important and we appreciate the opportunity to participate in it.
This morning I'm going to talk briefly about the role aquaculture is playing internationally, in Canada and in B.C., but I'll focus most of my presentation on the economic and employment opportunities particularly in B.C. As well, at the end of my presentation we do have some recommendations for the committee.
To give you a little bit of background, global demand for fish and seafood is projected to grow steadily and reach 120 million tonnes by the beginning of the 21st century. However, as we all know, wild fisheries catches have peaked and have begun to decline. So to help fill the projected supply-demand gap, a number of countries, including Canada, are developing a significant new source of supply through aquaculture.
Here in Canada the total value of Canadian aquaculture output increased from $7 million in 1984 to more than $294 million in 1994. Aquaculture increases the production from Canada's aquatic resources.
According to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization, their definition of aquaculture is the culture of aquatic organisms, including fish, molluscs, crustaceans and aquatic plants.
To sum up, aquaculture is a unique, technology-based, sustainable agrifood industry utilizing aquatic resources.
Aquaculture's growth in Canada started less than 20 years ago. Now farms are found in every province as well as in the Yukon. Species farmed on a commercial scale include salmon, trout, char, tilapia, oysters, mussels, clams and scallops.
Now I'm going to spend a bit more time speaking about the B.C. situation more closely.
Pacific oysters have been farmed in B.C. since the 1920s. However, it's really since the late 1970s that there's been significant growth in the industry. There are a number of reasons for that growth.
First of all, there have been production improvements through research, technology transfers and mechanization. As well, there's been a real shift in the structure of the industry to younger companies with very business approaches to aquaculture. Also, air freight services have opened up international export markets. And the industry has really diversified into new species and higher-value product forms.
The shellfish farming industry in B.C. is now a successful, fast-growing industry. There are 258 licensed shellfish companies controlling 423 culture sites on crown land that's leased from the government. Shellfish production is increasing annually without an increase in land base. B.C. farms produce Pacific oysters, Manila clams, and scallops on a commercial basis.
To give you an example of the kind of growth we're experiencing, the story of Manila clams is quite interesting. Since 1988, production from B.C. clam farms has increased steadily. In one year, between 1994 and 1995, production increased by over 60%. The size of the cultured industry is now equal to 80% of the wild fishery, from an area less than one-tenth the size.
The importance of the shellfish farming industry is becoming increasingly recognized. We call it the triple-E industry: it produces export products, it benefits and complements the environment, and it acts as a net contributor to the economy of both B.C. and Canada.
It's important to mention a small point on the environment. Shellfish aquaculture depends on high-quality, clean water. The viability of our aquaculture operations is directly dependent on the maintenance of a healthy and productive aquatic environment. We'll get to that a little bit later, when we talk about the recommendations.
Speaking about the economic employment opportunities, not only is shellfish aquaculture a net contributor to the economy, but the benefits accrue largely to coastal and rural communities, where economic development opportunities are limited. Both forestry and fishing sectors have been on a decline, and aquaculture represents one of the few bright prospects for economic diversification of many rural areas.
.1130
Shellfish and finfish aquaculture employ more than 5,200 people across the country. More than 90% are located in rural Canada. In addition to a growing source of employment, it also offers the possibility for social and economic improvement in communities with limited economic alternatives.
Marcel will concur that in Tofino, B.C., 25% of the total workforce is employed in some way in aquaculture. In Charlotte County, New Brunswick, 1,500 permanent jobs have been created as a result of aquaculture. Shellfish farming is now the number one employer on Cortes Island, B.C., and one of the largest employers in the Baynes Sound area, which is on the east coast of Vancouver Island.
In these areas, aquaculture is a source of local pride and has proven to be a prime example of economically and environmentally sustainable development. Furthermore, it sets a pattern for successful economic development in other coastal areas.
The long-term potential is very promising. The total farm gate value of B.C.'s farm shellfish in 1995 was $10 million. Industry and government projections now suggest that B.C. will double its current production by the year 2000, which is not far away, and industry revenue could reach $50 million within the next decade. If you translate this growth potential to jobs, this means that by the year 2000, necessary full-time employment would double from our current number of 1,000 jobs to 2,000. When industry revenue reaches $50 million, employment requirements would increase to 5,000 jobs.
The shellfish farming industry is increasingly technology driven and has high labour demands, providing year-round rather than just seasonal employment opportunities. It's one of a variety of means of providing sustainable primary and secondary employment in rural coastal communities.
An example of this is the largest shellfish farm in Canada, which is located in Fanny Bay, called Fanny Bay Oysters. This company has created 108 full-time jobs in the last 10 years. However, with less government regulation and the creation of a climate where aquaculture could flourish, this could have been 600 to 1,000 jobs.
I have a comment here on the opportunities for first nations. Shellfish farming presents a unique opportunity for first nations to develop sustainable businesses in rural coastal communities. Some of the most productive beaches suitable for culture on the coast are front native reserve lands. Therefore, the involvement of first nations in shellfish aquaculture is a natural one.
In addition to prime growing areas, first nations already have many of the skills required for shellfish culture, skills which rely heavily on familiarity with working in a marine environment. But the size of our industry is really not related to its potential, so why aren't we larger than we are now? There are a number of constraints to development I want to address. Many of them are legislative and regulatory constraints.
At present, the major limiting factor to the growth of the industry is the burden of government regulation and the uncertainty created by various levels of government. Aquaculture exists within a complex matrix of overlapping government mandates and jurisdictions. No fewer than ten provincial ministries and federal departments influence the business climate for shellfish aquaculture in B.C. In addition, regional and local governments are responsible for zoning by-laws, which can be heavily influenced at public hearings by special interest groups.
The actions or inactions of the federal government are limiting the growth of aquaculture in B.C. As a result, producers within the industry are not only questioning their expansion but are investigating moving or expanding their operations to countries that may be more favourable and supportive.
The regulatory environment is neither appropriate nor effective. Regulation of the industry continues to be through a model that has been devised to protect and manage a wild fishery. As a result, the sector is affected by several regulations that were not initially designed for aquaculture. In the end, operators are burdened with unnecessary costs. Industry recognizes the need for regulations. However, those developed need to be appropriate and meaningful.
Another constraint is investment. Shellfish aquaculture has not yet caught the collective attention of the financial community. Availability of capital has significant implications for the level of expansion that is necessary to support growth.
.1135
Lack of advocacy and support is a real barrier to industry growth. As an advocate, our lead agency should be portraying aquaculture as a viable industry and a legitimate user of the aquatic resource base. There are many reasons why this is not happening.
Staff lack the necessary training and expertise in aquatic farming, and there seems to be an overall lack of commitment towards delivering on the vision for the industry. The best example of this is that DFO has not followed through on its commitments under the federal aquaculture development strategy, a document published in 1995 outlining the role the federal government should take in expansion of the industry.
Moving on to our recommendations, we have some relating to infrastructure. In the standing committee's workplan I think you stated that ``solutions to rural problems need not necessarily involve the provision of direct financial assistance in the form of grants and contributions.'' The B.C. Shellfish Growers Association strongly supports this statement.
Strategic investments in infrastructure, however, could be extremely useful. Infrastructure needs of the B.C. shellfish aquaculture industry include sewage and liquid waste management systems. Current sewage and upland waste handling systems are sadly lacking, and in some locations could ruin the entire shellfish industry. The federal government could play a role in addressing this need for infrastructure in coastal communities, resulting in clean water and the continued health of the shellfish culture industry.
There is also a need for improved telecommunications infrastructure, as many of our growers live and work in remote areas that may not be linked by traditional telephone systems. Access to information technologies is also very important.
The provision of capital to rural-based aquaculture companies needs to continue to be an important role of federal agencies such as the Farm Credit Corporation.
In an expanding industry, it's also very important to be able to access skilled workers from rural communities. Our association would like to see continued support for HRDC's sector council initiative.
The federal government needs to support its national vision for aquaculture with commitment and action. The federal government must support the competitiveness of the industry and the continued development of the sector. Government must create a climate in which shellfish aquaculture can flourish, and thereby create wealth and employment in rural coastal communities.
The B.C. shellfish industry would welcome a minister designated responsible for rural affairs. This would give rural Canadians a needed advocate who would promote economic development in our communities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Mr. Gijssin from the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association.
Mr. Marcel Gijssin (Representative, B.C. Salmon Farmers Association): Thank you,Mr. Chairman and committee members.
I appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak with you today. My name is Marcel Gijssin and I work for the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association in a small coastal community called Tofino. Tofino is an excellent example of the power of salmon farming for rural economic development, and as such, I'm just going to tell you more about my community to illustrate this.
The community has a population of about 1,300 people - it's not a big community. It's on the west coast of Vancouver Island and it's on the edge of Clayoquot Sound. The community is like many coastal communities in that it had its origins and foundation in forestry, logging, and commercial fishing industries. Unfortunately in the last several decades we've seen the contribution of these traditional industries severely decline. Luckily, in the last 10 years salmon farming has grown to provide a significant contribution of year-round employment.
In Clayoquot Sound there are now 23 salmon farm sites, and they rotate on a fallowing cycle, which means there are about 18 to 20 active farm sites at any one time. Those farm sites produce about 12.5 million pounds of salmon every year, worth approximately $35 million.
There are about 223 direct jobs created by salmon farming in the area. These are on the farms, in the processing plants, marine transportation, harvesting - that sort of thing. While most of these positions are full-time and year-round, there are some part-time positions, but those are generally in the processing area, harvesting area. Those positions that are part-time or seasonal are focused in the fall, winter, and spring, when employment is the most scarce for communities like Tofino. It actually overlaps really well with the other seasonal activities like tourism that have their focus and their concentration of employment in the summer months.
.1140
There are also many indirect jobs created from the supply and service companies serving the industry. Water taxis, welders, divers, truckers, outboard engine sales, repairs, fuel, building supplies, hardware, airlines, grocery stores - you name it, they all do business and benefit and create jobs through doing business with the industry.
The four salmon farming companies that operate the farms in Clayoquot Sound do business with over 120 companies in our regional district. This boost to the general rural economy means that salmon farming helps to provide and maintain services and infrastructures for the whole community.
As an example, I was talking with the operator of our local trucking firm the other day - they employ nine people - and he told me that the only way they're able to provide reasonable shipping fees for the whole community and everybody in them is that a large number of their routes have farm salmon equipment or materials on them and they're able to simply put the rest of the equipment on those, and that's the bread and butter of their activities.
Salmon farming has also preserved the very nature of Tofino and other coastal communities like it. Tofino has always been a marine-based community. It has a very active waterfront. Marinas, wharfage areas and processing plants have always been part of our waterfront. Not too many years ago there were as many as six or seven processing plants that lined our waterfront, even in our small community. Today there are only three active ones remaining. Of those three, two are 100% dependent upon farmed salmon, and a third is primarily dependent. In the old days when there were the six or seven, they were 100% dependent upon the contribution of commercial fishing.
If we lost salmon farming now, we would lose the remaining marine infrastructure that we have lining our waterfront, and we would change the very nature of our community by doing that.
I've used Tofino as an example not just because it's my home, but also because it gives a clear picture of the effect and potential salmon farming has for coastal communities in British Columbia, and for that matter in Canada as a whole.
Currently in British Columbia there are 90 active farm sites, producing about 23,000 tonnes of farmed salmon worth about $165 million. Of this, $140 million is exported, making this the province's largest agricultural export. There are approximately 2,400 person-years' worth of employment created on an annual basis, both in direct and indirect jobs. An important point to note from a rural economic development standpoint is that over 90% of these jobs are located in rural coastal communities outside of the built-up areas of Vancouver and Tofino. Over 90% - it's pretty significant.
A report in 1994 demonstrated how much of a contribution salmon farming has grown for Vancouver Island in terms of employment. It stated that salmon farming employment in terms of person-years provided as much employment as all the other wild, commercial salmon fishing sectors combined. In fact we've seen the value of farm salmon exceed that of wild-caught salmon in British Columbia for the past two years, and in the last year it was almost double that amount.
The importance of salmon farming is likely further increased with things like the Mifflin plan, which have seen a reduction in the number of licences in our communities.
Despite these facts, salmon farming is here to complement and not compete with our wild, commercial fisheries. Our communities need a revitalized wild fishery combined with a farmed fishery, in order to have a healthy, diversified economy.
.1145
Salmon farming provides jobs and benefits while using a tiny area. The farm structures for all of the 90 salmon farms in British Columbia occupy just 70 hectares. To put this in perspective, in British Columbia what we think of as an average land-based traditional farm is 124 hectares. We could fit the structures of our entire industry into less than 70% of the area of just one land-based farm.
Economically, the comparison is also pretty significant. That one land-based farm has an average revenue of about $70,000, while our industry, as I mentioned previously, has about$165 million per year. For each hectare used by salmon farming, there's over $2 million worth of revenue and over 30 direct and indirect person-years of employment.
B.C. has a coastline of 27,000 kilometres. There are many new opportunities for growth, particularly in our central and north coasts, which do not have salmon farms occupying them at the present time. If salmon farming in B.C. were allowed to grow to occupy an area of just four of these traditional land-based farms that we previously mentioned, on an area of 500 hectares that the structures would occupy, it has the potential to create 15,000 jobs in the coastal communities.
I've used this presentation to give you a perspective on the current and potential contribution of salmon farming for rural economic development. Our written materials have more background material and they identify some of the constraints and the needs that salmon farming has in order to move the industry forward.
I'd like to leave you with a quote from a magazine called Business in Vancouver:
- Imagine a dream industry for B.C. It would have a proven product with a growing demand
worldwide. It would be a big exporter, bringing foreign exchange revenue into the local
economy. It would be a job-generator, especially in those regions where unemployment scars
are deepest. Its jobs would be full-time and year-round. It would have access to
financing-patient experienced money. It would complement rather than displace existing
industries. It would be clean and sustainable. It would have some R & D potential, the better to
build up a secondary market in the sale of expertise. It would not depend on government
handouts. Now open your eyes and check B.C.'s salmon farming industry. It's all of the above
and more.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gijssin.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies.
Mr. Deshaies (Abitibi): My first question is to Mr. Brophy. I live in the Abitibi area, which is very similar to the Mattawa area. So, I am very much aware of your needs as they are the same as ours. You talk about one-stop shopping to access various governement levels, a participation of businesses to local development and, what I find quite amusing, having proactive members of Parliament as concerns community development. I am sure that your MP is one of them.
I have a short question. I am quite familiar with forest industry. What makes the Mattawa area so unique and different from other areas in Northern Ontario or Abitibi-Témiscamingue?
[English]
Mr. Brophy: Thank you for the question. I think the answer is twofold. First, we have a community that believes in the forest industry. It has taken work to get the community to believe in the forest industry. When we started we had a situation in which children walking down the street in Mattawa who were asked if it was good to cut down a tree answered no, because they read The Toronto Star or watched Global television or something and they saw the environmentalist movement that is so strong.
We started with a premise from Frank Dottori, president of Tembec: you have to create a climate for investment before you can create a job at all.
.1150
We spent a considerable amount of time on press clippings since last January - I think this document will show that - working on getting people to believe that the forestry industry was good, that sustainability was important and appropriate, that you could indeed go and farm the forest effectively, and that you'd have a forest for tomorrow. We continue to work on that on an ongoing basis.
The second reason for success is that we believe strongly in value-added production. We've had some studies done not by Tembec or Columbia Forest Products, but by the community to address issues about value-added products. We were helped, by the way, by Human Resources Development Canada funding, including Carmen here.
The result of that study was a number of recommendations on the value-added production that could come from our area. We then lobbied very strongly the powers that be, both Tembec and Columbia. When that positive attitude about the forest was married with the community involvement, we were able to convince people that this was the right thing to do.
Consider the statistics that are included. There are a few statistics about 1991, 1996 and 1997 and the significant increase in employment in those years. Take 1997, after the $12-million expansion at Tembec, which is happening as we speak, and some additional expansion at Columbia Forest Products.
It all happened because the community believes Dottori. You'll see in some of the articles we've copied for you that Dottori says he likes Mattawa because Mattawa likes the forest industry. We believe that this climate, plus a community that's working forward, is one of the secrets.
If I may, I'd like Mr. Demarco to give you a little added bit of information on that. I hope it will help you understand the positive side and why we've been successful.
Mr. Carmen Demarco (Consultant, Mattawa and Area Forestry Committee): Thanks, Mike.
You asked what makes this situation different from others. In my job as an industrial consultant with Human Resources Development Canada, I've had an opportunity to work with many communities, at least in northeastern Ontario, many of which are dependent on the forest industry, as well as some mining and other resources. In the case of Mattawa, certainly this willingness to participate is probably the biggest factor.
With my program, I'm often working with situations that are not terribly positive. I'm working either with the private sector in going through downsizing and restructuring, or lay-offs and closures, or I'm working with communities that are facing those types of situations whereby the major employer has left and the community needs to regroup and decide how it's going to find new economic development.
In the case of Mattawa, I got in at a point at which it hadn't gotten that bad. They were concerned about Tembec. I don't think that three years ago anybody was sure what Tembec was going to do in Mattawa. The mill at that point was losing money, and there was some rumour that they might close the operation. Columbia was limping along, but it was having trouble with the procurement of logs. So we got in early enough - again, the community was willing to do this - to take a look at the problem before it got any worse.
I would stress that in this case, there were four elements making this thing work. First, the community was prepared to work with government. Second, we built the case on facts, not fiction. One of the first things we did was to commission a couple of consultants to take a look at the local economy to really define it. What's making Mattawa tick? The results were overwhelming that the forest industry was vital to the community, and the committee made a decision to build on that strength.
Third, there was committed leadership. Through the industrial adjustment service our process is one in which we hire a chairperson. In this case, it's Mike Brophy. This is a person dedicated to the task. He's someone who's paid by the committee. I think that led to a lot of success.
Finally, there's partnership. We had government partnership, meaning the governments of five local townships, the federal government and the provincial government, which came in a little bit later, but it did come in to support the committee. We also had partnership with labour, IWA-Canada in this case, which was an active partner. Finally, there was business, of course, through Tembec, Columbia, and other jobbers in the forest.
.1155
That partnership, by the way, was also a financial partnership. We contributed anywhere from 50% to 75%, depending on the phase of development. This happened over a three-year period. But we also demanded that the communities and businesses put money on the table, which they did, and continue to do.
So I think those are the elements that made Mattawa a success. In some other communities in which I worked, maybe some of those elements weren't there. For whatever reason, they're not quite as active and progressive as Mattawa.
The real telling sign for me was when Tembec decided to put $13 million into the mill. That was the crowning achievement. That said that Tembec was there to stay. In their announcement they talked of course about how the investment was important and how the workforce was important, but they also said right up at the top of the list that the community was also important. They felt this was a community that was ready to work with them today and into the future.
Mr. Deshaies: I have a short question for Mr. Steer. Do you think the population didn't make a good choice or didn't do well with sustainable development?
Mr. Steer: In our communities I think that people over the two- to three-year period have come to understand economic, social and ecological values. When we're talking about development, we embrace those values, and they're always in the forefront. Like anything else in the resource sector, we can't run and hide.
The forestry sector for a long time has been back-pedalling and very defensive, but now I think they've become more proactive and can really show sustainable development. If you can demonstrate that, then I think you're going to change public attitudes. Of course, this is a long-term thing, but I think you're starting to see that right now.
Mr. Brophy: I'll just add one other little part to that puzzle. We have this thing called the Canadian Ecology Centre, which is another day's topic. Mr. Dottori, in discussing his involvement with this Canadian Ecology Centre, has made it very clear that Tembec, in the forest, is going to walk the talk. Tembec says they want people, the public, to come look at the forest, the silviculture that Tembec is doing. So effectively, Mr. Dottori is saying to the world that Tembec is acting sustainably, and here in the Mattawa area he wants to prove it, so come for a look. So they're walking the talk.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Wood): Thank you, Mr. Brophy.
Mr. Ringma.
Mr. Ringma (Nanaimo - Cowichan): It's tempting to try to zero in on one thing - forestry is one and aquaculture is another - but the thread that I would like to explore with all of you is the role or non-role of government.
This committee has been travelling a little bit. For example, we were in Labrador a couple of weeks ago. We heard from them that all they needed were some trails, for goodness' sake. They need trails from their outports to connect them. The government, presumably in St. John's, is saying that they have to do their environmental assessment first, and that sort of thing.
Out of the testimony here this morning from all of you, I draw some common threads here. First, you know your industry. You're knowledgeable about your industry. Second, you're rural. I very much get the impression that you want the government to facilitate things for you, but that it should not hamper you. You don't need big money, I hear you saying, but facilitation, such as perhaps tax breaks or what have you.
Could you just help me develop that list? I heard you, Mr. Brophy, or one of your colleagues, talking about education. Training in your case should be driven by you, not by Queen's Park or whatever.
.1200
So we could perhaps collectively address here the governments - federal, provincial, municipal, regional, or whatever - and what are the main things they should or shouldn't do for you. I'm hearing communications, education, finance, regulations, environment.... Help me finish my list here, whoever wants to address that.
Mr. Gijssin: You've probably hit the nail on the head. In a lot of ways, it really doesn't matter what industry or what economic activity you're looking at from our community. There was a very good point I saw in the video that was mentioned earlier, and that is positive investment climate. We need the atmosphere that business and employment is wanted and desired and that government is willing to take a role to encourage that.
I'll give you one example from the salmon farming industry that goes the other way, that has been a real hamper. Salmon farm licences, the licences of occupation, have a ten-year period attached to them. There's small print written in those licences that at the end of that period, or even during the period, they can be cancelled.
It takes probably - depending on the size of the farm and the equipment used - between$1 million and as much as $3 million to get the equipment, the brood stock, to get the small fish, to get the feed you're going to feed to fish, and you have to grow them for a year and a half or two years before you have anything to sell.
If you have to put that kind of an investment in and you only have enough security to investigate your site and maybe get one or two cycles out, you're essentially asking somebody to build a factory that's going to cost them millions of dollars, and at the end of a ten-year period that can be taken away from them. That's not a positive investment climate, and that's one of the difficulties that can be there.
The other thing that is very important for salmon farming to grow at all is access to sites. You have to be able to have new sites.
Mr. Ringma: Do you mean transportation?
Mr. Gijssin: No, new sites for placing the farms. That has been extremely difficult in British Columbia, probably for the shellfish growers as well as the salmon farmers. Those are a couple of good examples.
The Chairman: Miss Salmon.
Ms Salmon: Basically, I'll reinforce what Marcel said, and I didn't mention it in my brief because it is a provincial jurisdiction, but Bob asked what government could do as a whole: access to new ground.
Clearly, we've been able to increase production without access to new ground. However, if we had an ability to expand to new areas - and as Marcel mentioned, the coastline is vast - the potential would be so much greater.
Going back to what Bob was saying, we're not looking for handouts. Industry does not want that. They really want less regulation and a climate that's more conducive to investments.
There are a few infrastructure things that certainly would assist. One of them, for the shellfish industry in particular, as I mentioned, was that whole area of sewage and waste handling, which I know right now is a municipal responsibility. I'm not sure how the federal government can play a role there, but I think it's critical.
Telecommunications, again, is another one that is important, but the industry is going to grow regardless. That would certainly assist, but it's not going to stop the industry from growing.
The access to skilled workers is something that's already happening by the HRDC sector counsel, and Sharon could talk a bit more about that. With that already starting, we're starting to get more of a role in determining what kinds of skills are necessary and being able to create that. So that kind of thing should be encouraged because it needs to happen at the local levels.
To reinforce, basically it's to have a bit more freedom for these growers to be able to work in a positive business climate.
Mr. Brophy: As to two parts of the puzzle, the climate we've been talking about and we've worked successfully on in the Mattawa area is one of them.
You'll see in our recommendations that if government started to sing the praises of the natural resources sector, if your government started telling the story, so to speak, positively, about what the natural resources sector is all about.... So much money comes from this natural resources sector, effectively running our country.
.1205
When you look outside Canada.... We may think we have high technology, but the truth is that we are still exporters of raw material - of wood, petroleum and the list goes on. As a government, I believe we should sing the praises of what we do best. I think that would change public opinion in core Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. These people seem to drive the agendas. If you did the first thing, which is to sing the praises of the natural resources sector, I think that would be a significant help to all of us.
Second and equally important, if the feds, provinces and municipalities were at the same table all of the time - that is, one-stop shopping, which we mention this in our document - I think we would be so much further ahead in the rural economic situations. Effectively, it would be little summit meetings about each issue instead of not really knowing.... If you talk to the feds or the province, the song sheets are different. It's complicated and you have to be - I hate to say this - a chartered accountant or a lawyer to get through the morass. Many of the burgeoning companies, the start-ups, the value-added companies, don't have the money for professionals. They don't have the money to come to Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal or Quebec City, etc. So bring one person to represent everyone. That's a radical change, but why not?
Mr. Steer: A good example of a federal initiative is the Community Access Program through Industry Canada. That allows us to buy hardware and software to bring us up to speed, and to digitize information so that we can use that information. It's a rural development program. That's the kind of initiative and seed money we need to do these sorts of things. That's a good federal example right there - the CAP program.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Wood): I understand the CAP people will come before the committee next Tuesday, so it will be an interesting committee meeting.
Mr. Serré.
Mr. Serré (Timiskaming - French River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say at the start that I share Mike's view on your work as an MP.
My question will be directed to Mike and Bill, but I want to tell Marcel that we were in Tofino two years ago as part of another tour of the committee, and it's a beautiful small community. I can relate to a lot of the things you said. I'm not very familiar with your industry, so I'll let the people from both coasts ask you questions on salmon aquaculture.
We all know of the ecology wars that have been going on over the last decade. I have been smack in the middle of a major one in Temagami since approximately 1986. It was refreshing this morning to hear an environmentalist and educator like Bill talk about development - sustainable development, mind you. We've seen both extremes of the issue, including what I call the radical environmentalists, who are against development period. On the other side of the coin, when I was working in the bush with my dad - I was about 13 years old - the industry had only one consideration: the bottom line. There was no regard for social or ecological values.
The question - and I don't know if I'll be able to ask it properly - is what can be done? Because of the radical environmentalists and the industry's change of attitude towards more sustainable development, silviculture and whatever, we have a role to play as the federal government and you have a role to play as an industry and as environmentalists to change the perception that forestry or mining development automatically means the destruction of the environment. We can do it in a sustainable manner.
What can be done, both from your point of view and our point of view, to change that perception across the world and in Canada? Right now I think our worst impediments are not from Europe - there might be some - but from Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver. What can we do to change that perception and make people realize that we can have economic development in rural Canada in a sustainable way?
.1210
Mr. Brophy: Interestingly, the model that Mattawa has used.... I've been in conversation with Mr. Hodgson and Mr. Adair from Temagami in the last three days. We've had meetings about information we might share with them, and hopefully it will help. We're in the middle of finishing our economic assessment; that is, the Canadian Ecology Centre that you see on the cover of this book.... That pine cone starting to form we think does just that. I'll explain how we arrived at this thing.
We looked at the forestry industry and tourism industry and asked how you could put the two together. We effectively did an analysis - strengths and weaknesses, etc. - within our community, and we concluded that communication of the truth is what's so important. When you don't know the truth - unfortunately we all do this, even in our families - if we don't know what they want to do, we have a problem, and that's where communication is so important.
This is what has happened in our community. This Canadian Ecology Centre project is a plan to put the forest industry and the eco-tourist together. The view is that Tembec Inc., which has the limits around Mattawa - as I said earlier, they are going to walk the talk. Mr. Dottori is committed to doing that.
There's a small document, both in French and English, that has five forest eco-tours in our area. This is actually what started the ecology centre. Effectively, we're asking people to come to our area and drive, walk and cross-country ski these tours. These tours are silviculture tours. If Tembec is lying about doing things in a sustainable manner, they're going to be seen. So let's bring the eco-tourist to see what Tembec is doing, what we are doing in our community.
Bill Steer has been running eco-camps with the Nipissing Board of Education, which has been very successful in our area. We've married this all together and we're telling the public to come as eco-tourists and learn the truth about the forestry industry. I'm not ashamed to say that I'm looking to bring another 150 jobs to my community, so this eco-tourism thing is not just altruistic. I want jobs to be created out of this, but the premise we've chosen is to tell the world the truth. Don't read the myth, come and see the fact. So we are suggesting that eco-tourists are going to come and walk our trails, see what the forest industry's doing, go into the mills, see the people, see what they're doing in the mills, and effectively have an education happen.
I don't know if I've fully answered, Mr. Serré, but I hope I've helped. Communication is where it's at.
Mr. Steer: I have two things to add. On a local level, we've educated our media and they know what sustainable development is. Now we have to force them to take it to the other levels so that we have good stories coming out. We don't have many on a national level and we have to do that, so it starts from the grassroots model up.
Second, ecology is the study of the inner relationships of living and non-living things. I take it into the economic model. We have all these inner relationships within our community, from the small business person to the big industry, to the working person and the person watching television or exploring the Internet. We have to get all those people together, and that we've done on this small level. We have to export that model.
You looked at the model forest program, where millions of dollars were pumped into seven or eight communities across Canada. We need to do that again, but we have to spend more of that time on the education process. I think that's where we have to head as far as the forestry sector is concerned.
The Chairman: Mr. Reed.
Mr. Reed (Halton - Peel): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think you've really hit on a key area when you talk about telling the truth and communicating the truth, because the ignorance that exists, particularly in urban Canada, has run the regulatory process. I can tell you from personal experience in a former incarnation in Queen's Park, when someone had a new idea about aquaculture in the province of Ontario, it was resisted at the bureaucratic level because we hadn't done this before. So there's a horrific overburden of regulation, much of it created at the behest of those people who live south of Highway 401.
.1215
On top of that, we have groups who described themselves as environmentalists - I call them urban terrorists - who make a lot of money posing things that happen. They make a lot of money doing that. The recent draws have even been from Europe. One would send pictures of whatever over to Europe and they get published in newspapers, and organizations obviously would benefit financially from that.
So I guess we're doing a lousy job of communicating the truth. I think all of you here have helped to enhance our vision of rural development very much. I think it's safe for me to say that every member of this committee would agree that without a vibrant rural Canada -
Mr. Brophy: So very true.
Mr. Reed: - there would be virtually no urban Canada, but I don't know how we get that message to urban Canada.
Your suggestions are well taken.
Mr. Brophy: Mr. Reed, we believe our model is one that can be exported, can be given free of charge to communities across the country. Mobilizing the community works. It's not simple and there are lots of little issues you have to deal with, but it's working in our community. Mobilizing communities about telling the truth works, I think.
We're quite happy to have you or someone else use our community as an example. We'd be happy to run a conference in the old town of Mattawa telling other communities how they might follow the Mattawa example. We'd be pleased if that was one of the results of this.
Mr. Steer: On the subject of telling the truth, if we look at the Temagami issue, a wilderness space that's been recognized on an international basis, it's been suggested that some of the environmentalists have a vested interest in keeping the Temagami name front and centre so that their own businesses can remain front and centre, because they've caused controversy.
It has always amazed me that 150 kilometres to the south of Temagami is Algonquin Park, which is in the Mattawa and area sustainable forest, and they've had resource extraction for 103 years with very little controversy. Does that mean we have to make everything a park? No. We have to tell the truth.
Mr. Demarco: I have a quick point. Mobilizing Mattawa and the various communities around Mattawa behind this effort did not come easily. I think even the community of Mattawa and the citizens who live there needed a better appreciation of what they had and the importance of forestry to them. One of the things that's been done is what's called forestry day in Mattawa. It's just for the people of Mattawa. It happens every spring. It's an opportunity for industry to show off their wares. They bring their equipment into town, there's a gathering and they close off part of the downtown area.
I think it is important that rural Canada develops its own pride and appreciation for what they have. If they do that - and I think they've done this in Mattawa - then when the protesters arrive, or when the naysayers or whoever come into that community, they're going to face a lot of opposition. People there appreciate what they have now and they're prepared to stand out and protect it, and that too needs to develop throughout rural communities.
.1220
Mr. Brophy: I just have one little point to add. It will only take thirty seconds.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Wood): I'm sorry, Mr. Brophy, but you've already had your chance. It's Ms Salmon's turn.
Ms Salmon: I have a comment that sort of reinforces what we've been talking about. We're very aware that we need to take that message out to the urban public. I guess what we're really trying to do is start small and move in that direction. Communities that have aquaculture are very proud to have it. It employs a number of people, so they are very supportive. We're trying to take that and grow with it. For example, there's a coastal communities network that has been established on Vancouver Island. The salmon farmers are participants in it, so it again tries to sort of bring those communities together to tell their story. So hopefully we'll eventually get to that larger audience, but we're trying to build support locally first.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Wood): Mr. Gijssin.
Mr. Gijssin: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to respond to your points.
Communications in the issues that you have raised are incredibly important. As I mentioned, salmon farming has been around for just a little over ten years. It had a rocky beginning. It probably wasn't regulated properly and it expanded a little too fast, but that was ten years ago. Since that time, it's been under a microscope. It's undergone three public reviews, and it's currently undergoing a fourth.
I think a large part of the problem is that what's actually happening out there is not being communicated. I think we've only had about nine new licences since 1993, and what has ended up happening is the industry has suffered from paralysis by analysis. You just go to a review, and you go to another review because you don't communicate the results of the first one.
The public has every right to make sure that salmon farming and every other resource-based or environment-based activity is sustainable and is doing a good job. Absolutely. But after that, we have to be able to move on and we have to make sure that those kinds of results are communicated. It's very important.
To give you one of the examples of the challenges of getting things communicated, we had a process that was potentially going to threaten a few of our farms in Clayoquot Sound. Community members got upset, the farmers got upset, and there was a big protest. Now, this was in Clayoquot Sound, it filled the whole harbour, there were boats all over the place, but it never got past the local media. Any other protest in Clayoquot Sound, sort of on the other side of things, gets splashed all over the international media. So it's a big challenge because it's not quite as sexy a story and doesn't get as much of a broadcast.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Wood): Thank you very much.
We'll go with one more round around the table. Mr. Deshaies.
Mr. Deshaies: I have just a small commentary about the fish industry. I don't know many things about this industry, but what I can say is that you have the same needs or you need the same tools as the other rural industries. You need the single window or specific rules for this industry. I think that perhaps the best thing you can do is create a lot of jobs rapidly, and jobs that are year to year. It's not really the same with industry because with the machine, mechanics can replace man, but then we have some other kind of trouble. But I do think you can do a lot of things with this industry.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Wood): Mr. Ringma.
Mr. Ringma: I have three very short, snappy questions.
Why have you gone from six processing plants to three in Tofino?
Mr. Gijssin: That has been related primarily to the changes in the commercial wild salmon fisheries.
.1225
All those processing plants used to be processing trolled or net-caught salmon or bottom fish and goeyducs, and a lot of those things have declined dramatically for west coast communities. You've seen a lot more consolidation of processing in Vancouver and in the bigger areas like Prince Rupert and less in smaller coastal communities. We've also had in the last several years difficulties that everybody knows about with the stocks themselves. What happened, luckily, is that the salmon farming industry has supported the last three remaining ones and continues to do so. The contribution of the commercial fishery to those has dropped to almost nothing except in one case.
Mr. Ringma: Whatever happened - or is it still alive...? The Ontario government had a program of developing hybrid poplars for.... It was partly a reaction to the oil shortage in the early 1970s - about 20 years ago. They said we could, especially in eastern Ontario, which has a lot of marginal land, put in plantations. Did it just collapse on its own? Are you aware? I don't want to really zero in on that. I am curious about it, because it seems to me -
Mr. Steer: I don't know about poplar, but silviculture and the process of germinating the seeds and the wood fibre that's going to result is ongoing. Now they have decided that, genetically, you take the seed from that area and you put it back in there. Don't try to take a fast-growing one from another area and bring it over, because there are too many variables as far as the ecology is concerned. But I don't know specifically about the poplar.
Mr. Ringma: The final thing I would like to do, for all of you, is to zero in on something you said, Mr. Brophy, which is that there should be one-stop shopping - one level of government. You even suggested in effect that there be one person there representing the federal, provincial, and municipal governments to whom you could go and talk. I think that's an idea that's really worth exploring, and we've had the beginnings of it elsewhere. But I see it as a terribly difficult thing. Can you explain in a few words how to overcome that difficulty? Do you have any ideas on how to overcome the resistance you're going to feel there?
Mr. Brophy: Our community, of course, is in Ontario, and I think the current Ontario government is ready, willing, and able to talk about the same information being delivered by fewer civil servants. I obviously can't speak with knowledge about the rest of the country, but it seems to me that there would be a lot of value in having one person at the table instead of having three different people at three different times talking about the same thing.
There are times when there will have to be other people involved. For example, you may be dealing with silviculture issues and find that you have to talk to someone extra to the discussion. Although you may have to bring another person in, having one person representing municipal, provincial, and federal governments at the initial discussions will go a long way to making things go a lot faster.
Mr. Ringma: How does British Columbia feel about this?
Mr. Gijssin: I have to agree fully. The consolidation of the bodies that have to be dealt with is extremely important. If we need to site a new salmon farm, we have to deal with at least 14 different government agencies. On top of that, there are agencies that can kick in and overturn a process of getting through things that can last for several years.
Perhaps one of the suggestions that may be able to overcome some of the difficulty in our case, in which we're looking at specific sites, is to get all levels of government involved in an integrated marine planning process whereby you look at the areas and evaluate them on their characteristics and their use and identify areas that would have the best use for aquaculture, that would be best for recreation and tourism, or that would have a high fisheries habitat value. If you did that in a very thorough and detailed manner, you would be a long way ahead. You could have all of the groups providing that input, and that would streamline things, I think, an awful lot.
.1230
Ms Salmon: I have a quick comment to support what Bob is suggesting.
If you talk to growers in B.C., they will tell you that the major cost is dealing with all these levels of government. It's huge. It ends up being a real expense to them. It's a wonderful idea, but you're going to run into problems because people want to claim jurisdictions. They want control of an area. It really requires more openness and more willingness to say we need to do this, we need to communicate.
When we talk about communicating to the urban public, there also needs to be communication between governments. A breakdown of the feeling that this is important, it's mine and I'm not going to share it with anyone has to go before you'll be able to have something like that. For industry to move ahead, I think it's critical that some of those expenses and those divisions need to be broken down.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Wood): I have a couple of questions as the chair.
First of all, Ms Salmon, in your brief on constraints and development you say the actions or inactions of the federal government are limiting the growth of aquaculture in B.C. and you go on to explain why. I want to ask you a quick question. What precisely are you looking for from the federal government?
Ms Salmon: In the brief I mentioned that there was a federal aquaculture strategy document put together in 1995, which basically outlined the kind of environment that needed to happen for aquaculture to move ahead. Although I think everybody supports the document, there really haven't been actions followed up behind that document.
One of the major problems with our lead advocate agency is that their history is in protection and conservation of a wild fishery. That's sort of who they are. We're a bit different. We don't quite fit. We're more interested in developing and increasing production of the marine resource rather than extraction, so sometimes the rules don't always fit. We've been caught where a regulation was actually made for a wild fishery and aquaculture doesn't fit into that regulation.
I guess we're looking for support of that document and some actions where regulations aren't quite so restrictive and where they suit aquaculture versus the wild fishery.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Wood): Thank you.
I have one final quick question to Mr. Brophy. Your third recommendation is entitled ``Government should put back''. What should they put back and how? What mechanism do you have in mind? Are you looking for infrastructure, tax incentives, grants and contributions? How do you visualize that working?
Mr. Brophy: What we sit with in the current situation is that the money, the taxes, flows into the general government coffers. Mr. Serré's suggestion about northern Ontario or something that was in the press in the past....
What I feel should happen is that federal and provincial governments should recognize the value of the natural resource sector in the country. If we're going to have that natural resource sector continue to prosper and continue to bring prosperity to the rest of the country, I think it needs to be cultivated. Effectively, we need to put a little bit of fertilizer into the natural resources sector.
The suggestion is around the idea of communicating. We have lots of television advertising about tourism, but most of what you see is telling you to go to the casino somewhere or to the great restaurants in Montreal or Toronto. Why not spend a whole lot more saying come and see northern Ontario, rural Ontario, rural Canada? Making people feel good about what they're doing goes a whole long way toward the positive.
So the recommendation is to give some of the money back to the people who made it happen. I think that's what we're really saying.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Wood): Thank you very much for being here, witnesses, especially Ms Salmon and Mr. Gijssin, because I know you've travelled a long way to be here. We certainly appreciate you appearing before the committee.
.1235
I know it's been mentioned a couple of times this morning that we have two entirely different industries, but I think as the committee went around and asked questions this morning, we found that both industries really did have a lot in common. We appreciate your recommendations. They'll certainly be taken under consideration. We'll have our report out some time in March.
Again, I thank the Mattawa and Area Forestry Committee for being here, and also the people from B.C.
That concludes our hearing this morning. We're adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at 3:30.