Fisheries Committee on Oct. 27th, 2011

[Kevin Stringer]

I wouldn't presume to do so.

What I can say is that aquaculture worldwide now produces approximately 50% of the world's fish resources. So in terms of where the world's protein is going to come from in the future, we do want to see the wild fishery grow and intend to continue to work to see stocks rebuild and such, but the growth in the world is in aquaculture. The challenge is to ensure that it's developed in an environmentally responsible way so that you can have a vibrant wild fishery and a vibrant aquaculture fishery as well.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I'd like you to comment on Canadian technology versus that of the other countries we will be competing with.

When you're talking about closed containment, I expect that eco-certification is going to come into play. We cannot blame the Government of Canada any more, if I understand this correctly, but the world community. This eco-certification is just bigger than us.

How do you see that playing out in aquaculture, when you're talking about there being so many fish, perhaps too many fish, in the pen and this type of thing?

[Kevin Stringer]

That's a very good question, and I'm going to answer the last part, which is on eco-certification. I'll ask Alistair to answer the first part on Canadian technology versus others'.

Eco-certification has been a significant issue with us for 10 years in the wild fishery. In Canada we have, I think, 22 fisheries that are certified. As you pointed out, it is not government saying that it's certified, but it's done by third-party certification. For the most part the gold standard has been the Marine Stewardship Council, MSC certification—but it's not the only one.

Aquaculture has been not as quick to establish those standards, but there are processes to establish them. The World Wildlife Fund and others have been working at establishing standards, and we've contributed to those discussions. We haven't seen the requirement as much from the retailers saying that they're going to expect certification. But we're watching that very carefully, and I think it will be an emerging issue. It will speak to issues like sea lice and fish health and densities and those types of things, which our industry is watching very closely as well.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

But if I'm correct, I can see this as deciding what's going to take place in fisheries.

In fact, not to get off the topic, I can also see this eco-certification probably deciding where you can and cannot fish, and that type of thing. And if you don't abide by what they say, you're not certified. There are certain large businesses that require that in the retail industry.

[Kevin Stringer]

It is in a challenge, both in the wild fishery and in aquaculture.

What I can say, though, is that these certification systems are based on FAO standards. The idea is that there's a world standard, which governments work on. And we're one out of the 170 governments, or whatever the number is. The certification bodies take those standards and say, okay, here's how we're going to test different fisheries and aquaculture, in our case, to see if they meet the mark.

So the standards are based on something we have a role in. But you're not wrong in terms of their having a significant effect on the market.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

They could decide, and I expect this will come into play in the aquaculture industry, there's too much density. And if they do, you do not get the certification. And if Sobeys or some large retail department decides it is not going to be certified, that puts us in quite a mess as far as the fishery is concerned—or at least takes the say away from government. We cannot even blame the government, then.

[Kevin Stringer]

It's certainly something we're watching carefully. The issue of certification of aquaculture is definitely an emerging issue we are Inaudible--Editor] on.

I'll ask Alistair to make any comment he wishes to on Canadian technology versus others'.

[Alistair Struthers]

I think that Canadian companies actually play quite well on the global market. It's a question of brands more than anything. There's a company on the west coast, PR Aqua, that has exported its technology to the U.S. and Chile for hatchery production and for recirculating aquaculture systems.

I think it's largely a matter of preference. Some people view the European technology as perhaps being slightly better. It's a question of whether you want to compare, say, a Ford to a Toyota. From a technological perspective, Canada plays quite well on a global scale.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

Your time's up, Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I've been segregated to the corner.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I have a question before we move on. You spoke earlier about the modelling you did for recirculation aquaculture, and you talked about the population density being higher in closed containment as opposed to a net pen aquaculture. Can you explain the basis for that assumption you made?

Also, can you tell us what the footprint of a closed containment system would be compared to a net-pen site with respect to the higher population density in closed containment?

[Kevin Stringer]

Thank you.

I'll start, though Alistair knows the answer to this question.

On the issue of density, if you look at the size of the open-net pen facilities currently in operation, it's really not feasible, certainly from an economic perspective, but even from the perspective of covering a football field, to have those types of facilities on land. So I think it's largely about what's actually feasible. But I'll ask Alistair.

[Alistair Struthers]

The densities for an open net-pen system are about 15 kilos per cubic metre. For land-based and recirculating aquaculture systems, you're looking at a minimum of about 50 kilos per cubic metre. The primary reason for that is to take advantage of the capital costs, because the difference in capital costs between the two systems is enormous. So you need to be able to maximize your footprint.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Okay.

[Kevin Stringer]

Jay was going to add something to this.

[Dr. Jay Parsons]

I could add just a further point on this. It's partly related to the biological parameters that the fish need to grow. In closed containment systems, you have much more control over the parameters in which you raise your fish. To be able to stock fish at 50 kilograms per cubic metre, you need to have much more control over your system in terms of being able to remove the solids and the dissolved wastes. You also need to have systems to introduce oxygen into the water to maintain fish at those densities.

Alistair is right. From an economic perspective, you need to have that density for it to be economically viable. But to have those densities, you need to have the technology to support growing fish at those densities. In the wild, the natural tides and currents flush the water in and out of the cage and provide oxygen to the fish—and that is the density they're able to maintain at in a wild environment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

So the footprint ratio is about 3:1? Is that about right?

[Dr. Jay Parsons]

In terms of the difference in densities, yes, that's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Mr. Donnelly.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Taking Mr. Sopuck's scenario or forecast of the future, let's say we were to come up with an agreed closed containment system, the perfect system, the system that is determined to be the most feasible. How soon could we then expect industry to make a reasonable transition, from what it currently is now to a closed system that's widely accepted or agreed on? Is there a particular number of years that would make sense?

[Kevin Stringer]

I'm going to start this, and I'm going to ask my colleagues to think about the full answer to the question of how long it takes to get a demonstration project in place.

The idea, as I said, is that the initial research is done, and then there are the demonstration projects. As I understand it, with the Namgis demonstration, for example, it would take a number of years before you actually proved it out.

I think as well there's the physical and economic challenge--I'm not sure if you were suggesting this—of taking the current net pens and moving them on land or putting structures around them. That's a whole other question, but it's basically saying that all future growth will be....

As to when you would have those things in place, and when the percentage of industry would be there, I think it's a significant period of time you're talking about. I'll ask my colleagues to speak about that; it's a hypothetical thing, but we can make our best inspired guess.

[Dr. Jay Parsons]

Mr. Stringer is right that this is a very difficult question to answer explicitly. One way to answer it might be from more of a general perspective.

Mr. Stringer has already alluded to the three phases, to the research, development, and commercialization continuum, if you will. Certainly if we look generally at aquaculture development--let's say the development of salmon aquaculture in Canada from the late 1970s, or the development of some other new species, such as cod aquaculture--it's not unusual to see a time cycle of 10 to 20 years in the research to development to commercialization continuum.

So from the perspective of closed containment-type systems, as Mr. Stringer said, we're probably into the development or pre-commercialization phase right now. It will certainly be a number of years before we're able to get to a stage where we're able to undertake the studies required to demonstrate the technology and show it's biologically feasible, and also to be able collectively to demonstrate that the level of risk, from an economic and environmental and biological perspective, is low enough to warrant the type of investment required for industry to take this to the commercialization phase.

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

Thank you for that.

Do I have time for a quick follow-up, Mr. Chair? Thank you.

If, for instance, there were government investment, would that speed up that transition period at all?

[Dr. Jay Parsons]

As I think we've already alluded to, there's already a significant level of government funding in this development, pilot-scale project. I think government funding is very important at this stage of development, where the indications are that it's marginally financially feasible and that public investment of funds will certainly help facilitate the development of this technology.

[Kevin Stringer]

I would just add that we have invested in these demonstration projects. Industry has done the same kind of analysis that we've done, and it's not economically viable at the moment. They're not going to invest in it because they're going to do better with the open-net pen.

The only way you're going to be able to test these things.... Actually, it's not the only way, because government is not the only funder. But generally, when you're at the demonstration project level, these are usually public-private partnerships. There are a number of funding sources that contribute to these things. That is what is happening now.