Evidence of meeting #28 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 report.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Jeffrey Hutchings  Professor of Biology, Dalhousie University, Royal Society of Canada
Ian Fleming  Professor of Biology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Royal Society of Canada

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston

I call this meeting to order.

I'd like to thank our guests for joining us here today. As you have probably been made aware, and maybe have been following, our committee has been studying closed containment aquaculture. We certainly look forward to your presentation this afternoon, any comments, and the opportunity to ask questions. Committee members have been looking forward to this opportunity.

Professor Hutchings, I believe you're going to lead off with the opening statements and then both of you will entertain questions from the committee, is that correct?

If you want to introduce Professor Fleming in your opening statement, please proceed. The floor is yours, whenever you're ready.

3:35 p.m.

Dr. Jeffrey Hutchings Professor of Biology, Dalhousie University, Royal Society of Canada

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Yes, indeed, I would like to introduce Professor Ian Fleming from Memorial University of Newfoundland. He has worked on interactions between farmed and wild Atlantic salmon since the late 1980s. He's also worked on Pacific salmon and so he brings expertise from Europe, as well as from eastern and western Canada.

My name is Jeff Hutchings. I'm a professor of biology at Dalhousie University. I've worked on Atlantic salmon since the early 1980s, and I've worked on interactions between farmed and wild Atlantic salmon since the early 1990s.

We come here not only as professors of biology, but also as members of a Royal Society of Canada expert panel that recently addressed some issues pertaining to climate change, fisheries, and aquaculture on Canadian marine biodiversity.

My opening remarks will basically reflect the briefs sent beforehand.

Canada has a geographical imperative to be the international leader in oceans stewardship. Canada has the longest coastline in the world. Canada's seas might well be the largest of any country. Eight of ten provinces and all three territories, comprising 86% of Canada's population, border salt water. Canada is an ocean nation.

Canada's oceans constitute a vital biological and physical milieu that supports human health, societal well-being, and creation of wealth.

Canada has the benefit of, and responsibility for, three coastlines that contribute to society in numerous ways. For thousands of years, Canada's oceans have provided habitat for species of traditional and cultural significance to aboriginal people. Today, sustainably exploited fish populations and environmentally responsible aquaculture operations should provide secure local and national access to the protein and oils contained in seafood.

Dr. Fleming and I are co-authors of a recent national report on oceans, prepared in response to a request by the Royal Society of Canada that an independent expert panel be convened to advise on a series of questions related to the sustainability of Canada's marine biodiversity. Following its deliberations from June 2010 to January 2012, the panel released its report on February 2 entitled, Sustaining Canada's Marine Biodiversity: Responding to the Challenges Posed by Climate Change, Fisheries, and Aquaculture.

Pursuant to the current interests of this standing committee, the report attempts to describe and forecast how aquaculture has affected, and is likely to affect, Canadian marine biodiversity; to determine whether Canada has fulfilled its commitments to sustain marine biodiversity; and to provide strong, strategically based recommendations to establish Canada as an international leader in oceans stewardship and marine conservation.

The environmental impacts of open-net sea pen aquaculture, as opposed to closed containment facilities, are commonly grouped into four categories: ecological interactions; genetic consequences; diseases and parasites; and habitat alteration. More specifically, these include concerns about chemical inputs such as antibiotics, antifoulants, and pesticides; nutrient-loading and deterioration of the sea bottom; sources of feed for wild salmon; the effects of escapees and use of non-native species; and the exchange of pathogens and diseases such as infectious salmon anemia between the local, natural, and farming environments. All of these interactions are known to occur in the open-net sea pens typical of Canadian aquaculture operations. Most or all of these interactions can be mitigated by closed containment facilities, particularly those deployed on land.

There is no other region of the world where open-net sea pen salmon farming is practised that has greater salmon and salmonid diversity, abundance, and natural ecosystems potentially at risk than in British Columbia. On Canada's Pacific coast, it is generally accepted that open-net sea pen salmon farms can cause infections of the salmon louse—a type of sea lice—and contribute to infections in native salmon, and that these infections can increase juvenile salmon mortality. There is reason to believe that the harm posed by pathogens might be greater than is currently perceived.

Turning to the Atlantic coast, unlike the Pacific, Atlantic salmon are native to Atlantic waters. Thus, there is a threat to wild salmon resulting from interbreeding between farmed salmon that escape from open-net sea pens and wild salmon.

To date, escaped farm salmon have been reported in 54 rivers and bays, which constitutes 87% of the watersheds that have been investigated since the inception of the salmon aquaculture industry.

Farmed salmon differs genetically from wild salmon. When farmed and wild salmon interbreed, the outcome is frequently negative for wild salmon. Compounding the documented environmental impacts of aquaculture is the fact that the abundance of wild salmon is at historically low levels on the east coast, especially where salmon aquaculture farming is prosecuted. These salmon populations have recently been assessed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.

Regarding pathogens, infectious salmon anemia, or ISA, has already caused enormous economic losses to salmon aquaculture and constitutes a threat to wild populations because of the magnification of pathogen abundance in sea cages. Just last week a third salmon farm in Nova Scotia was destroyed because of ISA.

The Royal Society report found the following pertaining to salmon aquaculture, and this is just a summary. First, wild bottom-dwelling organisms and their habitat can be affected by organic wastes and chemicals inputs. Second, exchange of pathogens between farmed and wild fish can threaten the persistence of wild populations. Third, interbreeding between wild Atlantic salmon and farmed escapees threatens the reproductive capability and recovery potential of wild salmon of conservation concern, and finally, open-net sea pens have far greater potential and realized negative consequence to marine life than closed containment facilities.

The sustainability of Atlantic salmon farming will continue to be debated until there is a fuller understanding and more meaningful inclusion of public values and opinions within aquaculture management and government policy decisions. For example, the lack of transparency and public reporting of diseases at aquaculture farms has hindered meaningful, constructive, and respectful debate. A higher standard of transparency and accountability by both industry and Fisheries and Oceans Canada should have been anticipated, but this has yet to be achieved.

From a statutory perspective, Canada continues to rely on a complex patchwork of federal and provincial laws to regulate the aquaculture industry. This existing patchwork of more than 70 pieces of federal and provincial legislation does not appear adequate for ensuring environmentally sustainable aquaculture and healthy marine biodiversity.

The Pacific aquaculture regulations, for example, lack clear legislative guidance regarding objectives, principles, and procedures, and existing licences in Atlantic Canada might be open to legal challenge for being beyond the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces.

The Royal Society panel recommends that Parliament draft and enact federal aquaculture legislation that specifies requirements and guidance on national objectives and procedures for all aquaculture operations. Such a recommendation is not new. Indeed, a federal aquaculture act was recommended by this standing committee in 2003.

Benefits of such legislation include the assurance of a principled approach to aquaculture access and operations, clarification of property rights, and encouragement of an integrated regulatory approach. The Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance has been especially vocal about the need for Canada to join other major farmed seafood-producing countries in having dedicated national aquaculture legislation.

Canada faces significant challenges in its efforts to conserve and sustain marine biological life, in light of climate change, fisheries, and aquaculture. The simplest and best strategy to deal with these three stressors to biodiversity is to protect existing diversity, and rebuild depleted populations and species to restore natural diversity.

The challenge then will be to sustain species and populations at levels at which Canada's marine biodiversity is able to optimize the ecosystem services the oceans provide in support of Canadian society and the welfare of the global community. By improving and protecting the health of Canada's oceans, such a strategy will restore the natural resilience of Canada's ocean ecosystems to adapt in response to the challenges posed by human activities.

With specific reference to aquaculture, the use of closed containment technology, particularly on land, will mitigate many of the environmental and biodiversity impacts of open-net sea pen salmon farming.

The Royal Society of Canada expert panel asserts that an environmentally responsible aquaculture operation should represent a fundamentally integral component to any comprehensive strategy by Canada to assert its national and international ocean stewardship responsibilities.

Therein ends my opening remarks, Mr. Chair.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston

Thank you, Professor Hutchings. That was pretty close on time. You must have practised that.

We'll move to questions at this point.

Mr. Sopuck.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I listened to the last sentence you read out and looked at your testimony on page 6, where you say that environmentally responsible aquaculture operations represent a fundamentally integral component. That's a fairly ambiguous statement for what is said to be an assertion.

Quite plainly, would you recommend that net pen aquaculture be banned on Canada's coasts?

3:45 p.m.

Professor of Biology, Dalhousie University, Royal Society of Canada

Dr. Jeffrey Hutchings

I would not recommend that open-net pen aquaculture be banned on Canada's coasts. I think the report meant to—and tries to—take a balanced perspective of the realized and potential environmental impacts of open-sea net pen aquaculture vis-à-vis the alternatives from a closed containment perspective. So to answer your question, the society report does not advocate a ban on open-sea net pen aquaculture.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB

In your testimony—and I read it fairly carefully—there was a lot of talk about the effect on wild salmon, something that's near and dear to my heart as a very avid fly fisherman. You specifically said that off the B.C. coast was a very important salmonid area.

Aquaculture has being going on there since 1985. A report from DFO, that I happened to get by emailing the minister's office to get some information, says that in 2010, the Fraser River sockeye returns were 30 million, the best return since 1913. In 2011, that return was 4.5 million which is an average return for that cycle year. I was told that 2011 was a good year in general for all salmon species.

I certainly share your obvious valuing of wild salmon stocks, but I don't see anything in the information I've been given that shows a direct effect between aquaculture and wild salmon stocks. Indeed, the 2010 Fraser River sockeye run, which was the best in history, seems to belie that.

Can you comment on that?

3:45 p.m.

Professor of Biology, Dalhousie University, Royal Society of Canada

Dr. Jeffrey Hutchings

Yes, I can. The Royal Society report basically doesn't comment on the specifics of a particular region or salmon population. It identifies documented and projected influences on wild populations—not just fish—in the environment, in general, resulting from open-sea net pen aquaculture.

You specifically referred to the Fraser River sockeye, one particular species in one particular river system. Of course it's a very extensive river system. The report certainly does not make any direct link between aquaculture and Fraser River sockeye viability. It does not speak about specific effects on particular populations on the west coast, so it really does not make any direct link to Fraser River sockeye.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB

As elected officials we have to make decisions that have direct effects on people's livelihoods. The more specific we can get in terms of scientific opinion, the better it is.

In the panel report it was noted,

With the possible exceptions of pathogens, it is unlikely that the impacts of salmon net-pen aquaculture on marine biodiversity along BC's coast will be broad-ranging.

It seems to me the report is saying that any impacts can be mitigated.

Can you comment on that?

3:45 p.m.

Professor of Biology, Dalhousie University, Royal Society of Canada

Dr. Jeffrey Hutchings

Yes. With respect to the B.C. coast—not the Atlantic coast, which is a different situation because Atlantic salmon exist on the Atlantic coast—the report indicates that any direct spatial impacts are likely to be localized and restricted to the areas of open-sea net pens, primarily as a consequence of the effluents that are released from the net pens into the water directly affecting the water bottom in that area. But broader-ranging influences might be realized by the exchange of pathogens and disease.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB

One of the things that witnesses pointed out to us was that because of aquaculture production, especially on the east coast—and I guess the west coast too, for that matter—of Atlantic salmon, we will probably never have to commercially fish wild Atlantic salmon again.

Don't you think that's a good thing?

3:45 p.m.

Professor of Biology, Dalhousie University, Royal Society of Canada

Dr. Jeffrey Hutchings

Given the current levels of Atlantic salmon abundance, I think that is a good thing. However, what the report attempts to do—and what I think those of us who work in this field try to do—is balance the overall benefits and costs of any particular action from an environmental, economic, and social perspective. One potential benefit right now might well be the reduction of pressures to commercially exploit wild Atlantic salmon, but that's simply one potential consequence of where things are at today.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB

In your testimony, you talked about a “more meaningful inclusion of public values and opinions within aquaculture management and government policy decisions.” It seems to me that referring to “public values and opinions”, while every citizen can certainly refer to that, is not very scientific.

What we need, as policy makers, are cold, hard scientific facts. Public values and opinions are important to us, as elected officials, but I would suggest that restricting what scientists do to objective facts, and reporting them in a manner that we can put into the decision-making mix, is more appropriate. Could you comment on that?

3:50 p.m.

Professor of Biology, Dalhousie University, Royal Society of Canada

Dr. Jeffrey Hutchings

I certainly can. One of the things that the Royal Society expert panel was asked to do was to provide broadly based strategic recommendations resulting from the potential consequences of climate change, fisheries, and aquaculture on Canada's marine biodiversity. We had policy experts and legal experts as part of the panel, so this particular element was felt to fall within the purview of the panel's expertise.

To be more specific, and perhaps more helpful, given your perspective, one of the key things that seems to be affecting the respectful, open, and transparent debate that might otherwise exist is a lack of information on disease and pathogens, the frequency with which salmon farms are inspected, and so on. This has tended to polarize the discussion. When the public is not permitted to see the information on disease, it tends to push people to a more polarized perspective. When all information is available to all people who are concerned about a particular situation, it makes for a transparent situation, and probably for a meaningful debate. But when some information is not made publicly available, I think people tend to veer to one polar extreme or the other.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB

In my view, scientists should stick to science.

Thank you very much.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston

Thank you, Mr. Sopuck.

Mr. Donnelly.

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC

Thanks, Mr. Chair, and my thanks to Dr. Hutchings and Dr. Fleming. It's great to have you here.

Thank you for this report. I think it is a significant contribution to the scientific community. Certainly, it's helpful for this committee to look at in our deliberations on the impacts of aquaculture and wild salmon, as well as disease and parasites, just to name a couple of issues that we've been looking at over the past year and a half.

On March 8 of this year, the CFIA confirmed that ISA was found in a Nova Scotia fish farm in Shelburne. Recently, we had an ISA scare in British Columbia. I'm wondering if you could provide information on this disease and the potential threat, specifically to wild species, and the relationship between aquaculture and those wild species in Canada and possibly in other jurisdictions around the world.

3:50 p.m.

Professor of Biology, Dalhousie University, Royal Society of Canada

Dr. Jeffrey Hutchings

I'll start, and then I'll pass it over to Dr. Fleming for an international perspective.

ISA first appeared in Canadian waters in the mid-to-late nineties in New Brunswick and resulted in losses of enormous numbers of salmon. Many farmed salmon had to be destroyed. This disease is basically anemia—red blood cells are reduced in abundance, and oxygen can't get to various organs in the fish. It's a highly infectious disease. Whenever you hold organisms of a farmed or wild nature in a very dense situation, the likelihood of disease increases dramatically. This particular disease is very infectious, very volatile. That is one of the reasons that entire sea cages are destroyed as a consequence.

ISA has been documented in some wild salmon. I know the Magaguadavic River in New Brunswick is one area where wild Atlantic salmon have been found to have this virus. Now, it isn't a natural virus, and one cannot say whether the virus originated from a farm or not. Some of these diseases, if they are transmitted to wild populations—particularly when wild populations are depleted and things like sea lice are carriers—pose a considerable risk to these depleted populations. This is one of the things the report attempts to point out.

There was a good example in Norway that I'll ask Dr. Fleming to address.

March 12th, 2012 / 3:55 p.m.

Dr. Ian Fleming Professor of Biology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Royal Society of Canada

Yes. I'd say that with ISA—I'll just follow up from what Jeff was saying—the classic example for ISA would be what happened in Chile. You're probably quite familiar with the collapse of the industry there as associated with the outbreak of ISA in that region.

In Norway they've had a couple of examples of outbreaks and diseases, some associated with aquaculture and some associated with just transferring fish to another area. I think one of the best examples is probably Gyrodactylus. That was not introduced into Norwegian waters by aquaculture; it was the process of transferring fish associated with hatcheries from the Baltic to the Atlantic.

As a consequence, Norway has since had to deal with about 40 to 50 rivers that have basically been destroyed—with almost no salmon left in them—by this external parasite that is a freshwater parasite that destroys all young salmon. They then go through the process of having living gene banks, which is a very expensive process to maintain the fish. They also then have the process of rotenoning rivers, which sounds quite horrible but basically kills off all sorts of organisms in the river with the hopes of restoring the populations of salmon in subsequent years.

Sometimes it works, but when it's a big river, it often fails. A lot of money has been sunk into this, and it's an ongoing process. Once you have it, it's hard to eliminate it. The idea is to be cautious at the start.

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC

I'll ask for just a quick clarification. On the hatchery, was that used for restocking? What was the purpose of the hatchery?

3:55 p.m.

Professor of Biology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Royal Society of Canada

Dr. Ian Fleming

I don't remember off the top of my head what the purpose was initially.

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC

All right. Thanks.

Just to switch gears for a second, this committee is looking at the feasibility of closed containment in aquaculture and specifically salmon aquaculture. You said that one of the main findings of your report is that open-net sea pens have far greater potential and realized negative consequences to marine biodiversity than closed containment facilities.

I'm just wondering, given your comments earlier, what you would recommend in terms of closed containment in this industry. Is this something this committee should be looking at? Should it be phased in or used only at certain periods or...? Do you have—

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston

I have to interrupt you as per the Standing Orders. The bells are ringing at this point in time. Your time will stop at this point. The House will have to convene for a vote.

I'm just looking at the clock. With half-hour bells and a vote, this committee will reconvene no later than five o'clock.

We stand adjourned.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston

I call this meeting back to order.

Mr. Donnelly.

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Chair, given that we've just had the votes, which has caused an hour out of our schedule, I'm wondering if I could move a motion that we extend committee by one hour to allow our witnesses to do a full presentation. If the committee would entertain such a motion, I would so move that we extend the committee by one hour, given that we had this disruption today, and it was unplanned and unfortunate.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston

As a point of clarification, Mr. Donnelly, are you moving a motion to extend it by one hour from now or one hour from 5:30, the normal time of conclusion?