Evidence of meeting #28 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 report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
Thank you very much.
Welcome, gentlemen.
On the new Fisheries Act or revised act, I take it that the report indicates you feel perhaps that the discretion the minister has to allow quotas in fisheries should go to a board, or committee, or somebody other than government. Is that what you feel? Or what should take place?
My concern is this, sir. When somebody else has the power, other than the politician, and you do not like what happens, what do you do?
Professor of Biology, Dalhousie University, Royal Society of Canada
Yes, it wasn't—
Liberal
Professor of Biology, Dalhousie University, Royal Society of Canada
Okay.
It wasn't the intent of the report to suggest that non-government people identify what quotas should be. What the report was advocating, or the position that was being put forth, was that there should be three critical things in place from a fisheries management perspective. There should be a target—that is a target level of abundance that you want a fish stock to rebuild to and maintain its level at. There should be a limit—in other words, a level of stock abundance below which you do not want to fall. And in between that limit and that target, the percentage of the overall biomass that you can exploit from a harvest perspective is prescribed by what's called a harvest control rule. So if, for example, you are very close to the target, you would be permitted to take a greater percentage of what's available than if you were very close to the limit.
Many countries have put in place these harvest control rules. Once government has decided that a harvest control rule will form the basis for a fisheries management plan, then it relies on the government scientists to determine how close or how far away a given stock is from the target and reference. Then it would simply follow the harvest control rule and that would form the basis for the minister's decision as to what the quota should be.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
Very good. Not even too bad, really.
I couldn't disagree with you. I might like to, but I couldn't. That would make some sense, really. A lot of sense, really, in all honesty. We cannot deplete our stocks, and we have done it in certain cases. We've paid the big price, and the cod is one of them.
The current legislation pertaining to the aquaculture industry is inadequate. I'd just like you to comment, either one of you, on what took place legally in B.C. when it became the jurisdiction of the federal government. You indicated when you spoke that there could be difficulty in eastern Canada legally. Was that pertaining to what took place on the west coast? I'd just like you to explain more about that and what should be done.
With that, of course, if you could involve what we need to do to encourage aquaculture and to bring it forward faster, I would also like to hear that.
Professor of Biology, Dalhousie University, Royal Society of Canada
Again, there might be a couple of things.
With respect to the point about possible constitutional issues on the east coast, that was indeed predicated, as you suggest, by what happened on the west coast.
In terms of what might be done to promote aquaculture, one suggestion that I think is embedded in the panel's recommendations is that given Canada's ocean real estate, given the fact that it has the longest coastline in the world and the largest territorial seas in the world, it would be highly appropriate for us to be leaders in ocean stewardship and sustainable harvesting of those resources.
I think those who are in favour of some form of national legislation for aquaculture would take that as the point of departure. We have these obligations by virtue of our geography and by virtue of our commitments under various conventions internationally. Within that framework of having a financially viable, economically sustainable, but environmentally responsible aquaculture industry, it would be placed within that context.
This committee, with what it's doing right now, is ahead of the game. By looking at this technology and perhaps identifying a means by which Canada could place itself in that role of leader, this committee is ahead of what many others are doing.
Professor of Biology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Royal Society of Canada
I'll just add a little bit.
I think it would provide clarity to all interest groups as to what the legislation is. Right now it's dispersed across a series of different bodies, which makes it very difficult for fish farmers. It makes it very difficult for the public to understand what's going on. So I think a streamlined process that deals with the various issues associated with aquaculture could be a very effective method for everybody involved, and it would create a level of clarity.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
Basically, what we need is to be leading in technology. When you look at what took place in Chile, it nearly wiped out their fish farming. We, as a country with a long coastline, need to be leading in the technology. That's what you're telling us in regard to closed containment.
We just came back from a tour down in West Virginia in which the new technology was explained, and how it's becoming more affordable to do those things.
But you're not telling us that we need to do anything to get rid of the open-net concept, which is so valuable on the west coast. I know it's a great concern for politicians.
Professor of Biology, Dalhousie University, Royal Society of Canada
With respect to the open-net pens, one potential perspective is that it was an appropriate technology 20 to 30 years ago, when closed containment technology simply was not possible. But there seems to be a sense that the industry—and not just aquaculture, but other industries—is moving toward more environmentally sustainable, and arguably, responsible directions.
Now that the technology appears to exist to deal with closed containment aquaculture, that might well be the sort of thing that Canadian industry will be moving toward. Because other countries are doing it, and I think it would be nice if Canadian industry were at the lead of that.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
But you would not see the Government of Canada making that move. Am I correct in understanding that we should have the technology, but you don't expect us to pass any legal documents outlawing the open-net concept and moving to closed containment?
I think the dollar will decide that in the end.
Professor of Biology, Dalhousie University, Royal Society of Canada
Yes, I think that would be the panel's perspective as well, that it would not advocate that the government take such action.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
Thank you, Mr. MacAulay.
We'll now move to a two-minute round, and Mr. Allen will lead off.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, gentlemen, for being here.
I just want to follow up on where Mr. MacAulay was going. Some of the testimony that we've heard—including at the Freshwater Institute last week—suggested that we could be 10 to 20 years, plus or minus, before we could transition to an economic closed containment environment. Down there, they're actually looking at stocking to densities of about 100 kilograms per cubic metre some time in the next month or two. In the fall they'll know how that's going to shake out.
We're really not there from a knowledge standpoint, so I'm glad to hear you say that a government decision to force this probably would be premature at this point in time.
But what would be your advice to government in terms of how we would proceed if we know it's 10 to 20 years, plus or minus? What would you say to that to deal with some of those economic considerations?
Professor of Biology, Dalhousie University, Royal Society of Canada
Indeed, I think the 10-year timeline might fall nicely within at least one of the agreements that Canada has made under the Aichi targets. Under the Convention on Biological Diversity, one of the targets is that by 2020 areas affected by aquaculture are managed sustainably and ensure conservation of biodiversity.
One could then view that 2020 target as something to be achieved with the use of closed containment technology. That would provide a target, an objective, that falls within some of our international obligations, but also a timeline that it need not happen next year. It would provide for sufficient time for the technology to advance itself to a point where fairly large-scale salmon closed containment aquaculture could take place.
As I was saying earlier, it need not always be salmon, it could be other species, it could be freshwater fish. The technology appears to be more amenable for those fish.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
I know that in some of those other freshwater species, they are getting those stock in density. With salmon, we haven't got there yet.
Do you know of any other places that are achieving these results? Other than the Freshwater Institute, we haven't heard of any that are going to those kinds of densities.
Professor of Biology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Royal Society of Canada
I believe they're doing some work in Iceland using closed containment as an option for Arctic char and other species. I'm not sure about the densities they're working at.
Conservative
Dr. lan Fleming
They're not working with salmon, that I know of.
I did want to make the point, though, that one of the things we want to be careful of is that if we're moving toward closed containment, we don't just stick with the stasis of what exists in terms of open-net pens. At the same time we should work to improve those capabilities, so there should be legislation and attempts to improve or direct the improvement of open-net pen aquaculture, and there are options to do that as well.
NDP
Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have two minutes, so I'm going to be quick. I'm going to go off on a tangent as Mr. Kamp did and ask you a quick question about northern cod.
Mr. Kamp mentioned how Barents Sea cod has seen incredible improvements since the stock collapse of the nineties. At the same time, we haven't seen that kind of improvement in the northern cod stock. Would you say the reason why we haven't seen those kinds of recovery numbers is the absence of a recovery plan, because the key to any recovery plan would be recovery targets?
Professor of Biology, Dalhousie University, Royal Society of Canada
That would be a key part of it and that was also identified in the report—that there is no recovery target for northern cod. As a consequence, when the fishery was reopened in 1998 and then re-closed in 2002, quite a few fish were taken. So one of the consequences of making fisheries management decisions in the absence of a long-term plan, and in the absence of targets, is that you run the risk of unintentionally depleting a resource and preventing recovery.
NDP
Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Dr. Hutchings, you and I have spoken in the past. You've been outspoken with regard to the muzzling of scientists and the fact that a lot of the time scientific information is not available to the public, and certainly not before it's been massaged by communications or by politics or whatever.
Do you still feel that DFO is muzzling scientists and limiting the availability of scientific information in a general way and specifically in aquaculture?
Professor of Biology, Dalhousie University, Royal Society of Canada
I think there are issues at play at present. There are barriers to the free and open communication of science from government scientists to the public and to the media.
With respect to aquaculture, in my personal knowledge and my personal opinion, more knowledge is available within government science that I think would enhance the debate if made available to the public.
So I think for various reasons, and I don't presume to know what all those reasons are, that there is perhaps an opportunity for a greater communication of science by government scientists to the public that would enhance the debate with respect to aquaculture and a variety of other issues.