Evidence of meeting #11 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 aquaculture.
A recording is available from Parliament.
October 27th, 2011 / 4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, gentlemen, for your good information.
I wanted to follow up on something initially raised by Mr. MacAulay, the issues of density and the whole aspect of animal welfare, because one of the issues that we all realize the industry deals with is the whole notion of social licence, that it needs to be perceived to be an industry that respects social values and so on.
Bear with me here, but if you're going to raise chickens for eggs or for meat, you can have free-range chickens that run inside and outside pretty much where they like. You have free-run chickens that are kept inside but have some ability to run around, and then you have the caged chickens. I think there's a decreasing social licence for the notion that we cram these chickens into cages and not let them run around, and then either take their eggs or take them and slaughter them after a certain number of days.
Would you expect this could be an issue, if it were raised? If you go up to, say, 80 kilograms density, or even 50 for these fish that are now already crammed together, swimming around in their own little pool, do you think that could become less socially acceptable?
If we consider the free-range to be the wild fishery and the net pens to be the free-run, and then we put them in these smaller pools—tubs, whatever—for whatever reason, do you think that could be an issue in the future?
4:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Program Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I have two responses.
I'll start and say that it's one of the issues. If you look at the literature on the challenges around closed containment and, specifically, the issue of density, one of the issues identified is what they call fish performance. What that really means is that these things are bumping into each other, and affects the quality of the fish and their skin. That's called fin...
4:20 p.m.
Team Leader, Sector Strategies, Aquaculture Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Erosion.
4:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Program Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
That's called fin erosion. These are genuine issues in terms of animal welfare and the quality of the fish—not to say anything about the issue you've raised, which would obviously be the concomitant one, the social licence issue.
The literature speaks to really broad sets of issues, two of which we've talked about already. One is the financial or economic viability issue, and the second is the issue of the technology that's not been proven. But the third is fish performance and the potential effect of density on what's going to happen with respect to the quality of the fish, and there's the social licence issue that is already on top of that, I would say.
I don't know if you have anything to add....
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Let me just follow up then.
Animal welfare requires that we have systems that are reliable. So I guess my question would be this. If you go to a closed containment system, particularly one that's on land, do you think it will be more reliable or less reliable, that is, likely to break down and to stop pumping, with the recirculation thing not doing its job? Or if there's a pathogen that occurs, will it spread more quickly because of the density?
What do you think about this issue of reliability?
4:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Program Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
First of all, I'd add the caveat that this is why we need the demonstration projects to be able to test some of those things.
In terms of the issue of reliability, I think the challenge with closed containment systems is that it only takes one thing to go wrong, because everything is artificial. For example, the power could go off for a day and a half. There are a number of technology pieces that you're not relying on in the net pens, but which you are relying on in closed containment.
Again, once you've got some practice, it's possible that those technological challenges can be overcome. But in terms of reliability, there's more that you're going to have to make sure works right in a closed containment system.
As has been pointed out, you have the benefits of sequestering the fish from the wild fish, but you have all of these other challenges, which are not just economic but also technological—and fish performance and viability are based there as well.
Is there anything else on that?
4:25 p.m.
Team Leader, Sector Strategies, Aquaculture Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I would just add that in addition to any types of mechanical problems that may be encountered, there's the human element as well. In virtually every kind of closed containment system that I've seen, they've always had some type of loss because the operator has failed to do something. That's something that's very hard to measure, or very hard to account for.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
From what I can gather and from I have heard today, in Canada we're years away from the technology really being there to make closed containment commercially viable. But from the background material that's been circulated to us, I see there's a company in Denmark, Langsandlaks, I believe, which is close to the construction of a 1,000 metric tonne facility.
Does Denmark have more of an advantage over Canada right now in terms of closed containment? Are they closer to making this work than we are?
4:25 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Program Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I don't know if they're closer to making it work than we are. You're talking about the Atlantic Sapphire project, which is currently developing a facility in Denmark capable of farming 1,000 metric tonnes of salmon on land at commercial scales, so we're told. We don't know that much about it. It's one that we've been following and will follow carefully. The project started in 2010, so it has not got a long production history. It hasn't proved itself out yet.
I will just make another point. There is private funding in that one. It is a commercial operation, but there is a significant amount of government grants, because I think there's again a sense that it's not economically viable. There is $2.2 million, I think, from governments.
We will correct this information, if we're wrong, but we understand that the cost of production is $4.90 a pound, which is significantly higher than the current market price of salmon—certainly in Canada, and I believe over there as well.
So it is one of those demonstration projects that we're watching, but one that they're trying to make an actual commercial operation. You're absolutely right on that, and we'll watch carefully to see if it's going to provide breakthroughs.
One of these things can well provide a breakthrough, which is what often happens, where they can say, folks, this works and you can do it economically.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
You mentioned a figure of $2.2. million. That's the government injection into that project. What's the private funding injection into that project?
4:25 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Program Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
As I understand it, I believe it's $7 million. We'll correct it if we're wrong.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
And just to change gears completely, in terms of aquaculture science within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, can you give me a breakdown of exactly what your science department consists of, the number of scientists, and that sort of thing?
4:25 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Program Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I'll ask Dr. Parsons to answer.
4:25 p.m.
Director, Aquaculture Science Branch, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I don't have the exact figure for the number of people we have in the department. At Fisheries and Oceans, we have a number of regions: Pacific, central, Arctic, Quebec, gulf, Maritimes, and Newfoundland. We have a number of research facilities in those regions across the country. We do have aquaculture researchers at all DFO facilities. On the total complement for aquaculture, I would put it at roughly in the 30 to 40 range in terms of the number of scientists, biologists, technicians we have. But I can certainly come back with a more accurate number for you. That figure would be of the people who are working on research funded by our main aquaculture programs in the department.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
I have one quick follow-up question. How would that number compare to your science for the wild fishery?
4:25 p.m.
Director, Aquaculture Science Branch, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Again, I don't have those figures right at the tips of my fingers, but we can provide them to you.
4:25 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Program Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
It's smaller.
4:25 p.m.
Director, Aquaculture Science Branch, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
It would be a smaller complement than what we have on the fisheries science side; but again, I think that reflects the history of the department. The department has been around for many years, and we've had a mandate in fisheries science ever since the beginning of the department, whereas, as Mr. Stringer alluded to earlier, the more immediate role of aquaculture in the department has been more recent in the last 20-plus years. And certainly our science complement that Mr. Stringer alluded to, in general, has followed that same pattern, in that we have received more resources over the last number of years and have been able to increase our complement of scientists over that period as well.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Would it be fair to say that the science for aquaculture is growing, while the science for wild fishery is not?
4:30 p.m.
Director, Aquaculture Science Branch, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
In terms of the number of fishery scientists in the—
4:30 p.m.
Director, Aquaculture Science Branch, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I would say that it's been fairly stable for the last number of years in terms of fishery scientists. But certainly for aquaculture, the department received some funding in 2000-01 that allowed us to increase our complement. As well, we received some funding in 2008, which again allowed us to increase our science complement for aquaculture.
