FISH Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, April 20, 1999

• 0914

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)): Good morning, everyone. Again we'd like to mention that we're back in room 253-D, and today's proceedings will be on CPAC, or at least prepared for CPAC viewing.

Today's meeting is pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) dealing with lobster issues, and we do have with us today representatives from the Lobster Health Research Centre, located at the University of Prince Edward Island.

• 0915

Before we begin with our hearing this morning, I'd like to bring a couple of points to members' notice. Last week we had three days of hearings with the sealing industry, and we'll soon be preparing a report on that. Our researcher has taken good notes of your assistance, and we do have the recording of the proceedings.

I talked with Alan briefly this morning and I think it might be best that before he begins his writing, if members or people from their staff have a brief recommendation on the hearings they should try to submit that to Alan as soon as possible. Again, if some of your assistants were here for the proceedings and want to participate in some of that writing, I think Alan would appreciate their support. We would hope that it would be a brief report, but it certainly would reflect what we've heard and it would make definite recommendations to the minister.

So if you do have concerns or you do have recommendations or input or suggestions, that should go into the report this week. We would give until Friday of this week for people to submit hopefully no longer than a page, but a very brief summary of your concerns.

Secondly this morning we have at least one notice of motion. Peter, would you like to bring that to the attention of the committee?

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Yes. In regard to what you're saying, Mr. Chairman, about the report we planned to do on the seals, the notice of motion for the next time we meet will be that this committee ask Minister Anderson and his department officials.... There was another gentleman here by the name of Mr. Roberts, who was with the Government of Canada and had a lot to do with the fur ban that happened years ago. He was telling us that his advice could be quite helpful to us in determining markets for the seal products, and he would like to appear before the committee as well.

So the motion requests that these two, Minister Anderson and this Mr. Roberts, appear before us as soon as possible in regard to the issue of seals.

The Chairman: You are writing that out as a notice of motion, and our clerk will....

On the motion, Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): It's somewhat of a tangential point, but I'm wondering whether the committee has also invited the minister to appear as part of the estimates. Members may or may not be aware that when the ministers come you can ask virtually any question on any issue you like regarding their departments. So if we're planning on having him for the estimates, I think we also have to be aware of not bringing him back on too many other issues as well. But at the end of the day, it's up to the committee.

The Chairman: On the same topic, Mr. Easter?

Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Yes, Mr. Chairman, on the estimates, that request has gone in, I believe, and it's a matter of timing. The minister is not here this week and was out of circulation for four or five. So it could be done at the same time, if that's enough to suit Mr. Stoffer.

The other group, though, that has been mentioned a number of times and is not in Peter's resolution is the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, which I gather has to make a decision on this. If we're going to extend the hearing on seals, I wonder whether they shouldn't be brought in as well.

I misplaced a piece of paper, but I will, Mr. Chairman, be giving to the clerk sometime later in the meeting copies of testimony from the fisheries and oceans standing committee from 1969 in which Brian Davies, who is now being paid $2.5 million by the IFAW, reported to the committee at the time that a sustainable herd level would be 1.75 million. I'd like to give that to the clerk for distribution to the committee and to follow up any research that was done at the time.

The Chairman: On Peter's notion now...Peter, the clerk informs me that the date set aside for the minister to come is May 6.

• 0920

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The concern I have is, do we plan on getting the report on seals out before that or shortly after that? I believe his input, or his department's input, would be very valuable, because in the end every single person we spoke to about the seals was placing the onus of responsibility right on the department. I think it's imperative upon us to speak to the minister, or at least senior officials, to discuss what they plan to do about the issue of seals.

The Chairman: Again from the clerk, if we were to set aside May 11 and May 13 to consider the report and conclude it, which would be a week after the minister comes, would that satisfy your—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I wouldn't have any problem with that at all, sir.

The Chairman: As part of this discussion, I've heard about the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, FRCC. I don't want this sealing thing to become open and for us to continue with more and more groups. Today I would like to more or less conclude. The minister would be a priority, and you'd be satisfied with that. The Fisheries Resource Conservation Council and the Fur Council would be the two concluding witnesses we would look forward to, probably next week if it can be arranged.

Apparently it would be May 4, according to the clerk, for those two groups.

Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chairman, if Minister Anderson can't appear because of sickness or something, then at least some senior department officials who could answer the questions we have for his department would be satisfactory.

The Chairman: Yes. So it is agreed then that those would be the last two groups, the Fur Council and the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, FRCC. Thank you.

Are there other items before we begin this morning's hearings? Yvan.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la- Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): I agree with Peter's proposal. However, when the Minister comes, I would like to be sure to be able to ask him questions about the Estimates and any other subject. Since we already missed one meeting with the Minister because of his illness, I think that Peter's question is very important. I would just like things to be organized so that, when we meet with Mr. Anderson, the parties will be able to ask him more than one or two questions.

Could we arrange to have more than an hour and a half with the Minister? Although I don't want to nail him to the wall, I already have questions to ask him about the budget and other topics, including infrastructure, and I'm interested in the sealing issue as well. So the idea would be to invite the Minister and indicate to him that this would be two meetings in one, since we were not able to hear from him on the budget; we will have to take into account his schedule, of course.

I have one last question to raise this morning. What is the future business of the committee? If you do not have the answer right away, perhaps we can come back to it at 11 o'clock, when the meeting is over, because I have to leave on Wednesday evening and I may not be back until the following Wednesday. I would like to know if the committee business has been planned for that period.

[English]

The Chairman: Rather than tell me, it would be easier for the clerk to tell you directly what's on the agenda.

The Clerk of the Committee: After the meeting today, we don't have another meeting this week. Next Tuesday, April 27, we have the Auditor General on his annual report; there are three chapters on fisheries. That's next Tuesday, a week from today. On April 29, it's tentative, but by videoconferencing we might have Rich Chapple from the Pacific Salmon Commission. That's next week. The following week, on May 4, we'll have the FRCC and the Fur Council. On May 6, it's the minister on his estimates, which is two hours—our meetings are two hours long. The following week we'd be working on the seal report, May 11 and May 13. Then the House is adjourned and it comes back after May 20.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Yvan, and for government members, when the minister comes, most of the time goes to the opposition. So we can assure you that you'll get adequate time. The minister is from the government and we have the government side here, but they see the minister more often.

• 0925

This morning we'd like to welcome some of our scientists and researchers from the Lobster Health Research Centre. It's my understanding that you have a brief slide presentation, Mr. Cawthorn.

Professor Richard Cawthorn (Director, Lobster Health Research Centre, University of Prince Edward Island): Yes, Mr. Chair, each of us would like to give you an overview of our perspective on the Lobster Health Research Centre.

The Chairman: We certainly would be very interested in that.

I'd like to remind you that normally we meet for about two hours on Tuesday. With that, I understand it will take you about thirty minutes to make your presentation, and that will be followed by questions on your presentation from the various political parties. I think the thing will work out well.

On the east coast, lobsters are certainly a very important part of our fishing industry. In fact, I think we might almost say that lobster is king, but we want to make sure that it being king...those queen crabs, the white crabs, are also bringing in a lot of money. I don't want to reflect on that, but I know that for many of the inshore people the lobster is a very important part of their livelihood.

So welcome to our meeting, and we'd like to hear what you're doing there in Prince Edward Island.

Prof. Richard Cawthorn: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Rick Cawthorn. I'm a professor of veterinary parasitology at the University of Prince Edward Island and the director of the Lobster Health Research Centre. With me today is Allan Baker, the executive director of the Canadian Atlantic Lobster Promotion Association. He's also on secondment with us as the industry liaison officer. With us as well is Mr. Wayne Hooper, and he's the chief executive officer of AVC Inc., which is a for-profit, private company that is wholly owned by the University of Prince Edward Island.

What we'd like to do this morning is give you the history, the present status, and future of the Lobster Health Research Centre, our approaches to research and development, our educational programs, and some of the opportunities that we believe are there.

The University of Prince Edward Island is located in Charlottetown. The Atlantic Veterinary College is Canada's fourth and newest veterinary school. We were established in 1986 to serve the four Atlantic provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick. Our strengths are in fish health. Specifically, they have been in aquaculture and in population medicine. Recently, however, we have incorporated lobster health into our undergraduate, continuing education, and graduate programs.

So why would we study lobsters? The lobster fishery is one of the few surviving great traditional fisheries in eastern north America and Canada. For 1997, the year for which we have the most complete figures, the landings were approximately 38,000 metric tonnes. The landed value is approximately $400 million in the four Atlantic provinces, and also in the province of Quebec. This represents a total economic impact on our region of approximately $1 billion. You should also note that our competition is the United States, where 28,000 metric tonnes are landed annually. Of that total, 55% of those lobsters come from the state of Maine and 35% from Massachusetts. Also recognize that warm-water lobsters are a significant fishery in other parts of the world. In Cuba, 10,000 metric tonnes of spiny lobster are landed annually. In Australia the landed value of the warm-water lobster fishery is $425 million, and in New Zealand it's about $100 million. Nonetheless, the Canadian lobster fishery is one of the largest and, in our view, one of the best in the world.

When we deal with lobsters, as we do when we deal with any other traditional species of veterinary medicine, one of the big questions we have is how to define health and how to define disease in lobsters. This definition comes from a medical pathologist, and I use it when I teach veterinary students. Our premise is how we define what is a healthy lobster. All of our research programs are based on this very difficult question. How do you know when a lobster is healthy? More importantly for the industry, how do we maintain the health of that lobster from the time it is caught until it reaches the consumer?

When we began to deal with lobsters, we had to look at this triad of the host, which is the lobster; its parasites or pathogens, which cause disease; and the environment in which the lobster is kept. We know quite a bit about the lobster in the wild ocean, but we know relatively little about the lobster after it is caught and held for various periods, whether that period is a few hours or several months, prior to reaching the consumer. There is a very large need for basic knowledge when it comes to dealing with lobster health. We view the lobster industry as being where the dairy industry was about a hundred years ago when it comes to working with the veterinary profession.

• 0930

Our lobster health research at the Atlantic Veterinary College began in the spring of 1994 at the instigation of the Canadian Atlantic Lobster Promotion Association, and much of our research program has been funded by the industrial research assistance program of the National Research Council.

We began in 1994 and we developed a multidisciplinary team within the college, and we really played with lobsters. Could we work with the lobster in the laboratory, could we work on diseases that are important to the lobster industry, and could we take that information back to the fishery? The answer is yes, yes, and yes.

Subsequently, in July 1996, we received initial funding for three years from the Max Bell Foundation. This allowed us to formally establish the Lobster Health Research Centre. We are a multidisciplinary centre, and we are multi-institutional. We collaborate with people from literally around the world, including the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and countries in Europe.

Our mandate has been, to this point, to apply the principles of veterinary medicine to the post-harvest sector of the lobster fishery, and our initial emphasis has been on North American lobsters. The Max Bell Foundation wants our institution to become international and to work on shrimps and prawns.

At the Atlantic Veterinary College there are 65 faculty, at least 16 of whom have impacted in a positive manner on our lobster health research program. Presently, the director of the Lobster Health Research Centre reports to the dean, who reports to the president, and we have sanction from both President Heider and Dean Ogilvie to present to you what our opportunities are for the Lobster Health Research Centre.

Because of our research program, which I'll talk about momentarily, we've decided that we need three divisions: one devoted to lobster health research; another division that will take some of our research and put it into the marketplace, which will be the innovation and technology transfer group; and finally, and most importantly, we need to communicate our results to the fishery, to the academic milieu, and also to government agencies, and this will be the role of the information and communications directorate.

Although we did not bring any live lobsters with us today, we have one of the best lobster holding facilities in the world. We can hold 384 lobsters in individual trays, with very strict environmental controls of refrigeration, recirculation, and water quality. This particular facility cost approximately $100,000, and it costs us approximately $800 a month simply to maintain these lobsters. We can constantly monitor the water-quality parameters, and we can maintain, as I say, some of the best healthy lobsters for our research program anywhere in the world.

Consequently, we can do studies that satisfy the laboratory practice requirements of the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs in Canada, the United States Food and Drug Administration, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and also the regulatory bodies in both Japan and the European Union.

The Chairman: Dr. Cawthorn, the translators are having some difficulty. I know all us guys on the east coast talk too fast, but maybe a little bit of a Texas drawl might help them out in the translation. I'm sorry about that. We're going to give you lots of time.

Prof. Richard Cawthorn: I should tell you, my brother is a francophone, and unfortunately he wasn't here to translate.

The Chairman: Are you okay, Claude? Yvan?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: You can rest assured that the interpreters are doing an excellent job; they have been following the presentation.

[English]

Prof. Richard Cawthorn: I seem to have the same difficulty, even though English is the first language of most of my students.

The Chairman: Proceed then, Doctor Cawthorn.

Prof. Richard Cawthorn: The bottom line—and I reiterate that this is the basic premise from which we have begun—is, what constitutes a healthy lobster? Although we have been working on this particular question for five years, we still do not have the answers that are as good as we would like.

• 0935

Our first division will address the issues of lobster health. Presently we recognize there are at least three infectious diseases that are important to the lobster fishery when lobsters are caught. We estimate that 10% to 15% of the landed value of lobsters, anywhere from $40 million to $70 million a year, is lost after lobsters are caught and put in the storage facilities. Of the lobsters caught in Canada, approximately 50% are shipped to live market.

There are at least three infectious diseases. One is a parasite called bumper car disease, and the other two are bacterial diseases. At the present time we recognize these are three important diseases after lobsters are caught. The question the fisheries biologists have for us is whether these are important diseases in the wild fishery. We have not emphasized that at the present time; we have concentrated on the lobsters after they are caught.

The bumper car parasites are microscopic. When you look at a drop of lobster blood, they bang around like the bumper cars at the carnival or circus. We use this particular parasite as a model to study lobster health and infectious disease processes in the lobsters. The reason we work on parasites is because that's my discipline by training, and although I lead a very large team, we still go a little bit in my direction where we utilize these parasites.

When it says we can work in vitro with these parasites, it means we can grow them in test tubes. We can take one parasite and grow it up to several million or billion in a very short timeframe. We can also take this parasite and put it back into the live lobster, which is what in vitro means. We inject this from the plastic bottles and put it into other lobsters. We think these parasites, in the wild, can cross the thin cuticle of a newly moulted lobster or enter into wounds, and that's what we mean by bath transmission. This is the principal tool we use to study lobster health, to look at bumper car disease.

One of the more interesting questions that's come up recently is about soft-shell lobsters. You should recognize we have a fall lobster fishery in Canada, and in the United States a lot of lobsters are caught immediately after they've shed, so these are what we call soft-shell lobsters—newly moults. They're not very palatable, in my view, but there is a very large interest in feeding those lobsters so they harden up and meat up more quickly.

When it comes to making a diet for lobsters, it's not as easy as making a diet for a dog or a cat. We don't know very much about the quality and quantity of nutrients that are required. We don't know whether we can supplement the diet to enhance the resistance of lobsters to infectious agents, and we don't know how we can make these diets stable and palatable when we work with the aquatic environment.

I said we would try to answer this question of what is a healthy lobster, and now we recognize we have to address these five points in order to determine what a healthy lobster is. When do you take the sample from the lobster? If the lobster is sampled immediately on the boat, it gives you a completely different picture than if you take a blood sample from a lobster that's already arrived in Japan. Where do you take that sample? In a nice cold wet environment or on a hot dry wharf? How do you take that blood sample, from what part of the lobster do you take it, and what do you look at in the lobster to determine its health status?

There are lots of parameters that can help us determine the health status of people or dogs, but very few that help us with lobsters. We also recognize that lobsters are constantly either preparing to moult or have just had a moult, so the physiological status, including its moulting time or period and its reproductive status, are very important for us in defining what is a healthy lobster.

We can use some of the most sophisticated equipment in the world. This happens to be a blood cell counter that's used for humans, but we've modified it for veterinary medicine. It allows us to use lasers and electrical impediment systems to count the number of blood cells in a lobster and determine what type they are. This tool is excellent for diagnostic and research purposes, but unfortunately each blood sample costs us $6.50. What we need for lobsters is rapid, inexpensive, pennies-apiece, and much more user-friendly tools we can use on the wharf or boat.

One of the programs that has been funded by IRAP through the National Research Council and also through the Canadian Atlantic Lobster Promotion Association is this unique training opportunity for a lobster veterinarian. Basically this was a three-and-a-half-year program that has just been completed, where we sent a veterinarian out to determine when losses occurred, how big those losses were, what the risk factors associated with the lobster fishery were, and whether we could predict the survivability of lobsters.

• 0940

This is, as I say, a unique training opportunity. It's the only one in the world of which we're aware. It's highly successful and we hope it will continue.

For example, which boat factors are important in keeping lobsters healthy? The fishing practices of handling and bait are very important. Those who treat lobsters like fine pieces of china have lobsters that survive better than those who throw them. Those who fish with mackerel have lobsters that do not survive as well as lobsters of those who fish with herring. None of that information was clearly documented until this particular project was completed.

How are the lobsters held on the boat? Are they exposed to the air, wind, and rain, or are they held in holding tanks with fresh salt water being circulated.

What are the important factors on the wharves? These lobsters may be left too long in the hot sun or they may be exposed to the rain. We know fresh water will kill a lobster. We know lobsters can dry out. We know they can literally cook to death right there on the wharf.

Lots of lobsters—50% of them—are held in tidal pounds, such as the one in St. George, New Brunswick. Unfortunately, some of these tidal pounds have been in the same place for 50 to 65 years, so there is organic detritus that builds up in the bottom and this can be a great soup of pathogens. We are also concerned that salmon farms and some of the chemicals associated with those salmon farms may impact on the lobster pounding industry. This is a big concern in eastern Canada and eastern United States.

What is the best way to ship and pack a live lobster? Should these trucks be refrigerated? Should there be air circulating through them? Should they have 100% relative humidity? We now know some of those factors are indeed very important. What is the best way to ship a lobster from Halifax to Japan? Much of the shipping crates are proprietary information and we have done research with Clearwater HardshellFresh Brand on how to enhance their packing boxes.

Dr. Jean Lavallée is from the Faculté de médecine vétérinaire in Saint Hyacinthe. He has now completed his residency and his Master of Science. He is the only veterinarian in the world to complete a degree in lobster health management and production. We hope Jean will stay with us as a clinical lobster veterinarian, literally the only one in the world. We intend to have more graduate students join us and work with us on lobster health.

One of the more spectacular groups we've developed now is the innovation and technology transfer group, because some of what we do is very practical and very applied. This particular lobster has the Clearwater logo stuck right on it. The label adhesive system utilizes a food-safe ink, a food-safe plastic, and a medical adhesive. This has now been approved for use by the United States Department of Health and Human Services for labelling lobsters.

This allows you to put a bar code on board, so you can track that lobster; a time and temperature indicator, so you know how healthy the product is or how good the product is; and your company logo. They cost pennies apiece. They go on live animals, first time, every time. This was developed with the Canadian Atlantic Lobster Promotion Association, the P.E.I. Food Technology Centre, and the Canadian Atlantic Lobster Promotion Association. This is produced by Ketchum Manufacturing, which is here in Ottawa.

Unfortunately, there is an impediment because we do not have a high-speed applicator system. We have meetings coming up with an engineering group to try to develop a high-speed applicator system.

This can go on any kind of crustacean. We also know you can put this on bivalves and on produce like potatoes, cabbages, cauliflower, and lettuce, so you can identify and track your product from here to the marketplace. When you cook the lobster, this peels off like nail polish from a model airplane. This was developed by one of our students, Dr. Claude Morris. Every one of our lobsters has a label on board and we can track them.

We also think we can apply this to finfish. We have preliminary results that we can put this on board salmon, but we haven't pursued that very much because of our interest with the crustaceans.

We've begun to work with a company called Guigné Technologies Limited, which is in Paradise, Newfoundland. If you ever have the opportunity to go to Paradise, I think you will find the rest of our country pales in comparison to the view of the ocean you have from Paradise.

This company specializes in acoustic innovations for high-risk questions. More recently we now have a memorandum of understanding between Guigné International Limited and AVC Inc., which will protect the intellectual property developed by the Lobster Health Research Centre and then hopefully ensure we will develop economic benefits from this particular memorandum.

• 0945

Basically, we've developed the lobster ultrasonic probe that gives us an instantaneous determination of meat yields and a window on lobster health. This is non-invasive, instantaneous, and it can be downloaded instantaneously into a hand-held computer. This is a partnership between the Lobster Health Research Centre, Guigné International Limited, and Clearwater Fine Foods.

The proof of concept was funded again by the IRAP program. Phase 1 is complete, and the cost to date is approximately $250,000. Phase 2 is underway. It deals with prototype development, and it will also provide us with a training program for Dr. Andrea Battison that will allow us to develop a new paradigm of lobster health. This same kind of ultrasonic probe can be applied to bivalves to determine whether they are alive or dead or what condition they're in, and this can also be applied to finfish and probably other animals as well. There is a patent application underway. This is something that the food technology centre needed, and something we needed for some of our clients when we were trying to develop good lobster diets. That is, how do you know how much meat is in a lobster?

Most recently, I returned from Europe, where we are working with a company called Intervet International, which has annual sales of about $3 billion U.S. This is one of the leading animal health companies in the world, and they've asked us to participate with them in developing cell lines and vaccines for the shrimp industry, primarily in Southeast Asia. The shrimp aquaculture industry is worth about $8 billion U.S. annually, but the good news for us is that something in lobsters is essential to their research program when they deal with shrimp cell lines and viruses.

So there is a formal agreement being developed with us and also with Intervet International. Hopefully we will benefit by having our research program funded on shrimp cell lines. There are no viruses at the present time that affect lobsters. There are some people who believe that there may well be viruses that affect lobsters, but when you develop vaccines against viral diseases, you really need these cell lines, and it's a very expensive proposition.

We have been in correspondence with Intervet. The estimate is that the product we give to these people to work on shrimps is probably worth at least $10,000 U.S. per litre. It's something very simple, it comes from the lobster, and we're the only ones who can produce that product for them at the present time, so it's very exciting.

Probably one of the areas in which we have to increase our capabilities is in communications. All of our research is peer reviewed in the scientific literature, and we also provide workshops to the Canadian Aquaculture Institute. However, in our view, we have not spent enough time and effort at providing that information to the fishery until recently. One of the ways we're going to do that is through Lobster^net, which is an Internet information system for the lobster industry. It's based on the Animal Productivity and Health Information Network, which was developed at the Atlantic Veterinary College through funding from the old Agriculture Canada, as opposed to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Basically, at the processing level and the export level, this system will allow the industry to track their health and production issues within their facilities. This is a highly confidential and highly secure system, and the ownership and direction of that particular program will come from the lobster industry. This is a significant development. Clearwater Fine Foods is now sponsoring one of its biologists, Ms. Monique Burke, to come to our facility and develop a masters program in applied epidemiology, with the view that Lobster^net will be instituted in Clearwater Fine Foods very shortly.

You've already received these lobster health fact sheets. This product has been developed from Dr. Jean Lavallée's masters program. The translation into French has been completed, and the next press run will be done when we return home to Prince Edward Island. These are very simple fact sheets that address significant issues. As I say, this is the first time these issues have been quantified for the lobster industry. We printed off 250 of them three weeks ago, and I have only 10 sets left. They've literally been distributed around the world now, and there are more of these to come. I think they are a great way to communicate what we do back to the fishery at all levels.

So this is where we would like to go. Right now, we do have a Lobster Health Research Centre, but our funding is coming to its sunset on June 30. We believe we need to develop the infrastructure and the personnel resources to continue with the Lobster Health Research Centre. We believe there are tremendous numbers of opportunities. The animal rights groups are all interested in how you kill a lobster humanely. We have a chemical means of killing lobsters, but this is probably not going to be acceptable to the public in terms of consuming a lobster that's killed with a pesticide. This works very well, though, and we use it for research purposes. We also have an innovation that's based on sound, and it may be available for killing lobsters humanely.

• 0950

We are developing molecular genetic markers that allow us to track populations of lobsters in the wild. We hope to develop these user-friendly diagnostic tools that are very cost-effective for the industry.

We have education programs now at all levels, as I say. They exist in the undergraduate veterinary program, in the graduate program, and in our extension work.

There is some interest in putting immune stimulants or things that enhance the resistance of lobsters to disease into their feeds. It's coming, but it may be a little bit difficult. There are some developments, such as Lobster^net and information technology. And again tying in with nutrition is the idea of developing diets that allow us to feed up the lobsters.

So presently when you deal with the Lobster Health Research Centre, it gives you access to the university. Some of our colleagues are not in the veterinary school; they are in the department of biology. We have a great number of my colleagues in the Atlantic Veterinary College interested in lobsters. And by the way, all these lobsters are purchased either with private sector funds or with the taxpayers' dollars, and they all go to post-mortem. At Christmastime, everybody would like some of our lobsters, but they all go to post-mortem.

Finally, you can access the private company AVC Inc. We do utilize AVC Inc. for a lot of our business contracts because academics are not very good at maintaining their budgets or following their budgets, and we're not very good at deliverables. When we deal with AVC Inc., it ensures that the academic community learns to work with the business community. We consider AVC Inc. to be a very useful tool for directing our applied research.

Somebody mentioned “king” before. Well, as far as we're concerned, the lobster is the king of the seafoods.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Dr. Cawthorn.

Mr. Baker, are you on second?

Mr. Allan Baker (Executive Director, Canadian Atlantic Lobster Promotion Association): Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ladies and gentlemen, my role here today is to represent industry. As Rick said, I am the executive director of the Canadian Atlantic Lobster Promotion Association. In addition to that, I have been a fisher for the past 27 years, I have managed a processing plant for 10 years, and for the past decade I have been working as a head of associations representing fishers in the processing marketing sector both provincially, nationally, and internationally.

Please make no mistake about it. My purpose here today, and our purpose here today, is all about dollars. It's about dollars to the Atlantic fishery, to the Atlantic region, to the Canadian economy. The Canadian lobster fishery supports countless thousands of people in Atlantic Canada in the coastal communities of five provinces. The insurance premiums we pay as fishers in industry on our behalf and on behalf of the public are inadequate.

The chance of collapse in the lobster fishery as a result of insufficient science and insufficient research is real. I would think that what is very difficult for people like yourselves to get your head around—and it certainly was to me in my early years as a fisher—is that, generally speaking, a collapse of a sector is related and/or has been related in the past to a resource collapse. At this point in time, although lobster landings are down to some degree, it does not appear that a resource collapse is imminent. However, as a result of being a one-industry town, so to speak, on the east coast, where lobster is really the only resource that we have left that is able to support those thousands of stakeholders, it is important to note that there is no back-up to this fishery. When we have no back-up, we have to ensure that we provide the ultimate protection to that fishery to ensure the longevity of it, the sustainability of it, and most importantly the sustainability to the economy of the region.

Four years ago, I went to the Atlantic Veterinary College as an industry representative, because of the pan-Atlantic subscription by the provinces in Atlantic Canada. It's a regional institution. Previous to that, as I travelled the world in my role as promotion and marketing director for the Canadian lobster industry, the major challenge that was put before me was to increase the return to the industry. We have to recognize that what we harvest each year is finite. The amount we harvest is regulated by seasons, by limited licences, by trap limits, by a number of management tools, all of which appear to be relatively sound. However, costs increase. They increase naturally and sometimes they increase because we are overcapitalized in the industry.

• 0955

The challenge facing the Atlantic Canadian lobster industry is one of economic collapse. The economic collapse will come from a number of factors. Really what we are here today to talk about is how we can use science to improve efficiencies, productivities, cut losses, and actually, in whatever critical control point that we may utilize it within the industry, in order to ensure economic health and wealth creation opportunities for that industry.

As Rick pointed out, at the present time between 10% to 15% of our lobster resource is lost post-harvest. A simple definition of post-harvest means from the moment a lobster enters a lobster trap on the bottom of the ocean. If we look at a $425 million industry, landed value to the fishers, we look at an industry worth $1 billion in total economic activity to those involved with the fishery, in the plants, in the market selling the product, trucking the product, supplying boats, vessels, gear, and electronics. If we take that $1 billion and we use normal multiplier effects of at least two, we come to discover that we have an industry with an economic impact on Atlantic Canada of about $2 billion.

We in the industry certainly have been guilty of being too quiet, of possessing a laissez-faire attitude, of being independent—too independent. But we must make more money with a finite resource. As I said before, if I go to Japan, which I have many times, or to Europe or to the United States, and we market our product, we praise our product, we praise its attributes—it's a health food, a diet food, a lover's food, a party food, it's for celebrations. Those are all recognized, but we are not immune to the realities of the competitive marketplace.

Lobster, unfortunately to most people, and I don't know whether I agree or not—some people tell me it's not essential to maintain life; you don't have to eat it. I'd like not to believe that, but in any event there is lots of competition out there in the world with regard to high-value proteins, whether it be seafood based or land based. It's very difficult to say to our Japanese partners in the marketing of this product that we want to get 10% more, or we want to get 15% more.

For all that it is unique in the North American context, it is difficult for us to mandate or dictate to the marketplace. Having been involved intimately in the fishery for 30 years, coming from a fishing community on eastern Prince Edward Island of 200 people, of 50 households, where two households in that community are not related in some fashion to the industry, since they are neither fishers or plant owners or plant operators or transport, or related in whatever fashion, I'm keenly aware that we need to increase the economic return, not only for the stakeholders, but I think most fishers are now keenly aware of who the owners are of this common property resource, and they are Canadians at large.

I'd like to assure you in no uncertain terms that if we do see a decrease in the value of the lobster fishery, either resulting from decreased values or decreased landings, the resulting economic confusion will no doubt make the Newfoundland cod crisis pale in comparison, just because of the far-reaching effects of the lobster fishery in Atlantic Canada.

So in addressing the need, as an industry spokesman, as an industry strategist, whose job for the last decade has been heading off challenges and identifying opportunities for the Canadian lobster industry, one of the things we have, I suppose in ignorance to some degree in the past, admitted to undertake to address has been that those issues addressing health, losses, handling, the leakage from the industry.... As Dr. Cawthorn has indicated briefly, the Canadian lobster industry is worth $400 million to fishers, and 10% to 15% of that is lost due to downgrading, disease, and damage. That damage occurs everywhere from the trap right to the marketplace. Obviously, you understand that the farther along in the marketing system towards the consumer that damage occurs, the more loss to the industry. So a 15% loss to the Atlantic Canadian lobster industry results in an economic loss to the GNP of about $150 million.

• 1000

For the past four years, my work, in being seconded to the veterinary college and the Lobster Health Research Centre from the industry, has been to implement programs, strategic thought, communications, information, acquisition, and dissemination programs, to encourage those to take place using the Lobster Health Research Centre as a vehicle, so that we may capture some of those losses so essential and so really criminal to allow to happen. I think it is incumbent upon us as industry to accept reality and go after recapture of these lost dollars to ensure continued health and continued opportunities.

In addition to the losses and leakage we incur, of course, is the opportunity loss, and the opportunity loss is extremely high at this time. As Dr. Cawthorn indicated, the opportunities to inject technology into this industry are manyfold, and we certainly have to capture those.

The chairman tells me my time is very short and I'll sum up very quickly.

Over the past four months, as part of a project to develop further the concept of the Lobster Health Research Centre, we have consulted widely across the Atlantic region. As part of a team of academics and industry, we have consulted over 20 fisher groups in Atlantic Canada from all five eastern provinces, we have consulted the provinces themselves, the governments of the provinces, and we have consulted the industry at the processor level, at the exporter level, at the marketing level, with regard to the needs of the industry.

At this point I think I'll turn it over to Mr. Hooper, and he can report on some of those findings and where we envision the Lobster Health Research Centre going relative to the necessity to inject continuing dollar signs into the Atlantic economy.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Baker.

Mr. Hooper, we are really extending this to the point where I would hope...we talked about five minutes, and I'm going to try to keep you to that because we want to make sure members have time to ask questions. I know a number of them do have points.

So welcome, and let's go for five.

Mr. Wayne Hooper (Chief Executive Officer, Atlantic Veterinary College, University of Prince Edward Island.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honourable members. I'm going to speak briefly. I'll keep to the five minutes. I'm going to speak as the CEO for the corporate arm of the university, which is AVC Inc., although I'll probably be speaking more as an Atlantic Canadian.

I've been working at the university now for the last three years or so and learning a great deal about the lobster industry in Atlantic or eastern Canada. One of the things that has struck me is how little we know about this animal and how little investment there is in this industry. It's staggering.

Just to give you some numbers—everybody likes numbers—for direct jobs in the fishery, there are over 12,000 lobster licences in Atlantic or eastern Canada. That represents something over 30,000 fishers. These are people in the boats—30,000 individuals. There are tens of thousands more people who work in processing, lobster holding, and transportation. These are real people; these are individuals. Indirectly, there are thousands more: people who build the boats, catch the bait, build the traps, and provide all the equipment and servicing required for the plants and the fishing fleet itself. These are real individuals.

Economic value: we've talked about $400 million. That's directly to the fishers—$1 billion processed value. Most of that is export for Canada. The huge majority of our lobster crop, if you like, is exported outside of Canada. Domestic consumption is something less than 10%. We don't know what the multiplier impact of that is. We're talking about $1 billion. For the last couple of years we've tried to find some information about what that means to Atlantic Canada. Nobody knows. That might tell us something right there.

• 1005

Social value: this is a way of life for tens of thousands of people in Atlantic Canada. It's part of who we are. It's the basic support for many communities that wouldn't otherwise exist. Allan and I were talking last night, and he said that of the 50 families who live in his community, 49 of them are involved directly in the fishery. Without that fishery that community doesn't exist, and there are hundreds of these communities around Atlantic Canada—hundreds of them.

What happened to Newfoundland with the cod—and this isn't fear-mongering; what I'm trying to do is give a picture of the risk—is small potatoes compared with what would happen if there were a significant decline in lobster catches in Atlantic Canada. This industry is just so pervasive.

With regard to some of the risks, we have here a common property resource. Lobsters belong to everyone. They're a resource of Canadians. But no one's responsible. The provinces, the federal government, the fishers—who is responsible? No one is.

Catches have remained generally good, although they are in a gradual decline, for anyone who is looking at these numbers. We don't know what the impact has been of fishing pressure. What has been the impact of that on catches? Basic biological and health information of the animal is unknown. We don't know very much at all about this animal.

I'm not being critical here. I want to state that out front. We have a very good working relationship with the scientists in DFO. We find them to be very good people. But the fact is that the resources just aren't there. Approximately 1¢ per pound of lobster caught annually, less than $1 million, is invested in research in lobsters by the federal government for an industry that is worth billions of dollars. This is less than one-tenth of 1% of the export value. This isn't something new. This has been going on forever. This has never been any different.

The systems we live in are designed only to respond to problems. We're not proactive about managing things. We respond to problems. We have had several contracts working in lobsters where there have been problems. There's a problem in Souris, P.E.I., and there's a problem down in the Bay of Fundy. That's when the phone starts to ring. Where did the lobsters go? What's wrong with them? Where did the cod go? What's wrong with them? Where did the groundfish go? What's wrong with them? Our record as a species in maintaining, supporting, and sustaining these wild fisheries is not very good. Again, it's nobody's fault, because it's a common property resource. It's no one's responsibility; it's everyone's.

Capital investment in lobsters continues to grow. We have people buying bigger boats and better and more sophisticated equipment. It's the same with the processing industry. What's going to support that investment? As your margins get smaller and smaller and the pressure to generate revenue grows and grows, it raises the risk of inappropriate fishing by fishers. It raises the risk of processors dumping product to generate cashflow. It's a very disorganized approach.

Education across the industry is lacking. Dr. Cawthorn mentioned that the first lobster veterinarian ever is going to graduate this spring from the University of Prince Edward Island. We have a multibillion dollar industry. It defies belief that we have this lack of public support, not just federal and provincial, but all kinds of support, for an industry that's so important to the people who live in eastern Canada.

The industry itself is organized in a very interesting way. For me, it's very disjointed, disorganized, fragmented, and divided, and yet politically it's a force to be reckoned with. You have this really interesting interplay here.

We have a federal department that has the dual mandate of enforcement and management. That has resulted in an adversarial relationship on the first point, which you would expect, and a lack of confidence by industry on the second part. It's very difficult to wield both of those effectively. How can you be the enforcer and the manager at the same time?

• 1010

Why are we here? What do we want? We would like to see the committee exercise some leadership and do something before it's too late once again. Things are going along great now. Catches are good and prices are good, but the fact is that's luck. There's nothing that would give anyone reason to believe that five years from now we won't be in some type of crisis.

We would like the committee to address the almost non-existent investment in research and development for this industry, both directly in the public interest and indirectly by supporting private sector investment. The private sector will invest for private sector reasons, but there is a large public interest here that needs to be addressed. We have lots of examples. How much money is invested in R and D in agriculture, forestry, and oil and gas? There are lots of models to look at. We would like to see the Lobster Health Research Centre supported financially so that it can continue with the work it is doing.

These lobster fact sheets for fishermen—which is the first information we've ever seen that has been produced in a scientific way directly for fishers—says don't use mackerel for bait. We have fishermen in P.E.I. paying a premium for mackerel. They thought it was the best thing since sliced bread. It's not so much of a premium. This is practical information that is useful to fishers.

We would suggest that the provinces and industry be involved in decision-making as to what are the priorities for research. We believe that because the centre is located in an academic environment, it has a degree of independence, which may increase the credibility of the work to industry, to fishers, to processors, and to others involved in the industry. If they're part of that process, it also lends to that credibility.

The economic and social future of eastern Canada is tied inextricably to the lobster industry. It is simply such an enormous value. We must find dependable ways to maintain and improve the value of this critical component of our economy. As Allan said, this is about money. It's about maximizing the benefit and ensuring that it's there in the long term.

Our presentation today isn't about research as an end in itself, but as one of the means of assisting in that process, and we believe an important one.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Hooper.

I have a little bit of a problem here with questioning. Normally the official opposition begins with 10 minutes of questioning, but today none of their members are here. Mr. Schmidt, we certainly welcome you here, but you're not registered as a committee member. If the committee would agree, I would give some time to Mr. Schmidt, unless someone objects. Do we agree, then, that Werner could ask some questions?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: So, Werner, welcome to the fisheries committee. It's the first time we've had you here, as someone who is a strong economist and interested in the growth of our country. We'll give you five to ten minutes now to ask questions of our witnesses.

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence, and I'd like to thank all of the members of the committee for their cooperation in allowing me to have this time. Somebody must have goofed and not submitted my name. I was called at the last minute, as you know. I also thank you for your confidence, Mr. Chairman.

There are a couple of really serious questions. I've watched the fishing industry to quite a degree, although not nearly to the same degree as I have some others. It's an interest that seems to have occupied my time even more. I am very concerned about the research element of not only this industry but also of any industry, for that matter.

The question relates to the cooperation you're talking about with regard to the provinces and industry working together to make decisions about research. I think that's critical in order to get the kind of support you're looking for.

My question is this. What kind of research would you like to have done? Is it in the area of basic research as to what is the underlying stuff with regard to lobsters, or is your concern more about the applied level as to how you actually make operational some of the knowledge we have in terms of improving the technology, the production, and the harvesting of lobsters?

Mr. Wayne Hooper: Perhaps I'll have a start at this, and the others may want to jump in. Our belief would be that there is such a dearth of information in almost any area here, you could pick just about any area to do work in. It has to be economically advantageous. The research to be done needs to be based in either improving the losses that exist post-harvest or in sustaining the catch. It has to be economically beneficial. I think that's the first guiding principle that needs to be exercised.

• 1015

Our belief is that we need to talk to fishers and processors. We need to talk to provinces about what their priorities are. The capacities we have are research capacities, and they need to be guided by the demands, interests, and desires of people actually working in the industry.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Perhaps I could phrase that question a little differently. Has this request come from industry?

Mr. Allan Baker: Yes, there's no question, this whole initiative has come from industry, as we started four years ago. When I came to the Atlantic Veterinary College and asked “Are you people capable of entertaining the concept of working in lobsters from a science perspective?”, the answer was “We think so.”

Over the past four years I have worked with them to build capacity and to test that capacity. Now industry is comfortable that this capacity and talent base exist, both at AVC and through a regional virtual network of fisheries in the provinces and regionally in DFO science.

Again, we are not interested in science to publish papers. We are interested in science to maximize economic return. As a fisher and as an industry person, I suppose sometimes we see things very simply. If I were in some capacity to suggest some of the boardroom mission statements that should be in some of our corporate and government departmental boardrooms across the country.... To me the whole issue of the fisheries is simple.

The public role of government and the moral role of industry on behalf of the true owners of the resource are to harvest a common-property, Canadian resource to ensure biomass sustainability, or preferably growth, while ensuring maximum economic return to industry and the regional and national economies.

Everything else—all our fisheries policy, all our regulations—is simply a subset or actioning of that basic premise. So the research we want to do is the kind that puts money in the pockets of industry investors—meaning fishers, processors, etc.—that they can spend in Atlantic Canada, but to do it with respect, keeping foremost in our minds the need to ensure sustainability of the resource.

I think we are obligated, both morally and economically, to maximize utility value of that resource.

Prof. Richard Cawthorn: Perhaps I could comment from the academic perspective. When Allan came to us four or five years ago, some of the questions the industry had were very applied, such as what is gaffkemia, what is shell disease, and how can we control that? What we found out when we started to investigate those questions was that some of the basic questions had not been answered. So it's been an educational process of a two-way street, indicating to industry that to get to that very applied answer, we have to do certain basic questions in the first place. Where we can get lots of glory, so to speak, is when we can develop a lobster ultrasonic probe or the label adhesive system, but it's based on sound scientific principles. Those are very practical, but the knowledge behind that is all basic.

What we've tried to do is develop programs by which we can answer the questions in the short term, medium term, and long term. From my perspective, a short-term research program is 12 months, a medium-term project is 3 to 5 years, and a long-term project is 10 years plus. So it has been an educational process between the university community and the industry community regarding what kinds of timeframes we have.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I really admire what you have to say and I really appreciate that I've had this short opportunity to listen to you.

The other question I have...and as I looked through some of the material here, I asked myself where the plan is. There's a pretty good indication—a case in general terms is the generic case—that you need to do this. Do you have a plan for how you would involve the industry and the university, and how you would develop a research centre such as the one you're talking about? There has to be some sort of plan somewhere, I'm sure.

Prof. Richard Cawthorn: There is, sir. We have a conceptual brief from the Lobster Health Research Centre that was circulated to several of the members on exactly that.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Did we circulate it, Mr. Chairman?

Prof. Richard Cawthorn: This document has been circulated on exactly that.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: The question is out of order. I apologize.

Prof. Richard Cawthorn: We addressed those issues, and, as Allan said, we spent the last six months talking to various industry representatives about what they think we should do and how we should do it. So we've had in-house discussions and that type of thing.

• 1020

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Schmidt.

Now, Yvan, from the Bloc.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I would also like to thank the witnesses for coming this morning. I will try to be brief, since everyone wants to ask questions this morning. Lobster is always an appetizing issue.

I will ask a few questions and then I will let the witnesses answer, since we easterners always talk a great deal.

For the information of the members present and those who may be watching us on television, what would be the approximate age of a commercial-size lobster weighing about one pound? For comparison purposes, what would be the age of a lobster as big as my thumb? The aim of my question is to make people understand that it takes time for a lobster to reach commercial size. We read in literature that Fisheries and Oceans is looking to increase the size of the shell, perhaps with the intention of maximizing financial returns. I'm interested in these things and I would like you to briefly cover that.

I know what interests you this morning: the major question of who can fund or help to fund the research centre? I would like to know who has funded you for the past four years?

My next question is more specifically for Mr. Baker, since he is a fisher and represents fishers. He said that his members needed to increase their income. I understood from his presentation that that could be done in two ways, either by limiting the diseases to avoid losing the 10 p. 100 that is lost at present, or by finding new markets. I would like to know, without getting into personal details, what the average annual income is for lobster fishers.

I would also like you to refresh our memory. What is the current cost of a lobster licence in comparison to what it cost before the first Martin budget in February 1994? What I called the Tobin tax was the increase in licensing costs. Have you been provided with services in exchange for these increased costs?

I will let the witnesses answer my questions now.

[English]

Prof. Richard Cawthorn: I can address the issue and say that the age of market lobsters is anywhere from seven to nine years, depending on where you are in the fishery. The warmer the waters, the shorter the time to go to market, but approximately seven to nine years.

To this point, in terms of how the centre has been financed, we've had $150,000 over three years from the Max Bell Foundation, and we estimate that the university has contributed in kind approximately $250,000 a year in terms of salaries and this type of thing. Additionally, over the last couple of years we have generated approximately $500,000 in research and development funds with private sector clients utilizing the industrial research assistance program of the National Research Council.

So we've operated in direct operating costs on a relatively small budget to this point in time. Now we think we're at a point where we either move ahead and develop a comprehensive centre or we will simply pull back and do research on a very small scale.

Mr. Allan Baker: To respond to your question with respect to funding and who pays for it, and your reference to Mr. Martin, certainly the industry, in the consultations we've had over the past four to five months, wants to partner with the provinces and the federal government.

The increases in licence fees you allude to for the industry have been received less than favourably by industry over the past number of years. We have seen escalations in licence fees from $30 to an average of between $500 and $2,000 a year.

Quite honestly, I don't think individual fishers object to the size of the fees so much as to the black abyss into which those fees go. I think the desire on the part of fishers is to see those fees more closely attached, if you will, to services or support for the industry, rather than going into general revenues. I think this is the crux of the issue. If we could somehow relate the user-pay fees to programs for industry in a more directly accountable way, a lot of those apprehensions would be addressed.

• 1025

The other challenge we face as an industry, and Mr. Hooper alluded to it in his references to the number of organizations that are out there at the fisher level and at the processor level, to the disjointed face of the industry, if you will, is that this initiative, as we consult with industry, has been received very favourably. It's one that's fostered; it's one that industry has deemed they want. It's desirable, we need it, it's too late.

We do have a challenge in the area of financing or funding from fishers. That challenge comes from one very simple area, and that is some mechanism, physical or financial, by which fishers can contribute. I think it's safe to say that fishers want to contribute to their insurance policy. They told us that. They want to contribute as a partner with government in this type of program, but to actually find a mechanism, because we don't have check-offs in most provinces, other than Newfoundland. Enabling legislation for fishers to partner is not there. So there is a void in this area that will have to necessarily be addressed.

In brief reference to your question with regard to the value of the enterprises, certainly the value of enterprises, as in the real value of licences, has escalated. The annual licence fees to the federal government have escalated, but in reality the actual asset value of licences in the event of enterprise sales has gone up too.

So costs are escalating, and we must somehow endeavour to explore all areas to ensure that income keeps pace, or hopefully exceeds, escalation in costs for industry players.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Baker.

Yvan I did extend a bit there. Monsieur Drouin, could we share your ten minutes with Mr. Sekora?

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): I think that you did not answer the question about fishers' incomes. It would have been interesting to know the answer. You also mention that there is not much being done in the way of research. Mr. Hooper mentioned to us what is being done in agriculture or forestry.

In the Beauce region, people working in agriculture or forestry do their own research. Are the fishers helping to fund research? Is the fishing industry collaborating in the research? It is important, because it is their income. Are there plans for that? Are you prepared to collaborate in deciding what sort of research needs to be done? It seems to me that when it is our own livelihood, we need to be involved financially. Our companies do ongoing research and development, and it would be important to know the position of fishers and the fishing industry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Mr. Wayne Hooper: Mr. Drouin, to answer your question directly, fishers do contribute to research projects we have completed. To date they have not contributed cash directly, but they do allow us time on their boats. They do allow us time at the wharf for our staff. They do perform tasks related to the research that is not part of their regular day, and they contribute quite freely to that. They do participate in other ways on committees or research groups we have running.

Processors have put cash on the table. They have funded a number of the projects through the Lobster Health Research Centre, and we have also contracted with them for projects of specific interest to processors.

• 1030

I think one of the issues we're getting at here, though, is the difference between the public interest and the private interest.

As a fisher or as a processor, my interest is private. I'm interested in my business, and I will invest in that business if there's a reasonable chance of return. Who's looking after the public interest?

In agriculture we have a huge research and development infrastructure running across this country, which provides some of the core research and development that I'm not going to do as a dairy producer or as a swine producer.

We don't have a similar structure in the fishery. I guess that was the point I was trying to get at.

In terms of what is ongoing, well, as Mr. Baker has said, we've had discussions over the past several months with provinces, fishers, and processors. Everyone is interested—it's a common property resource—but who's responsible? The finger always gets passed on to the next person. Yes, we think it's important, and we think it should be done, but it's the province's responsibility, or it's the federal government's responsibility, or it's the fishers' responsibility.

Our belief is that everyone would participate if they felt they would be able to get some of their questions answered in such a way that they would have confidence in the response.

Allan.

Mr. Allan Baker: It's true that there is an underlying lack of time that doesn't allow us to go into all areas, but there are underlying jurisdictional challenges as well. The lobster as a resource in the water obviously is under the jurisdiction of the federal government. When that hits the shore, it's under the provinces. So there are a lot of jurisdictional and legal barriers we have to work around.

To reiterate my response to the last question, industry is prepared to contribute. We are challenged currently by trying to find the mechanism for us to share our ability to partner with the provinces and the federal government in this endeavour.

I'll take a few seconds to also reinforce that we are not here to talk only about research. We are here to talk about dollars, yes, but even before research, when we consult with industry, when they identify the needs, it's the information flow among and across industry sectors and between industry and government—just getting access to the available information that's out there—that comes in very high on the hierarchy of needs, numbers one and two.

So research is part and parcel of that, but what we're really talking about here is communication and information on the research done—social sciences, economics, and the hard applied sciences.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Baker.

Mr. Drouin.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Drouin: I would just like to add that there's also the issue of research into processing for new markets and new developments. I am sure that research is also being done in that area. Is it with respect to new market developments that the private sector is working with the university?

[English]

Mr. Allan Baker: Actually, that's happening now in not only market development but also technological acquisitions. Those activities are project-specific, if you will, for the most part.

A baseline amount of science is necessary. We know nothing about the physiology of this beast. If I said we knew a thousand times more about the house cat than the lobster, I'd be lying; we know many, many times more about the cat than the lobster. We don't know what the blood is made of. We know nothing about the physiology of the animal. We claim, through federal departments, etc., to know something about the biomass, or the population as a whole, but we know nothing about the individual lobster such that we can relate this to the health or wealth-creation abilities of the total.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Baker.

Mr. Sekora.

Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.): Thank you, Chair.

Have you seen this write-up in the paper, Mr. Baker? It says, “Lobster fishermen worried big firms will destroy them”. It has to do with the contract that allows two big companies to do the fishing with 1,010 traps for about one month.

What does that do to small fishermen in the area?

Mr. Allan Baker: I think the reality of the situation is that because we know nothing about the resource at the individual level, and because we spend on research only a tenth of one percent of the value of the fishery, it is unfair for me and it's unfair for a fisher—it's unfair for a politician, for that matter—to be asked to make a comment on that.

• 1035

Certainly I'm afraid of any additional pressure on the resource, but I'm afraid out of ignorance. I'm afraid out of ignorance because we have no idea, we have no models. We have no attempt to make models of what that impact may be. So like all fishers and all processors, I suppose, I am afraid of the unknown. The only thing in my mind that can temper my fear is to change more of the unknown into the known. That comes as a result of consultation, information exchange, and science or research.

Mr. Lou Sekora: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Baker, I was shocked to pick up this morning that some group had been given the right to use 1,000 traps. Now maybe it's my own ignorance that is shocked, but is this actually happening? Does your group have...?

Mr. Allan Baker: I've seen it circulating around the table. I haven't seen the article. The reality is that in Canada 99%-plus of the fishery is an inshore, small-boat fishery based on those thousands of coastal communities, prosecuted in various provinces with various-sized vessels, but in 99% of the cases below 45 feet in length. There is a small offshore fishery dominated by—I'm unsure, and Peter could probably tell me—two or three companies. I believe those traps were traps for those offshore companies. They do, I understand, fish a large number of traps on each of those vessels. There are six or seven vessels in the Canadian context.

The Chairman: Is there a point of information from the parliamentary secretary?

Mr. Wayne Easter: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This article is, as I understand it, somewhat misleading. There have been allocated out to two companies, yes, on an experimental basis to fish in that area, 2,000 trap pulls. Not 1,000 traps or 2,000 traps fishing for a month, but over the month period there are to be 2,000 trap pulls on an experimental basis to get some information on the lobster stock in that area, which there's very little knowledge on, to make some decisions relative to the future. But it's 2,000 trap pulls and it's on an experimental basis.

The Chairman: Thank you. It was Peter, of course, who brought this information to the committee this morning from the press. Peter, you're on now.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Then I guess my question to the parliamentary secretary is, will we get an official response from DFO on that?

Mr. Wayne Easter: Yes, you will. I've asked that there be one provided.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you. Well, I greatly appreciate that because, as you know, you can't always believe what you read in the press.

But, Mr. Baker, you've got a very popular name on the eastern shore, as you can see. Many people in my riding, of course, are lobster fishermen. There are about 240 licence holders just in my particular riding alone. They're very concerned about the issues.

But to get into it, Mr. Hooper, you said it bang on when you talked about the lack of research. My colleague from Ontario, Mr. Steckle, is very concerned about the lamprey eel issue and the lack of research or the lack of committed funds in order to combat that, because of what the lamprey eels do to recreational and commercial fishing. You're absolutely right; we pay very little attention to a very valuable resource. The government should take the lead role by allocating the resources and the personnel in order to ascertain the various concerns not only to do with lobster but with other aspects of our fishery.

I have a couple of things. One, you mentioned pesticide killing, sir; I would say don't do that. That will cause an uproar. Even though it may be a quick kill, just the word “pesticide” in lobsters would cause a public relations nightmare for you that you wouldn't want to go through.

Also, are you at all working with the aboriginal groups? Right now, for example, in the Scotia-Fundy region we have aboriginal people exercising what they believe is their constitutional right to lobster fish year round. Are you at all working with those groups to ascertain any scientific basis to advise them of what happens when they continue to do that, what could happen to the resource as well?

Also, I know this isn't in your mandate, but what does dragging do to the ocean floor in terms of where lobsters can hide? As you know, lobsters and crabs, for example, hide. Continual dragging on the ocean floor, we've heard from various witnesses, has a detrimental effect to the environment and what the long-term effects of continual dragging can do to a lobster environment.

• 1040

One thing you didn't say, Mr. Hooper. You talked about the public common resource, and although you didn't say it, you hinted that it could be a concern or a problem because everyone's running around and no one is taking control. Well, I put it to you, sir, respectfully, of course, that DFO is the ultimate manager of the resource. They are ultimately responsible for the management of anything under the water, and, as you know, with cod and other species we've been very critical of that management and their concerns, but I would put it to you that they are the ultimate managers of that resource.

There are many other issues, but I know my time is short. Again, the important issues—are you working with aboriginal communities? There are the aspects of the dragging. In regard to the aquaculture issue, I'm glad you brought up the question of the chemicals and the possible leakage of those chemicals into the environment in regard to the lobster habitat and their environment.

Thank you, and I also thank you for your presentation today.

Prof. Richard Cawthorn: The comment on pesticides for killing lobsters is well taken. Again, that's just a research tool, but we do get a lot of pressure, and somebody has asked us what chemicals we've used and we simply haven't told them.

We haven't worked with the aboriginal groups or looked at the impact of dragging because our mandate has been in the post-harvest sector. We complement what the fisheries biologists do, whether they're from the various provinces or from Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Some of the tools we intend to develop or hope to develop will provide them with additional tools to help better manage the fishery.

One other quick comment about the aquaculture business is that when some of these pesticides are used by aquaculture, presently the dose that will kill a lobster from some of these pesticides cannot be detected by the current levels of technology. So even though your lobster pound may be decimated by Cymbush or Roundup or some of the other Cypermethrin type of products and you go in and analyse those dead lobsters and can't find the pesticides, it's because the technology cannot detect such teeny, tiny amounts that would kill a lobster.

There have been some recent lawsuits in the Bay of Fundy over these issues, and we are aware of that, but it would probably cost a tremendous amount of money to develop a technology that would detect these very, very tiny levels of pesticide. Right now the current level of detection of Cypermethrin is one part per billion, and we know that about a twentieth of that will kill a lobster. So it's pretty scary stuff when you're dealing with lobsters.

Mr. Allan Baker: With respect to the dragging issue, obviously it's a sore point around the Atlantic region. The impacts of any type of dragging, scallop dragging or fish dragging...because of the groundfish swimming in the downturn it's pretty well related to scallop dragging. In that respect, again, because of mandate, and DFO's mandate is the protection of the fishery in the ocean, we have concentrated on post-harvest, meaning what can we do after we get our hands on it as fishers to maximize the economic utility value of it?

However, on a project-to-project basis, the Atlantic Veterinary College, and more specifically the Lobster Health Research Centre, works on contract and in partnership with provinces on projects, with DFO on projects. DFO, for the tools they have, do a good job. The problem is they don't have any tools. Other tools are a challenge. They're great guys, but you take out your toolbox and what you need perhaps is not there.

So tool development, developing models and that sort of thing, is certainly where we can work with DFO to enhance the opportunities for the animal itself. We would welcome that, and we would welcome secondments from DFO to AVC to develop those types of relationships.

Mr. Wayne Hooper: I might add, Mr. Stoffer, that we would be happy to work with the aboriginals. We have not made any contact there nor have they contacted us, but we would be quite happy to discuss any projects they might be interested in pursuing.

Is DFO on the hook? As I said when I made my presentation, I think we're all on the hook and pointing fingers may or may not be helpful. I think DFO has a constitutional responsibility to perhaps lead the parade, but DFO cannot do this by themselves. It's clear that the provinces, fishers groups, processors—this has to be a joint effort or it won't work. That's been part of the problem. If you were cynical, you might look at this industry and say someone has designed this not to work. It's hard to imagine an industry that's more disorganized or divided or controversial. It really defies belief.

• 1045

A voice: It works in spite of itself.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Provenzano.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr. Chair, first of all, I thank the presenters for very informative presentations and for quite candid answers to the questions that have been posed to this point.

I tried to listen carefully to all the presentations. I heard Mr. Cawthorn, on behalf of the Lobster Health Research Centre, essentially pose two questions, and I have a question in regard to those two questions that were posed. I think one question was that we need to know what happens to a lobster after it's caught. Obviously that question is relevant to the post-harvest sector of crustacean fisheries and to crustacean aquaculture. The second question was, what constitutes a healthy lobster?

When I heard the two questions, I couldn't help but ask myself what concerns are driving those two questions. Do they relate to consumer concerns in terms of product quality, health risks? I listened to the comments you made about parasites and bacterial diseases. Are they concerns that are environmentally driven in terms of the risks that post period might have for the environment? Could you make some comments in that regard? I really don't think it was covered in the presentation as such. I'm trying to get my mind around the problems that might drive the questions.

Prof. Richard Cawthorn: I think the industry wants to maintain the highest quality possible of lobster from the time it's caught until it gets to the consumer. I think the industry is trying to reduce its losses. They need a way of determining how high quality the product is. When they ship lobsters around the world, they do not want dead lobsters at the other end. They need a way of grading out those lobsters to ensure the strongest are put on board the aircraft that goes around the world. If they ship them from Halifax to Boston by truck, they also want to look at how they get a product that's not dead or looking kind of blah when it gets to Boston, to the live marketplace.

So there's a quality issue and a consumer issue. If you then put a label on board and say this is a grade A lobster, the consumer is going to be happier. It's purely driven by economics. The person who holds the lobster for extended periods wants a way of grading them out when he puts them into his pound so that he knows they can survive for a month, six months, or whatever, and the consumer is going to get a high-quality, healthy, lively lobster. Also, again from an economic perspective, if I'm shipping lobsters, I want to start off with the healthiest possible lobster to get the healthiest possible lobster at the other end. That's where it's coming from, to have good, high-quality product wherever it ends up.

Mr. Wayne Hooper: The product goes principally to a high-value, I won't say delicacy market, but it's a very high-value, non-essential market, as Mr. Baker was referring to earlier. The competition out there is producing product at a very high standard. Our industry needs to do the same thing so that, as Rick says, the value can be maximized. If we're sending junk to Boston, the price is lower. It's as simple as that.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: May I be permitted one short question, a little tiny one? There were some comments made about the holding pounds and the problems that are associated with any long-term holding of product. There was a comment briefly made about salmon aquaculture and how it might have a negative effect on what's happening in those pounds. I didn't quite get that.

Prof. Richard Cawthorn: In the Bay of Fundy, for example, and eastern Maine, salmon farms and lobster pounds are side by side. Some of the distances are very short, so there's a transfer of products or organic effluents from one side to the other.

A voice: It's cross-contamination.

The Chairman: Thank you, Carmen.

Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of comments. I want to say to you gentlemen that I thoroughly enjoyed your presentation. You've brought forward some things I've never thought of—when you talked about the bait implications of herring versus mackerel and other things. It just so happens that on Saturday night I was with a lobster fisherman and someone asked him what he was using for bait. He said herring and redfish. Of course, I didn't realize the implications of different kinds of bait, so this kind of research is very interesting. Disease and so on is something you never think of if your only involvement is concern for the welfare of fishermen and having a couple of meals of lobster a year.

• 1050

I think a couple of you mentioned that there's been a decrease in the lobster resource in the last couple of years.

Prof. Richard Cawthorn: If you want to look at the annual trends, 1991 was the largest landing since the late 1800s.

Mr. Bill Matthews: So it's a decrease in landings?

Prof. Richard Cawthorn: A decrease in landings.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Which you would interpret as being a decrease in the actual resource on the ocean floor. Is that what you're saying?

Prof. Richard Cawthorn: That's what the biologists would suggest. But if you go and look at that, since 1991 it's decreased, but it's not a big decrease at the present time. It will be interesting to see what the trend line is, if it's going to level off.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Is the only research, the only data, available on the volume of lobster through catch rates? Is that it?

Mr. Wayne Hooper: There are additional pieces of information available through DFO. They do a limited sea sampling program in Atlantic Canada. Last year, we actually carried out a very detailed sea sampling program in Prince Edward Island, so we were gathering more information on the biomass. But by and large there is not a lot of data out there.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Hooper, you made a statement that it was very difficult to be enforcer and manager of the resource at the same time. Would you like to expand on that for me? I would like to know where you're coming from on that.

Mr. Wayne Hooper: The discussions we've had with people who work in the industry have talked about the relationship with DFO. At a personal level, on a one-on-one basis, the relationship seems to be very good. There's a lot of confidence in many of the people who work within DFO. But the reality is that DFO does have an enforcement mandate. They are there to enforce regulations, and that will create at times controversy and differences of opinion and all that it entails. That kind of activity can get carried over into science or management issues.

Today I'm here to tell you that you have too many traps in the water or that you're doing something wrong. Tomorrow I'm going to come and give you a presentation on lobster biomass in the area. The message coming from the same organization, I believe, is a mixed one. One flavours the other, so there may be a lack of confidence in the science aspect.

Mr. Allan Baker: If I may comment, Mr. Matthews, to give you a summary of how fishermen see it with respect to DFO, again, I will reinforce the fact that the DFO personnel and the scientists within DFO are held in very high regard. There's a little bit of a problem with the system in general, but the consultative process within DFO sometimes is questioned by industry.

The description I heard a few times as we travelled the region is that it's akin to being in a courtroom, where the evidence for both the prosecution and the defence is being presented by the same lawyer. Really that's the situation we're in. When DFO is there presenting the science, you as industry in that consultative process or injection of your opinion, under the present regime, have no other alternative but to use the same evidence supplied by the other party.

Mr. Wayne Hooper: It is interesting, Mr. Matthews, to note that in a variety of other areas across the federal jurisdiction, with the creation of the CFIA, the Canada Food Inspection Agency, a lot of those inspection regulatory enforcement type of activities have moved into that agency, leaving Agriculture, forestry, and some of these other departments to concentrate on development and research issues, which we would see as kind of a division along those two lines, where within Fisheries they remain together.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Schmidt, you have another question?

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. I really want to thank the parliamentary assistant for giving me all this information. I found it most interesting.

• 1055

I'm particularly puzzled by the number of agencies, councils, and so on that seem to be running around in that particular area. I was wondering if there is a conflict developing among these various agencies. I just noticed a couple of them that really drew my attention. There's the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, a non-profit research group, the University of P.E.I., the lobster health group, the veterinary college that's working here, and then the fishermen themselves. Is there any attempt to bring these bodies together?

I was terribly impressed when Dr. Hooper said it's disorganized, yet politically powerful. Those seem to be contradictory statements, yet obviously, looking at the reports and listening to your statements here this morning, that's exactly what's happening.

So I ask you, what plan is there to bring this together? Resources are always scarce. If you're going to do really good research, that is both the basic, where necessary, and applied, where that will raise the economic level of the work of the fishermen and the research organizations. What attempt is being made to bring these together?

Mr. Wayne Hooper: The concept paper you have talks about the Lobster Health Research Centre perhaps being an agency to do some of that. I would caution committee members, though. We cannot be all things to all people. There are lots of issues here around the industry that we've talked about this morning that are only tangentially related to the research agenda we are interested in pursuing.

We believe we could structure a governance group made of fishers, processors, and provincial and federal governments to help guide the centre in the work it does, or guide the research and development agenda for the centre over time. That in itself will be difficult.

How we would select a fisher representative from P.E.I. would be interesting, because they've got 1,400 fishermen and I think 1,300 different groups, Mr. Easter. It's the same in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Newfoundland is a little better organized because of the structure of the processing industry.

We believe with the approach we've given, it can be done. There are ways to do it if those groups you're talking to are interested in the work that's going to be produced. I think it has to be results driven.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Well, that was going to be my exact observation. If these people see that you're meeting a need, they will coordinate. They will come together. In reading the few things I've had here, there seems to be a fundamental distrust developing between certain groups of this nature. That distrust clearly isn't going to lead to cooperation.

I may be all wrong here in my reading of this situation. If that in fact is the case, it seems to me that it ought perhaps to be the number one requirement here, to establish a willingness to work together and say, look, we really aren't here to fight with you; ee really aren't here to point the finger at DFO; we're really not here to point the finger at the university, and so on. Rather, let's solve our problem.

There's one group saying they have to increase the size of lobsters. There's another group saying, no, no, no, that's not going to work. Fishermen are saying, well, look, our livelihood depends on this so you'd better not restrict us from fishing the things we actually need to have to make a living. So there's a conflict, and I detect a frustration that's pretty paramount.

Mr. Wayne Hooper: I think our approach to some of those questions...and there are others like V-notching. That issue's been kicking around for years. There are ways to answer those questions in a scientific and organized way with credibility for all parties. What you do with the results of work like that is another question. Can you get the work done credibly? The answer is yes.

The issue of V-notching is not a huge scientific dilemma. We're not going to split the atom on this. It's not a major piece of work, but it hasn't been done. You've literally got fishers down in the Bay of Fundy joining LFAs who are fighting with each other over this issue. One supports it, another doesn't. The arguments are all around the health issues. Does it do harm to the lobsters?

The LHRC represents a capacity to answer that question in a credible way. What people do with the answer becomes a political or another discussion. But the capacity to answer it exists. That's what we're trying to promote—support for that kind of capacity in this vital industry in Atlantic Canada or eastern Canada.

The Chairman: Thanks, Mr. Hooper.

Around the table, I'm leaving Mr. Easter for the last. Does anyone else have a...? Peter has one minute.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Less than that, sir.

• 1100

With the five different provinces we're dealing with, they're are all claiming different carapace sizes because they're warm water or cold water. Like P.E.I., with three zones—they've been arguing for years, just like in Nova Scotia.

I'd like to end this on a positive note. If you get the funding and the cooperation Mr. Hooper has said we desperately need—and you're absolutely right, we need to cooperate—will you be able, in the end, to come up with a proper carapace size everyone will buy into for different zones, like Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Newfoundland, P.E.I, Nova Scotia, and the Bay of Fundy? Will that eventually come about? That's the big concern of fishermen at this time.

Mr. Allan Baker: I think it will come about, but even before that we need a more definitive answer on the effectiveness or, more correctly, the appropriateness of carapace measure as a management tool. At this time, it's just, well, let's pull something out of the air and apply that.

Just to digress a little, in meeting the minister's need to double egg production, for instance, there are a number of available tools out there. There are many more out there that are on the margins because we haven't done the research. There's egg larval drift, for instance. Where do the eggs go that are hatched, and what areas do they populate?

We have begun research on DNA molecular tracking, and upon completion of this project we'll be able to track the larval drift through the water. Things like that will no doubt be as important, if not more important, than issues of carapace. But the very controversial issue of carapace length is certainly not about carapace length; it's about the lack of basic science that gives anybody any comfort in the fact that carapace length is an effective tool.

The Chairman: Thanks, Mr. Baker.

I'll leave the last questions or comments to Mr. Easter. I want to assure you that as a graduate of your fine university there and a great member of Parliament—

Mr. Wayne Easter: I'm just an honorary graduate, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: He's always after the best interests of Prince Edward Island. It's through his request that you're welcomed to our committee this morning. As the parliamentary secretary for fisheries and oceans, Wayne has certainly put a major effort into our committee work.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have just a technical question first. On your slide 13 you mentioned the bar codes and their approval by the U.S. Are they approved by Canada as well?

Prof. Richard Cawthorn: No. That submission was made about three years ago and it's still grinding through the system.

Mr. Wayne Easter: What's the trouble?

Prof. Richard Cawthorn: We have no idea.

Mr. Wayne Easter: So we have these bar codes that make a lot of sense, in terms of research in and of itself, but also in terms of following right through to the marketplace.

Prof. Richard Cawthorn: They're approved by the federal government of the United States, but not in Canada.

Mr. Wayne Easter: We're a little off the topic, Mr. Chairman, but it's important. How long did it take to get approved in the U.S.?

Prof. Richard Cawthorn: It was less than six months.

Mr. Wayne Easter: And we've taken three years?

Prof. Richard Cawthorn: That's correct, as far as I know, and we're still not approved.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Who did that application go to?

Prof. Richard Cawthorn: It went to Health Canada. It was submitted by Ketchum Manufacturing Incorporated from Ottawa. It's just down the street here.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Okay, we'll have to follow up on that one. Thank you for the presentation.

In fisheries, we're used to having a lot of bad news stories, but this has certainly been a good news story to date. This kind of information on lobster bait, exposure to rain, is what a practising fisherman—or in my case practising farmer—really finds valuable. Simple things like this on my farm at one time probably saved 10% of my calf crop. That's what is extremely important.

What worries me is your second and third request to the committee and the statement that I believe Wayne made that the choice is to move ahead or start to pull back. We now have a lot of good information from you, but if there isn't additional funding, if we don't find a way to establish core funding for the Lobster Health Research Centre, where will we be in, say, November 2000? Will we be able to access that information? That's what I'm worried about.

I think you've made the point about not making the same mistake we made in some other industries. I guess the bottom line question for me is where do we go from here? What has to be done to ensure that this kind of information continues to be available, along with other research that has come up throughout this discussion and is absolutely necessary?

• 1105

Mr. Wayne Hooper: Perhaps I'll have a start at that, Mr. Easter, and the others may want to follow. To answer your question about what's going to happen in November, it may be nothing. As Dr. Cawthorn has said, the existing funding that we have for the centre runs out at the end of June. Without that ongoing funding, we will not have the core capacity in place. That's not to say that Dr. Cawthorn and his colleagues would not be prepared and interested to work on projects as they come along, but in our view, that's not an effective way to run a centre. It's dependent upon the availability of people. People have other interests, so if you want to do something credible in the medium or longer term, you have to have dedicated personnel. You can't attract dedicated personnel to come work with you on a contract for three months. That's not the way it works.

In terms of next steps, we will be putting together a proposal that will be based upon the concept paper you have. That will be circulated to Minister Anderson and to the provincial ministers of fisheries by the end of this month or in early May, and also to industry and to industry groups. I think we will be looking for some leadership from our provincial ministers, but also from the federal Minister of Fisheries. As we said earlier, there is a constitutional responsibility here. At this point, we believe it's going to take some decisions. We believe government agencies are going to have to take some leadership. That was a request made of this committee. If this is seen by you as an important issue, perhaps we'd look to you for advice, because we certainly believe it's an important issue for Atlantic Canada.

Mr. Allan Baker: From an industry perspective, I think what we're talking about is the capacity to envision. Industry is now focused on the need to set aside time, to set aside resources, for issues strategic to industry, both in the challenges that are on the margins and the opportunities that lay ahead. We have made great inroads in this growth period. Yes, we are subject to losing the LHRC to the point to which we have developed it. The exercise to this point was to develop something to demonstrate to industry. We have done that, we've taken it back to industry, and the response has been positive. We have met with some challenges, one of the large ones being that mechanism for industry participation that we have to address. It's still a little bit elusive.

Our prayer is that we do not go back to the situation in which all we have is the response mechanism, which is, again, an emergency response mechanism. There will always be the need for that in industry, just as there is in governments in terms of addressing challenges of an emergency nature. But opportunities generally don't come out of emergencies, they come out of strategic areas. Really, that's what industry sees as necessary: capacity to address strategic issues and areas of opportunity, and to capitalize on those areas.

As the industry spokesman on the team, I can only say that industry is now prepared. In terms of this particular area of science, of research, of health-particular research, again you'll note in our presentation that we talk about health more so than science in general. As you read through that, you'll see the differences in our mind. The areas of communications, the areas of information flow, and the interpretive capacity to relate changes on the science or research side into what are the real economic implications, opportunities, or impacts is really what we're talking about. It's dollar signs.

Mr. Wayne Hooper: It's interesting to look at the investment in R and D here, Mr. Easter. If you compared us to any other industry, if the IT industry invested 0.1% of revenue in research and development, we would still be using slates and chalk. IT invests approximately 20% of revenue back into R and D. Typical metal-bending and other industrialized types of industries will invest 3% to 5% of revenue back into research and development. One-tenth of one percent is almost laughable.

• 1110

This is not meant as a criticism, but I expect we've spent more money as a country investigating hemp than we have looking at lobsters in the last two or three years. Maybe hemp needs the investment as well, but when you look at the tens of thousands of people involved in this industry and how important it is, it really defies belief, for me anyway.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

I would probably be remiss if I didn't commend the Max Bell Foundation for having given you support. It's rather ironic that only a few weeks ago I was reading the annual report of that foundation, and not only was it set up by a very remarkable Canadian, but the administration of the fund for the last nearly 30 years has been done exceptionally well, to the point where they have invested in a great number of activities such as your own, and really it's one of the great Canadian efforts.

In terms of what we've heard, we'd like to thank you for bringing to the attention of our committee, and probably to the many Canadians who may watch this on CPAC, the strengths and the possible difficulties your industry may encounter. It's a very important part of Atlantic Canada's economy, and with that, of course, as a fisheries committee, we have to make sure the lobsters do continue to exist in the water and exist in bounty.

In terms of one key word you used, the word “post-harvest”, and in terms of our committee and its work with the department, we will have difficulty in trying to access support and funding. Probably support will be no problem, but funding may be difficult with the post-harvest concept, because under the present regulations of fisheries, DFO is not committed towards the food end in terms of after that product reaches the wharf and is in the sailboat market area. But we certainly want to assure you that in terms of Atlantic Canada, in terms of members of this committee, we do want to support your efforts, and we know they are important. Hopefully we can all work with you to try to find some way to make sure your efforts do continue in terms of the best interests of our fisher people.

Thank you for coming. It has been a good morning. We've learned a lot, and hopefully all of us will benefit from your presentations to our committee. Thank you.

The meeting is now adjourned.