Evidence of meeting #21 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 industry.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
Thank you very much, Doctor. You would be indicating that we need more research money in this area, and I would certainly agree with you.
4:15 p.m.
Professor, Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
Absolutely.
4:15 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
On the open net concept, do there need to be more regulations in place? It seems to me that the open net concept is going to be here for quite a while. Do you think there need to be more rules, more regulations? We've heard all kinds of stories that it's not all that bad. What do you think needs to be done? This is a big industry involving a lot of money, creating a lot of work. Do you feel something should be done in order to give it a better face?
4:15 p.m.
Professor, Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
Yes, that's a great question.
With any industry there is always going to be some impact. The question is what level of impact is acceptable to society. How we come to a decision on what is and what isn't acceptable is a challenge.
I've worked in conjunction with a number of different industries and I've always been impressed with how responsive they are to public perception issues, for obvious reasons. Very often, they are willing to get involved to find out what the nature of the problem is so they can be part of the solution.
What is the best way to move forward? Industries develop with time, as markets change and technology changes. I think we need to be careful not to completely stifle things, but at the same time be reasonable in terms of the environmental impact. I think the main thing is that if we don't know what the impact is, then it's very difficult to decide what should be regulated. First of all, I think a lot more has to be learned about the baseline conditions. So often there is so little data and if you don't know what the baseline is, it's very difficult to try to infer what the effect of any industry is.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
Thank you very much, Doctor.
Of course, you're indicating again that we need more research dollars. With some of the perceived difficulties with the open net concept, do you see certification as playing a role. We hear about eco-certification and we hear that the large food chains are going to decide what will and will not be certified. Do you see that playing a role?
4:15 p.m.
Professor, Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
I think for sure that will play a big role in public perception. People are interested in buying a product that satisfies their philosophy. So whatever the certification is, and as long as it's an objective certification by a body not directly linked to the industry that's producing it, I think it will goes a long way, in that the market sets the demand and industry responds to that.
But more and more, Ocean Wise is a very common certification that a lot of people feel strongly about. So this sort of certification will play a greater role and, hopefully, self-correct many of the challenges we're faced with.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
Thank you very much, Professor.
On behalf of the committee, I want to take this opportunity to thank you for taking the time to appear before us and to answer our many questions and to make a presentation. It certainly was greatly appreciated. Thank you, once again.
4:15 p.m.
Professor, Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
Great. It was my pleasure. Thank you.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
We'll take a short break while we get ready for our next presentation.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
I call the meeting back to order while our witnesses are getting situated.
A notice of motion has been filed by Ms. Davidson. I will ask Ms. Davidson if she wants to read her motion at this point.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Okay.
It reads as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans conduct a study on invasive species that pose a threat to the Great Lakes system, in order to better understand the overall management of the Great lakes fisheries, with emphasis on:
Asian Carp and the potential impact on commercial and sport fishing industries across the Great lakes;
To review current and future strategies to deal with the on-going risk from Asian Carp and other invasive species like the Northern Snakehead fish and lamprey Eel;
An overview of the dispute resolution mechanisms in place for bilateral issues related to invasive species risk management practices for the Great Lakes system (Canada/US.)
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
Thank you, Ms. Davidson. The clerk has informed me that the motion is in order. I've asked the clerk to set aside some time on Tuesday at our committee business to discuss the motion. Thank you.
I'd like to welcome our guests here this afternoon.
Ms. Stewart, thank you for joining us. I assume the clerk has made you aware that we have certain time constraints that we operate under. We generally allow about 10 minutes for opening comments and presentations. The members are constrained by certain timeframes for questions and answers as well. Please don't be offended if I interrupt at some point in time. It's all in the interests of fairness and ensuring that all members have the opportunity to ask their questions and have their questions answered.
Having said that, I would like to ask you at this point in time if you would like to proceed with any opening comments you might have.
December 8th, 2011 / 4:35 p.m.
Catherine Stewart Campaign Manager, Salmon Farming, Living Oceans Society
I would, thank you very much. As you said, my name is Catherine Stewart. I work with the Living Oceans Society. I'd like to thank the committee for this opportunity to speak with you about this really important issue and thank you for your efforts in studying it.
We also work with a coalition for aquaculture reform. I know you've spoken to a couple of my colleagues, including Kelly Roebuck the other day, who works at the Living Oceans Society; and David Lane from the T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation, whose group is also a member of the coalition. I just wanted to start by emphasizing the name of our coalition, the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform. All of the member groups of CAAR, which started in the year 2000, came to the table with the firm belief that aquaculture can make a valuable contribution to society, that there is a need for fish protein in the world, and that aquaculture is an ancient practice in many regions and can be done in a more sustainable fashion.
Our concern is with how we're performing aquaculture—in British Columbia particularly—and where. With regard to how the fish are raised, we believe that open net cages are a problem, and with regard to where they are raised, we believe that open net cages on wild salmon migration routes are an issue of serious concern.
I know the issue of scientific proof has come up frequently. I'm not a scientist; I studied English at the University of Winnipeg, but I've had the privilege over the years of working with many scientists. If there's one thing I have learned from all of them, whether they work for industry, government, or academia, it's that scientific proof is extremely hard to come by and very rare. Generally what scientists are looking at in making decisions and recommendations is the weight of scientific evidence. There will always be two sides to the equation. You may have 2,500 climatologists saying that human-caused climate change is an issue, but you'll always have others who will question whether that is the case.
We believe that in the case of open net cage salmon aquaculture, the weight of evidence is abundant that it is having negative impacts on ecosystems and wild salmon stocks. I'm sure you're familiar with the study that was done by Ransom Myers and Jennifer Ford at Dalhousie University that looked at aquaculture operations around the world and found declines in wild salmon everywhere that net cages were operating.
I think it's also important to stress that DFO does acknowledge the risk. If we look at DFO's wild salmon policy, on page 31, it states,
It is recognized that aquaculture operations, as with other human activities, pose risks to the natural environment. These potential impacts to wild salmon include: the chance of disease and parasite transfer, competition and genetic effects of escapes, and physical disturbances in near-shore environments.
It also states, on page 34,
If specific Conservation Units of wild salmon are threatened by development proposals or other human activities, corrective actions will be taken under Section 35 (fish habitat) of the Fisheries Act, or longer-term solutions will be pursued....
We heartily applaud the committee's efforts to study those longer-term solutions. I think it's also really important to recognize that DFO openly acknowledges the problems associated with aquaculture in international fora. For example, in the department's report to the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization in January 2010, it states, and I quote,
Aquaculture information is mainly provided as it relates to marine-based activity, as it is widely accepted that this component of salmon farming comprises the primary risks to wild salmon.
That's DFO's own language. So it's widely accepted. It would be hard for it to pretend otherwise, particularly in meetings with governments like the Government of Norway, which not only openly acknowledges the risks associated with net cage aquaculture and their impacts on wild salmon but has also designated two river and fjord systems as national salmon rivers and prohibited aquaculture activity in those areas.
What we're doing in Canada right now is trying to manage the risks associated with net cage salmon farming. We're spending millions of dollars to do that. Risk management is an extremely tricky business. One of the things we do know is how little we know, how much there is about the natural world and functioning ecosystems that we don't truly understand. Nonetheless, the Government of Canada and the provinces have incurred, and are incurring, substantial costs in trying to manage the risks of net cage aquaculture, in conservation and protection and enforcement activities, fish health monitoring and analysis, on-site inspections, data collection, reporting, and all the costs associated with the investigation of periodic offences.
Then there are the invisible subsidies. I think it's important to acknowledge those as well when we're trying to look at the balance of costs between closed containment and open net cages. For example, for the last 20 years or more, DFO has been funding research into transgenic salmon by Bob Devlin at the West Vancouver laboratory. Growing a bigger fish faster is not in the interests of the conservation and protection of wild salmon, but rather a benefit to the aquaculture industry.
Another hidden subsidy to the net cage industry is externalized costs, and I know Ms. Murray has addressed this to some degree previously. The deposition of waste into our marine ecosystems is basically a cost that the current net cage industry does not have to address. It's absorbed by our ecosystem; it's absorbed by the citizens of Canada. There are no end-of-pipe fees or fines for smothering the benthic environment or for wastes that can be carried by tides away from the farm but deposited on clam beaches that were harvested by first nations for generations in the past.
These externalized costs are borne by us, and they include the deposition of chemicals, and antibiotics in waste feed, and copper-based antifoulants to prevent fouling of the nets. They may very well be having a profound effect on species and ecosystems, and we're learning more and more about what those impacts are. A recent study published by the Government of British Columbia found elevated levels of copper and zinc in the benthic environment adjacent to a farm on the west coast of Vancouver Island that had not been in operation for 15 years. So these effects can be long lasting as well.
Also, when we look at the relative merits of closed containment and open net cages, we need to look at the way the Canadian government and provinces have been supporting the aquaculture industry through taxpayer-funded granting programs and government run initiatives, including $9.4 million for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency for the development of aquaculture on the south coast of Newfoundland; $600,000 a year for the aquaculture partnership program; $14.4 million over four years for Aquanet, which has now expired; and recently more than a million dollars for CAIA, the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance, to generate awareness and new sales of aquaculture products.
Even our government officials are spending taxpayer dollars to assist industry marketing efforts. I totally agree with Canadian government support for Canadian business. What I struggle with is that when businesses are having a negative environmental impact and citizens groups like CAAR make an effort to inform buyers of the non-sustainability of the product, and then the director of the aquaculture program for DFO flies to California to meet with Safeway to tell them that our information is inaccurate and that the aquaculture industry in Canada is entirely sustainable. We don't think that's necessarily the case, and we don't think it's the best use of taxpayer dollars.
Another example was the granting of $250,000 to a major B.C. aquaculture company for research on kudoa. Kudoa is not a problem for the ecosystem; kudoa is a problem for the industry, and we feel those costs should be borne by the industry.
In weighing the relative merits and costs of the two systems of aquaculture, we would strongly encourage the committee to assess the overall costs to the federal and provincial governments of management, oversight, enforcement, grants, subsidies, marketing support, and the externalized costs as well.
Closed containment operators are by and large internalizing those costs. If we switch to closed containment, DFO is not going to have to deal with escapes, with sea lice and disease transfer to wild salmon, predator deaths, waste deposition in the marine environment, and toxic residues. The moneys currently allocated for that, with the kind of enforcement and monitoring and public relations that are required, could be transferred to supporting the development of a new and innovative industry, particularly the development of a product that the marketplace is increasingly demanding.
I know there has been a lot of discussion about the value of jobs in coastal communities. I've spent a lot of time on the B.C. coast in small communities, and I know how difficult it is to find employment and industries that can function in those communities. But I would also encourage the committee to look very closely at the claims of the number of jobs aquaculture currently supports in British Columbia. The provincial committee on sustainable aquaculture hired an outside consultant to do an assessment of employment, and concluded that there were approximately 2,900 direct, indirect, and induced jobs in the salmon aquaculture industry in B.C. The B.C. Salmon Farmers Association and the industry have been promoting a PriceWaterhouseCoopers study that claims there are 6,000 jobs. But that study is not public. Unlike the SCSA study, which people can scrutinize to see how the conclusions were reached, the PriceWaterhouseCoopers study keeps repeating the figure of 6,000 jobs—double the SCSA's—without revealing how that figure was arrived at.
We're curious about how they reached that number. Marine Harvest is the largest aquaculture company in the world and the biggest one operating in British Columbia. It employed approximately 540 people, but they've just announced that about 60 of them will be laid off, including management, administration, finance, and executive staff. So when you boil it down, there are not that many jobs on the farm-site itself. This is not to undermine the value of those jobs, whether they're farm-site jobs or office jobs. But we want to strongly encourage the committee to implore the aquaculture industry to release the PWC report and let us all have an accurate assessment of what the job benefits are. You've heard from other witnesses that there are job benefits in closed containment.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
Ms. Stewart, I have to interrupt you there. Possibly we can cover more of your points through the questioning. At this point, I'd like to move to questions with members, if you don't mind.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Ms. Stewart, thank you for being with us this afternoon.
We have heard a lot of conflicting evidence as we've been doing this study. It's been extremely interesting. We've heard a lot of comments vehemently expressed by one side or the other, without a whole lot of middle ground. I have to say, though, that we had a good presenter before you who covered a good deal of middle ground, which I think the committee will be able to use.
It's interesting to hear the different views from different groups. I was interested in what you were saying about employment. One of the things that we've heard loud and clear on both sides is that open nets are mainly located in small coastal communities, where they are often the only source of employment. We've also heard loud and clear that if we go with closed containment, there's a high probability that these operations will be moved farther inland. They'll be moved closer to the population points, away from the small communities. The coastal communities will lose that employment, which in many cases is the only employment they have.
Could you elaborate on what your group feels about this?
4:50 p.m.
Campaign Manager, Salmon Farming, Living Oceans Society
Certainly, we acknowledge that there are risks. There's no telling with any new and innovative industry where it will end up going. None of us, I think, can really predict the future, so there are going to be differing opinions about how that future will unfold, for sure.
I think we need to look at the current closed containment proposals. The 'Namgis, for example, are on the north coast of Vancouver Island in a small coastal community. My group, CAAR, has been working closely with Marine Harvest on their pilot project proposal, and they have identified sites on the north end of Vancouver Island as well. So what we see in the examples that we have are some operations in the lower mainland area, such as Pitt Meadows and the Fraser Valley, and some that are still looking at the more rural communities on the coast. I think a mix of both is entirely possible.
I think there are opportunities for marketing, not only in potentially fetching a premium for closed-containment-reared salmon but also with branding opportunities for first nations. I know there are first nations on the central coast who have voiced an interest in closed containment opportunities in their communities, and they're looking at it being a unique product that can carry a first nations brand. That would be another way of marketing it, with innovation supporting employment in coastal first nation communities in the Great Bear Rainforest, which is a marketing brand in and of itself.
I think we'll see both paths develop, but I would hope that it wouldn't be to the exclusion of one or the other.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
One of the themes that we've heard over and over again is the fact that, whatever the operation is going forward, it needs to be sustainable. Does your group subscribe to that as well?
4:50 p.m.
Campaign Manager, Salmon Farming, Living Oceans Society
Absolutely. I first got involved—
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Could you define “sustainable” as your group sees it?
4:50 p.m.
Campaign Manager, Salmon Farming, Living Oceans Society
I don't know if there's an acceptable definition of sustainable in anybody's world. But I think that increasing responsibility for the impacts of your operation, and, as much as possible, internalizing those impacts, would put us on the path to more sustainable operations, for sure. Rather than discharging waste into the ocean, deal with the waste, and possibly profit from the waste. All of those component pieces would add up to making the industry more sustainable.
I think it's fair to acknowledge there's a fundamental issue of sustainability around raising carnivores. Carnivorous fish need to consume species such as salmon and a certain percentage of wild fish meal and oil. The industry is working hard to bring that feed-conversion ratio down to one kilo of input to one kilo of output of protein, but they're not there yet.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Could an open net operation do things that would make it more sustainable? Could it reach what you would consider sustainability?