Fisheries Committee on Feb. 15th, 2012

[Karen Crocker]

I don't really know a whole lot about IMTA, other than that when our application initially went in, the proponent head suggested that IMTA would be used in the farm, and then for some reason that was withdrawn. The only thing I can say is that, from what we've been able to determine by speaking to people who have some scientific knowledge about IMTA, it's not going to be able to take care of the problem of the amount of waste that comes from the production of these fish. I can't really say any more to that, other than that we just don't know enough about it, I guess.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Donnelly.

Mr. Sopuck.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I really appreciate the presentation.

You talked about your view of the effect of net pen aquaculture on wild fisheries. Can you give me a specific example of where a net pen aquaculture operation went in and the subsequent wild fishery was destroyed? I would like specifics if possible.

[Karen Crocker]

Well, we have the aquaculture operation that operated in Port Mouton Bay, Nova Scotia. There was significant opposition to that site in that community and there still is. The site is no longer there. We had several meetings with the community groups that were involved in trying to get that site removed. There were several fishermen on that committee who told us that their inshore lobster fishery in that bay no longer exists.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

That doesn't quite square with what I'm hearing: that lobster fishermen, by and large, set a lot of their traps around existing net pen aquaculture areas, because the lobsters are attracted to the nutrients that are generated by net pen aquaculture. Could you explain that discrepancy to me?

[Karen Crocker]

From the fishermen that we've talked to, both in Port Mouton and Shelburne Harbour, what was explained to us was that initially when the net pens go in, the water quality is still there and you're not having that nutrient overloading occurring, and for the first year or so, the lobster fishery doesn't seem to be too different. But usually, within three to four years, the catches in and around the leased areas do drop significantly.

Both the Shelburne Harbour and the Port Mouton fishermen have told us that in and around the salmon aquaculture sites in both of their harbours, there are no longer any fishermen fishing any pots. I can only speak from the perspective of those two people we've talked with.

As far as your comment about fishing in and around the sites is concerned, it's not a simple thing, especially in St. Mary's Bay, for our fishermen to fish in and around aquaculture sites. In fact, several fishermen who have attempted to do that this year have lost gear. It's not a simple thing at St. Mary's Bay with the tide work they do.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

That's interesting. When we questioned DFO scientists, they didn't corroborate your points.

In terms of fin fish, as opposed to lobster, it's obvious that you think that open-net aquaculture affects fin fish as well. I'd like to ask the same question regarding fin fish. Can you give me any examples of where a fin fish population or community was destroyed or severely damaged by net pen aquaculture?

[Brenda Patterson]

I think that would be a question you should pose to the Atlantic Salmon Federation. I think they'd be able to speak to that quite well.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

I did. I actually belong to the Atlantic Salmon Federation, and I would note that across much of eastern Canada, Atlantic salmon runs have been rebounding dramatically.

In fact, I asked Bill Taylor, the executive director, whether we would ever have to commercially fish wild Atlantic salmon stocks because of the Atlantic salmon that are produced in net pen aquaculture. He did admit to me that we will probably never have to commercially fish wild Atlantic salmon stocks.

Going to the west coast—I know you're not from the west coast and neither am I—I was interested in a report from DFO. Given that net pen aquaculture has been going on off the west coast since 1985, and that in 2010 the Fraser River sockeye returns were 30 million fish, the best return since 1913, and that in rivers across B.C., from Skeena and Barkley Sound, and Smith Inlet and so on, the sockeye runs, at least in 2011, were above expectations, how do you square your opposition to net pen aquaculture with what appears to be a resurgence in sockeye runs off the west coast in the presence of aquaculture?

[Brenda Patterson]

I really don't think we could speak to that issue. As you've indicated, that's not where we're from, and neither are we the scientists who are looking at that on the west coast.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

But again, this is a science question. I understand that you're not scientists, but to me, these decisions on public policy have to be based on good science.

Do you have any quantitative data on your point about traceability and the effect of the chemicals that are used in net pen aquaculture on lobsters? You talk about marketplace perception, and that implies that the marketplace may think that there are some residual chemicals in the lobster flesh that we are consuming. Do you have any evidence that these chemicals are in the lobster that is caught and subsequently marketed around the world?

[Brenda Patterson]

I guess in that particular case, we're the same as probably you are in terms of some of the literature that's out there. The point that Karen made earlier, and I think you've used the word yourself, is that the perception issue is as important as the facts in this case.

We know consumers—such as yourself, myself, Karen, and others—will, in fact, make decisions based on perception. As there continues to be increasing information in the public on pesticide use in open fin fish aquaculture, our suspicion is that there will be increasing concern on the part of the public in terms of their decision to consume open fin fish aquaculture salmon.

Similarly, Karen's point is that there could also be concerns by the public, whether you're looking at fish feces, or pesticides, etc., and that those concerns could have a negative impact on the traditional fisheries, such as lobster.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Thank you very much. My time is up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sopuck.

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, witnesses. I'm not a regular member of the fisheries committee, but this discussion is very familiar because I chaired a fisheries committee for a week of hearings in B.C. on this very same subject. I'm shocked that some of the same questions are continuing to go around.

I do want to say, in beginning, congratulations to you both and to the community for bringing your issues forward. I do think—and I'll say it to the government members opposite—it's unfair to expect community groups, which weren't provided with the funding to take on this issue, to answer these scientific questions. It is DFO's responsibility to answer those scientific questions, and they should be answering those questions.

I will say this as well, based on my own experience: I do think DFO is very much caught in a contradiction. On the one hand, their mandate is to protect the wild fishery, and on the other, they're caught in the kind of trap they're in—I'm not accusing them of anything—of also having aquaculture under their mandate and the jobs it creates. They are caught in a contradiction.

I'll start my questions from there.

First, what company is involved in this 208-acre operation you're talking about?

[Karen Crocker]

The company is Kelly Cove Salmon, which is a subsidiary of Cooke Aquaculture. It's from New Brunswick.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes. In fact, I know the owner of Cooke Aquaculture.

I think this is, Mr. Chair, what the committee has to be concerned about.

From your perspective, do you think the hearing process that you were involved in was balanced and was fair to the community groups coming forward versus the provincial department of fisheries, which has a specific interest in creating jobs?

Do you think the hearing process was balanced? If it wasn't, do you have any suggestions on how it could be made balanced?

[Brenda Patterson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Easter.

No, we don't think it was balanced. So often we use the term David and Goliath, because that's what it felt like.

I'm repeating myself here, but they come from a community of 700 people, they come from a community of fishermen. Not to put down fishermen whatsoever, but it's not a world that fishermen are comfortable or familiar with, in terms of dealing with the federal government, environmental screening processes, and so on. It was of nightmare proportions for them. Essentially, they all felt lucky that there were three or four people who were prepared to sit down and work their way through this process.

As I mentioned earlier, it was a situation where we didn't have scientific expertise. We had to call on volunteers. We literally had potluck dinners to try to raise enough money for stamps. I'm not saying that to be silly; it's the truth. When we were trying to send letters out or to get some information on the Internet and so on, that's literally how we had to raise money.

We sat down with the province early on, with Minister Belliveau, and tried to explain the situation to him. We told him that he could go to his federal counterpart and ask for the assessment to be raised up to another level where communities could be given support to be able to hire scientists and so on. It was quite interesting. At one of their meetings they told us, first of all, that he was not prepared to do it. And you're right, it's a lot sexier to be in the business of promoting aquaculture than it is to be regulating the fisheries. In fact the Province of Nova Scotia said, and this is pretty well a quote, “We do not have any scientific expertise in the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. We are relying on the federal government to undertake the science necessary.”

It's interesting.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, it's interesting and sad.

From your perspective, has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans undertaken that scientific assessment? Members of the government here are asking you today to provide the science. The parliamentary secretary represents the department that has the resources to do that.

Are you telling me they're not doing that science?

[Brenda Patterson]

No, they did not.

In fact, the scientific information that was looked at by DFO was scientific information that was provided by the proponent. The assessment undertaken by the proponent looked at the impact that the environment would have on their proposal, not the impact that their proposal would have on the environment. That's what was looked at. The information that DFO and others looked at was the information that was provided by Sweeney International Management Corp., a company that did the work for Cooke Aquaculture. That's the only scientific information that DFO really looked at. DFO acknowledged it had never done a baseline study of St. Mary's Bay, so no one could measure the implications of a 200-acre, $2-million salmon operation on the fisheries, on the sea floor, on the environment—nothing. No one was operating with a proper baseline assessment to begin with.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth, but I'd say that's pretty shoddy work on the part of the department that's responsible for policing the wild fishery.

I will say this. I'm on a little bigger island; I'm from Prince Edward Island. In my riding we have two land aquaculture operations, Mr. Chair. One is right in central P.E.I. and has a million and a half fish. A second operation is by the coast but on the land, and it's producing halibut. So it is possible to do some of this fishery on the land.

My last question really comes to Mr. Kamp's question on traceability. The question was along the lines of proof of loss of market or death of lobster.

Has anyone from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or the provincial department suggested that if there is proof down the line that your industry has been reduced or that your markets have dropped as a result...? And you're right, it's perception. It doesn't have to be reality. Perception of problems in the product going to market is where the real danger is. Did anyone from the department say, okay, compensation will be available to the industry if there are problems?

Let's put it on a.... Who's responsible here at the end of the day, and are they willing to—

[Brenda Patterson]

We asked that very question and the answer back to us was that no one is responsible at all.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Then why do we have all--

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Easter. Your time's expired.

We'll now move into a five-minute round and go first to Ms. Davidson.