Evidence of meeting #23 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was nasco.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
It identified that three scientist positions would be lost, but didn't identify whether the contract positions would be retained or not.
3:55 p.m.
Director, Aquaculture Science Branch, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I'm not sure if they're directly related. As I understand a contract position, somebody is hired for a specified period of time for a particular project. That would very much be a time-limited arrangement that the department would have with any contracted individuals.
4 p.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
I guess with less funding, you will have less flexibility to take on contracts on science.
4 p.m.
Director, Aquaculture Science Branch, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Yes: it would be very much tied to the availability of funding, and often tied to what we would call “B-based” funding, or funding that would be coming in for a very specific purpose for a very specific period of time. That would be one of the options we'd have in order to be able to engage people on those types of projects.
4 p.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
All right. Thanks.
I'd like to switch gears here—I have limited time, and I have to try to get through a number of issues—and take a look at sea lice for a second. Obviously the issue of sea lice, especially on the west coast, has been intense. So I'm wondering how long the department has been monitoring the situation of sea lice—essentially the intensification of sea lice from aquaculture fish farms and its impact on wild salmon. How long has the department been involved in that? Are we talking 20 years? Do we have records that go back 20 years, 10 years...?
4 p.m.
Director, Aquaculture Science Branch, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
We'd have to get back to you with specific information in terms of monitoring in general and how long we've known about sea lice. I mean, sea lice are naturally occurring organisms that we know have been around for literally thousands, if not tens of thousands, of years. We're certainly well aware of its occurrence in the environment, and for many years have noted that it occurs on a number of marine organisms on both the east coast and the west.
More recently and more specifically, there has been a dedicated monitoring program in the Broughton region. I can't remember the exact date, but from approximately early 2000 there has been a dedicated monitoring program for un-farmed and wild juveniles in the Broughton region.
4 p.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
I guess what I'm wondering is why the department hasn't moved or shifted to closed containment, or seemed to require closed containment earlier.
4 p.m.
Director General, Aquaculture Management Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
We don't require closed containment—
4 p.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
Sorry. In general, why hasn't the department...? You're looking at pilot projects of closed containment; that started a short time ago.
4 p.m.
Director General, Aquaculture Management Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
In Canada as well as in the other aquaculture countries, there have been both research and projects to see whether aquaculture of Atlantic salmon can be done in closed containment. So far, there have not been projects that have successfully shown that aquaculture of Atlantic salmon can be done profitably in closed containment. I know that such research has been done in Norway, as well as in Canada and in Scotland.
Also, we in the department have done a financial study, because one of the elements that is particularly important is whether it is possible from a financial point of view to go into closed containment, apart from all of the other issues that are not addressed yet and that would prevent growing Atlantic salmon to a commercial size. The study that we have done goes back a couple of years. It was done at a time when Atlantic salmon prices on the market were very high, and even at that time, our studies showed that it would not be financially sustainable to do closed containment aquaculture. In a situation like today, when prices are very low, there would be even less of a possibility to do that.
But the research continues. There are a number of scientific aspects related to closed containment for which there are no solutions yet—maybe Jay can speak to this—that really prevent industry from moving in that direction. As I said at the beginning, we use closed-containment measures in our hatcheries to raise smolts, but as you want to grow a fish to a heavier weight—maybe a kilogram—it becomes more complicated.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
I'd like to focus my questions on the focus area reports and the responses, and I'd like to understand those a little better.
There is an apparent contradiction in one of the slides, where you talk about how the focus area report demonstrates how we are meeting our NASCO goals and commitments, but then the second bullet mentions that the ad hoc committee members expressed concerns in all of the reporting areas, stating that measures, in their opinion, were not sufficiently clear or were not adequate.
Can you reconcile those two bullets for me?
4:05 p.m.
Director General, Aquaculture Management Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Thank you.
Yes. The purpose of the focus area report--and I should say that, as you know, there are six or seven countries around the table--was that NASCO wanted to be able, when the reports were produced, to bring them together and to basically get from the reports some guidelines or some directions. So member countries decided that the reports should be done in a format that is comparable from one country to the next; otherwise we could end up with a 20-page report and a 200-page report--impossible to compare.
So we had a fairly strict format that we followed for each of the three focus area reports: fish management, habitat, and aquaculture. The process was that after the reports were written, committees were established to critique those reports. Basically these committees were composed of representatives from NASCO member countries and also NGOs. The criticisms of the reports really were the points of view of those committees, which were brought to the NASCO general council in 2010.
I think if you read other reports as well you would find the same conclusion. Our report addressed very clearly how in Canada we deal with issues like sea lice or escapes and all the elements that you find in the table on page 5, which are the main elements NASCO is dealing with. Partly because of the format and length of the report we can go into a lot of details. So in my view, the committee that was established to examine the reports found that maybe the reports were lacking in terms of details that they wanted to see in the report. As I said, we haven't had that conversation at the NASCO council so far. We have provided a response to the criticism that the ad hoc committee has provided, and we have provided further details. Right now NASCO has the focused area report, it has the criticism from the ad hoc committee, and it has Canada's response to those criticisms.
Overall as a package, if we wanted to get from these three documents one document that was really showing what we do in Canada and other countries to prevent the negative impact of aquaculture, we'd get a good product.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
You talked about the ad hoc committee and earlier focus reports. How often do you go through these focus area reports?
The other thing I'd like to ask is on this ad hoc working group. It says the comments were compiled but they're not vetted or challenged. So I guess anybody could say anything they wanted to say. Who are on these groups? You have the countries on these groups as well as accredited environmental groups. How many of those, and who would they be? Which environmental groups are on there?
4:05 p.m.
Director General, Aquaculture Management Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
From Canada it was a representative from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, not a delegate from the NASCO delegation. I know that there was a representative from the U.S., a representative from the NGO group....
Was there another one?
4:10 p.m.
Director, Certification and Sustainability Policy, Aquaculture Management Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Yes. There was a representative from Norway, one from the U.S., one from Canada, one from the NASCO secretariat, and from the group of accredited ENGOs in the meeting there were actually two. The original terms of reference were to have one ENGO represent that entire accredited group, but actually there were two.
4:10 p.m.
Director, Certification and Sustainability Policy, Aquaculture Management Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
There was one from the ASF and there was one from.... I beg your pardon, Mr. Allen, I can't remember the name of the group. It was one of the conservation groups from the U.K., but I can't remember which one, exactly.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Was it a salmon conservation group like the Atlantic Salmon Federation?
4:10 p.m.
Director, Certification and Sustainability Policy, Aquaculture Management Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
It was a salmon and trout conservation group, yes.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Okay, thank you.
We did get a letter in after Bill Taylor had given his testimony here at committee. He talked a lot about escapes when he was at the committee, especially on the index river, the Magaguadavic River in New Brunswick, obviously. He said that in 2010 the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization reviewed the records. They are a party, so I'm assuming they must have been part of this. When he talked about the general goals, he said that Canada's performance was inadequate under the Williamsburg resolution, basing it on sea lice but also in terms of the escapes.
When I look in your table, it's interesting, because you look at Chile, which must notify of escapes and recapture efforts required, as opposed to some of the others, where you have reporting but you have escape response plans. What are the differences? Are our escape response plans recapture mechanisms? What are the differences between the countries on those?
4:10 p.m.
Director General, Aquaculture Management Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Monsieur, you're right; the escape response plan depends on the size of the escape and where it is. If there is a possibility to recapture the fish it will be done.
This is the responsibility of the province, so we work with the provincial governments on these particular matters.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
So back to the point that Mr. Kamp was asking, what are the challenges because of the jurisdiction issues we have in Canada, as opposed to other countries that manage this by themselves? Does that cause problems? Is that part of the reason why maybe we are not as successful in meeting these objectives as other countries? I realize the other countries are having their problems as well.
4:10 p.m.
Director General, Aquaculture Management Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I wouldn't say so. On the Canadian delegation at NASCO there are provincial representatives. They understand the environment in which NASCO functions and how Canada participates. Before we go to NASCO we have consultations with the provincial governments as well as stakeholders to prepare our positions.
We understand how it works in Canada; this is the way things are right now, so we function with that. In other jurisdictions, Norway or Scotland, as we said before, they have other levels of jurisdiction as well, so they have to deal with those kinds of environments in the same way we do.
Is it slower? I don't know. If we have systems in place that address those issues we have protocols if there's an escape--who to contact and what to do next. So these protocols are already in place and we work together on making sure that when there is an escape there is information that is flowing and there are decisions that can be taken in terms of what are the next steps.
