Fisheries Committee on Dec. 8th, 2011

[Catherine Stewart]

Sure. And there are very reputable scientists who disagree with them. Individuals like Simon Jones and Dick Beamish from DFO have conducted studies that have been criticized in scientific journals. It's not just by folks who work with environmental groups and non-profit organizations, but by academics and other scientists from other government departments.

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

Well, I've read those.

[Catherine Stewart]

There's always going to be a scientific debate.

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

Sure, I know.

Let me follow up and ask this in a slightly different way from that of my colleague, Mrs. Davidson. Is it your opinion, then, that there are no sustainable or environmentally responsible Atlantic salmon farming operations anywhere in the world?

[Catherine Stewart]

I believe the technology is inherently risky. And I believe that if production were very limited, if the numbers of farms in a given area were severely restricted, if there were no proximity to wild stocks that could be impacted by disease and parasite transfer from the farms, if there were no chemical use on the farms being dispersed into the marine environment, then perhaps you could raise fish in net cages in the ocean. But I don't see that happening anywhere.

In order for the industry to be profitable, they have to rely on density. In order for them to be efficient, they rely on the concentration of farms in a given area so that their feed boats and their crew boats do not have to travel vast distances from one farm to the next. When you create a situation like that, you begin to have cumulative impacts. And I don't believe we can reach a point where those impacts can be completely negated.

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

Yes, fair enough. That's true. There would be negative impacts, I think, from closed containment aquaculture projects as well, maybe in a different area and in a different way.

Well, let me ask this in a different way. We all hope these projects, such as the 'Namgis project and others, including AgriMarine, and the one in Pitt Meadows, in my riding, for example, are successful. But, hypothetically, if those projects that are beginning to test the feasibility of RAS closed containment models, or other forms of closed containment, turn out not to be feasible, for whatever reason, what do you then suggest about the future of salmon farming? Is it your position and that of your organization that the current aquaculture operations should then be closed down ?

[Catherine Stewart]

My organization doesn't actually have a position on that issue per se, because we have been striving for solutions to the problem. Rather than saying it's a yes-no equation, we've been working with the industry to try to find a way to put them on a more responsible footing.

Of course, there may be impacts from closed containment operations, but our objective is to try to minimize the impacts of the industry while retaining the benefits and the jobs. I think closed containment is going to significantly reduce the impacts of raising farmed salmon.

If we ever get to the point where our wild stocks continue to decline and the closed containment systems are not working, then we're all going to have to sit down and ask the hard questions of all Canadians. Do we want to do everything within our power to sustain the wild salmon, which are the backbone of the coastal ecosystem and all of the functioning of that ecosystem, or are we going to let them crash and die because we are invested so heavily in open net cages?

I hope we don't get to that point and I sincerely hope that the closed containment technology will provide the solution that we've been working for, for many years.

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

Thank you, Catherine.

I think my time is up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kamp.

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Ms. Stewart.

In your opening statement you indicated that you are involved in aquaculture reform. Do you do much work with the open net concept? We hear from a lot of differing presenters. Some indicate that the lice are the problem. Some indicate that the farms are in the wrong place.

Is there any way that some of this can be adjusted, in your opinion, to save the open net concept?

[Catherine Stewart]

Well actually, yes....

CAAR initiated a dialogue in 2005 or 2006—I can't quite remember the date—with Marine Harvest, the largest aquaculture company in B.C. One of the key issues in our dialogue with the industry was to look at interim measures that could minimize or mitigate the impacts of the farms in the Broughton Archipelago, specifically on wild out-migrating juvenile salmon. On that, we arrived at an agreement with Marine Harvest.

There are two primary migratory routes through the Broughton Archipelago. The fish come out of Knight Inlet and either go straight out Knight Inlet to the ocean or they go north and around through Tribune Channel and Fife Sound. The company has farms along both Knight Inlet and on the northern route as well.

We reached an agreement that they would alternate fallowing of those farms during the juvenile wild salmon out-migration period, that they would coordinate the Slice treatments, and that they would proactively treat for lice numbers. Right now the trigger threshold is such that when the farms reach three motile lice, they call in a veterinarian and apply the medicated feed. Marine Harvest agreed that when their farms were trending towards three motile lice—when they could see that rise was happening in the juvenile out-migration period—they would proactively treat to reduce the lice numbers. On the non-fallow route, they would only stock juvenile or sub-adult fish during the out-migration period, because there have been studies done in Norway showing they are less prone to lice infestation.

That was an active engagement with the company, trying to find mitigation and interim measures that would help reduce the pressure. It's proven to be fairly successful, and it led to the formation of the Broughton area monitoring program. The preliminary science—and I have to emphasize that it's preliminary science coming out of that program—indicates that the fallowing and coordinated treatment have reduced the lice levels on farms.

Oftentimes the industry will cite a study that was published by Dr. Krkosec, who has said that if we didn't do something we could lose the pink salmon within four generations, that they could be extirpated from Broughton. The industry could say, “Well see, he was wrong and it didn't happen”. But what his study actually indicated was that if nothing changed, this is what could happen. Things did change as a result of our work with Marine Harvest and their willingness to implement changes. Things did change and the results seem to show that the pressure was reduced somewhat.

That doesn't deal with the host of other factors affecting the ecosystem. It doesn't deal with escapes, the predators, the chemical use, or the use of Slice itself, which can probably be harmful to prawns. We need more study on that.

I'm sorry for this long-winded answer, but I do want to emphasize the fact that we have been making efforts to work in a constructive fashion with the open net cage industry. But I still am of the opinion that, ultimately, we need to transition out of the water.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

You stated that DFO acknowledges there's a problem with the open net concept, particularly in discussions with Norway and other countries. You also mentioned that the government has spent dollars promoting the open net concept. I'd like you to elaborate on that.

If you have a minute too, do you see certification being a problem for the open net concept as things develop? Whether justified or not, there's a lot of criticism of the open net concept. Do you see certification coming into play here with the product in the end?

[Catherine Stewart]

There are three things.

Yes, in a lot of its published material and particularly in international scientific forums, I think DFO, to maintain its credibility with scientists from other countries, has to acknowledge and does acknowledge that there are problems associated with net cages. It's pretty hard to deny when you look at the effects the lice have had in Norway, the problems they're increasingly having with resistance to chemical treatments.

Trevor Swerdfager, a former director general at DFO, told me in a face-to-face meeting one time when we were discussing this that on the east coast he had been seeing lice infestation levels per fish of 200 to 300 lice per fish. Those numbers are staggering and indicate why it's possible that one of the companies may have broken the law and, in a desperate attempt to control the lice, used cypermethrin, which is a banned chemical in Canada.

I think the department is very aware of the problems. They don't acknowledge that a lot publicly and domestically, but internationally they will acknowledge it, even in writing in their reports, for example, the one I cited from NASCO.

Yes, DFO is actively engaged in promotion of the open net cage aquaculture industry. Again, I have to stress that I don't criticize our government supporting industry and business in Canada, but I think the government has a responsibility to support those industries that are making an effort to be responsible and trending toward more sustainable practices. It's disheartening for me to see DFO chasing us around when we talk to retailers, showing up afterwards to try to undermine what we have said and to promote the open net cage industry with claims of sustainability. I don't mind our department giving the facts, but I think they do an awful lot of work and give an awful lot of money to the aquaculture industry for promotion and marketing. That should be the industry's own responsibility. Our department's responsibility should be the health and protection and sustainability of ocean ecosystems and of our wild stocks. I think they have a fundamentally conflicted mandate, acting as both the regulator and PR agency for the aquaculture industry.

Certification is going to be an increasingly prominent issue. A host of certification schemes are in development. The Canadian government is working with the CGSB and DFO in developing organic standards for open net cage aquaculture in Canada. I believe those standards are going to undermine the credibility of Canadian organic certification as a whole, if they continue to be as weak, as they currently are. Certification and labelling initiatives are being developed by the industry in isolation, by multi-stakeholder groups like the Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue. I think they're going to take increasing prominence and importance.

We'll see similar trends to what we've seen with the Marine Stewardship Council, whereby more retailers and more consumers are going to be seeking a certification label they feel they can trust. That's going to be the key issue. There will be a proliferation of branding and labels and eco-labels, but at the end of the day, there will be a hierarchy of which ones are credible and which are just a rubber stamp.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, Mr. MacAulay.

Ms. Stewart, on behalf of the committee, I'd like to thank you once again for taking the time from your busy schedule to appear before us and answer our many questions. We really do appreciate the information you've provided to this committee today. Once again, on behalf of the committee, thank you very much.

There being no further business, this meeting is adjourned.