Fisheries Committee on Nov. 29th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. MacAulay.

He just waits for me to cut him off.

I have a couple of questions before we conclude. You showed a lot of data, and it was very good, the data you showed, and you were specific to some certain sites. Mr. Abbott and Ms. Milewski, you both referred to nutrient loss from the sites that was contributing to the data that you displayed here today. First off, I'm sure you're quite familiar with multi-trophic aquaculture, because you talked about UNB as well and some of the research it's done. You referenced, Mr. Abbott, several times about it being such an innovative industry. I agree with you on that. That is an innovation that has been widely recognized and applauded—multi-trophic aquaculture. Do you have any data around a multi-trophic aquaculture site?

[Inka Milewski]

Actually, it's interesting. I had another slide in here, but I had 10 minutes.... That slide would have demonstrated it.

There are eight sites that are multi-trophic, which means growing seaweeds and mussels next to salmon farms with the expectation that the mussels will gobble up the waste and the seaweed will soak up the nitrogens, the nutrients. The reality is that it doesn't work.

The slide I would have shown you is about a site in Deer Island that is a multi-trophic site. The sulphide levels in the sediments before the site became an IMTA site were around 3,000. When it became a multi-trophic site, the sulphide levels shot up another 1,000 to about 4,000. It doesn't work for lots of reasons, which I've...there's lots of science around that. In fact, the key proponents of integrated multi-trophic aquaculture have written that it just doesn't do what they expected it would do, because of the scale of the issue and because mussels actually don't feed on particulate organic carbon. They actually have food preferences. They're not just garburators. They actually have specific food preferences. What they thought would happen isn't really happening. There's lots of evidence for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Just so I'm clear, you're disagreeing with Dr. Chopin's conclusions with multi-trophic aquaculture—

[Inka Milewski]

Absolutely, yes. I'm not—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

—which has been widely acknowledged, recognized, and applauded. I just want to be clear on that now.

[Inka Milewski]

Absolutely, and it may be widely acknowledged and it may be widely trumpeted, but I can show you evidence that it does not work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

On that same note, you talked also, Mr. Abbott and Ms. Milewski, about—I haven't seen the report—the evidence in the report by UNB, which was, quite frankly, anecdotal evidence provided by fishermen. I guess my trouble with it is that you referenced that report several times, but it is totally contrary to evidence brought forward to this committee by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that shows catches and stocks of lobster in the Bay of Fundy. You actually acknowledged, Mr. Abbott, that they have gone up since the introduction of net pen aquaculture into the southwest Bay of Fundy. I'm having difficulty trying to balance where you're coming from with this. You make one point, but you also make a point that argues with the very same point. I'm trying to understand what the point is, to be very frank.

[Inka Milewski]

We've heard the aquaculture talk, and it's basically two statements. One is that lobster landings are up; the other is that aquaculture has been around and has been growing at the same time. What they have failed to prove is any causality, that one causes the other. You may very well have DFO scientists talk about stocks increasing, but I don't think they have—I'm sure they haven't—made any causal relationship to the presence or absence of aquaculture.

Evidence from fishermen who have been on the water may very well be anecdotal, but anecdotal evidence by fishermen who have been on the water for 30 and 40 years is in fact very valuable, and it has value in terms of anthropology and social science, so it is valid information. There's no reason why they should manufacture their observations. This is their livelihood as well.

I think one thing that can't be lost here is that, still, for every dollar in value of the aquaculture industry, the wild fishery generates $3 in value. For every one person working in the aquaculture industry, there are 5.5 people working in the wild fishery. The wild fishery has value, and its value is three times the value of the aquaculture industry. So when fishermen are telling you that they are concerned and are seeing trends over time, that's real.

In fact, something that I've looked at, and have studied, and have published on, is 200 years of ecosystem change in southwest New Brunswick. My colleague from Dalhousie University and I looked at all the data over 200 years that was available, the best available data from DFO, and we looked at the trends and patterns, and how changes have occurred in the ecosystem. They've occurred because we haven't managed our fishing effort very well. We haven't managed our industrial pollution, which has affected habitat and water quality. There are these changes that have occurred over time, and aquaculture is only the most recent to have an impact on our coastal waters.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much. We really appreciate your time today, and we appreciate your coming and appearing before this committee. On behalf of the committee, I'd like to say thank you once again.

We'll take a short break, and then we'll move into the next part of our meeting.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Could I ask committee members to please take their seats so we can resume our meeting?

Thank you very much, members.

We have a motion from Mr. Donnelly to consider today. I'll ask Mr. Donnelly to read his motion into the record at this point in time.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We've given notice. The motion is that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans consider the supplementary estimates (B) on or before December 6, 2011, pursuant to Standing Order 81(5), and that the minister be requested to testify.

I would just add that “on or before”, with the emphasis on, ideally, “before”, be noted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

On the motion, Mr. Kamp.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank Mr. Donnelly for the motion.

The only point I think we would raise on this side is that we are getting very near the end of the supply period. As the motion indicates, we only have a very few days. It's not really traditional in this committee—it is in some—to look at all of the estimates all of the time. We always look at the main estimates but not always at supplementary estimates (A) and (B). We wouldn't be breaking with tradition to not look at the estimates. I'm happy to do so, though, because it's generally good news. Usually there's an increase in spending in supps (B) that wasn't in the main estimates. We're happy to do that.

I guess my only advice would be that if we're going to do this in the future, we should sort of give a little bit more notice. Although we can ask the minister to come, ultimately it will be his decision whether it works within his schedule. I know he will try to respond. He will send officials if he can't be here. The tighter the timeframe you make it, the less likely it is that he will be able to fit it into his schedule. It's pretty tight between now and December 16, as you can imagine.

That said, I think we're prepared to support the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Kamp.

Is there anything further on the motion?

Mr. Donnelly.

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

It's duly noted. I appreciate the comments and the support.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Donnelly.

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I want to thank Mr. Donnelly for the motion and also Mr. Kamp for the interjection. I would request that the minister be here for two hours, if possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Are you making an amendment? Is that what you're suggesting?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

The minister is going to decide anyhow. I'm sure that Mr. Kamp will relay my—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Okay, thank you. I just want your comments noted.

Mr. Allen.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

I just have a point on the motion. We can ask, but isn't it the clerk who will negotiate with the minister? Typically, on the committees I've seen, the ministers, if they come, come for an hour, and their officials are there for an hour. I understand the request for two, and I guess we can request whatever we want, but given the short timeframe....

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Traditionally, if the motion passes—I don't want to prejudge it—I ask the clerk to make contact with the minister's office to make the arrangements. That is what I generally do.

Is there anything further on the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

That was quick and painless.

The other order of business we have today is the budget. I believe it's been circulated to all members. This is the final budget for travel, which the committee had discussed in the past. There have been some adjustments made. The total amount requested is $51,180.39.

Take a quick look through the budget before we have any discussion on it.

On the travel budget, Mr. Allen.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To comment on this, if I'm reading this correctly, it means it would be one night there. Practically, will that be enough for us? Effectively, it'll mean travelling in the morning, and that will give us maybe that afternoon and the next morning and perhaps a little into the afternoon, and then we have to come back.

I was thinking this would be at least two full days for us to at least digest the closed containment situation down there, have a chance to tour and ask some questions. If we were to travel the evening or the afternoon of the day before, spend a full day, then do pretty much a full day the next day and come back that night, I could get my head around that. I think trying to squeeze us in...we'll be travelling all the time, and when we come back we'll feel disappointed that we didn't have a chance to take the time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Allen.

Is there anything further?

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I would have to agree with Mr. Allen. It's only going to be down and back. We're not going to see very much. If we're going that far, at least we should stay one day.