Fisheries Committee on Nov. 20th, 2024

[Tim Kennedy]

I would say yes. One area that we're particularly concerned about is the south coast of Newfoundland—your province—where a very large national marine conservation area has been proposed. This is exactly where the potential for salmon farming exists in Newfoundland. Under NMCA rules, there really is zero economic activity. It's very clear that, for instance, salmon farming and other aquaculture activities are not permitted in those areas.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

You referenced the expansion of salmon farming in that area, the south coast of Newfoundland. Can you put a dollar value on any kind of an estimate, investment-wise, in that area?

[Tim Kennedy]

I would say that, generally, the opportunity is in the many hundreds of millions of dollars.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you.

How does Canada stack up in terms of farmed salmon production, compared to, say, Norway or the Faroe Islands?

[Tim Kennedy]

In 2018, our peak was 148,000 tonnes of Atlantic salmon produced. As a comparison, last year, in 2023, with cuts in British Columbia, we're at about 89,000 tonnes. We haven't been that low in terms of our salmon production in the country since 2002.

To compare it to Norway, Norway has a goal of increasing the value from the salmon sector five times by 2050, and it produces about 1.5 million tonnes of salmon.

One other example I'd like to bring up is the Faroe Islands. They are a very small North Atlantic set of islands between Shetland and Iceland. Basically, they have 1,000 kilometres of coastline, compared to Canada's 80,000 kilometres of coastline. They now produce the same amount of salmon as all of Canada.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Kennedy, why is there this disparity between Canada and advanced ecological stewards of the environment like Norway, for example?

[Tim Kennedy]

From a very early time.... When Norway started salmon farming in the 1960s, it was started as a response to the decline of wild stocks. They were seeing communities throughout Norway really struggling with a lot of poverty, and they started experimenting with salmon farming. They found that this was bringing communities back to life. The country got behind salmon farming.

In Canada, as I said in my comments, we actually don't have any federal legislation that even mentions the word “aquaculture” or “seafood farming”, for instance. We have not had the leadership in this country to embrace the future of seafood production, which is both wild and farmed.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Should the salmon farming industry in British Columbia completely shut down, what would be the effect on Canadian consumers and possibly on the carbon footprint of salmon that they'll consume? I'm assuming they'll continue to consume it.

[Tim Kennedy]

On the global market for salmon.... Let me say first that salmon is the top choice of Canadians for seafood. There's no question about it. It's fresh Atlantic salmon, by a considerable margin. Salmon is the first choice. Shrimp would come second. Other species are actually quite far down. I think that's a really important realization. As much as we would like to grow more diversity with other products, what Canadians and North Americans want is more salmon.

The global market for salmon production is quite tight. When you take out 80,000 tonnes of salmon from British Columbia, for instance, what you're doing is spiking the price. You're limiting the access of Canadians to Canadian-grown salmon, first of all, but also to salmon in general.

Where do you get that salmon? You're going to get salmon from Chile. You're going to get salmon from Norway. What that immediately does, obviously, is change the price, but it also immediately boosts the carbon footprint, because how do you get that salmon? You're air-freighting it into the country. Our estimate, with just the reductions that have happened in British Columbia to date, reducing salmon production by 35,000 tonnes, is that what you're looking at is actually adding about 90,000 gas cars on the roads. That's the carbon equivalent: 90,000 cars.

From a climate, health, Canadian supply and food security perspective, it really doesn't make sense that we're shutting down these salmon farms.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Small.

We'll now go to Mr. Weiler for six minutes or less, please.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank our witnesses for appearing here today. It sounds like it's the first time in a long time. Welcome back.

I want to pick up on one of the points that Mr. Kennedy made on the recommendation to include a definition of aquaculture within the Fisheries Act. I was hoping you might be able to share with this committee what you might see as the priority: Is it having a definition within the Fisheries Act, or would it be better suited to have a stand-alone federal aquaculture act to serve the same purposes?

[Tim Kennedy]

Certainly, the discussion around an aquaculture act has been around for many years. We know that some work has been done by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. In fact, from what we have seen in terms of drafts and draft directions, we're frankly not very impressed by it. That's why we think another department, like Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, should really be the lead for this particular initiative around legislation.

You know, Mr. Weiler, how long it takes to get legislation through the parliamentary system. We actually don't have an aquaculture act, so we do think that although even changes that we might be considering for the Fisheries Act would take a very long time, they're much more precise. I think that would be a good first step: to get something into the Fisheries Act.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you.

As well, I want to pick up on a point you made there about the interest in having Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada as the lead. You also mentioned in your opening the challenges you have now, where DFO is both advocating for the sector and being the regulator for the sector. Could you speak to that conflict and why separating those responsibilities would be an effective way to move forward, not just on things like legislation, but also in terms of those general roles?

[Tim Kennedy]

Let me start by saying that since 2002, basically, the aquaculture production in Canada has largely flatlined. It's been flat. For over 20 years, we've had largely flat aquaculture production. Value has increased over time, but in terms of quantity, it's basically been flat.

I think DFO, if they're an advocate of our sector, have done a really bad job. I'll just start there. We actually have not experienced DFO as a proper advocate in any way, but there is certainly a perception, especially in British Columbia in the activist community, that there is this conflict around development and regulation. We accept that. We think it is time to address that, and it's not a difficult change. It's really a structural change within the government that has to change that mandate around Agriculture Canada for development purposes.

I just think that addressing that perception within a certain community of the country is important. I think that's something we would really support. It's time to do that.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you very much.

Next, I want to turn to Mr. Bradley.

In your opening remarks, you mentioned some of the projected growth in the hydro sector and some of the limitations you've identified with the Fisheries Act. I want to talk about some other parts of the renewable energy space, both offshore wind and tidal energy. I'm wondering if you're seeing any impediments to the development of those industries, especially now with the changes in Atlantic Canada. Are there changes to the Fisheries Act that are necessary to enable growth in those spaces as well?

[Francis Bradley]

Thank you for a very interesting question.

First and foremost, yes, the potential impacts of the Fisheries Act, particularly as it is now more of a fish act, certainly go beyond hydroelectric facilities. It has the potential to impact any electricity facility that makes use of water. That can include a wide variety of technologies, such as nuclear facilities that actually make use of water, tidal facilities and so on.

There's another aspect to this as well. One of the reasons that we tend to focus first on hydro and on hydro facilities in this conversation is that.... When we project forward to a 2050 scenario, regardless of whose scenario you're looking at, it will be what we refer to as an “all of the above” approach to meeting our electrification and decarbonization needs. In the future, there will be things such as offshore wind, tidal power, onshore wind and so on. However, hydro will play an absolutely critical role in being able to backstop those technologies. Yes, we need to focus on what we can do to build out more wind, more tidal and so on, but we also need to make sure that we expand the hydro system so that it can backstop those new technologies. Therefore, on the days when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine, we would still be able to meet the needs of customers in a way that doesn't have a significant impact on the environment.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I know I have limited time, but I have one last question.

You mentioned the challenge about the Fisheries Act authorizations being overwhelmed. Is that just a resourcing issue—because I hear about it in all other sectors as well—or is it that changes to the act or to the regulations are necessary in order to enable quicker authorizations?

[Francis Bradley]

I think the answer is yes to both. Both are issues. Certainly, the way the 2019 act is being interpreted is resulting in significantly more challenging FAAs. I think we need to address both the interpretation of the act and the resourcing. It isn't one or the other; it's actually both of those that need to be taken into consideration.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Weiler.

We'll now go to Madame Desbiens for six minutes or less, please.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here. I have so many questions for them.

Mr. Kennedy, how is aquaculture a threat to marine protected areas?

[Tim Kennedy]

Sorry, I didn't get the interpretation.

It's on channel one. I have it. Okay, we'll try again.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

You're resetting the clock for my time, aren't you, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Yes.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

How could aquaculture damage marine protected areas?

From what I've heard, the aquaculture techniques you use are excellent. Then how could aquaculture be a problem in marine protected areas, at least on the east coast?

[Tim Kennedy]

There could be opportunities around certain technologies to limit, obviously, any impacts in the zone of a national marine conservation area. For instance, something that has been discussed, maybe even around this table, and that is certainly not commercially really proven out yet is closed containment in the marine environment, or closed pods in the marine environment. At this point in time, there have been no discussions with Parks Canada on whether those sorts of opportunities are viable in national marine conservation areas. I think those discussions have to take place. The reality is that those technologies still have to be tested out. We have to see whether they work.

In British Columbia, for instance, there is a ban on net pens. I think you're quite familiar with that. We are not in a position yet to know whether a lot of those new technologies, those closed containment technologies, can work out long-term. That will take time, so 2029 is absolutely impossible. You can't replace the salmon farming in British Columbia at this point in time with those new technologies.

This is something that I think is a discussion: Are there certain viable technologies in those areas? We're still not sure.