Fisheries Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2011

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Hobson and Chief Cranmer, for appearing before us. We appreciate the interesting information. And let me just say at the outset on behalf of the government that we really do wish you well on this project. I hope we learn things that really help us to understand what the future is for aquaculture.

I was pleased to hear you say in your spoken testimony--it wasn't quite as clear in the briefing note--that you're looking to see if it meets the requirements in terms of viability, sustainability, and so on. Your briefing note made it sound as though you were presupposing all of that. I think if you're going to do a pilot, you ought to go into it with a slightly more open mind as to what the results might show, but that's just a comment.

Another comment I feel I should make is about the ISA issue. I did see it on your website, Mr. Hobson. It's still there, with the initial comments and the link to the Vancouver Sun article, and so on.

It just seems to me that if the facts are that DFO and CFIA have been testing all along, and have tested thousands of samples in recent years for this virus and have found none, and then 48 samples were sent to a lab and it's fairly clear now that some protocols weren't followed in the handling and the testing of those samples, and out of those 48 you get two, and then you send those 48 back and you get none, the likelihood is that we were looking at false positives in those first. I know you may not agree with me there. I'm not a scientist either, and I know the Cohen commission is going have a couple more days in December on this issue as well, so we look forward to what really happened there becoming clearer.

In the couple of minutes I have left, I'll mention that where I'm a little bit uncertain, or perhaps even skeptical about the RAS claims, is that, one, they're going to grow faster, and so you'll be able to do it in a year rather than two years because of the maintenance of optimum temperatures, I assume, and maybe other factors. I hope that's right.

In the process, it's not clear to me that there won't be some animal health issues. Probably some animal welfare issues will be raised in that because of the densities. It seems to me that you're assuming that because they're in a closed system, an RAS system, that there can't be health issues, that fish can't get sick and there won't be the need for antibiotics. We'll see on that. You might be right on that, but we could perhaps get your comment on that.

Recently we've been hearing that RAS systems actually have less environmental impact than do open net-pens. I think your point is that if you add everything in, maybe that is the case. I won't question that, but in terms of its actual carbon footprint, greenhouse gas emissions, let's say, do you still hold it to be true that the open net-pen is greater in that regard than the RAS project you're going to build there would be?

I'd appreciate any comments on that.

[Eric Hobson]

Before I address the question on the therapeutants, I agree with you in terms of the ISA; all I'm saying is that...and I hope that isn't the case. I hope the testing that DFO does, and the testing the Canadian Food Inspection Agency does, is correct. Don't get me wrong on that. The problem is that history shows that these open net-pens eventually have problems. ISA is one of them, and there are many others as well. But I do hope that you are correct.

With respect to the use of therapeutants and disease in the farms, the only information I have is from two facilities. One is the Freshwater Institute in West Virginia, which has been operating for 20 years, and the other is the AquaSeed facility in Rochester, Washington State, which I believe members of the committee toured last year. That's also a 20-year operation. Neither of those facilities has had to use any disease control measures in their facilities in those 20 years. That is my understanding when I've asked them that same question.

They say that the key to keeping disease out of the farm is to never let it in. It's all about how you treat the water coming into the facility. We're going to use UV to treat water on its way into the facility. We'll be monitoring our wells to make sure we don't get pathogens in those wells. They're very adamant that with good, clean water coming into the facility, there shouldn't be a problem.

The disease can get in also via the smolts. Even though they're certified disease-free it doesn't necessarily mean that they are, because it's all spot sampling, as you know. We've built a quarantine facility, where they'll be held on a separate RAS system for four months. The fish husbandry people tell us that if there is disease in the smolts, we will see it within a four-month period. That's the reason we've designed the farm that way.

So in designing the facility, we've tried to draw from experience, from people who have been in this business for a long time. As you say, there are no guarantees on the face of the earth, but we think we've minimized the...to the extent that we can.

With respect to greenhouse gases, again, I'm not a scientist. I didn't do the math. Dr. Andy Wright, who I think addressed the committee last week, did the math. I don't really have a comment other than to say that what Andy has written appears to be reasonable. If there is degradation and rotting going on the bottom as a result of the waste from the farm sitting on the bottom and then rotting and you've got a big release of methane, there's probably a very large greenhouse gas footprint associated with the farms.

That's all I have to say on that subject.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

Chief Cranmer and Mr. Hobson, on behalf of the committee I'd like to thank you for taking the time today to meet with us and answer our questions. It's been very informative. We certainly do appreciate your time here this afternoon. On behalf of the committee, thank you very much.

There being no further business, I move that this meeting be adjourned.