Fisheries Committee on May 10th, 2010

[Dr. Peter Tyedmers]

On the question of scale, it's hard to say. I take your point that if things go wrong and you're small, the consequences are not as dramatic, but there can be real advantages of scale, of being bigger. There are economies of scale once you know what you are doing.

To your more general question about where the answer lies, I don't have that answer. We're always having to weigh off different values. Ultimately, it has to be a financially viable project for whoever owns it. No one is going to grow salmon as a charity. Beyond that, if the choice is between trading off local effects from global, someone has to take that decision, and there is no simple equation to work that out. It is about the values that you all bring to the table.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Donnelly.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I would like to thank all of our presenters here today for providing their input.

I'll start with a few questions to the panel. I think I will just read the three questions that I have, and then anyone on the panel could respond.

First, I often hear a common concern from the aquaculture industry, which is that they are strictly or highly regulated. I'm wondering if you could comment on this by comparing this industry and its regulations to other industries and their regulations--forestry or agriculture, for instance, or any other one you wish to compare it to.

Second, do you feel that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is currently operating under the precautionary principle in terms of aquaculture?

Finally, it's my understanding that a number of environmental non-governmental organizations have been calling for the removal of salmon farms from the so-called Wild Salmon Narrows. Could any of you can comment on this issue? Could you tell us whether you support this measure, and why or why not?

[David Lane]

I think different members of the panel would probably answer the different questions that you've posed there. I'll just answer the first one on the regulations in British Columbia for open-net pen salmon farms.

How I would frame it is that there are a lot of regulations, but in the crucial areas where there are environmental impacts, they are either too weak or have no enforcement provisions whatsoever. The most widely publicized environmental impact to date has been the effect of sea lice generated in open-net salmon farms on wild juvenile salmon in the vicinity. On that issue, there is only a provincial policy. It's a policy that isn't effective at removing those lice from the farms. It's a policy that has no enforcement mechanism whatsoever, and no salmon farm has ever been charged or convicted in relation to anything having to do with sea lice. There is a huge environmental problem and no effective regulation whatsoever.

I'll leave it to others on the panel to tackle the other two questions you posed.

[John Werring]

I have just one point on the regulation issue. I agree with David that we're not seeing enforcement of regulations, but in terms of some of the regulations that are in place, currently one that we have one in British Columbia, the aquaculture waste control regulation, is probably the most comprehensive regulation we have around aquaculture. It looks at how companies have to manage their waste, monitor their impacts on the aquatic environment and the benthic environment, and try to determine whether their farms are required to be fallowed. It regulates the amount of tonnage of fish on sites. There are various things that are in place here.

The federal government is now in charge of developing new regulations pursuant to a Supreme Court order, and that is currently in place. They're looking at the existing regulations in the province of British Columbia and using an amended version of them. That amended version, in our view, is very much watered down compared to the regulation currently in place. It actually is a regulation geared towards the expansion protocol that I spoke of earlier, the national aquaculture strategic action plan initiative. That initiative is calling not for more farms, but for bigger farms on sites through increasing the number of net pens and increasing the total tonnage of fish. The environmental regulation around sites and the kind of monitoring required is being significantly reduced. We have some very serious concerns about that.

[Robert Walker]

If I could just interject something, from an industry player's perspective--

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Walker, I don't mean to interrupt, but we have you scheduled for the second hour. If there is somebody else on the panel who wants to respond first, it's their time.

[Robert Walker]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Is there anyone else who wanted to respond?

[Ruby Berry]

Yes. This is Ruby Berry, from the Georgia Strait Alliance.

I'll just briefly address the question of whether we think DFO is using the precautionary principle in the process. I would have to say no.

We have a huge weight of evidence showing us that for juvenile fish passing the farms, there is significant danger from sea lice and for the potential of disease. There's a great deal of evidence showing potential for damage from the waste.

The response from DFO tends to be that it's not proven and that they haven't seen definitive science on it. We would disagree. There's an extreme weight of evidence showing us that there is significant potential for damage to the fish passing by and to the local fish stocks.

One of the things we all know is that effects on salmon are multitudinous. Many things affect the health of the wild salmon in their migration. There's pretty clear evidence that this is potentially one serious problem. If DFO were to take a precautionary approach, we would see this issue being taken far more seriously.

I'd also like to address the question of Wild Salmon Narrows. This is a name that's been coined to describe the narrowest passageway between Quadra Island and the neighbouring islands in the northern Georgia Strait. It is one of the passageways that juvenile salmon from the Fraser River use; my understanding is that about 80% of the fish pass through this general area. Both reports from local fishermen and traditional knowledge tell us that the juvenile Fraser salmon pass through there in great numbers, using the bays and protected areas along the passageway to stop and feed and rest before making their way farther north on their way out to the open ocean.

In that very narrow passageway through the archipelago, there are currently five active salmon farms. They contain close to five million farmed fish. What we've seen is a high incidence of sea lice. We expect that there's a potential for disease being transferred to these juvenile fish.

We would like to see this passageway cleared as an interim measure, with the intention of moving these farms into close containment. It would be an emergency measure so that at least there would one passageway for the Fraser River juvenile salmon to use in making their way out to sea.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Weston.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Peter, David, John, Michelle, and Ruby, you can tell by the nature of the questions that you have 12 MPs around this table who are earnest in their desire to learn as much as they can. You're each contributing a lot, and we thank you for what you've told us today.

I have got three questions.

First, there has been some discussion about upcoming regulations that the Government of Canada will enact as it takes over responsibility for aquaculture for the first time. Did you participate in those public consultations leading up to this enactment?

Second, I want to take up where Mr. Andrews and Mr. Byrne left off. We have in front of us pictures--I think provided by you, Rob--supporting your later testimony concerning closed containment in other places, such as Benxi, China. We also have Middle Bay. You mentioned Vancouver, which was a big surprise to me, because I've heard this hasn't been done successfully and that it's not technically feasible, so could you tell us again clearly where we should be looking?

My third question may be tough for you. Michelle, you mentioned different stakeholders, including government, first nations, the environment, local communities, and the public at large. You didn't mention private enterprise, but Peter, you made it clear that no one is going to do this for charity. What are the strongest arguments against closed containment, if you could think on the opposite side of the argument? Obviously, if we can tackle the toughest argument against you, you're going to win.

Those are my three questions.

[John Werring]

On your first question as to whether or not we participated in the regulatory reform process, yes, there has been a public process in place. The aquaculture management directorate and the people who are responsible for putting together this new regulation for the federal regulation of aquaculture in Canada have had public hearings here in British Columbia. We were invited to attend and make our views known, and we have done that. We have also made extensive submissions in writing to DFO.

That's where it ends, from our perspective. People have had the opportunity to comment. Fisheries and Oceans and the government will now take those comments under advisement in developing new regulation. That regulation will be presented to us pretty well as a fait accompli. I don't know if we'll have much opportunity to provide comments, except possibly when they become gazetted in the Canada Gazette.

[David Lane]

I'll answer the second question on the best place to launch a closed-containment project. Was that the gist of the question?

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

It was on where the process can be viewed as it's actually happening. We've heard about Chile and China, but there's something going on close to home, in the Campbell River in the Lower Mainland. I wasn't really clear on your answer when my colleagues asked earlier where we can see this happening.

[Ruby Berry]

There is a small operation. It's really a matter of scale. You can see this happening in the Lower Mainland and in Middle Bay. I'm sorry to say that the best place to visit and see this in operation is in Washington State. I would love to tell you it's across the border in British Columbia, but there is an operation in Washington State. It's currently supplying closed-containment salmon to supermarkets in British Columbia, and they are looking at expanding. It's a matter of expansion to feed the market at this point, but they do have an operation. Aquaseed is the name of the company, and they're in northern Washington State.

[David Lane]

We believe that B.C. has a golden opportunity here because it has hydroelectricity at fairly cheap rates, as well as the infrastructure. With the downturn in the commercial fishery, there are unused fish processing plant opportunities and a skilled workforce. There would be many benefits if B.C. were to get involved in closed containment early in the game. The markets are there. Retailers are saying they would like this product. It's first off the mark who's going to win in this opportunity.

[Michelle Molnar]

On your final question about the arguments against closed containment, I would say they largely relate to the uncertainty. There are no commercial-scale operations of closed-containment salmon aquaculture, so that's a barrier. You seem to be looking for an example that we can model, but there isn't one of a large size.

Second, the initial capital cost is going to be a barrier. The two financial analyses came out with divergent costs, one being $12 million, another being $22 million. We believe that $12 million is the closer cost, but regardless, the cost is quite a bit higher than for net-pen aquaculture.

Finally, Professor Tyedmers alluded to the energy costs. As David mentioned, we think there are some natural advantages here in B.C. that could mitigate those costs somewhat, but there are other environmental non-market costs, and it will be difficult to estimate them and have them addressed in a business sense.

Basically there is uncertainty about existing operations, large capital costs, and energy.

[Ruby Berry]

With reference to your question about the groups that are interested, I would like to add that a number of private enterprises of various sizes are also interested. I'm sorry that I left them off the list. Some small entrepreneurs and businesses in British Columbia are building this kind of equipment and these kinds of systems for hatcheries. The technology is very similar to what is currently used in hatcheries, and they're looking at developing this technology and developing their business to do closed containment. Also, a couple of large businesses, other industries, are interested in transitioning to growing fish in closed containment, and there's also been some interest in the open-net industry in developing closed containment. There's a lot of interest everywhere, as far as we can tell.

[David Lane]

Further to that, a very interesting and new circumstance is that the very largest salmon farming company in the world, Marine Harvest, which has several billion dollars in assets, has decided that it's in its business interest to start a closed-containment pilot project, and it is doing so. They are putting their plans together and have decided that they need to be able to run these alternatives.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Where is this plant, Ruby? Do you know where it is in northern Washington?

[Ruby Berry]

I believe it's near Olympia. I'm trying to remember the name of the place. I can get you that information.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Could you? That would be great.

[Ruby Berry]

Yes, absolutely.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I want to thank you again.

I represent West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast--Sea to Sky Country, so there are a lot of people in the riding I represent who very much care about this issue. I'm looking forward to hearing more from you as time goes on.