I'd like to thank the committee for the invitation to contribute to your study of closed containment salmon aquaculture. I appreciate the opportunity and privilege to address our parliamentarians in Ottawa. I also appreciate the fact that we can do this by video conference, which has been very convenient for me.
As you know, my name is Myron Roth. I'm a fish biologist and have worked in the field of aquaculture for over 20 years. I have a B.Sc. in zoology from the University of British Columbia and a Ph.D. from the University of Sterling in Scotland, where I studied the control of sea lice on salmon farms. My areas of expertise include salmon production systems and biotechnology, fish pathology, and the development, evaluation, and regulation of veterinary drugs, vaccines, and pesticides used in aquaculture. Through my work, which has included positions with a salmon farming company in Canada and an international pharmaceutical company and the Government of British Columbia, I have direct experience working with the salmon aquaculture industries on both coasts of Canada and in Scotland, Norway, Ireland, and Chile.
Currently I'm the industry specialist for aquaculture and seafood for the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture. In this role I provide technical expertise to B.C.'s aquaculture industry. As a subject matter expert for aquaculture working closely with the industry and the research community, I also provide technical advice to the executive in the ministry as well as other ministries within the B.C. government and external government agencies. A function of my position is identifying opportunities and constraints facing the aquaculture industry and developing solutions to address both. Closed containment aquaculture for salmon and other species is recognized as an opportunity for growth of the B.C. aquaculture industry. As such, I have spent a great deal of time over the last couple of years working on this particular file.
In the interest of time, I will briefly outline the current regulatory framework from a provincial perspective that applies to closed containment aquaculture. Before I do, I'd like to define closed containment aquaculture as we see it. Currently we use the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat definition, which states:
Closed containment is a term used to describe a range of technologies that attempt to restrict and control interactions between farmed fish and the external aquatic environment with the goal of minimizing impacts and creating greater control over factors in aquaculture production.
In essence, what this definition says is that closed containment systems cover a range of technologies from ocean-based systems that afford partial containment to land-based recirculating aquaculture systems that potentially provide complete containment. To illustrate this, I've forwarded an illustration to the committee; hopefully you have that on file. Basically, what it shows is that there are many different types of systems within a continuum, with each providing more and more containment. While many systems fit within this broad definition, I will restrict my comments to two: ocean-based solid wall systems and land-based recirculating aquaculture systems, or what we commonly refer to as RAS, because these two systems represent the prominent contenders for advancing closed containment aquaculture in B.C. at this time.
Prior to December 2010, aquaculture operations were regulated jointly by the provincial and the federal governments here in B.C. This arrangement was facilitated by a memorandum of understanding between the two, outlining the roles and responsibilities to be undertaken by both. The province developed a regulatory framework principally under the provincial Fisheries Act and the Environmental Management Act. In brief, the province was responsible for issuing aquaculture licences, tenures for crown land, and regulating discharges from finfish farms, both ocean-based and land-based.
As I’m sure the committee is well aware, in February 2009 the B.C. Supreme Court ruled that marine finfish aquaculture was a fishery and therefore the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. As a result, Justice Hinkson struck down parts of the provincial Fisheries Act, Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act, the aquaculture regulation pertaining to finfish aquaculture, and the entirety of the finfish aquaculture waste control regulation. This decision applied to all marine finfish aquaculture in the province but expressly did not apply to the cultivation of marine plants. Moreover, and relevant to today’s discussion, the decision did not directly address freshwater aquaculture or land-based aquaculture.
Following this decision, the provincial government announced that it would no longer regulate the operational activities of shellfish and freshwater aquaculture. It would leave management of the entire sector, with the exception of marine plants, to Fisheries and Oceans Canada. As a result of these changes, which took effect in December 2010, the province no longer regulates finfish and shellfish aquaculture, with the exception of labour and licensing matters. It also continues to issue crown land tenures used to site aquaculture installations under the authority of the provincial Land Act. Where land-based systems are concerned, legislation administered by the B.C. Ministry of the Environment pertaining to water use--that's water licences under the Water Act and waste discharge permits under the Environmental Management Act--still apply.
In all situations, aquaculture operations still require a B.C. aquaculture licence, as the B.C. Fisheries Act requires a licence to carry on the business of aquaculture. So that's essentially a business licence.
Overall, I think the new regulatory framework is working well, although there is always room for improvement. There continues to be a good working relationship between the provincial and federal governments. This is facilitated by the new Canada-British Columbia agreement on aquaculture management, which was signed in 2010.
Ocean-based systems located on crown land require a crown land tenure issued by the province and an aquaculture licence issued by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Additional considerations include permitting under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. In general, operating parameters follow those used by the province prior to the Hinkson decision, as conditions attached to the aquaculture licence issued by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. That would be for ocean-based systems.
Land-based systems present a somewhat different situation, since the Pacific aquaculture regulations under the Fisheries Act put in place by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to regulate the industry apply to coastal and inland waters and fisheries waters. That appears to capture any aquaculture facilities in B.C., with the possible exception of land-based closed containment systems. For the most part, facilities are being located on private land. As such, they would not require a crown land tenure but would require an aquaculture licence issued by Fisheries and Oceans.
As it has done for ocean-based systems and all other types of aquaculture licences held under the federal Fisheries Act, Fisheries and Oceans has developed licence templates that detail the various licence conditions applied to the type of licence and the species being cultured.
Freshwater aquaculture licence conditions defer to previous provincial requirements for waste discharge. Discharge permits are issued by the provincial ministry of environment on a case-by-case basis. This has so far worked reasonably well. In situations where the facility is located on federal land, such as the Namgis facility, the province has no jurisdiction, so a different regulatory path is followed.
In these situations, Fisheries and Oceans defers to Environment Canada to set standards for effluent discharge. As I understand it, the issue is that Environment Canada considers any discharge to fish habitat a deleterious substance under section 36 of the Fisheries Act, which is not allowed unless proven to be safe. Environment Canada is therefore reluctant to issue discharge permits with specific conditions.
Recirculating aquaculture systems have been in place in B.C. for some time, as all the major salmon farming companies use this technology to grow smolts. However, another condition of the freshwater licence that applies to salmon hatcheries for marine grow-out requires the licence-holder to meet the receiving environment standards found in the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment water quality index. This means that hatcheries are required to monitor the water quality of ground and surface waters upstream and downstream from their facilities. These standards are based on common reference values and are not location-specific.
It is my understanding that in many cases baseline values are unknown and that many receiving waters may already exceed the standards before any inputs reach them. What this suggests to me is that there is an opportunity to improve the regulatory framework with respect to effluent from closed containment systems as well as at land-based freshwater aquaculture facilities. As an aside, I suspect that where effluent standards are concerned, this issue also extends to marine net pens. I know that Fisheries and Oceans is aware of these issues and is currently working to address them.
In closing, while my comments have been brief, I hope I have provided some insight into the current regulatory framework for closed containment aquaculture in B.C. and a couple of regulatory issues that represent grey areas. I am confident that ongoing work and collaboration among the various government agencies involved will resolve these issues as we move forward.
Nonetheless, I do wish to impress upon the committee that time is of the essence. Given the capital cost of closed containment systems, which are prohibitively high, investors need to be confident that the regulatory system in place affords a level of business certainty and security. Without strong investor confidence that projects will proceed on a timely basis, it will be difficult for the province not only to attract investment for the development of closed containment technologies but to retain investment in B.C. for the existing aquaculture infrastructure and industry.
I also feel that given the dollars involved where closed containment is concerned, the mandate to salmon farmers and all aquaculturists should be to reduce impacts rather than to use specific technologies.
I'll close with that and I'll take any questions you have.
