Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 10 - Evidence - May 29, 2014 - Afternoon sitting
HALIFAX, Thursday, May 29, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day, at 1 p.m., to study the regulation of aquaculture, current challenges and future prospects for the industry in Canada.
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good afternoon, my name is Fabian Manning. I'm a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador and I am the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Before I give the floor to our witnesses, I would ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves.
Senator McInnis: Tom McInnis from Nova Scotia.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Senator Lovelace Nicholas from New Brunswick.
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier, senator from New Brunswick.
Senator Munson: Jim Munson, Ontario.
Senator Raine: Nancy Greene Raine from B.C.
Senator Mercer: Terry Mercer from Nova Scotia.
Senator Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Chair: I want to thank our witnesses for taking the time to be here with us this afternoon. The committee is continuing its special study on the regulation of aquaculture, its current challenges and future prospects for the industry here in Canada. We're delighted to be here in Halifax today.
I would invite the witnesses to introduce themselves first. I understand you may have some opening remarks, and then we'll get the questions from senators. The floor is yours.
Nolan d'Eon, Owner and President, Eel Lake Oyster: Good afternoon, senators. My name is Nolan d'Eon and I'm an oyster farmer from the southwest tip of Nova Scotia, a little village called Ste. Anne du Ruisseau. I've been farming oysters there for about 18 years. Before that I started fishing in 1978 and I'm still fishing. I've seen the fishing industry go down so that's why I'm changing over to aquaculture. It's a family business. We're five of us working, sometimes five or six, seven part time, so it makes just a small family business. We sell our oysters only in Canada right now, and a lot of them go to Ottawa. Hopefully you guys have eaten some at the Rideau Club.
The Chair: Senator Munson is very familiar with that.
Mr. Nolan: So I guess that's about it for who I am and I'll talk after.
The Chair: We look forward to hearing from you.
Robin Stuart, Member, Aquaculture Association of Nova Scotia: My name is Robin Stuart. I've been involved in commercial aquaculture for over 40 years now in Nova Scotia. I am a marine ecologist by background and I've been involved in shellfish and finfish aquaculture and had my own farm. Presently I'm actually doing work with the First Nations in Waycobah, but today I'm going to be talking about shellfish issues. I've spent many years growing oysters and mussels, and I work closely with both the finfish and the shellfish sectors. I would welcome some of your questions afterwards.
The Chair: Thank you Mr. Stuart.
The floor is yours, Mr. d'Eon.
Mr. d'Eon: I'm going to tell you what my main issues are, what keeps me up, what wakes me up in the night saying, "Why is this happening?"
I'm the other partner of Brian, trying to get the oysters that Brian Blanchard was talking about, to have them set in Dalhousie, take them to a tank in Barrington and then bring them to my oyster site. It's just stopped, waiting for permits. I can see if it was doing something that is risky, a space shuttle or something, but just an oyster in a tank that is in closed containment from start to finish, that takes off from my site, goes for spawning, comes back to my site so that I can continue my operation.
In the last two years doing the natural set of oysters, we missed them; we didn't get them. Once was a huge rainstorm which washed away all the seed; the seed went down below our collectors. We missed them. The second time it was a worm that grew on top of our collectors that killed all our oysters. If I want my business to keep going, I have to have a secure seed source. I have to make sure that I can get seed every year. That would be one way of doing it, with that guarantee, I can get my seed and I can keep on my business.
Another thing is classifications of waters where Environment Canada goes and classifies the water and says they have to do 15 tests. They send them away and they check the water for fecal coliform. Last year it was always done by Environment Canada. They would go pick up, then test the waters and it was then classified. But last year we wanted to grow oysters at a certain place and they said, "We don't have any money to do that." So I had to pay for the water classification. That was one of the first times ever that anybody had to pay for water classifications.
I think I talked about permits and transfers.
For the future, what we're doing with our business is we started doing tourism, and I think some handouts were given to you guys about our farm. We had so many people stop by our farm from all over the world and say, "Can we have a little tour? Can you tell us what you're doing?" All the time you had to stop working and show these people. We said we've got to make a few bucks out of this somehow, so we started tourism.
We're just setting up our wharf and our boats and we've got a few hurdles trying to get permits from the Department of Transport to set our boats up. It's going to take time but it's going to work. That is for our future hopefully. We've got bookings already, and if you can mix the two of them together, I think it's going to do us good.
But the main thing is getting my seed, making sure that I can get the Department of Fisheries to get the permits in place so people can get their seed on time. If I miss my seed, I'm done.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you Mr. d'Eon.
Mr. Stuart.
Mr. Stuart: I'll start with a brief history. I was involved in oysters back in the 1970s where we were actually growing huge numbers of oysters in the Bras d'Or Lakes. In fact we had over 1,700 rafts. Senator Greene Raine was talking about public acceptance. In those days we were a relative newcomer on the block in terms of aquaculture because it was relatively unheard of. But shellfish aquaculture then, although we had these rafts all over Cape Breton, which is where I live, faced virtually no opposition whatsoever.
I think one of the key points that I noticed in the last 40 years is the rural network of people is different. It's changed now with the young people going to job opportunities out West. We have a very aging population and we have a lot of retired people that have moved into communities that really don't have a vested interest in working full time. They've made their living and they've gone for whatever reason to move into the country. I find that has changed the attitude in terms of people's acceptance of the industry, and that was reflected in the conversation this morning.
As far as shellfish goes, I think there's absolutely huge potential for shellfish aquaculture in Nova Scotia. I wouldn't be far astray to be saying we could be looking at a $2 billion industry, that significant.
The oyster business is one of the main players I think and could be part of this development. We really haven't touched base on the opportunity with oyster cultivation. In the world scene there are huge problems in Europe with disease issues with oysters. There are problems in other parts of the world where production levels are going down significantly because of things like the oil spill off the southeast coast of the U.S. and we've got the radioactive problem in the Far East. Opportunities for the oyster market are absolutely through the roof and we should be capitalizing on this. Nolan has certainly set the bar and he's doing a good job, and I think there could be many, many more in our small coastal communities.
One of the advantages to oyster cultivation is that you can start small. Starting small tends to be more acceptable in communities. Generally speaking businesses always do better when they start small and grow larger and develop in time. So I think the acceptance of oyster cultivation is probably going to be an easier sell than some of the other components of aquaculture.
But there are some huge road blocks. In Cape Breton we've got a disease history unfortunately with MSX and Malpeque disease which has pretty well devastated one of the biggest productive areas of oyster cultivation in Nova Scotia. Eleven or twelve years ago we had an outbreak of the MSX parasite which they felt was introduced from the northeast coast of the U.S., and it's devastated the population that's there. That's where the industry is in desperate need of a rebuild. Unfortunately because of these disease scenarios, we have to do things differently.
In the past, bottom cultivation was really the way it was traditionally done, and bottom cultivation takes many times longer than off bottom because of the food availability for oysters. You're talking seven or eight years as opposed to one or two years for off bottom. But off bottom presents some challenges because it's going to involve the Navigable Waters Protection Act. You're going to have more floats in an off bottom cultivation and it's going to be in your face, in your view. That's something we as an industry have to be able to explain to the public, that this is a good and beneficial, it's going to provide jobs, and we have to be respectful of the navigation and that sort of thing. But it is a huge challenge trying to get this off-bottom cultivation.
Then there is the disease scenario and seed supply. Nolan and I have talked about this. Right now seed supply is a huge obstacle to developing the industry here in Nova Scotia. In places like Australia, whereas it was traditionally a wild fishery, it's now totally transformed and it's a multimillion dollar business, off bottom seed supply using hatcheries.
I really think it's got to the point now that we have to get into that next tier in producing hatchery seed with good genetic stocks that are conducive to growing in certain specific areas, we have to go that level. And all this requires support. We are basically talking about people who can't access funds to get into the business. It's very difficult because most of those who want to get into it are small operators and the cost of getting involved in developing hatcheries to them is an obstacle. The cost of getting into off- bottom cultivation, waiting for leases, as Brian was talking about earlier, it's the same for a small oyster farmer presently, to get approvals for off -bottom cultivation as it is for a salmon farm. Sometimes you could be waiting for a year to two years before you'll see a return on your investment. Not many banks are going to talk to you about financing when you can't even put product on your lease because you're waiting to do the environmental assessment review. That's huge and that has to be streamlined for the small farmers getting into this business.
And we need the support of the regulatory agencies such as Transport Canada, Environment Canada, as Nolan was talking about with unclassified areas. You can't grow shellfish in unclassified areas. You need that. You need community support. You need the scientific community.
Our scientific community, we have a tremendous asset in places like BIO and DFO, but I don't hear about them being able to take a stand and make commitments and do direct research that's going to benefit the farmer right now. I find that's restrictive. R&D is a huge part of whether this is going to work, this development. We have some obstacles and I'd really like to see more involvement from the scientific community. I think a lot of myths could be dispelled by the scientists.
I live in Englishtown on St. Ann's Bay in Cape Breton on the way to Ingonish. There's a large mussel farm there, and I'm planning on putting an oyster farm in there in the near future. Eleven years ago there was a review and there was a huge concern that that farm was going to be the end of the lobster fishery because of all the waste produced by the shellfish. So many myths. The salmon were going to stop going up North River because of the sulfide smell from the farms. This was told at the public hearings. Here we are 11 or 12 years later and the lobster catch has almost doubled because lobsters actually eat mussels and they like the habitat provided by mussels.
There's a lot of misinformation, unfortunately. This is the sort of thing that we need to get at, and we need our scientific community to be there to make that case to the public. It's better if this is third party because as an industry member you're not going to make the case very well; they always deem you to be biased.
ITC, the Introductions and Transfers Committee, is chaired by the federal fisheries, but the way it's structured at the present time is in itself unfortunate,. The industry does not have any opportunity to make a defense or case for themselves if you were trying to introduce seed from another area. In the case of our area, there is all kinds of seed available in the Bay of Fundy, but we can't bring seed into St. Ann's because the precautionary principle is used and they want zero chance of opportunity of any pathogen.
There are a number of issues that have to be dealt with, but I think the opportunities are huge in oysters and the sky is the limit.
We have to work within the disease scenarios that we have. They do so already in the Northeastern U.S. They have more disease than we have and they have a successful industry. It's no different; there's no reason we can't here. So the opportunities are great.
Other than that, I welcome questions. I just wanted to throw those issues that are restricting the development of the industry now on the floor, and I'll leave it at that.
The Chair: Thank you Mr. Stuart.
Senator McInnis, please begin your questioning.
Senator McInnis: Welcome and thank you for coming.
You make an interesting point about post-war babies now retiring. It's interesting that back three decades ago on the eastern shore they commenced what was said at that time to be the largest mussel farm in North America, and there wasn't a peep from anyone. In the same area applications have since been withdrawn in three areas down there for farmed finfish.
You say it's a great opportunity to expand, and of course you've got your trials and tribulations with respect to seed and environmental assessment and so on. How best can we help the shellfish sector of the industry with respect to regulations? We were told this morning that you're governed by the same rules and regulations pretty much as the finfish industry. What would you suggest we do?
Mr. Stuart: There are a couple of things. One is an entire attitude shift to start with. Do we want aquaculture or do we not want aquaculture? That's a mindset that we have to establish in this country because a lot of other countries have decided that it's necessary. Definitely we have to do it in a sustainable manner. But attitude right from the start.
In the shellfish sector we're working with fisheries people whose whole mindset is protection of a wild resource, and that is really not constructive to the development of aquaculture. I think that's an education and it really needs to come right from the top saying, "You should be working with these people, this industry to enable them to carry on." We need more communication, better communication, with the regulatory agencies, and they have to be more focused on trying to assist as well as trying to regulate. I know that's a difficult position, but I know a lot of the oyster guys up in the Gulf of St. Lawrence on our Nova Scotia coast have been just plagued by silly little things. People have been fined for the possession of undersized oysters on their leases. Well you're a farmer; you're going to have undersized oysters. That's a mindset that deals only with wild fishery. It shouldn't even come into the equation in farm fishing. If you wanted to sell one inch oysters to grow you should be able to sell one inch oysters to grow. It's a whole mindset.
Then on the Introductions and Transfers Committee I think it's really important; I think it's necessary. We don't want to bring in diseases. We already found that MSX turned up in Cape Breton. But I think the industry has to be able to make a case, a defendable case. If they want to bring in seed from New Brunswick, then they should be able to bring in science expertise from outside the committee to defend their case. The industry has no say, it's just regulatory review and it's really a zero tolerance scenario. That hasn't worked. You're not going to have an industry with a zero tolerance. I mean there's always a risk with any food production industry, whether it's chicken farms or beef farms or oyster farms; there's always going to be a degree of risk and there's always going to be some impact. But you have to measure that off against the pluses. To me it has be a true risk assessment that takes into account the benefits, so what jobs are you going to bring in; what is the impact both positive and negative. We need to develop a risk assessment model in conjunction with the regulatory agencies.
Senator McInnis: Have you participated in the panel consultation?
Mr. Stuart: I sit on the round table.
Senator McInnis: The one that's taking place now that's about to report?
Mr. Stuart: Yes. Brian Blanchard and I sit on the table as industry reps.
Senator McInnis: Do you want to tell us what the recommendations might be?
Mr. Stuart: Oh, I can't tell you that, but I can tell you that it's been an interesting experience. It's been rewarding for me. As much as it's been time consuming, it's been important for my own business to be able to sit down and talk to all the various interests and concerns that people have. Because when we actually deal with issues, the real issues up front and in detail all of a sudden they realize it's not black and white. There's always somewhere in the middle that you can discuss, and I felt pretty good leaving that.
In fact, at the end of the meeting some of the members actually thanked the fact that we as farmers were willing to participate and exchange ideas with them because they felt that they hadn't had that opportunity. They said, "This is not as bad as we thought." We have really come to a better understanding.
This whole communication level is what's missing. We need to improve our communications and public hearings. Now, it's a gladiator arena. That's what I said at the hearing; it's the same as going into the arena and you've got everybody throwing things and it's not conducive to an exchange or communication. You've got to deal on a different level of communication.
Senator McInnis: So you feel that the recommendations will be helpful?
Mr. Stuart: I think they will be. Certainly the consultations we had were good. We had a lot of consensus points on a lot of issues which is probably what a lot of people would never have thought. Believe it or not most of the fish farmers and shellfish farmers are basically environmentalists. That's the reason I got into it. I saw this as an opportunity to grow product in a sustainable manner to provide employment in our rural community. That's why I got involved 40 years ago and I haven't changed my mind on that. I think it's going to be good. Now, what the government does with the recommendations we don't know.
Senator McInnis: Did you discuss matters with other provinces?
Mr. Stuart: No, this was really dealing with our specific issues in this province.
Senator McInnis: It's not just issues though it's regulations.
Mr. Stuart: Regulations, but we went over every component as they were related. I know that the lawyers who are involved in developing the document have done a huge amount of consultation outside the Nova Scotia arena. They've gone internationally and to the other provinces, there was no question about that. I must say I developed a lot of respect for those two gentlemen. I think a reasonable document will come out of this that's really a help. I mean the reason we were asked to come on was to contribute from a Nova Scotia perspective, but they are looking beyond that.
Senator McInnis: I have no doubt that they did a good job; after all, they're lawyers.
The Chair: That's a debatable topic.
Senator Mercer.
Senator Mercer: I don't think it's debatable; it's regrettable.
Gentlemen, thank you very much for being here. Mr. d'Eon you mentioned that you had to pay for your water certification the last time that you had it done. How much was that?
Mr. d'Eon: I think it was around $5,500.
Senator Mercer: Have you heard of any others who have also been charged?
Mr. d'Eon: No. What I wanted to have classified was going to cost me 11,000 and some odd dollars and I couldn't afford it, so I got them to not classify as much, just to what my lease was going to be.
Senator Mercer: This is a new thing to have to pay for a test that was always paid for by government.
Mr. Stuart, the disease that you mentioned in the Bras d'Or Lakes, has it been controlled? Is it contained or is it gone? What's the status?
Mr. Stuart: I would say that the population was there, probably 95 per cent of the oysters that are left. I was working with Eskasoni about 12 years ago, the First Nations community, because they were quite active in oyster development in commercial beds there. The reason I bring that up is that I did this survey. This is previous to MSX. We found out that there was a huge illegal fishery going on and a lot of the lakes were devastated. DFO had issued hundreds and hundreds of licences to people that knew nothing about fishing.
When they closed the mine, all the miners were looking for employment and money, and some 300 people were out there fishing. That doesn't come out, but the beds were actually devastated in big time even before the MSX came along, and that was really due to just total disregard for the wild stock.
Senator Mercer: So you have to start over?
Mr. Stuart: You've starting from scratch, right. Right now we're looking at developing resistant strains using hatchery models and using off- bottom cultivation techniques. That's the way we're trying to go, we may be looking at other things.
Genetics is an important component. I'd like to be able to use resistance strains of Malpeque because we also have Malpeque disease which wiped out the Gulf oysters after the First World War. We haven't had that in the Bras d'Or until recently, in the last five years. That's just as devastating a disease as MSX, but it can develop a resistance in one generation. So if we use stocks coming out of New Brunswick or P.E.I. out of the Gulf they're all totally resistant to that disease. So we need the right gene pool to work with to be able to have a successful industry.
Senator Mercer: Mr. Stuart, you talked about the need for more scientific work on research and you had indicated NRC and BIO are not doing any work on aquaculture?
Mr. Stuart: No, I didn't say not doing any work. The NRC has actually been very helpful, the IRAP programs have been very helpful and I have had some work with DFO. What I'd like to see in the R&D component is more directive to the research done with the industry involved. A lot of the time it's gone into isolation. I mean, the needs of the industry are definitely there and the industry knows what it needs, and if the scientific community were more versed in those needs I think maybe the research could be more focused to help the industry. It's that type of element.
Senator Mercer: We have a large intellectual infrastructure in Atlantic Canada on which to capitalize.
Mr. Stuart: First class, yes.
Senator Wells: Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentations.
We talked in the last session about public engagement and the social licence required. I think we've seen in all of our discussions we've had with people in the aquaculture industry on all sides of the topic, that it's a necessary part, as much as the regulatory licences are. Really I'm just restating it in this forum because I think it's important to have your comments on the record, how the sites look, how your employees behave, having what I call kitchen table engagement rather than, as you called it, the gladiator arena engagement, which is a great way to put it, close cooperation from the beginning, seeking guidance from the local fishermen and harvesters on location, conflicts and that sort of thing, and then telling them your plans and asking them for advice. In your sector, have you engaged to that extent? I think it's a pretty good list.
Mr. d'Eon: Yes, our business has. We are members of Taste of Nova Scotia where we bring out our oysters to all kinds of different functions. We have the Farmers Market on Saturdays that we go to and last year we had one for Nova Scotia, the Consumers Product Choice award. That's sort of our engagement with the public. Does that answer your question?
Senator Wells: I have no doubt that the product is excellent, but I'm thinking more of the social license that is needed to move forward relatively conflict free with respect to people who may be against a firm in that area or others that may have some conflict with it?
Mr. d'Eon: I guess we've been extremely lucky because we've never had any problem with anybody being against our farm. We started in 1999. There was one guy who built his house alongside our farm 10 years after our farm was there and he wanted us to move, which didn't happen. That's the only person that we've ever had a problem with. So other than that we have the people who say, "Good for you."
Senator Wells: I'll ask Mr. Stuart the same question.
Mr. Stuart: In the area where I live three of the shellfish farmers are lobster fishermen themselves, so are part of the traditional community that is there. So it's probably been more accepted. Certainly it was easier at the start to get involved.
We've done this over a number of years now, and have demonstrated that the impacts are not as bad as they were believed to be. I heard stories that property values are going to go down. That never happened. Property value is never going down whether or not there's an aquaculture industry there.
I mean, those are all issues. We're not going to be able change the view of people. I was talking earlier on, that if you were trying to get a lobster fishery going today you might have just as much of a challenge if you were starting from scratch because of all those buoys are out in front of your house. You wouldn't want that, and boats waking me up at 4 o'clock in the morning. I mean it's really something that over time becomes accepted as being part of the working community. The fact that you're actually keeping some young people there is huge. In the community where I live I think the average age is about 60. I'm one of the younger ones there. So it's frustrating because there are opportunities here for young people.
I mentioned that at the round table. About 95 per cent of the round table has got hair like mine and I said, "Look around the table at how many of us are grey. We're probably being very selfish; we're not thinking of our young people." Because those are the people where the opportunity lays. It's not with us old geezers sitting around here. We're trying to set it up so that young people can stay in our communities and work in our communities in a long term business. That's what we have to convey because that's where our success is going to be.
Senator Munson: Thank you for being here. I worked in Yarmouth in 1965 at CJLS for $36 a week. My colleague was a d'Eon of course, because there are thousands of them. Anyway, I think that tourist idea is unique.
I read the story, and I hope there's more money coming from the Nova Scotia government in tourism for this because I think it's an interesting concept. We did hear before though about the advantages of having fish farming under agriculture. Maybe, Mr. Stuart or Mr. d'Eon, you can give your points of view because of the benefits that seemed to be there with crop diversification and that sort of thing, and it seems to be a unique approach.
I know everybody is arguing for an aquaculture act, streamlining and all kinds of things and taking away duplication. Would there be a great advantage or would you be in favour of that, either one of you?
Mr. Stuart: Well you can have your say on that, too, but I remember 25 years ago I had a bunch of cattle farmers turn up at the trout farm that I was managing and I couldn't believe that they had more in common with me than any fisherman ever did in terms of understanding costs, insurance, harvest techniques and processing. It's a different product but they're following exactly the same processes that we are. We're farmers.
The programs are so conducive, and I really wish we had access to some of those programs. The biggest problem you have is that because money is short everywhere in Canada the farmers would be a little concerned that a new player on the block may be looking for more of their money. That's a problem you face. But certainly in terms of real issues and dealing with the sort of concerns that we do have as farmers they are aligned much more with a farmer in agriculture than the wild fishery.
Mr. d'Eon: I agree with Robin. That's why I go by Eel Lake Oyster Farm. I am a farmer, a sea farmer, so we should have the same rules as agriculture farmers.
The Chair: As a bit of information for you, Senator Munson, when you had your first job at CJOS, I hadn't celebrated my first birthday yet.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for being here. I have a question following on the tourism aspect that you're looking into. I congratulate you on that, I think it's an excellent idea. In thinking along that line, many times when we change a habit or we change a way of thinking, somebody very close to us has probably told us about it. I remember when the "wet/dry" came out with the recycling, it was our kids who brought it into our homes from the schools, and they would force it and push it.
With regard to tourism, we already know that a lot of the teachers and the kids in their classes are involved in all kinds of different field trips. They do field trips to farms, legislative assemblies and to certain businesses sometimes. I was just wondering if it's something that you have thought of at one point in time. If you can get funding to help you, this could be actually creating other jobs in another sector completely and would introduce the aquaculture business to the younger generation. You could get involved by showing them at a young age what it's all about and in so doing maybe help with the social issues that aquaculture seems to be facing? Do you know if that's been happening already in some places?
Mr. D'Eon: I don't know if it's been happening. I go sometimes to the schools and talk about aquaculture to the Oceans class, the grade 11 class. They've come down to the farm — this is before our tours were even started . We brought them out to show them how aquaculture works.
Our community engagement officer for the Municipality of Argyle is Brenda LeGrande. She's a real go-getter, and I'm sure if I mention to her the idea of getting the schools involved, it won't take long before it's done.
Mr. Stuart: Somebody was asking about social licence and the Aquaculture Association of which I'm a board member and a founding member. We are developing a code of practice that probably will help significantly in outlining all the processes that we as farmers have to face, and it will be going into detail. It will have a third party audit involved. We're in the process of developing that now, and I think that's a good start to showing that we are environmentally responsible and plan to be here in the long term. I just wanted to bring that up.
Senator Poirier: Quite a few years ago a lot of the industrial trades were taken out of the high schools. Due to the baby boomers, we are seeing that the local schools and community colleges are slowly getting involved again in industrial trades to bring back an interest in that.
We have partnered up, I know in New Brunswick, with private companies where they bring in students, so many hours a week, who work with them side by side to bring back an interest to build the industrial trades that we need. Is that something that could be looked at in the aquaculture business, to pair or twin the students with the industry to create an interest so that we have a younger population that will want to stay home and work to build their own business?
Mr. d'Eon: It's a very good possibility. I know one school, the French school in Par-en-Bas. Mom and dad said, "Stay in school," but they knew they wanted to go fishing when they came out of school. Some of those kids did their work program with us before they went out fishing. I don't think they were allowed to go fishing at that time. But we introduced aquaculture to those kids just in case they did not want to go fishing.
Some students came and worked at our farm for six weeks. We also had a girl from Norway who came and did her work program on our farm. She spent eight weeks on our farm. She was learning in a school around Yarmouth and then was going back to Norway. She did a lot of programs. She figured out how much water was in our lake, how much the oysters ate, how much it cleaned per day. It took like three days for all the oysters to clean the whole lake and stuff like that. It was very interesting work that she did. It's probably a program that could be well introduced.
Senator Raine: Mr. Stuart, you mentioned a group or a committee. I'm not quite sure what it was, the group that you sit on. Could you just elaborate on that a little bit more for me?
Mr. Stuart: I sit on the round table.
Senator Raine: What is that?
Mr. Stuart: The round table is a group of representatives from all over Nova Scotia, from community groups, environmental groups, the Atlantic Salmon Federation, a number of different components or people that have concerns about the industry. There are three of us who sit on that group are actually industry reps. We're providing input to these lawyers who are going to be developing the new regulatory policy for Nova Scotia. This happened on a number of occasions this winter where we sat down for two day sessions at a time. It's quite a lengthy process and we dealt with every sort of thing, like closed containment issues with growing fish versus open net pan and all the issues that come up — lobster impact, antibiotics, shellfish issues — and you read about on the internet usually. These are all issues we talked about and how the regulatory environment might be structured to accommodate some of their concerns and that sort of thing. So it's been an interesting session.
Senator Raine: Is it called the round table on aquaculture?
Mr. Stuart: The Nova Scotia Aquaculture Regulatory Review Round Table, I guess.
Senator Raine: We would be able to get all their information as we move forward?
Mr. Stuart: One other thing on the social licence issue, the Aquaculture Association has had two meetings already around the province trying to deal with this business of a social licence and consultation. So we are very interested in maintaining and developing the social licence as an association of a number of small- and medium-sized farms.
The Chair: Thank you very much to our witnesses for taking the time today to give us your perspective on aquaculture. As always, it's a joy, not to mention interesting, to hear from the people who are actually out there on the sites.
I invite out next panel to come forward. We're pleased that you have taken the time today to join us here in Halifax. I ask that you introduce yourselves first, please, who you represent, and then we'll hear some opening remarks.
Sarah Stewart-Clark, Assistant Professor, Shellfish Aquaculture, Faculty of Aquaculture, Dalhousie University, as an individual: My name is Dr. Sarah Stewart-Clark, shellfish biologist at Dalhousie University and Principal Investigator of the Aquaculture Genomics Lab also at Dalhousie University.
James Duston, Professor, Aquaculture, Department of Plant and Animal Sciences, Dalhousie University, as an individual: My name is James Duston. I'm a fish biologist with 30 years research experience. I work at the aquaculture facility in Truro.
Jon Grant, NSERC-Cooke Industrial Research Chair in Sustainable Aquaculture, Department of Oceanography, Dalhousie University, as an individual: Hello my name is Jon Grant. I'm the NSERC-Cooke Industrial Chair in Sustainable Aquaculture at Dalhousie University where I am also a professor of oceanography. I've worked in aquaculture and coastal ecology for some 30 years.
Steve Armstrong, President and CEO, Genome Atlantic: Steve Armstrong, President and CEO of Genome Atlantic based here in Halifax. We help create, invest in and manage large scale gene discovery projects, many of which has been in the aquaculture space and which I will comment on during my remarks.
The Chair: Certainly we have a lot of experience at the other end of the table that we're forward to hearing from.
Ms. Stewart-Clark: My research focuses on invasive species that are having a significant impact on our shellfish industry and our aquatic ecosystems. I also research shellfish genomics as they relate to both wild and farmed populations of shellfish. My research focuses on developing tools, genomic tools to monitor for invasive species in our region. These tools provide early detection of invasive species when they enter our waters.
We currently have a multitude of invasive species that are affecting shellfish aquaculture and knowing where each species is in our local aquatic ecosystems is extremely important because transfer decisions are sometimes based on the presence or absence of invasive tunicates in bays or waters where shellfish are being grown. So the assays are being used by DFO in Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island to give ecosystem managers the most information possible about the presence and spread of aquatic invasive species in our region.
Early detection is critical because it allows ecosystem managers the most amount of time possible to undergo mitigation strategies to lower the risk of further spread of the species across Atlantic Canada. When it comes to aquatic invasive species I would like to see better monitoring in our region for these species so that we can detect them earlier. I'd also call for an integrated pest management approach when we're looking at dealing with invasive species so that we don't risk having the populations of invasive species become resistant to the methods that we use to treat them.
My second area of research is shellfish biology and shellfish genomics and I use whole transcriptome level monitoring looking at how all of the genes in a shellfish respond to specific events and at how climate change, habitat alterations and management practices impact the stress levels and the health of shellfish in our region. I also conduct industry request research to increase production efficiency on farms, investigate pest and invasive species issues and investigate relationships between target and non-target species. My goal is to use genomics to produce diagnostic markers for health and stress and disease in shellfish species.
When I think about how to increase aquaculture in Nova Scotia, it's clear to me that the direction of this industry must be science based in partnership with industry and ecosystem managers. It's less costly to ensure that investments into science are put at the front end of the development of the industry than to have problems develop and require science to find mitigation solutions after the fact. We need more science to answer the questions that face industry today. We also need science to help with ecosystem-wide changes, challenges and industry-wide challenges such as climate change, invasive species and diseases as these are not issues that individual companies can shoulder themselves.
Nova Scotia is well situated to develop its aquaculture industry in a science-based manne,r since it is home to the only university in Atlantic Canada who has a BSc and MSc program in aquaculture. Dalhousie University has over 40 researchers who include aquaculture in their research programs and this includes faculty from a wide range of interdisciplinary departments such as aquaculture, marine biology, oceanography, marine affairs, faculty of law, faculty of medicine, faculty of engineering and business faculty who can conduct bio economic analysis of the industry. We are eager to work in partnership with our partners to conduct unbiased science to investigate challenges that face the industry today.
There is much pseudo-science and much misinformation circulating about the aquaculture industry, and I believe that academic scientists who have academic freedom and are unbiased in our quest for the scientific truth in the experiments that we conduct are best suited to study some of these contentious issues.
I'm optimistic about aquaculture because I have traveled firsthand through the Maritimes to our shellfish farms. I have seen the positive economic impact that they have on our rural coastal communities. Many of these are family farms like the d'Eons in Argyle and the Purdys in Malagash. They are stable employers in their communities and they are great stewards of the ecosystems with which they have been entrusted through lease sites.
I have some concerns about how aquaculture is developing in Nova Scotia. I'm concerned that shellfish aquaculture has decreased in production in Nova Scotia over the past 10 years while other Atlantic Provinces have seen stable or increases in their production levels. This decrease in Nova Scotia is mostly due to the high level of fouling that invasive species have caused on farms. These invasive species have occurred on farms in other provinces but typically our shellfish farms in Nova Scotia are smaller and not as well equipped to handle the heavy fouling that comes with species invasions. Nova Scotia has also faced challenges with MSX. Both invasive species and MSX challenges to the shellfish industry in Nova Scotia I do believe could be overcome with science; we just need the research funds to assist the industries in developing the science that is required to adequately overcome these challenges.
I also have a concern about the loss of research funding that is used to serve our aquatic ecosystems as a whole. Environment Canada had a funding program specifically for invasive species research and this has been cut. Our aquatic toxicologists across the country have had their research programs disbanded reducing our capacity to support the shellfish industry in producing critical science. I greatly value the collaborations that I have with scientists at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and have seen their limited ability to travel and to attend meetings and conferences and to fund their own research. This is greatly decreasing our scientific capacity to understand our aquatic ecosystems. This is troubling for me since I do believe that for aquaculture to grow in a positive way we need science to guide its growth.
I would like to echo the comments made earlier about the need for an industry that is based on selectively bred broodstock. The shellfish industry in Nova Scotia is still based on wild seed collection. This used to work when there were no challenges but as we've seen on the West Coast our ocean is changing and we need to prepare for that. We are facing disease challenges and production inefficiencies and these could be overcome by selecting strong physiologically resilient and disease tolerant lines of shellfish to use as a stable seed source for our growers. Every other agricultural sector has invested in broodstock development to increase production efficiencies and it has worked. We must implement this in the shellfish sector so that we can increase production efficiencies, which on some farms with levels of fouling is as high as 30 to 40 per cent. I don't believe you would find a potato farmer in the country who would plant seeds where 30 to 40 per cent of the plants would not grow into a product that he could sell. We must make this conversion to broodstock development in the shellfish industry as well.
I would like to end by saying that when you look at national statistics the shellfish production on the Atlantic coast appears to be a minor industry. What I cannot stress enough is how significant this industry is for the Atlantic region. The economic stability of some whole communities and some whole provinces is dependent upon its success. This makes supporting science into shellfish production of critical importance to Atlantic Canada. I constantly have national funding agencies say that the shellfish industry in Atlantic Canada is not worth funding when they look at the overall aquaculture statistics for the country which is dwarfed by salmon production. Shellfish is critically important to coastal regions in Atlantic Canada, and I would like to see increased funding for these shellfish growers who are facing significant challenges in the ecosystems that they are growing shellfish in. Thank you.
I would just like to add something. I see you leafing through presentations. It was the presentation that we were going to present last night at the aguacultural campus and that's what we've provided for you today.
The Chair: We regret not being able to making it last night. It was due to fog and the delay in our flight from Newfoundland, but we are delighted that you could join us here today.
Mr. Duston: Thank you very much. I'd like to talk about Atlantic salmon farming. When I came to Canada in the late 1980s, I experienced and worked with the fast expanding industry here. I was employed as a researcher by Connors Brothers Limited out of Blacks Harbour. My specialty is using lighting regimes to alter the development rate of fish which is a very practical technique. So that was my background, tremendous expansion there.
In 1995, I came to the Agricultural College in Truro. That was part of an initiative at that time to kick-start the aquaculture industry by the provincial government. So they started the investment in the industry and education to try and catch up to New Brunswick. That catch-up has never really materialized. Today the government in Nova Scotia is once again fully committed to increasing aquaculture production, so it's back on; it's getting a push again.
Atlantic salmon farming could expand greatly in coastal Nova Scotia yet production has been restricted due to some very special circumstances that are not present elsewhere. There are many issues, and I just want to talk about one of them.
The most important I believe is the fragile state of the southern upland stocks of wild salmon. This stretches from Annapolis around to Canso Strait, there are 73 watersheds that historically had Atlantic salmon stocks. Some of these rivers are dead now and some of these rivers have very few numbers of wild salmon. This is a grave concern.
These stocks have been in decline for decades; I don't know how long but 100 years or more. Acid rain has been a big factor that has killed some rivers. Among some other stocks it's not quite clear why they have declined. Perhaps the problem may be at sea rather than the fresh water environment. What I want to emphasize is that fish farming has not played a part in the decline of Atlantic salmon stocks in Nova Scotia.
However, today escaped farmed salmon do pose a risk to wild salmon. Potentially they can interbreed with the wild salmon causing genetic changes in these few remaining fish that can perhaps cause a loss of fitness and may accelerate extinction of these few wild fish. It's a very controversial and sensitive subject. This is called genetic introgression. The risk of genetic introgression carries a lot of weight when applications for cage site leases are reviewed. It's a big factor. Despite that the state of knowledge on the interaction between escaped farmed fish and wild salmon in our waters is very poor, very limited.
This is what has driven some of the decisions of late. For example, the risk of genetic introgression is highest in the vicinity of estuaries that are believed to have only a few wild salmon remaining, such as along the eastern shore. A lease application was turned down and the fragile state of the salmon stocks was a major factor in that decision making process. By contrast in regions where the salmon rivers are judged to be dead due to acid rain the risk of introgression is low and salmon cage farming can be encouraged. I don't know all the in's and out's but I think that's probably part of the rationale why Cooke Aquaculture has expanded in Jordan Bay near Shelburne Harbour, because a lot of those rivers down there are dead due to acid rain, they're like pH 4. So that's the situation.
What seems to be critical is that we need an accurate assessment of the health of the salmon rivers in Nova Scotia. When we are trying to assess the risk of the interaction between wild and farmed salmon, it's all part of this risk assessment process. You need to know the state of wild salmon stocks.
DFO is responsible for management of the wild Atlantic salmon, but its resources are so limited these days only one index river along the southern uplands is monitored, that's the LaHave River. There's a tremendous lack of knowledge about what is actually in the rivers and the state of the salmon stocks. But it's a key factor in dictating decision making when leases are being discussed.
The lack of knowledge has contributed, I believe, to the mud-slinging between pro- and anti-aquaculture groups, and this has created a very uncertain environment which certainly discourages aquaculture development. It's a battle ground. I believe this toxic environment between pro and anti-aquaculture groups needs to be resolved, and it can only be resolved by decisive leadership from government.
So how can we resolve that problem? Since DFO lacks the resources to manage the stocks the responsibility needs to be formally turned over, with proper financing of course, to the universities who would work in collaboration with First Nations, for example, the Mi'Kmaw Conservation Group, environmental NGOs and most importantly the industry. We all have to work together to assess the interaction between wild and farmed salmon. DFO would continue to play a key role as a regulator.
This coalition between the universities, et cetera, would be responsible for assessing the health of salmon rivers and the interactions with escaped farmed fish. We are capable of doing this. We have some of the finest salmon biologists in the world in our university system; let's put them to work. The knowledge collected would allow sustainable development of the salmon farming industry in Nova Scotia.
My last statement is that healthy rivers are a primary indicator of a healthy society. Accordingly most Nova Scotians want their wild stocks of salmon to be conserved and restored, it seems a no-brainer. However, we also want jobs and prosperity in rural and coastal communities. Can we find a balance here? I believe we need to be bold and allow Atlantic salmon farming to expand and do that hand in hand with a new wild salmon management initiative that is headed by the universities and not by DFO. And that's the end of my statement.
Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Grant.
Mr. Grant: As I said before, my name is Jon Grant and I am the NSERC-Cooke Industrial Research Chair in Sustainable Aquaculture. You will know Cooke Aquaculture to be the largest domestically owned company in North America specializing in salmon farming and also having farms in a number of other countries. The Industrial Research Chairs program was established by NSERC in 1983 the sole intention of which is to partner industry and university in a research coupling that leads to solving industrial problems as well as training people in the field of the industry.
There have been some 300 Industrial Research Chairs over the life of the program so it's a time honoured tradition and very important mechanism by which NSERC supports industrial or applied research. The process is extremely rigorous. It requires up to a year of proposal and preparation, and of course you know NSERC to be our highest standard of science in Canada and they don't give away money without a lot of scrutiny. So the program has been through an extensive process when finally the IRC is awarded.
And because my duties and in fact the financial obligations are freed up by the university because of my new position, they're required to hire a second professor in my field to work with me. The intent is to gain capacity and critical mass in the designated area, in this case aquaculture.
To echo some of my colleagues' comments, this sets up Dalhousie to be a much more important player in the field of aquaculture, and it is known as Canada's ocean university for good reason. Our Oceanography Department is among the finest in the world. The merger of Dalhousie and the previously known Nova Scotia Aguacultural College has meant that their aquaculture programs have now been integrated with our other science programs. In fact, on Tuesday the three of us were meeting with a number of other researchers in Truro to discuss the ways that we can emerge with a much bigger aquaculture program.
I'll also emphasize that this area, especially due to DFO, is the center of aquaculture environment research historically. Often times in Canada and probably perhaps more so in Atlantic Canada we feel that we have to get that given expertise, it's elsewhere and we're sort of behind. In this case we have led worldwide the field of aquaculture environment interactions through some of my mentors, who are now retired, especially the Bedford Institute and the St. Andrew's Biological Station. St. Andrew's still maintains a lot of expertise in aquaculture. Bedford Institute has let it go by the wayside through retirement.
But we're not catching up. In fact we've designed research areas, the approaches, that have fed very strongly into the regulatory regime but that then went to other countries, such as Norway and Chile.
I should also mention the Atlantic Veterinary College. They are important colleagues to us because they have so much specialization in fish health. So there are many bright spots in aquaculture research in Atlantic Canada that we should be proud of.
The term that I want to emphasize to you today with regard to aquaculture is "ecosystem services." My research along with Cooke intends to examine ecosystem scale interactions of aquaculture. How does aquaculture fit into coastal ecosystems? How can it be managed within those ecosystems? I should mention that there are not many aquaculture companies that could take this large view. In fact, Cooke, because of their resources, size and need to really consider things on a regional basis has led in providing the vision that is part of the Chair program.
The reason I bring up ecosystem services is that they are the core of sustainability. Perhaps you have heard that term a number of times in these sessions. I would urge you, as soon as you hear the word "sustainability," to ask, "What do you really mean?" That word is thrown around very casually, though it's not a casual word. It is defined in terms of "ecosystem services," meaning the things that humans get from ecosystem. In our case we're talking about seafood. You have shoreline protection, recreation, a vast array of services that we get from ecosystems. Sustainability means that the ecosystem can continue to provide those services to us despite the activity that we're undertaking. So it's very important that any activity; whether it's resource extraction, aquaculture, fishing, anything that we do, does not harm the ability of the ecosystem to keep delivering those services. For that reason fishing is very similar to aquaculture in the sense that the ocean provides to us the fisheries that we capture. We know all too well that if we exceed the capacity of production of fisheries then the fisheries crash and can no longer provide that ecosystem service to us. For aquaculture the ocean provides the growing conditions of oxygen, temperature and clean water all of which are necessary to grow fish.
However, we can't grow so many fish that we abuse the system's ability to do that. The reason I'm emphasizing this so much is to make the very clear statement that using the ocean to grow fish is a valid use of ecosystem services if it's done in a sustainable way. "Sustainable" meaning that we don't harm the system.
My research is oriented toward large scale measures and computer modeling of how marine ecosystems function in order to provide the ability to make predictive models for those ecosystems. What if we put salmon farms here; what will it do the nutrient levels? What if we have too many farms; what will it do to the oxygen conditions in the estuary? These are all entirely addressable problems from an oceanographic perspective.
Now, there are other concerns besides waste dispersion in aquaculture, one of them being disease spread, very important topic. The best way to treat disease is to avoid it in the first place. I heard some interesting comments about similarities between aquaculture and agriculture. I won't take up your time on that now but if you want to ask me about it then I can comment on it. But the big thing is that the water makes all the difference. So we're much less worried about the air in aquaculture. We should be worried about the water in aquaculture because it is communicating between farms, between areas. Immediately you can see the oceanographic aspect and this is what we bring to the research topic.
I won't say too much about the anti-aquaculture lobby — perhaps you've heard enough about it already — but they tend to have hijacked the argument so that it is on land or not at all. That is not the argument as far as I'm concerned because there is a huge scope for improving the sustainability of fish farming in the ocean, as I've just mentioned about ecosystem services. I think there's no way we should abandon the ocean as a valid supplier of those ecosystem services and the ability of humans to exploit those services in a sustainable way. I don't see it as being all or nothing; I see let's improve salmon farming sustainability in the ocean, which is the goal of my chair.
If we get back to the regulatory regime, as you know there's a review underway in Nova Scotia and given that review I won't make comments on the improvements that I think should be made. I know that one of the topics is the speed at which new sites are approved. This has been a difficult process. What I will say is that between provincial fisheries and DFO there are a lot of people working really hard and very earnestly on this topic. So, yes, it's under capacity in many ways but recently our provincial fisheries department in Shelburne has been revitalized.
I've noticed through my interaction with them a very dedicated and experienced staff in some cases too. I think that, however the regulatory regime evolves, there is a bright future for the ability of a provincial and federal government to manage it.
I've gone on enough except to say that as far as the science goes I have a very serious commitment to this topic and in fact now, as a new chair, devoted 100 per cent of my research to helping Cooke move forward into really a new era of aquaculture sustainability. So really, in certain ways, we're just at the beginning of this approach. It takes the industry to be at a certain level of maturity and size to take the big view, and I think that's where we are now.
Thank you.
The Chair: Dr. Armstrong.
Mr. Armstrong: Thank you very much for the opportunity to participate. I'll keep my presentation to five minutes to allow maximum time for discussion with the panel members. The way I've outlined the presentation is to very briefly introduce our organization, the services that we offer and the impacts that we've had to date. With that context in mind and with that in hand I'll give you a quick overview of the experience we've had to date with the aquaculture sector in Atlantic Canada and more specifically the kinds of research and development that I believe are critical to enabling sustainable growth.
By way of context, Genome Atlantic is a not-for-profit corporation established in 2000 as part of the Genome Canada Enterprise. We're one of six regional genome centers that spread from coast to coast. Although you've heard it mentioned on the panel a number of times already, for those who aren't familiar with genomics it's a fascinating combination of genetics, biology and computer science, now more powerful, exponentially cheaper and therefore more accessible to many companies and end users in the public sector across Atlantic Canada and beyond.
Genomics was once seen as a science in and of itself and now in enabling technology relevant to virtually any sector that you can imagine. So at Genome Atlantic as part of the Genome Canada Enterprise our mission is to develop a program of genomics based research and development that delivers tangible economic, social and environmental benefits to the region.
To date, in partnership with many other organizations we've enabled more than $75 million of new genomic R&D in Atlantic Canada spanning five sectors and creating more than 1,000 person years of employment. Within that portfolio approximately half of it has been dedicated to the aquaculture sector. This has been driven principally by three different things. First of all the ability of genomics based solutions to address an array of company needs, some of which we've heard about from previous speakers. Second, the regional expertise and interest in the aquaculture sector, and last but not least of course is the growth opportunity that's associated with the sector.
As I'm sure you are all aware, if you look at the UN's projections in terms of where the global population will be by 2050 they're projecting approximately nine billion. We're at 7.1 billion right now so if you do the math between 2014 and 2050 we're going to add approximately 57 million people each and every year for the next 36 years. By the time we get there in 2050, the FAO projects that the world will need 60 per cent more food than we've ever produced and we have to do that with less land and less water. So obviously that creates both a challenge and an opportunity for the aquaculture sector.
If we take that back to where the rubber hits the road what is it that keeps aquaculture CEOs awake at night, it is not intended to be an exhaustive list, but I would argue that the list includes the following three things: First of all, they're focused on getting product from egg to harvest in the fastest and most economically efficient means possible. Second, there is pressure on them to find cheaper and more sustainable feeds that do not diminish the quality of the end product, and third, the ever present fear of disease and/or pest management outbreaks.
To put this another way in terms of what would keep the aquaculture company CEOs awake at night, and thinking about what is required for long term competitive advantage to position all of these companies for growth, really involves three things: First of all, it is elite brood stock development; second, feed optimization and, third, effective disease and pest management strategies.
So what's the connection between these challenges and these elements that underpin future growth and the business that we're in, which is enabling genomics or genetics or gene discovery type projects? I mentioned that of the $75 million we've helped enable in the last 14 years about half of it's been in the aquaculture sector. Our portfolio has included projects focused on halibut, cod and salmon and everything from genetic linkage maps, which essentially means linking a specific gene or gene locus with a trait that's of interest to industry through to marker assisted selection programs through which the use of genetic markers is used to select elite fish to be used as brood stock. These would be elite fish in terms of growth rate and/or disease resistance or tolerance. Third, we've been involved with projects that are trying to find substitutes for traditional fish meal and fish oil which have both cost and sustainability challenges associated with them. Above and beyond this, genomics tools have the potential to help with challenges such as salmon sea lice and many others.
As we heard from Dr. Stewart-Clark earlier, in the shellfish industry, for example, genomics tools are critical to overcoming the challenges associated with the MSX parasite within the oyster industry.
If I was to summarize in order to maximize the time that we have for interaction with the committee, brood stock selection, feed optimization and disease management strategies are the key determinants of sustainable growth, and harnessing the power of genomic based solutions is an absolute must. With 9 billion mouths to feed by 2050 my sincere hope is that the rate of growth in the Canadian aquaculture sector will soon accelerate. In so doing we will help feed the future while at the same time bringing significant economic benefit to Canada.
Thank you.
The Chair: We will begin our questions with Senator McInnis.
Senator McInnis: Well, this is all very interesting. It's nice to see you, Dr. Stewart-Clark. You and I spoke on the phone back a while ago. For aquaculture to be successful it must be science based, you said, up front. Of course, I would expect you to say that Dalhousie was well equipped to do that. I take it the funding comes from government, university and industry.
Mr. Duston, you alluded to the fact that many of the rivers are dead. Few rivers have salmon because of acid rain and farm salmon interfere potentially with wild salmon. That thought carries a lot of weight in the application approval process. You mentioned the application on the Eastern Shore. The application on the Eastern Shore I think was turned down because the Atlantic Salmon Federation in conjunction with a number of other groups put a douser at the West River in Sheet Harbour. The cost is upwards of $600,000 to operate it but they put it in place. They're quite prevalent in Scandinavian countries. As a consequence of that the wild salmon are coming back in abundance. So that's why I suspect that that application was turned down.
Then you went on and talked about the lack of knowledge of the wild salmon stock, decisive leadership by government, but yet Ms. Stewart-Clark says that it has to science based. You suggested that there should be a coalition of university government, other groups and so on, all done in conjunction with letting or permitting marine based salmon operations to take place.
You can understand the situation of this committee. We're hearing you make all of those concerns but that we should open up the floodgates and let it go, let the applications go forward. Then you suggest a study on what actually the wild salmon situation is. I would add to that perhaps, does it have a deleterious effect on lobster and the lobster industry? These are questions that we get and we get them from both sides. I have a lot of faith in the research that has to be done, and there's a lot of it. Why should applications be approved if we have all these questions that haven't been studied?
Mr. Duston: Well, that's the conundrum that's facing our society today and there is no simple answer, so we adopted the cautious approach. I guess I was being quite controversial; I wanted to say something that was probably a little bit strong but you must forgive me for that.
Senator McInnis: No, that's fine.
Mr. Duston: I think that's the crux of the issue. It's our society and we have to decide. We want to save the wild stocks. We all, in our bones, want to do that. We also want to bring economic wealth to our rural and coastal communities. How can we do both?
It seems that aquaculture is one of the few, perhaps, economic drivers that can help. I lay awake at night. I mean, it's a terrible situation that we have the wild stocks and we need to develop an industry. Then there's all this mud-slinging going on between pro- and anti-aquaculture groups, and I think there's a lot of people in the community who maybe wonder, "Well, where is the truth?" The truth is hard to find sometimes especially when we don't have the knowledge, the scientific knowledge of how the salmon are moving or where are they going to stray to. There are so many unknowns but I don't have any clear solutions. So is it prudent to be cautious and keep turning down applications until we find out the situation with our wild stocks? That might be prudent but where is that going to lead; maybe to economic stagnation all along the coast for the next 20 years. Is that politically acceptable? I don't know.
Senator McInnis: Another question is the matter of disease. The ISA of course, sea lice, which obviously research is going into but there's no determination yet. We had a doctor in Newfoundland that appeared before us and said that the aquaculture industry will not be sustainable if disease outbreaks continue to occur and the federal government has to cover the cost of the loss of the salmon. So that's another concern that is out there.
Now obviously there's talk of private sector insurance whether that's available or not. Do you have any comment on that? Is there considerable research being done with respect to ISA, sea lice? Apparently there's no effective drug available. Could you comment?
Mr. Grant: Yes, there is extensive research done on sea lice from every point of view, from potential vaccines to the oceanographic studies I described. As far as those numbers go about the money coming back to the industry, if you look at a balance sheet on that it's far smaller than the taxes they pay, than the value of the industry. The money that's been paid to the aquaculture industry is not a net loss for taxpayers. Those numbers are explained in various places. I would encourage you to have a look at that or ask perhaps the Atlantic Canada Fish Farmers Association. They published a piece on it recently.
As far as the diseases go, we know that every food production system has problems, and we know about swine flu and mad cow disease. Yes, these are stumbling blocks; they involve important considerations. In fish farming none of the diseases have any implications for human health. So we didn't stop raising pigs and cows because in the case of mad cow disease people were dying from the syndrome, right.
Of course, we need, as we've heard before, a risk-based approach to other parts of the ecosystem. This is why, as I tried to emphasize, aquaculture has to take its place as part of the ecosystem, not as something apart or not something that's hostile to the ecosystem. That requires certain management decisions.
Fortunately, we don't have sea lice yet. Well, they live in our waters because they are a natural species. It's not a problem at the fish farms. I think we have to consider interaction with wild fisheries or wild fish on a case by case basis. Unfortunately, in the case of Atlantic salmon we have brutalized them for decades, if not centuries, to the point of extinction well before any fish were cultured here, and even today a huge tonnage is being caught off Greenland with limited control by us; I refer to Nova Scotia salmon. We have destroyed the rivers, not just through acid rain but through eutrophication. So when fields are cleared on the river and the shade is gone the rivers warm up and there's a host of problems, oxygen levels in rivers.
We've done a lot of stuff to a very small stock of salmon, so it's not really that surprising that they're in such a bad way. If we look on the West Coast where there's twice as much aquaculture as there is on the East Coast, we see that the Fraser River, one of the major salmon rivers on the West Coast, is having record historical runs of sockeye salmon, despite the suggestions that aquaculture is having a negative impact. So it's not to say that wild salmon and aquaculture don't have interactions but that no one has demonstrated that the population dynamics of wild salmon, which is what we're worried about, are impacted by aquaculture.
Ms. Stewart-Clark: I would to add that I don't think we can stress enough the importance of having the Atlantic Veterinary College in Atlantic Canada. When it comes to disease research they are really the center of expertise for diseases in aquatic organisms. So seeing their funding being protected is something that I would strongly recommend. Having that expertise is really crucial for all sectors of the aquaculture industry, both shellfish and finfish, in Atlantic Canada.
Senator Mercer: Thank you very much everyone for being here; it's very enlightening.
I want to go back to the rivers. You suggested that we needed to know the status of all the rivers so that we can put certain issues to bed or address what problems we find. What would the cost of that be and how long would it take?
Mr. Duston: I do not know the cost; it's probably tremendous. DFO has tried. I don't know the cost, but we have to turn it back to the good people of Nova Scotia and say that if you want to protect your salmon stocks, how many million dollars are you willing to invest? Those might be dollars that will be funnelled away from healthcare or education. I do not know how much value there is in these wild stocks. How much money should we put into them? You could pour in a lot of money. I do not know the answer.
Senator Mercer: What about time? How long do you think it would it take?
Mr. Duston: If you want to encourage industrial development, you've got to give farms at least a 10-year lease. You probably need 10 years. It all depends on how many people you've got on the ground. Salmon populations are complicated. The rivers are complicated: the logistics of getting on the water, getting your rubber boots on, doing the counting. You would probably need a decade. I mean people have been trying to assess salmon stocks for a long time and they're a very elusive and complicated fish.
I don't have an answer. I'm doing my best.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for being here.
We know that the aquaculture business has grown at a faster speed in Sweden, Norway and other countries than it has here in Canada. How does Canada rate in the research field compared to the other main competitors out there?
Mr. Duston: Norway blazes a tremendous trail; we're always in their wake. We're always saying, "What are the Norwegians doing today? Oh, we've got to play catch-up." They've got so much oil revenue. They have a tremendous amount of money to plow into aquatic research and they have done so. So that's Norway. They've got all kinds of money.
Ms. Stewart-Clark: I don't have specific values, but when it comes to shellfish I'd say that we're at the low end compared to other countries. The U.S. has invested in broodstock development and Australia has invested in broodstock development. Pretty well every other major producer of shellfish in the world has already made that switch from growing the wild product to growing selected broodstocks, so Canada is really lagging from that perspective of the industry. I can't speak for finfish.
Senator Poirier: Are we're taking advantage of some of the research that's being done internationally, and is some of the research being done here shared internationally also?
Ms. Stewart-Clark: Absolutely. I'd say as scientists our community is global. We attend international conferences; we have colleagues in other countries and we are reading scientific literature that is published from around the world. We have direct collaborations with other scientists in other countries and we're certainly learning from their expertise. With shellfish we do grow different species here. It's not like salmon which is grown in many countries around the world. Our oyster and our mussel are different species, even to those grown in British Columbia for the most part. So we do need more research on our own specific species, but we do learn what we can from the other regions as well. I'm sure others have other things to say.
Mr. Grant: I could comment on that with regard to Norway specifically. I have very close collaborations, long ongoing collaborations with government researchers and university researchers in Norway. In fact Dalhousie and the University of Bergen, Norway, have exchange programs. We exchange graduate students and professors have joint workshops, and that's funded by the Norwegian government. From certain perspectives, and I can't speak about topics such as genetics, but certainly on the aquaculture environment aspects, we are very much involved in collaborative efforts with Norway.
I can make a suggestion along those lines, and that is that the EU has programs that they refer to as frameworks. The present one is called "Horizon 2020," which is a multibillion dollar funding effort. Canadians are welcome to join in those research efforts and I'm in one on marine spatial planning and aquaculture. However, we in Canada are not allowed to get funding from the EU and our government does not put any money into the system. So we can participate using our own research dollars but we can't really be funded. I can see that fairly small, perhaps targeted, perhaps rotating topics would be useful for our government to contribute so that Canadians can participate more fully in EU programs. That really does get us into the system.
Mr. Armstrong: If I could just build on the other good points that have been raised. Certainly projects that we've been involved in have had linkages with Norway, Iceland, Chile and Spain. So there is a certain degree of scientific collaboration. However, our regulatory regime is such that allowing us to exploit some of that intellectual property in Canadian waters is often prohibited. The interprovincial or interregional transfer of certain stocks or their importation from another country is often inhibited, which is one element of a many element package that's inhibitory in terms of growth of the industry. Just by way of one simple example, and Dr. Stewart-Clark could speak to this in a lot more detail than I could, in terms of the challenge of MSX that wiped out the oyster industry in the Bras d'Or Lakes perhaps there is a solution in the oysters that exist in Maine, which are naturally tolerant to that parasite. In order for us to try and restart that industry and import that tolerant strain it would require both CFIA and DFO approval, which to my knowledge unless I'm out of date, has not been forthcoming to this point. So the point is that yes, there's international collaboration scientifically but sometimes exploiting the resultant knowledge to the benefit of the industry can be blocked through our regulatory regime.
Senator Poirier: In the challenges that are being seen internationally in aquaculture, are the diseases similar? Are the issues that you're facing with aquaculture production in our waters similar or do they involve pretty well different research, different challenges or different diseases?
Mr. Grant: The problems are identical. They're of different scales. There might be different kinds of water such as shallow estuaries in Denmark, deep fjords in Norway, a different balance of shellfish and finfish culture but identical problems. This is why Canadians are frequently recognized as having a strong background in aquaculture research and they're frequently invited to participate in these programs as experts.
Ms. Stewart-Clark: I would add that we do have some specific challenges in shellfish. We have Malpeque disease that's present only in our region and MSX only exists along the Eastern Coasts of the U.S. and Canada, from my understanding. So the researchers that are working on them are limited.
Senator Wells: Thank you, panel.
Dr. Grant, I'm glad you commented on the international collaboration in answer to Senator Poirier.
You said that sustainable means we don't harm the ecosystem. You also said let's improve the sustainability in the ocean; that's the objective of your chair. Do the current regulations result in no harm to the ecosystem?
Mr. Grant: That's a very good question. The problem is that it's quite common that the regulations lag behind the science because the science is usually much newer and it's not ready for implementation in a regulatory capacity. Aquaculture is a good example. So most of the emphasis is at the site of the activity. In the case of fish cages it's right under the cages, right around the cages; that's what the regulators are worried about. Shellfish tend to be dispersed over a larger area so you do have to consider a larger area. There are some other considerations with shellfish as well. But with finfish it's recognized, increasingly so, that the impacts around the cages do not extend very far away from the cages. In studying what we call the near field view we often times have no information regarding the rest of the ecosystem.
I think it would be helpful for the regulatory regime to evolve to a larger system wide view so they can consider other activities that are taking place and then place aquaculture, not, as it's often been considered, in isolation as an activity on the coast but one of many activities that's conducted in the ocean, which is the essence of what I refer to as marine special planning. I think that it would be helpful to get there and expand in scope and space, but that has research challenges because the tools that we need to go bigger are not necessarily that obvious or easy. That's one thing we're working on.
Senator Wells: Dr. Stewart-Clark, I have a question for you. In your comment on the need for additional money and work for research in aquaculture you mentioned that there's a need for academic scientists who are unbiased and unburdened. Are you suggesting that the scientists who are your accredited professional colleagues who work for corporations might not be unbiased or unburdened?
Ms. Stewart-Clark: I don't believe that any true scientist would be anything other than unbiased. As scientists the whole purpose of our profession is to find the truth in what we're investigating so any scientist will be unbiased. Academic scientists would bring a benefit to public perception. The public perception often is that an industry scientist as opposed to, say, an environmental scientist is probably biased. That's simply how the public views it, whether or not the scientist actually was unbiased. As academics our survival depends on publication, and our publications are our scientific results that we have written. For them to be published, our findings and the methods we have used to find them have to be verified by anonymous scientists from around the world. So our science will only be published if other scientists that we don't even know believe that we have conducted the experiment in an unbiased way and that the methodology and the results are sound. That's what protects the unbiased component that goes along with academic scientists. Industry scientists and other scientists can be producing unbiased research and they can demonstrate that through publication of the results in scientific journals, but what I often see is scientists for different lobby groups do not publish, but simply post what they found on websites.
Senator Wells: So there's no peer review?
Ms. Stewart-Clark: No. The media takes that as a scientific fact when it hasn't been peer viewed by independent and anonymous scientists. I think that's the benefit of having academics. No matter who is funding our research, to get it published anonymous reviewers have to agree that we've conducted has been done in an unbiased way.
Senator Wells: Great, thanks very much; that's very helpful.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Welcome here this afternoon.
Dr. Stewart-Clark, you mentioned your current projects in the lab and one of them caught my eye. You mentioned species invasions from the U.S. Has that happened, if so how often does that happen and do you get invasions from other countries or provinces?
Ms. Stewart-Clark: The species that have become invasive in Atlantic Canada are from all over the world and they're typically transported in the ballast water of ships. I can discuss that further if you want but typically they come through shipping traffic.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Please.
Ms. Stewart-Clark: We found with one species of tunicate that we could trace it through its DNA, similar to what we do in paternity testing. So we could tell who that species is most related to from other populations around the world. We found that international shipping traffic originally brought this species to Nova Scotia and then local recreational traffic spread it. So both types of shipping are involved.
When it comes to the range expansions from the U.S. we have several species that have been present in Maine, very close to the U.S. border, for quite some time but have never moved into Canada. We've had two species that have recently move in — in the past two years. We have a calcareous tube worm. For quite some time its native range has been from the southern edge of North America to Maine. In 2012 it was discovered in Nova Scotia for the first time. That year was four degrees warmer in that area than the 50 year average of water temperatures in Nova Scotia. We also had Didemnum vexillum move from the U.S. into Nova Scotia this year as well. So we looked at, in that particular study, not whether we're at risk of shipping traffic bringing invasive species to a region because we already know that that is a risk and that it's happening. What we were concerned about in that study was looking at can the species themselves naturally move into our waters because our water is warming. That's something to which Nova Scotia is now at increased risk because species that would not be able to survive under previous water conditions are now being able to survive. We're seeing an increase of invaders from the U.S. for that reason.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: How do you get rid of these invasive species? Do you kill them?
Ms. Stewart-Clark: One of the reasons that these invasive species are so aggressive and so capable of invading a new environment is their reproductive output. For example the vase tunicate can produce hundreds of thousands of new offspring each year. Their capacity to reproduce is very high. If you spent the money to remove all of the tunicates in one bay, if you only missed two you could next year see the bay be fouled again. Eradication with invasive species in the marine environment has never been demonstrated to be effective. We really need to prevent species from arriving in Atlantic Canada, and we need to detect them as soon as possible. They got so widespread because when they arrived no one saw them and we didn't pay attention to them and we had boats moving them around, we transferred shellfish and that spread them. If we detect them right away we can restrict them to that one area and try to minimize their impact.
Senator Munson: I have been thinking about when I first was appointed to the Senate and a Conservative senator whom I was urging that work be done in autism, creating a national autism action plan and moving all of these things forward. This Conservative senator — you would know his name, Dr. Wilbert Keon — came to me and said, over and over, "As you're doing this make sure you ask for research money based on science." Your term "based on science" has resonated with me today. No matter what you're asking for make sure you always have that component within a report.
I'm wondering if we recommended the restoration of funding, because we heard of the many cuts that have happened in the last little while — you talked about climate change, water warming and so on and so forth — what would be the specific cost benefit if you had this money, or if this money wasn't cut or if you had more money for research, how tangible would that be in terms of the communities of Nova Scotia?
Ms. Stewart-Clark: I can speak to that for the shellfish sector. I believe the results of research into the effect of climate change on shellfish would be immediately tangible to Nova Scotia. We are currently growing shellfish based on wild seed and some of that wild seed can't grow to market size in the water temperatures that it's growing in and it dies before it reaches maturity. If we could select seed that we knew could survive well in water temperatures we're seeing in Nova Scotia then we would have more of that product growing to market size. We have increased fresh water entering our marine ecosystem due to climate change so we need to select for seed that can withstand wider fluctuations in salinity. These are things that we can select our broodstock for to ensure that our shellfish growers will have seed for their farms. I think that the research money put into understanding how our species are dealing with climate change would have a direct benefit to Nova Scotia.
Senator Munson: Professor Grant, on aquaculture and agriculture, you talked about Truro and about farms and fish farmers. It seems that the natural habitat for aquaculture is in agriculture. I'd like to get your point of view; I know you'd like to get it on the record.
Mr. Grant: Yes.
Certainly there are undeniable similarities in the two in the fact that they are raising animals domestically and the husbandry components are quite similar. I think there are certain differences that would affect the regulation and that is that land farms are on private property. We accept the fact that the ecosystem has been actually removed and replaced with fields either for forage or for crop. While agricultural ecosystems have their own services we have replaced the natural services with those that we desire for raising various crops or livestock. In the ocean we're attempting the opposite; we don't want to alter the system. First of all, it is public domain so it's not private property to change in the way you want. Second, we're attempting to ensure that the marine ecosystem stays intact and that aquaculture fits into it without harming it. So that really requires a somewhat different orientation at some management levels and that's why. I find those differences so fundamental I wonder if a regulatory regime that's used to dealing with crops on private property can still work the same way. That's my primary concern.
Senator Munson: I have a general question. We've been to Newfoundland and Labrador and there's a vibrant community trying to do, from my perspective, the right thing for their communities through aquaculture. But we take a look at the numbers and the figures here and you can see we're so far behind Norway and even New Zealand and Scotland. What will it take? Will the day ever come that we will catch up and actually be a major player in the world? You talked about being in the wash of a big wave and so on and so forth. I know it's a general question, but what will it take?
Mr. Grant: My first comment would be that we have a couple of things those other places don't have. One, we have space that is available for aquaculture and the growing conditions are suitable for a variety of shellfish and finfish. Two, we have good water quality because we have largely low population densities. So I think we have ideal growing conditions. That's not to say that we should fill every inch with aquaculture, no one thinks that, but we have tremendous scope for expansion. That's why it's important to do this in a kind of a systematic, regulated and well researched fashion so that we don't make mistakes of over capacity or putting things in the wrong place.
Mr. Armstrong: Maybe I can just add to that. I think the three things that it would take would also include a more consistent, nimble and predictable regulatory regime that companies can count on. I think we need to revisit the balance that's necessary between protecting consumer safety, of course, and enabling growth of the industry. I think we have a very risk-averse paradigm in place right now that doesn't bring adequate balance between those two things. I also think the ongoing commitment to research as a way of de-risking company investment is also key. Those three things I think would be pivotal to us seizing the opportunity that the global demand for food protein is going to create and recognizing that aquaculture must be a big player in supply.
Ms. Stewart-Clark: I would say, too, that if you look at production statistics almost 98 per cent of all aquaculture occurs in China. We think of Norway and all these other countries as being the major players but they're not and no one is asking them why bother if you're such a small player. I don't think we can take that view in Nova Scotia, I think that we do have, as Jon Grant commented, the resources, the space.
We also have a lot of communities that have based their livelihoods on the sea for generations. Although it's a different form of working with fish I think that personality and those characteristics of feeling that need to be on the water; we have that along our coasts. Those people want to be on the water and I think that's another benefit that we have in Nova Scotia.
Senator McInnis: I think Senator Munson raised a very good point with respect to research. We heard that John Risley had made the comment that tax dollars going into research is an investment and should be considered an investment and not an expense. For the committee's information, obviously it will take time, what would it take in dollars in research to resolve some of these dilemmas that we're facing? How is government doing in terms of injection of dollars into research?
The final point I wanted to make because I don't think it's well known, I was surprised when I was told this, but recreational fishing and hunting in Canada is worth $5.4 billion, the entire commercial fishery is $2 billion, it's an interesting statistic. But could you comment on the research, what it would take?
Mr. Duston: We had a crack at that earlier and I guess we started waffling; nobody else came up with a dollar figure. Have you got a dollar figure?
Ms. Stewart-Clark: I don't have a dollar figure.
Senator McInnis: I didn't expect one.
Ms. Stewart-Clark: I can get research money to work with industry partners. If they have a problem and science can solve it we can get small amounts of money, just talking $5,000, $20,000, to solve a small issue for them. Where I see the lack of the required research is for larger questions that industry can't fund.
Right now there seems to be a trend in Canada that to access research money there has to be an industry contribution. So industry is interested in that, if it's to solve a question that they need solved on their farm or in any other sector. But the questions that are ecosystem based that are across multiple farms, expecting one grower to front that whole cost to me is unreasonable and is how most of our funding programs sit today. So we need research funding that could look at ecosystem questions, could look at some of these interactions between wild species. It's more challenging to get funding for those types of research questions when it seems to be that's what is required to put to rest some of this uncertainty about aquaculture. Those are the hardest research dollars to get. Getting industry research is much easier right now. So we still need the research money for industry, but we need to be able to access funds that answer questions that aren't specific to an industry member or their own farm —how is the whole ecosystem being impacted?
Senator McInnis: Is there an inventory of requests that would be available?
Ms. Stewart-Clark: For?
Senator McInnis: If dollars were available today, we've heard that research has been going into aquaculture for decades, would you have an inventory? Does anyone have ideas as to what should be researched?
Mr. Duston: Well, I believe so. I was trying to explain that we need to research the status of wild stocks. That's pretty high on the inventory list. I think if we could come back tomorrow with a list of our top 10, we'd have no problem coming up with it.
I'm sort of dumbfounded. We're always battling. Finding industry partners is often terrible and sort of limits our scope. It's kind of shocking. When you asked that question, I thought, "Oh, nobody has ever asked that question."
Senator McInnis: But we don't have a budget.
Ms. Stewart-Clark: But that's the frustration. As scientists we see what should be done and yet we don't have the money to do it. So it's piecemeal trying to find different funding programs that might solve little tiny parts of that question but only if it relates to what the funding partner wants. So there's never a wide open thing, what are the top 10 things that aquaculture needs and we'll fund it? It's never funding like that. It's usually related to specific issues that are very narrow and you can't answer the question that really needs to be solved.
Senator McInnis: So the research chair that came about as a result of Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and Cooke is an industry partnership?
Mr. Grant: Yes. They each put in half.
What I want to say is that there are existing programs which could be applied to aquaculture; that's one example. Some of them are matching. NSERC has other programs including what's called Collaborative Research Development Program where they match industry at a somewhat smaller scale but still quite significant. There have been three national programs on aquaculture starting in about 1990, two of them network centers of excellence, the NCE programs.
Now I'm not trying to say in those comments that we've had enough; we certainly haven't, and those programs have had their difficulties. But there are existing programs into which aquaculture can fit, but it involves competing over all fields of science and engineering so it's been somewhat difficult.
DFO has had some funds in the past and has some kind of small programs to jointly work with academia but we've seen those kind of shrink away through time. They were not big money programs yet they were quite significant to us, so it would be nice if some of those could be restored.
Senator McInnis: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you to our witnesses once again for taking the time to be with us here today. As I say to all our panels, if at some time in the future our study is we plan on presenting a report to the Senate in June of next year, if at any time you feel that there is something you may have forgotten to mention today or in the future that you hear us talking about and you think that we need some clarification on your ideas and suggestions are most welcome so please feel free to send them onto the clerk and we will include them as part of our deliberations.
I would like to welcome our next panel of witnesses. We've had a little discussion here. I've been around for a few years, and others have been around longer, but the Fisheries Committee is always a very interesting committee to be a part of because there are a lot of firsts. We definitely have a first today with a little baby at the end of the table there. So with the power vested in my as chair, I'm not allowing any questions of the child. Okay? Questions will all be adult- driven. I don't know what time feeding time is so that may hurry along our meeting, but we'll see.
Welcome everybody. We have heard from a variety of witnesses today and we're delighted that you have taken the time to join us. I'm going to ask you to introduce yourselves, the organization you represent, and then we'll begin opening remarks.
Stewart Lamont, Managing Director of Tangier Lobster Company Limited: I am Stewart Lamont, Managing Director of Tangier Lobster. We are exporters of live lobster to the international marketplace.
Brenda Patterson, Member, St. Mary's Bay Coastal Alliance: Good afternoon, my name is Alex Patterson. I'm with the St. Mary's Bay Coastal Alliance which is in Freeport, Nova Scotia.
Carl Purcell, Past President, Nova Scotia Salmon Association: Carl Purcell, representing the Nova Scotia Salmon Association. I caught my first salmon October 13, 1966, at 10 after 3:00 in the afternoon. Since that time I've been associated with conservation of salmon.
Susanna Fuller, Marine Conservation Coordinator, The Ecology Action Centre: I'm Susanna Fuller. I am the Marine Conversation Coordinator at the Ecology Action Centre. I'm currently on maternity leave, but apparently not, so it's nice to be here.
The Chair: The floor is yours, Mr. Lamont.
Mr. Lamont: Thank you, chair. I appreciate being here today.
I have a matter of privilege, but I don't wish to be a distraction or a delay to the proceedings. Would it be more appropriate for us to talk about it at a later time?
The Chair: I'd have to have some idea of what you're talking about.
Mr. Lamont: I made a presentation before your committee one and one half years ago. I was a board member and executive member of the Lobster Council of Canada. Your committee requested that the Lobster Council make comments about the impacts of aquaculture. Subsequently, the former Minister of Fisheries of this province appeared before your committee and suggested, put it specifically on the record, that I had misled the committee. I take offence at that. He documented the ways in which I had misled the committee. At some point, I'm looking to set the record straight, but I do not wish to be a distraction to your proceedings.
Mr. Purcell: The real question is where is he today?
Mr. Lamont: He has received the ultimate reprimand but we won't go there.
The Chair: No.
I understand where you're coming from. If at some time you wanted to write a letter to the committee to address that concern. Today we're dealing with aquaculture. And the lobster study has been presented to the Senate and to the minister and the department. I'm seeking advice here as am I'm talking to you, but I'm thinking that we will be moving on.
As you would understand, the lobster study was done during a previous session of Parliament. We're in a new session of Parliament now. You have made your point here today on the public record. My understanding is that the minister is not here with us anymore, so I guess you'll have to track him down somewhere to get a response from him. But our response is that it's on the public record now and you have stated your case, so I'll ask you to present your presentation here today.
Mr. Lamont: I appreciate it.
Mr. Chair, senators, I have handed out a summary of my presentation, but based on some comments that I heard in the last panel, if you will indulge me, I'd like to speak more extemporaneously. Some issues have been raised that I really would like to draw your attention to.
The Chair: Okay. On a point of order so we make sure that we're clear, we have an opportunity to have opening remarks. We try to keep it to five minutes each, give or take because we want to engage our senators in questions to you. I know you may have a lot on your mind, but you're going to have to condense it into five minutes or so.
Mr. Lamont: I'll be extremely brief.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Lamont: I am one of those individuals known as an opponent of open net pen fish farming. I'd like to set the record straight. I'm absolutely in favour of aquaculture, I'm absolutely in favour of on-land closed containment aquaculture, but the business model that we've discussed here earlier today and that you're considering of open net pen, I consider to be absolutely reprehensible. I've heard comments that we're in the position of trying to manage the ecosystems. We should be extremely aware here of precisely what we're dealing with. We are dealing with a business model which uses the ocean as our septic system. It's hard to put a positive spin on that. I give feedlot operators tremendous credit for trying to do so, but it's really a tough thing. I'm drawn by comparison to memories in this city, in Halifax, of our embarrassment with sewage treatment and sewage going out in the ocean. If any of us are out on the ocean and we pollute by throwing over a chip bag, they can throw the book at us, and rightly so.
I would want to remind senators that this business model — and I keep saying it's out of 1958 — there's no resemblance to current concerns relative to the environment, relative to toxicity, relative to a whole range of concerns. It's outmoded. And that is what you are being asked to — forgive the phrase — stomach. I can't do that; I can't sit here and tell you it's an acceptable model.
Please bear in mind also that proponents of this model have a very checkered record. It's less than two years ago that Cooke Aquaculture was convicted under the Environment Act of illegal pesticide treatments in its salmon pens. Two years later they are partners with Dalhousie University, my alma mater, and they are objectively looking at the impacts of aquaculture.
I apologize for speaking so bluntly, but I want to make very certain that every one of us in this room at this moment is extremely aware of the threat that we're dealing with. You can't treat the ecosystem if you're going to pollute the waters or if you're going to treat the product with pesticides. The very pesticides with which we're treating lice in salmon are absolutely lethal to live lobster and other wild species. I'm a lobster guy. I speak on behalf of lobster, wild fisheries; I speak on behalf of "pristine."
Reference was made in the earlier panel about China. I have a younger brother and his family who live in China. They live in Beijing. He reminds me frequently that people in China with financial resources do not consume farm- raised products. They are too fearful of food safety, food traceability. China's record in that regard is not sterling. So China, all of Asia for that matter, has turned to Canada and other jurisdictions for pristine, safe seafood. It is ironic in the extreme, but it's really tragic that at the very time the world is looking for safe, sustainable seafood, we should be embarking on a program in Canada to promote, to subsidize, to compensate that industry. That's what you're being asked to stomach. I, for one, find it unacceptable.
I will conclude simply by saying that I would encourage your committee to get the most hands-on perspective of open net pen activities that you possibly can. Do not take guided tours; do not go where feedlot operators wish to take you. Go unexpectedly. Go to coastal communities that can give you a perspective on the impact of aquaculture in their communities.
I think we're better than this. I mean, surely to goodness, in 2014 we can expect more from Atlantic Canada. We talked about being risk averse in the earlier panel. We embrace risk in this industry like nobody's business. We're going to endorse open net pen without knowing the full impacts. That's about as close to embracing risk as you possibly can get.
I would encourage your committee to do a hands-on visitation. Don't announce yourselves. Go unofficially and go individually if necessary. Those of us in coastal communities who work on this behalf would be more than happy to facilitate you.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Ms. Patterson?
Ms. Patterson: Good afternoon, senators. I appreciate very much the opportunity to speak with you today as part of your review of the aquaculture industry in Canada.
I am speaking on behalf of the St. Mary's Bay Coastal Alliance, which I'll then call SMBCA, but I believe I speak as well for communities and individuals in Port Wade, Jordan Bay, Port Mouton, Shelburne Harbour and the Eastern Shore, communities which have or are threatened now with open net feedlots.
SMBCA is a volunteer organization representing fishermen and community members. It was formed in 2010 in response to the announced intention by Kelly Cove Salmon Ltd., a subsidiary of Cooke Aquaculture, to seek provincial approval of two leases totalling over 200 acres and 2 million fish, leases that would displace 20 or more lobster fishermen and would occupy a known lobster nursery.
I could speak at some length of the hundreds and hundreds of volunteer hours from a community of 800 souls that went into responding to the environmental assessment, to the questions and concerns that went unanswered, to the traditional knowledge that was ignored, and the disregard of 80 per cent of residents that did not support approval of the leases.
I could speak to you of the ministerial approval of the leases just seven working days after the closing date for input to the environmental assessment. I could tell you about SMBCA's decision, together with our villages, the economic development organization and the Atlantic Salmon Federation, to appeal the minister's decision within the required 30-day appeal period; and of Kelly Cove's decision to begin site construction before the appeal had even been heard; and about the fundraising activities within our communities to pay legal fees so that an appeal could be filed on July 5, 2011, of a judicial decision on June 30, 2012 in the Specter appeal of the Shelburne Harbour leases here in Nova Scotia which confirmed the province's Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has absolute discretion with respect to decisions regarding aquaculture; and of our attempt to negotiate with the province to agree to enforce its own current regulations in St. Mary's Bay and the province deciding at the eleventh hour it would not agree to maintain oxic conditions, an objective of the province's own environmental monitoring framework.
I could speak of our decision to abandon the case because we were not prepared to let our waters become anoxic — it was not a deal we were going to strike — and because we had no more money, only then to be hit with what amounted to a SLAPP suit, a strategic lawsuit against public participation, by Kelly Cove, and of going back to court again and instead of the $83,000 sought by the company, the judge awarded $11,500, and of the fundraising we have begun because the company has threatened legal action if we do not pay by May 31, 2014, this coming Saturday.
All of this for what has amounted to an epic failure because Mother Nature has virtually destroyed these open net pens, and with what escapes and what diseases, we will never know.
With the time I have remaining I would like to touch on three subjects: regulations; facts; and what I am calling "PRing up," a little like "lawyering up."
The open net pen industry has told you that the regulatory system governing aquaculture in Canada is too stringent and is limiting its growth. They have called upon the government to relax its pesticide regulations and to allow for the use of chemicals that will kill other fish life, including lobsters. And you're being asked to trust them.
In 2013, Canada's largest Atlantic salmon open net pen company was found by Environment Canada to have purchased 79 gallons of a cypermethrin-based product, illegal in Canada, and to have used it to combat sea lice in their New Brunswick operations in 2009 and 2010. The company's spokesperson was quoted in the Bangor Daily News in April 2013 as stating, "We didn't have anything that was effective and that was the issue." So I guess that makes it okay. The company paid a $500,000 fine.
The open net pen industry would appear to see the only role of aquaculture regulation to be that of supporting its unfettered growth. Not hard to have that opinion when the federal fisheries minister speaks of these companies as her clients. Self-regulation is also put forward as a viable option. It could, after all, be seen as saving the government money.
I would ask you, senators, what punishment would fit the crime? In a case like the leases in St. Mary's Bay, with 2 million fish, with a mortality rate of 25 per cent, the company could still expect to receive $450 million after an 18- month period, the time it takes to grow the fish to market size. A $500,000 fine would hardly, it seems, be much of a deterrent.
Throughout the past five years, SMBCA and other community groups like us in Nova Scotia have been told that governments will only deal with facts. Interestingly enough, that came up in the previous panel. With all due respect, senators, facts are hard to come by. At a 2010 public meeting with provincial and federal government representatives, prior to the approval of the St. Mary's Bay leases, we were asked to submit written questions and were told that we would receive written responses. That was in 2010. We are still waiting. We have received not one response.
When, through access to information requests, we seek information on issues like diseases and escapes, we're generally told the information cannot be made public as it is proprietary and its release could negatively impact the finances of the company in question. When we report to government what our fishermen see when they're on the water near these sites, we're told that's anecdotal and government deals only in facts. How, senators, can we possibly expect to have the facts when they are denied to us? We are, in effect, systematically disadvantaged.
Finally, PRing up, and here I am talking about public relations. The open net pen industry is characterized by spin. Their feedlots are, after all, sustainable. There are no escapes, there are no threats to wild salmon, lobsters thrive around the feedlots, ISA is naturally occurring and we need not worry about its health effects on us or wild fish stocks, we shouldn't concern ourselves with pesticides and antibiotics, there are lots and lots of well-paying jobs, and on and on, and that those that oppose these feedlots are tree huggers, naysayers and activists — and based on the previous panel I'm now adding "hijacker" to that list — with very deep pockets. With the money that this industry has at its disposal, its own and that provided by government, we know who will have the last word.
Senators, I ask that you dig deep into what is really going on with this industry. Communities, fishermen, First Nations, consumers, chefs and Mr. Cohen can't all be wrong. And now NAFTA.
Thank you for your time. I look very much forward to answering your questions.
The Chair: Mr. Purcell?
Carl Purcell, Member, Nova Scotia Salmon Association: Mr. Chair, all the senators, on behalf of the Nova Scotia Salmon Association we would like to thank you and the committee members for allowing me to make this presentation on behalf of the association.
Nova Scotia Salmon Association believes that all forms of aquaculture are a necessity in today's society and will occupy an even greater role in future years to help supply the food supply for populations.
But, and it's a big but, we cannot support the present method of marine open pen fish aquaculture as practiced in Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada. The method used is invasive; it's not environmentally friendly to the marine environment. If there is to be any open pen fish aquaculture there must be a change or we'll be back here again at another time. It's invasive.
The reason for rejection of the present method is based on a concerns of escapes, the genetic pollution of wild salmon stocks, pesticides, sea lice, disease, and as you've heard already, bottom residue or fouling.
The NSSA also feels that there has not been sufficient support for land-based, closed containment aquaculture. There has been no true accounting between both methods of aquaculture. This is what's needed. And we are against an environmental act. My understanding is that the industry is pushing hard for an environmental act. This would be completely wrong. The ocean is part of fish and it must stay in the Fisheries Act.
NASCO, North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization, in 2010 gave Canada a failing report card on finfish aquaculture due to sea lice and pesticides. That has not been cleaned up.
I'll briefly mention escapes. It was mentioned by a previous person in the panel before us that aquaculture did not play a role in the demise of wild Atlantic salmon. I'm not too sure about that. Let's, for a minute, look at the inner Bay of Fundy. Forty thousand wild Atlantic salmon used to roam the inner Bay of Fundy. Now there are less than 200. There is no scientific evidence, but there are a lot of coincidences here. In 1986, the aquaculture industry jumped immensely in terms of sites and so forth in inner Bay of Fundy. That is also the time that the wild Atlantic salmon started to decrease. In 2011, there were over 200,000 aquaculture salmon swimming around in the inner Bay of Fundy. This versus 40,000 wild Atlantic salmon, a ratio of five to one.
The Magaguadavic River, which is in New Brunswick, is the index river for looking after escapes. This river once had 800 fish swimming, wild salmon. It has now less than 12 wild salmon. There's a problem here. In 2013, there were no escapes reported, but all of a sudden 80 aquaculture fish showed up in the Magaguadavic River system. Where did they come from? The industry said, "Well, they were all different sizes." That very well could be. If they were different sizes then there's a problem out there. If there are different sizes, they came from different sites of different pens. The industry has no control of escapes.
I mentioned disease. That was mentioned previously as well by some of the speakers in the last session. ISA has always been present in the wild. Has it ever been reported that it had a negative effect upon wild salmon? No. A wild salmon catches ISA, it slows down, it either dies or it's eaten by another fish. When you have 500,000 fish in a closed environment, one fish gets sick, they all get sick. Over 90 per cent of the population will probably be affected by ISA. From 1996 to 2006 over $75 million was paid out by the Canadian taxpayers for ISA. Between 1996 and 2004 there were over 6 million aquaculture fish destroyed. The industry wins both ways. Why practise good husbandry? If in fact your fish make it to market, you make a big profit. If they don't make it to market, government writes a cheque. That can't continue.
Sea lice: Wild salmon and sea lice have always lived together. The problem was once quoted by industry that, "Wild salmon destroyed my aquaculture industry." Wild salmon did not destroy the aquaculture industry. Wild salmon and sea lice were always there. What happens is, when you have 500,000 fish in a small area, you are going to get sea lice. Sea lice carry disease, both lethal and non-lethal. Eight sea lice on a smolt will kill it.
Pesticides: The Deputy Minister of Fisheries in 2010 said that New Brunswick fishermen, aquaculture fishermen, were having a problem and that the tolerance of Slice was not effective in containing sea lice. They used cypermethrin. We know what happened. That was mentioned earlier. Then we tried AlphaMax. Pesticides only have negative effect on aquaculture fish, not on wild fish. Wild fish and sea lice have lived in harmony for many years.
I will not go into the pollution. That's been mentioned before by Mr. Lamont. So I'll close for now.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Ms. Fuller?
Susanna Fuller, Marine Conservation Coordinator, Ecology Action Centre: Thank you again for the opportunity to present. I will also augment in my comments so that I'm not repeating what my colleagues have said.
Just to know where my thinking is coming from, I do work for the Ecology Action Centre. I have a PhD in marine biology, focus on benthic ecology, which is the seafloor. But I've also just recently come from serving as a commissioner on the Ivany Commission, which has gone around Nova Scotia trying to engage Nova Scotians on a new way of thinking about our economy and really meeting the challenges that we have, not just in Nova Scotia, but I think in Atlantic Canada, with our population and the need for economic growth.
I want to note the importance highlighted in that process of sustainable economic development, excellence in regulatory enforcement frameworks, public engagement and consultation, and economic planning in natural resource industries. They're held to high environmental standards.
That's so you know where I'm coming from.
I think much of the opposition from open net pen fish farming comes from the fact that in Atlantic Canada and Nova Scotia we have seen the impact of what poor management has done to our marine ecosystem. We have seen the impact of poor fisheries management. Many of our communities live that every day. Communities are no longer tolerant of that type of mismanagement and I think that this really gets at why we are asking for much higher environmental standards, particularly in the marine environment, which is a public resource. As Dr. Grant said earlier, this is not on private land. It's not on private land and, therefore, what happens in the public realm should actually have a higher level of scrutiny, but it needs to engage the public. I think that this issue has, otherwise you would not be reviewing it as a Senate committee.
There's a fair amount of distrust. I think that comes from the lack of enforcement of the regulatory framework we do have, the changes to the Fisheries Act in the last year, open net pen operations no longer having to undergo environment impact assessment, and there's no public consultation process anymore. Canada has completely failed to implement its Oceans Act in terms of integrated marine planning and, therefore, we're far behind other jurisdictions when it comes to looking at how we manage our resources and our industries in the ocean.
I would argue that one of the issues — and I'm speaking really only on the impact of open net pen fish farming — I think we have a lot of opportunity in shellfish farming and closed containment — is that we have essentially violated the public trust on this issue. My colleagues mentioned several whether it's a court case, the use of pesticides, the failure to treat effluent. Things that we know are wrong in the terrestrial environment we are allowing to happen in the marine environment.
I'm going to touch briefly on economics because we do need jobs in our coastal communities. I don't think we think often enough about what kind of jobs and what industries will provide enough jobs and quality jobs. One thing that we did as an organization about a year and a half ago, so these stats might be slightly outdated, is a comparison of jobs created per million dollars of revenue in various coastal industries. We focused mostly on Nova Scotia, but we have some stats from other provinces. So in Nova Scotia all aquaculture has 13.2 full and part-time jobs per million dollars of revenue. Open net pen only has 6.7. Shellfish only has 82.4. Margaree River angling, 28 jobs per million dollars of revenue. The Exploits River angling, which is the recreational fishery, has 35.5 jobs per million dollars of revenue. I believe Senator McInnis spoke about the value of the recreational fishery to the Canadian economy. Nova Scotia lobster fishery, 12.5 jobs per million dollars of revenue. Nova Scotia tourism, 26.7 jobs per million dollars of revenue. The lowest jobs per million dollars of revenue is open net pen finfish farming.
So if our goal is to create sustainable, resilient communities we have to have a much broader perspective on what we subsidize, what we promote and what we do research on in terms of promoting and making sure our coastal communities can still exist.
I'm not going to talk very much about science, but I will highlight a few that, from the Ecology Action Centre's perspective, we are quite concerned about. We recognize the impacts of open net pen aquaculture and the fact that external costs of these operations are borne primarily by the ecosystem within which these operations exist. Increasingly, in different industries we are seeing better environmental practices, we are seeing certifications, we're seeing companies becoming very aware of their environmental impact.
I attended the Rio+20 Summit in Brazil two years ago, and there were 500 companies, global companies, who committed to better environmental practices. None of them were aquaculture companies at the time. Some of the recent research shows that Atlantic salmon are breeding in wild salmon rivers in British Columbia, as Mr. Purcell indicated. We know the impact of sea lice infestations on migrating salmon populations. The failure of fallow sites in Nova Scotia to recover from open net pen finfish farming is now being researched, not by government and not necessarily by academia, but by communities that are desperate to have data. I think that that's a really key part of this.
As Mr. Patterson mentioned, we cannot get the information, communities can't get the data. You should absolutely be able to get data about a public resource. We're able to do that around fisheries management and wild fish populations, we should be able to get that around finfish farms on public land.
I think that summarizes my comments for the most part. I do hope that you are doing a thorough scientific review.
As the scientists who were on a previous panel noted, we have had extreme cuts to science. We are considering changes to pesticide regulations while we have cut all marine research into toxins in the marine environment. I think we have to really revisit how our regulatory systems are upheld by science and that we have evidence-based decision making. That is something we need to return to. I feel quite strongly about that, particularly when something is in the public realm.
I'll end with that.
The Chair: Thank you to all of you.
We'll begin with questions from Senator Wells.
Senator Wells: Thank you, panel, for your presentations and for attending.
Ms. Patterson, is it your position that no amount of stronger regulation could satisfy your concerns?
Ms. Patterson: I believe that is the case when we look at the scale of aquaculture that we're seeing around Nova Scotia at this point in time, yes. In terms of open net pen, in terms of feedlots, correct.
Senator Wells: Would that be for all species?
Ms. Patterson: Certainly for salmon and trout. Certainly we're not talking shellfish aquaculture.
Senator Wells: Not filter feeders or anything like that.
Ms. Patterson: No.
Senator Wells: Mr. Lamont, you're in the lobster business and I recognize you're an exporter. So have you noted a change in the lobster biomass in the area in which you operate if there are aquaculture sites there, finfish aquaculture sites there?
Mr. Lamont: We've noticed dramatic displacement. If you have a fish farm, an open net pen farm in a given community, over time the lobsters that were in those historic areas get displaced to other locations. We don't have enough documentation as to precisely what has taken place, but the displacement factor is self-evident. The harvesters in individual communities can speak to it in spades.
Senator Wells: We did hear from some that had the opposite opinion. I don't even know if it was an opinion because their catch rates are fact rather than opinion or conjecture. I just wanted to note that there is obviously a dispute in that area.
Mr. Lamont: Yes, I'd like to comment. We aren't very good at the concept of causation. We see catch rates increase, we see the prevalence of open net pen farms, and we say, "Well, the farms must be helpful to the lobster stock." Quite the opposite. We have had incredible increases in lobster biomass over the last 10 years. The biomass throughout Canada and the United States has doubled. We used to harvest 150 million pounds of lobster on an annual basis and we now harvest over 300 million. But we have not analyzed causation, and to suggest that catches are up around fish farms is absolutely correct because they're up everywhere, but the catch, the lobster biomass, has been displaced and displaced dramatically.
What we have no idea about is what mortality we have caused in the lobster biomass with treatments for lice and other toxins. So we better investigate that one very carefully before we draw those kinds of conclusions.
Senator Munson: Thanks very much for coming.
Now I'm totally confused. We've been at this for about three or four days in Newfoundland/Labrador and here, and we hear from brilliant scientists and so on, and Dalhousie University, and we hear a very passionate discourse on why these things may not be truly based on science. Now, the train has left the station. I guess the fish have left the pen. I mean, it's great to have this debate, and I have a few questions.
Are any of you suggesting that shutting down open pen fish farming completely in Atlantic Canada? Is that what you're saying to us?
Mr. Lamont: Two years ago, 116 organizations throughout this region called for a moratorium: no additional open net pen farms until and unless we had studied the environmental impacts, the economic impacts, the socio impacts. That's what we've called for and most of us stand by that request today.
Ms. Patterson: I'd add to that. I mean, we've asked on many occasions, "Show us where it's worked? Show us where it's worked and where there has not been disease?" Senator Munson, I'd suggest you read The Telegram of St. John's today, a very good article — it's incredible — in terms of what's happened in Newfoundland this year and over the past year or two in terms of aquaculture sites there. The reality is that there is no one good example of a healthy open net pen feedlot. If there is, someone should show it to us because we can't find it. We don't know. It's not just in this country, go to Scotland, go to Norway.
The company that was recently bought by Cooke Aquaculture basically failed — I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong — because of the ISA outbreak there. Look at what's happened in Chile. I mean, it's a cyclical issue; it's just repeated over and over and over again.
Our feeling in the community I live in and many others when it comes to the job issue, is that we're putting at risk a species, in this case, lobster, that is the lifeblood of the community in which I live. And with one bad traceable lobster, one, in St. Mary's Bay, our communities will be destroyed. You've lived this in other communities in this country. But that's what will happen based on the comments that Ms. Stewart-Clark talked to you about in terms of the whole issue of what's going on in China and elsewhere, that we need to have the best lobster in the world. Traceability is a good thing for us as long as we've got pristine water. But the moment you get one lobster that's got a problem, they won't be buying our lobster.
Senator Munson: I lived in China for five years, so it's scary what you're saying.
I just want to get your view points on mussel farms and so on. Are you opposed to those as well or are these, in your estimation based on your science, are they safe? You say you are in favour of aquaculture in some form, but not the open pen form. What about mussels and so on?
Mr. Purcell: It was the finfish that we're basically concerned about here.
Senator Munson: Right.
Mr. Purcell: I don't know that much about mussel farms, that type of thing. I was a member of the advisory panel and also a member of the roundtable, and shellfish and so forth were brought up, but the big one that caused most of the controversy was finfish farming.
Senator Munson: Mr. Lamont, you mentioned not to take these guided tours, but we did and it was interesting to watch. What are you telling us? If I became a sleuth of some sort and I went by myself to one of these communities with an open pen environment in the middle of the night what would I see that I haven't seen thus far? I mean, they talk about cameras underneath and so on and so forth, we certainly didn't see that, but what would be of interest that would perhaps enlighten myself and the committee on this whole debate or conversation that we're having?
Mr. Lamont: I'd like to take the opportunity to forward to you precisely what you could see. We have colleagues who are in communities in this province who are committed to filming, I won't say 24/7, but they are filming and documenting throughout the week precisely what takes place on a farm. We can show you in documented form. There are feeding practices that are suspect, there is the buildup of environmental sludge that is just reprehensible; the regulations that are in place are not being enforced in any serious way. We don't have the capability within the regulating community to enforce what should be done. You have open net pen farms which are substantially greater than their legal lease size. They grow just mysteriously out in the water. There are no regulators there present to check the sizing and so forth.
So we can forward to you, for the benefit of this committee, documented evidence of the kind of thing that's taking place in open net farms around the province.
Senator Munson: Thank you for that. That might be quite helpful.
When you hear the word "pesticide" — as a person who hasn't followed this conversation, I recently joined this committee — normally you think of the front lawn. Of course, my son has told me we have to use the organic, all this kind of stuff, and we did that, even though it was more expensive, and you see a dandelion dead. What's the component in these pesticides? I'd just like to understand that whole process.
Ms. Fuller: Why they're using it?
Senator Munson: Yes. Well, not why they're using it.
Ms. Fuller: It's a sea lice treatment. It kills crustaceans, right? So a sea lice is a crustacean and it would kill that insect. I mean, it's not an insect, but that type of crustacean.
There are two issues. One is that we don't know where those pesticides go because we've stopped tracing them.
Well, there are three issues. Lobster larvae are essentially the same thing as sea lice at a larval phase. They're the same thing. So if you've got lobster larvae in the water column, you've got a lot of pesticides and you will kill lobster larvae.
I think the third issue is the accumulation of those toxins and those pesticides in the sediment. I do believe that there's an internal committee with Environment Canada looking at what that accumulation might look like, and you should maybe look into that. They're looking at the length of time they are active in the sediments.
Sea lice is an issue, and it's arguably why the production in New Brunswick has been down by 40 or 50 per cent. It's why illegal pesticides were used to try and deal with that. Anytime you get a whole bunch of animals anywhere and you get a pest outbreak, you're going to have to try and treat it.
But the problem with using pesticides in the marine environment, in the aqueous environment, is it disperses and you don't know the impact. We are not studying the impact. There were toxics labs set up in St. Andrews, New Brunswick, a brand new laboratory that now is completely shut down and has no funding to do any of that research.
Mr. Purcell: As of a couple of years ago, we also do not know the half-life of these chemicals in the marine environment, in the water column. How long do they stay? Where do they go? What effect do they have on the other systems of fish and crustaceans? We don't know that.
Ms. Patterson: Antibiosis.
Mr. Purcell: Yes.
Senator McInnis: Thank you for coming. Yours' is an interesting point of view and provokes a real opposite point of view as to what we've heard from a number of panelists.
Just a couple of comments I wanted you to comment on. The previous panel said, in essence, that there was a need for considerable more research and investigation. If you were in the audience, you heard what they were talking about, wild salmon and the effect on wild salmon, that type of thing. However, they suggested that marine aquaculture could proceed and perhaps should proceed concurrently while these investigations are being done. I'd like your comment on that.
We have not heard much discussion on this, and I think it's important you mentioned it. In the House of Commons, the Standing Committee on Fisheries stated, "While it is possible to raise salmon in closed pen containment facilities, it may not be economically viable." And the federal government said at the time, "Only profitable for high value niche species e.g. juvenile salmon, sea bream or halibut." I'd like your comments on that and what the risk to the seas might be in closed containment, and how it would be treated, and if that would happen in closed containment, and any other challenges that you see there.
I'd like your comment on why, or if you believe, that the development of marine-based open pen farming aquaculture in Canada has flat lined. I mean, the production has basically flat lined.
Mr. Purcell, you were on the provincial panel that travelled the province consulting on regulations, new regulations that are about to come, and without revealing what's in there, because you wouldn't know the end result, would you comment as to whether that consultation was worthwhile and you think it might possibly be advantageous down the road. Could I have some comments on those points?
The Chair: There are a lot of questions there, so whoever wants to start answering.
Mr. Purcell: I remember the last one best, so we'll start with that one.
There were 42 meetings across the province in 22 different places. The only people that attended them were ones that had concerns type of thing. I attended 22 of the 42 meetings and made notes, and the majority of the people there were concerned about finfish aquaculture in the present form type of thing. They were very worthwhile. I think the two panel members paid attention very well. What was probably even more important was the roundtable. The roundtable, I thought, was needed. There were a lot of comments made and a lot of resolutions came forward. Hopefully, we discussed these issues enough so that it gave information to the panel members.
What did concern me was, because of the diversity that we had and the members that were there, we did not get into the nitty-gritty. We scraped the paint off the house, but we did not paint the house. There was a lot more that could be done. For instance, in terms of closed containment, land-based, we did not really get into those areas in any great detail. We missed that. The siting situation for aquaculture, we went around it, but we did not get into the issues, into the meat of it. But I think we did provide enough information so that the two-member panel would be able to take what we have discussed and so forth and go with it from there.
Ms. Fuller: I'm just trying to think of the many questions in your comments.
With regard to closed containment, it is more costly than open net pen primarily because you're paying for the services that are provided naturally by the ecosystem, the open net pen, and you're paying for waste disposal, things that we would expect any terrestrial farm to pay for, you're paying for your lights, you're paying for your air quality. But what you can do is control the environment much more, so you can control temperature, control oxygen, control things that you cannot control in the marine environment. It is going to be more expensive, the infrastructure. Obviously you're recreating the marine environment on land. But you have a much more controlled environment. And I would say that in the marketplace right now there's a huge demand for closed containment, partially because there is consumer concern around open net pen finfish farming.
In terms of flat lining of salmon aquaculture in Canada, I think there's huge opposition on both coasts. There's a public opposition. There's the concern on the West Coast particularly around wild salmon interaction which is why you have a moratorium on farms in the Broughton Peninsula area.
Here in Atlantic Canada we've seen ISA wipe out farms, and it's done that again and again and again. We saw that in the early nineties in New Brunswick, every farm got wiped out by ISA and then they slowly got bought up. But the only way you can make this industry work is to have a large enough company that if they've got ISA in Chile but you've got production in New Brunswick, or you've got ISA in Newfoundland but you're doing okay in Nova Scotia. It's really the only way that it can work from a financial perspective. Say you have a sea lice outbreak that you can't control. If you don't have enough volume and biomass, you can't survive those diseases and sea lice outbreaks. In part, I would say the industry survives because CFIA has bailed it out. They have in the past. I think CFIA stopped, actually, bailing out when there is disease because it's not affordable.
Mr. Lamont: Those are terrific questions, senator. Maybe I can briefly take a try at each of them.
The previous panelists no doubt suggest that, although additional science-based research is needed, we should carry on and we should not be risk averse. We should carry on with open net pen activity and promote the industry and let it become what it should be. I make no bones about it; I believe we have to take exactly the opposite approach. I would recommend the precautionary principle that when you have a set of circumstances that you're not sure of the outcomes, you're not sure of the impacts, you don't press on and expand the business model, you take a break and analyze. We've said around the table how far Canada is behind some other countries in the world. That's a wonderful thing. We have a chance to get it right. We in Atlantic Canada, we in Nova Scotia, could be worldwide leaders in responsible, sustainable aquaculture, so let's take a break and figure it out.
In terms of the research component, I think we should be very cautious of proprietary research that is funded in part or in whole by corporate interests. If a company has a financial or a material benefit achieved from the results of science-based research, you really have to question the merits and the appearance of the whole thing. We place Dalhousie University, in my view, in a huge conflict of interest to be partnered with NSERC and Cooke on a $1.5 million or $2 million funded project to determine the impacts of aquaculture. That's not a good position for that university to be in.
In terms of closed containment, I wouldn't normally comment as an expert, but I will in this case as a practical expert. The reason is this: The model for closed containment of open net pen salmon and trout is virtually identical to what we do in Nova Scotia today in live lobster. We have water treatment facilities in which we can keep lobster in pristine condition for six to eight months, on-land, temperature controlled, ammonia regulated, oxygen carefully regulated facilities that are conceptually virtually identical to what open net pen on-land facilities are like. We can do that for reasonable cost. This notion that feedlot operators will tell you that, "We can't afford this model," it's just bogus. For the volume that we can have in any species in an on-land closed containment facility, the costs are not out of line. They're particularly out of line compared to free out in the ocean. If you want to use the ocean as your septic and that's our baseline comparison, yes, they're more costly. But as Ms. Fuller has indicated, consumers are willing to pay much more.
In terms of whether open net pen has flat lined, I surely hope so. I work every day to try to destroy that model and to try to promote on-land closed containment. But I can't say that for sure. I think it's going to come down to consumers. I have an ad with me that came from Farm Boy in an Ontario supermarket in which net pen salmon is being promoted. It's, first of all, called sustainable salmon. Well, by any reasonable objective standard, it isn't sustainable salmon. It links the Ingalls family in Letang, New Brunswick. God bless them. "Our Ecofriendly Salmon Fillet are a Good Catch." I'm not sure what ecofriendly are, but it says, "Fresh from the cold Atlantic waters off the coast. They're ecofriendly, BAP certified and guaranteed fresh." The consumer who sees that ad has no idea what he or she is consuming. There's no indication whatsoever that it's farm raised; there's no indication whatsoever that it could be treated with pesticides; there's no indication that it could be ISA infected. I've taken the opportunity over the last two or three years on many occasions to invite politicians, senior public servants and business members to my home for an ISA barbeque. "Come on over tonight. Let's live dangerously; let's try an ISA barbeque." No one has yet taken me up on the invitation. I rest my case.
Senator McInnis: I was only going to comment that CFIA told the committee that it was good for humans, but fish couldn't eat it.
Ms. Patterson: No. I think, senator, what they said is that as far as they know it's not harmful to humans.
Ms. Fuller: I have one comment about the current process. Mr. Purcell sits on the Doelle-Lahey Panel that's going on in Nova Scotia, and I sat at the round table. One thing that is very good about it — while we did only scratch the surface — was that it has been a very long conversation and it's brought all stakeholders together, and a fair amount of common ground was actually found, with shellfish aquaculture common ground. It remains to be seen what happens, but the call for a federal aquaculture act will completely undermine any process that is going on in communities and by the province to actually come up with a regulatory system that may be okay for industry and for communities. I think that's something to take into consideration when you're thinking about what the federal jurisdiction might do. I would argue that the industry's probably lobbying quite hard for an aquaculture act so that things like provincial differences in regulation don't happen. That's something to keep in mind.
Ms. Patterson: I would like to comment. I come back to Senator Wells' question when he asked is there any sort of regulation, if it was regulated at all that would be okay. My answer was no and it's still no, but I guess what I really would like to say is that in part it's because — even with the current regulations that we have in Nova Scotia — they're not enforced. Given the five years that our community has lived through and what we're seeing within our community, part of it comes down to the issue of trust. Some of our concern lies in the fact you can have the best regulations in the world, but if in fact those regulations are not going to be enforced and if in fact there are not serious and significant repercussions if the regulations are not adhered to, those best regulations in the world are worth nothing.
I apologize if I was short in my answer, but that should give you a sense as to some of the why.
Senator Wells: No need to apologize being short in your answer. I'm a senator, we can take that.
What I wanted to get at, were you blindly categorical or were you frustrated at the gulf between the practices and the regulations?
Ms. Patterson: Sadly, both.
Senator Wells: All right.
Ms. Patterson: If you look at the situation I described, when we were attempting to negotiate the settlement, to try to move away from the court case, and we asked the province to maintain their own regulations, which are to keep a healthy ocean, oxic, and then for the province to say to us, "No, sorry, we won't do that. We will not guarantee that," despite that it's in the regulations. I mean, when the health of the oceans are so important to our community and so important to you, so important to all of us, we had to walk away. You have to step back.
So what I'm saying to you is just that there's a real lack of trust and faith in the whole regulatory system. I know Mr. Purcell and others have worked really hard on this. We want to believe it's going to be good, we truly do. I'll tell you what we thought at the time. Our feeling was that if the province of Nova Scotia actually enforced the regulations they currently had on the books then the cages in St. Mary's Bay would be gone in no time. Because we know, based on everything that we have seen, that they would not be able to maintain, for example, the oxic conditions. We know from the science that we were trying — you know, once again, remember who we are, what we're trying to learn and what we understand is going on elsewhere — we truly believed, and I do to this day, that if Nova Scotia had adhered to the current regulations then they would've had to shut down the sites in St. Mary's Bay. They would never have gone to full production.
Senator Wells: So there are further issues of compliance and enforcement.
Ms. Patterson: Of course.
Senator Wells: Thanks for the clarification.
Ms. Patterson: And changing the rules, which is true. There's no enforcement, there's no monitoring. I can tell you that. They don't go out to the sites, they don't inspect, as Mr. Lamont has suggested to you, sight unseen, just arriving on a site. They actually are taken to the site by the company in question, so they call up ahead and say, "We're coming out to have a look." So it's like people are coming for dinner at your house — I'm just saying if people are coming, you tidy up, right? Well, it's similar.
Ms. Fuller: I think one of the things that is actually stifling better practices and innovation, in particular the salmon farming, is that only one company sells the smolt and only one company sells the feed, and it binds any smaller operators to those distributors, and so they cannot speak out. It also makes closed containment difficult because often you cannot buy smolt if you're a closed containment operator. You have to figure out where to go get smolt because it won't be sold to you.
So I think there are things that are inherent in this industry, at least in Atlantic Canada, that are keeping it from being a much better industry and keeping us from exploring more closed containment and keeping us from getting to a better regulatory perspective because there's essentially silencing of some of the smaller operators.
Mr. Lamont: With your indulgence, Mr. Chair, I'd like to tell a very brief Newfoundland anecdote.
The Chair: You're taking a chance, but it better be brief.
Mr. Lamont: I'm confident on this one.
I have a colleague on the Lobster Council of Canada. She's from Harbour Breton, Newfoundland. Her name is Mildred Skinner. Mildred is a family person. One of her sons moved away to Toronto about four years ago because of lack of employment opportunities in Harbour Breton, just as there is a lack of opportunities economically in many parts of Atlantic Canada. The fish farm was created in that community, open net pen, her son applied from Toronto. He was successful in getting a position, and Mildred's son came back to Newfoundland from Toronto. You can imagine how a mother feels when her son who has been forced to move away for work, is able to come back and get work right in the community. As a family story it was superb.
Mildred Skinner had the bravery to stand up at out Lobster Council of Canada and say, "As much as I wanted my son home, and I surely did, this is wrong." She pointed out before any of the tragedies that are taking place in communities in Newfoundland, what was taking place, the mortality, the ISA, the lice treatments, extreme warm water, low oxygen, just inappropriate holding of the resource. When Mildred Skinner was prepared to stand up and be counted and say, "Look, despite the fact my son came home for a job, I want this shut down." That said everything I needed to hear. I just wanted to leave you with that.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lamont. I know Mildred Skinner and I know the town of Harbour Breton quite well.
Thank you for your presence here today. We were delighted to hear from you. When we set out in January on our study into aquaculture we decided then and there we would hear from people that are involved in the industry, the science, the politicians, those who have concerns with the industry. It's always nice to hear another perspective, and this is all part of our discussions.
As I said to several others who have appeared before us, if there is anything beyond today or on your way home tonight that you think, "Oh, should've said that," or, "Should've mentioned that," which is always the case in situations like this, feel free to forward to the clerk. We're planning on presenting our report to the Senate in June of 2015. We have a lot of ground to cover yet and so we certainly welcome anything that you want to put forward afterwards if you so desire. I'm sure there are many people in the industry who would wish that you were all as quiet as the baby has been today.
With that, I wish you all well.
(The committee adjourned.)