Sustainable Aquaculture — Issue No. 37 — Monday, March 12, 2007 (HTML)

2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON SUSTAINABLE AQUACULTURE
MINUTES AND HANSARD

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON
SUSTAINABLE AQUACULTURE



CONTENTS

		Page

Presentations		1103
	P. Marshall
	H. Bood
	C. Anderson
	L. Pepper
	D. McIntosh
	J. Fraser

Chair:	* Robin Austin (Skeena NDP)
Deputy Chair:	* Ron Cantelon (Nanaimo-Parksville L)
Members:	* Al Horning (Kelowna–Lake Country L) * Daniel Jarvis (North Vancouver–Seymour L) * John Yap (Richmond-Steveston L) * Gary Coons (North Coast NDP) * Scott Fraser (Alberni-Qualicum NDP) Gregor Robertson (Vancouver-Fairview NDP) * Shane Simpson (Vancouver-Hastings NDP) * Claire Trevena (North Island NDP) * denotes member present


Witnesses:	Craig Anderson (Mayor, Village of Gold River) Hank Bood (Mayor, District of Port Hardy) John Fraser (Mayor, District of Tofino) Dave McIntosh (Mayor, Village of Tahsis) Patrick Marshall (Campbell River Economic Development Corp.) Larry Pepper (Mayor, Village of Port Alice)

R. Austin (Chair): Good morning, everyone. My name is Robin Austin. I'm Chair of the Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture. We are here this morning to hear briefings from some of British Columbia's coastal mayors. I would like to note that today's meeting of the committee is a public meeting which will be recorded and transcribed by Hansard Services. A copy of today's transcripts along with the minutes of this meeting will be printed and made available on the committee's website at www.leg.bc.ca/cmt/aquaculture. As well, an audio recording of today's meeting will be archived on this website.

Before I begin, I would like to ask committee members to introduce themselves, starting on my far right.

D. Jarvis: Good morning. My name is Daniel Jarvis, and I'm from the North Vancouver–Seymour area.

R. Austin (Chair): Thank you very much. I would now like to invite the coastal mayors to begin their briefing.

P. Marshall: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. My name is Patrick Marshall, and I serve as an EDO/general manager for the Campbell River Economic Development Corporation, Rivercorp. I've been seconded by the coastal mayors to assist in serving as the chef de mission for the trade investment mission to Stavanger, Norway.

Today I'm joined by their Worships, Hank Bood, Port Hardy; Craig Anderson, Gold River; Larry Pepper, Port Alice; Dave McIntosh, Tahsis; and John Fraser from Tofino. Mayor McDonell sends his regrets. Due to a personal conflict, he was unable to attend today.

I have a brief presentation for you, after which each mayor will be in a position to provide their perspective on their work in Norway as it relates to the committee. I'd like to, first of all, thank the committee for this opportunity to share the findings of the mayors from their trade and investment tour as it relates to aquaculture. They were very excited when they returned from Norway at the things that they were exposed to and learned and wished to share with a number of people. Actually, at this point, this will be their first public contribution.

The other mayors and communities that are part of this group…. I would underline the word "group." This is not a coalition; it's not a society. It's very clear that each of these mayors were elected in their communities. They come from various walks of life. Today's group is a sampling. We have two former resource workers, two retail and service commercial workers and one government worker. So they are very representative of B.C.'s coastal economy.

Other mayors that form part of the group include Stewart Alsgard, city of Powell River; Jim Brass, city of Comox; Gerry Furney, town of Port McNeill; Gary Korpan, city of Nanaimo, represented by Joy Cameron, councillor, Dave MacDonald, district of Port Edward; Ken McRae, district of Port Alberni; Cliff Pederson, Zeballos; Herb Pond, Prince Rupert; Cameron Reid, Sechelt; John Rowell, Alert Bay; Heather Sprout, Sayward; Dianne St. Jacques, Ucluelet; and Starr Winchester, Courtenay.

Each of these communities… What was really unique about this was that they were invited by the mayor of Stavanger to participate in exploring trade investment opportunities in 2006. It wasn't until July 2006 that we were able to start the process of getting private and public contributions to make this happen. One of the critical things for this group is that most of them are small communities and certainly don't have the financial basis to participate in this type of effort, so it was rather unique in that way.

Once we had engaged and left for Norway, we were told by the government of Canada that this was the largest delegation of community mayors to participate in a program like this, and I stress it was a trade and investment program. The contributions that were made by the Coast Sustainability Trust and the community investment support program of Industry Canada are all based on trade and investment. There are no government programs and no private sector companies that will contribute to mayors to go to a conference in and of themselves.

They did participate in AquaVision, which is a meeting of global proportions — of scientists, of companies and communities from around the world involved in aquaculture. Part of what we'll report today is their effort there.

If I may, I'll start the presentation. This was a small group. We had 13 mayors. We've created a new term in economic development called "pan-regional." There were no political boundaries between these mayors in terms of their areas on the coast that they represent, so basically, there were really no barriers to their working together. In many cases they hadn't had the opportunity to work collaboratively before. I found it was quite a great experience that way.

We had small communities like Tahsis…. This is His Worship Mayor Pepper being interviewed by A Channel. One of the things we learned from the provincial

government is that it's not a bad idea to embed a journalist. We had Jonathan Bartlett join the mission from A Channel. I have a DVD of the five-part special that A Channel ran after the mayors' return to share with the committee as well. I'll leave a copy.

We had 12 working days in Stavanger, Norway. We were also joined by Marilyn MacArthur, who is the economic development officer for the Mount Waddington regional district, who I was very pleased to have on our team. While in Norway the mayors were joined by the Greater Stavanger region mayors. This is an image of them touring a land-based lobster farm. It was quite remarkable and indicative of some of the new technologies that are being deployed in Norway.

They also had an opportunity to visit Europe's halibut farm, which was quite shocking for many members of the investment tour — to believe that people were actually farming halibut. In fact, one of the things they looked at while we were over there was the culinary economic sector and how many ways you can serve halibut. Apparently, there are quite a few, other than fish and chips.

Certainly, they were engaged by the mayors of the greater Stavanger region. This is the mayor of Kvitsøy, which is located approximately 70 nautical miles from Stavanger. It's a group of islands out in the middle of the North Sea. Its economy is sustained both by tourism and hospitality as well as aquaculture and the wild fishery.

One of the key points and real eye-openers for me — and the mayors will speak to it — was a visit to the Rygjabø fish centre, which is a school at which they teach wild fishery, farm fishery, veterinary services, processing, fishmongering and culinary arts — all in one program in two years.

It's an integrated program. We had not seen anything of its kind in Canada. Apparently, it's rather unique in the world context, where you have people who have interests in rural communities that have land-based farms who are both anglers and commercial fishers as well as farm fishers, and they switch back and forth between each of the industries.

The farm-fresh lobster was an eye-opener for Canadians while we were over there — also, part of the new technologies being developed in Norway — and farm-fresh urchins, which is also something that is new in terms of technology and science.

We were also helped by the Centre for Aquatic Health Sciences, based in Campbell River. Linda Sams, as the CEO, arranged for many of the science and technology meetings and presentations that the mayors received. Here she is in the Rygjabø fishmonger…. It's basically a retail centre that also serves the island. This is where the island gets their farm and wild fresh product. So you'll see farmed salmon, wild salmon, farmed halibut and wild halibut side by each in the storage display case.

Another part of the mayors' tour was what we call economic development business retention. We have a number of Norwegian companies that are major investors in British Columbia, and the mayors were able to deliver messages to those companies to ensure that they understood that their investment was welcome in British Columbia. Actually, the companies were quite taken by this group of mayors, who on the face of it may appear to be competitive, but here they were working together for the betterment of British Columbia and their coastal communities.

Part of the trade investment mission was representation to His Royal Highness, Prince Haakon Magnus of Norway. It was a very special event. The image that we have here is, of course, His Worship Mayor McRae from Port Alberni presenting the prince with a Hockeyville jersey from Port Alberni. I thought at that point that he might have risked getting arrested by the security group, but we actually made it through that day.

Another part of this that was very important was the mayor-to-mayor contact. This is Mayor St. Jacques with the mayor of Finnøy, who hopefully will be participating this year in the women and resources conference that's held every year. There was quite a lot of exchange in terms of the context of their business. While it is a very different social, societal and political culture in Norway, there are quite a lot of similarities.

These rural communities were basically starving coming out of the second war. Without things like offshore oil and gas, without aquaculture, the advents…. They totally credit the stabilization of their culture to those economic assets. But it's also very deeply ingrained in the culture. While much of the culture is steeped in rural, regional areas, there is a clear tie between cities and the rural areas — something that the mayors found very useful to understand — which is not quite the case in British Columbia.

The stability and rural values that were demonstrated in Norway are something that we have the elements of in British Columbia but need more of a context. The mayors had asked where the protesters and the homeless were. Apparently, the attitude in Norway is a lot different than what we have in Canada, and the mayors found it something very positive.

A couple of the other elements that the mayors had investigated basically revolved around Stavanger being named as the capital of culture for Europe in 2008 — something that they're working up for — and centres for culinary excellence and their open-port program.

This is Ramsvig, which is a corporate retreat just out of Stavanger. The mayors had a meeting with the president of the Norwegian chamber of commerce, who has very strong ties to British Columbia. Again, we were very surprised at how well known and recognized British Columbia is in Norway.

One of the highlights of the tour was a discussion that we had videotaped. The person on the left is Maren Esmark, who is one of the leaders of the World Wildlife Fund in Norway. The mayors had an opportunity to engage in a one-to-one conversation with her, and the outcomes were startling. We'll talk a little bit about that as the mayors make their presentation. Very positive. As a presenter to this committee previously, I had my own eyes opened at what we have in Canada in terms of solutions and approaches to engaging in and

Another area that the mayors were introduced to was eco-based management — basically, a concept that areas have an opportunity to participate in the management of the marine ecosystem. It's something that is being talked about in British Columbia's forest industries, but certainly, if I could give an example to the committee….

If you took all the work that was done in the central coast land and coastal resource management plan…. I witnessed all of the federal specialists working with the provincial specialists in terms of ecology, in terms of conservation. If we could have maintained that in some way in British Columbia and then connected it to the local communities, both first nation and municipal, we would have had something truly unique. This is something that it is really strongly encouraged to pursue in terms of British Columbia's applications.

They were also given a presentation and were startled to find out how British Columbia is actually involved in Norway through the Hardangerfjord project, the sea lice project. They received presentations from veterinarians who are working on the heritage fjords in Norway, where they actually allow for the movement of farms when wild fish are scheduled to be released from rivers in Norway.

It was a real eye-opener to see that there are solutions in place. In fact, the World Wildlife Fund representatives kind of felt that Canada had all the solutions, especially on the west coast, in terms of legislation and operations and communications, but have just failed to engage them. It was another element that the mayors were very surprised to see in Norway and, also, how highly regarded Canadian environmental organizations — in terms of those companies that provide environmental solutions — are outside of Canada.

Following the return from Norway, His Worship Cameron Reid and I participated in the World Wildlife Fund dialogue on salmon aquaculture. We saw a number of the members of the committee come and witness at least one of the presentations — here again, an ongoing dialogue that's taking place globally in support of sustainable aquaculture. It came once to Vancouver. We probably won't see it here again.

It was quite interesting to see the public interest groups participate. We started to understand that public interest groups are there to communicate positions, not necessarily to find solutions, where the World Wildlife Fund has expressed an interest in finding solutions to support sustainable aquaculture worldwide. That was also an eye-opener.

Another part to the mayors' mission was to explore how offshore oil and gas industries and ocean industries were managed by the government of Norway. Here we have the deputy mayor of Stavanger with a representative of the oil and gas industry association and the directorate that enforces or reviews offshore oil and gas with respect to environmental compliance.

Here is another area that was a big eye-opener for the British Columbia mayors, in that they have an integrated oceans and coast community department where the local governments work with the national government in terms of setting up ongoing maintenance and oversight of offshore oil and gas, connected back to the communities that benefit from the programs. It's much more than just an economic benefit. There are whole social, environmental and governance elements to it as well.

It was quite ironic that we spent some time with the Minister of Fisheries from Newfoundland and Labrador, who was in attendance at the AquaVision show. He actually has family on the coast here and is very conversant in what's going on in British Columbia. We also had representatives from British Columbia's ministries — namely, Mr. Castledine — who were in attendance. But certainly, having a senior politician from Canada at the conference was very helpful and, basically, also supported the role of the mayors.

This is just a shot of part of the coastline in the Stavanger area that could easily pass for Big Bay up in Desolation Sound — not only a lot of geographic similarities but, also, a lot of dissimilarities in terms of what we've experienced in British Columbia around the aquaculture file. Contrary to our experience in British Columbia, the Norwegians have found a way to bring their environmental organizations and their companies and their communities together to work collaboratively on solutions and maintain a sustainable industry.

Some of the recommendations generally from the group of mayors…. They consider the definition of sustainability to include four legs on the stool, not three. In terms of society, they are interested in stopping hearsay and standing up for accountability from groups that make claims. Basically, what that means is that a lot of the communications noise that continues on about the bad parts of the industry needs to be actually challenged. People making statements need to be held accountable, as evidenced by the recent Creative Salmon decision that was undertaken by the Supreme Court.

From a society perspective, enabling local participation in the process…. As an example, currently I chair the Elk Falls Community Advisory forum at which representatives from organized labour, the company, the community, the first nations, the neighbours and Reach for Unbleached all meet on a monthly basis to talk about the company's record in terms of environmental management — specifically, about air emissions.

On a monthly basis we also have two representatives from the Ministry of Environment that come to participate. The community has found a way to provide accountability in terms of the relationship between the company and provincial government in a different way. It's non-combative; it's very positive. That's something that we would hope that the committee would consider looking at for aquaculture in British Columbia as well.

The other part, from a societal perspective, is the support for positive health awareness. This whole term "aquatic health science" is a relatively new term to the mayors. They felt that it was something that we should hold up front because we get caught in the science debates. I think one thing that the mayors can agree on is that we need to maintain the health of the aquatic environment as it relates to communities.

Now, under environment — again, supporting accountability in operations. It means that from the company perspectives, there are organizations such as the Canadian Business for Social Responsibility. They put out a book called Good Company Guidelines for Corporate Social Performance which is a checklist of things a company should be doing to ensure that they're engaged with communities.

Also under environment — managing farms for lice. One of the things that the mayors were surprised to hear is that in the heritage fjords in Norway, they've been tracking the release of wild salmon, and it's about a three-day process. They're talking about relocating farms away from the path of migration of the fish. They've got it down to that level of science.

Again, under environment, integrating approaches to uses of the marine environment — that means making sure that the wild, conservation, sport, farmed and subsurface aquaculture are all working together at the same time. In British Columbia we have resources scattered through various ministries. Again, that's an area that the mayors would appreciate being looked into.

Under economic, the mayors found that a lot of what British Columbia is doing is divesting its obligation to be a government. As an example, we have the Pacific Salmon Forum, which is an agency that was created outside of government and doing things that maybe the government needs to take back. Certainly, in watching public interest groups, the relationship between CAAR and Marine Harvest is something that could easily be enabled through this area management or eco-based management approach through government. These are things that need to be taken back.

During the course of all of the investigations in the last few years, the mayors recognized the multi-millions in losses to rural communities in British Columbia because of files being held up or other governments in British Columbia basically stopping processes that are accountable.

I'll move forward to governance so we have more time for the mayors to speak. In terms of governance, the Norwegian examples showed integration of fisheries, conservation, environment and aquaculture under oceans and coastal communities, minister of state. This could be done as a transition to something more permanent. But we have so many resources that are excellent out there, including federal resources, which are disjointed.

Taking back responsibilities from functions that were pushed outside of government and other downloads to other communities was an area that they've been very successful in, in Norway. They don't have all these other non-accountable, non-elected groups out there determining the path for industry, for communities.

Also, they're linking the operators between communities and government through a regular form of communication, not just the permitting process. Communication seems to be an area that British Columbia is a lot weaker in than Norway. Aside from the 100-percent disclosure laws they have in Norway, we learn quite a bit from that exposure.

At this point I would like to conclude my part of the presentation, if His Worship Mayor Bood would like to start and provide the committee with some of his impressions.

H. Bood: We spent about eight days in Norway. As Patrick mentioned, we're all from different walks of life. I'm a retailer, and I found that in retail you don't necessarily have to have the best idea yourself. You often can go to Nanaimo or Victoria and look in a store and come up with a good idea and copy it. It doesn't take nearly as much energy.

One of the things I was interested in going to Norway for was to have a look and see how a country that's been in the aquaculture business for about 35 years is doing in that particular business and how it relates to its environmental movement, its industry, etc. What I'd like to do is probably just deal with a couple of items.

One is the item that I found very interesting, and that is the Norwegians and, in general, the Europeans — the touch they have with each other as far as the environmental movement goes….

You saw one of the slides. I think we had the young lady who was second-in-command for World Wildlife, and one of the speakers at the aquaculture conference was Dr. Jason Clay, vice-president of the centre for conservation management at WWF U.S.A. The first thing he spoke about was that the world's oceans are basically farmed out, or the wild fish are basically farmed to capacity or used to capacity — 97 percent.

At the conference, in any case, there was no doubt about the fact that in order to provide fish and aquacultural products for the future, farming was the thing that was going to happen. The challenge was to do it in a manner that was beneficial to everybody.

Given that I'm not sure how stringent the environmental movement actually is in B.C., because you just see snippets on TV, etc., it seemed to me the definite difference was that the environmental movement knew that if it was going to be influential, it needed to work with industry and government as a triumvirate and come up with a plan that worked for everybody.

A couple of things that Dr. Clay said that were unusual as far as I was concerned were: "Unlike other NGOs, WWF U.S.A. has been among those to favour discussion with the aquaculture industry, instead of militant campaigning. We're in this to get results, and we feel we stand a better chance of achieving them by coming together and discussing matters. "

Actually, the young lady that you saw in the clip there was even more straightforward and basically said, if you look at the DVD, that they're wondering why there is such a confrontational type of attitude in B.C., because if you're looking to get things done, the way to do them is obviously through discussion.

I think I'll move on to something that actually floored me in Norway, and that is the standard of living there — the standard of living as judged by the United Nations as being the top in the world three years in a row. They have four and a half million people. They're basically the same size as B.C. They have basically the same coastline, the same opportunities. Whereas we don't appear to be able to get it done in a timely fashion, they appear to be able to do that. In fact, they have done it.

The result is quite astounding. By the time the oil fields are done, which I think is in about 15 or 20 years — don't quote me exactly on that number — they're going to have 300 billion NOKs in their petroleum fund, which is three trillion NOKs. To give you an example, a hundred NOKs is basically $17, so you'd divide that by five.

They've been at it — for example, the oil and gas and the farm-fish industry — since about 1965, and that corresponds directly to the time that they were a very, very poor country to becoming the number one country in the world as far as standard of living goes.

The petroleum fund, for example, funds the country's entire pension plan contribution. It's $65,000 U.S. per man, woman and child in Norway for that particular aspect of things. You have to realize that they make about $96,000 a year. They're taxed at, I think, a 50-percent tax rate or above.

If I was to describe Norway, I'd say if you were going to pick the political parties, you'd pick maybe the Liberal Party for entrepreneurship and innovation and, at the same time, you'd pick the NDP for social programs. They combine the two and seem to be able to do them all, with the help of the industries that they tax to a large extent.

I think the oil and gas base rate for taxation is 68 percent. It doesn't appear that they have any trouble having oil and gas companies come and exploit their resources. So in a sense, they've used their natural resources and the companies that exploit them to fund their social programs. I found that to be very interesting.

The other thing that just absolutely blared right out at you when you saw it was their infrastructure. I remember Roger McDonell crossing under one of their new bridges, which looked somewhat — and I say somewhat — like the Lions Gate Bridge. As we were going under it to one of these fish farms, counting the vehicle traffic that went over the bridge, and it was one, two…. When we met with the mayors in Norway, they all came through tunnels. The infrastructure there is absolutely phenomenal.

What struck me and I think the rest of the mayors immediately is that we have the same base set of opportunities. But here's a country that has not only taken advantage of them, it's done it for 35 years. And here it is, the number 1 country in the world. Even though we are in the top 5 as far as living standard, I don't think my fellow mayors will argue with me that there was just an absolutely noticeable difference in living standard there, especially as compared to coastal communities up and down the coast.

The other thing Norway does is put an emphasis on the rural population — the things that work well in their rural communities. For example, aquaculture is emphasized by the government, and it's subsidized by the government in some cases.

The rural communities are especially healthy there, whereas I can bring you to places in Port Hardy — I'll name one, McGill Trailer Park — that are Third World countryish. I definitely noticed the fact that while there are some hurdles to cross when you exploit your resource base, there are also some definite rewards at the end of the road, if you're willing to go there.

I think I'll just leave it at that. Those are my two very basic impressions. They're number 1 because the different factions in Norway work together. They exploit their resources, they're innovative, and they're entrepreneurial.

If I was to summarize it a little bit…. Whereas I think we in B.C. have a tendency to look at a problem and have that stop us before the process starts, they are more willing to start the process and deal with any difficulties that may come along in a cooperative manner once they get there. So that's it for me.

C. Anderson: Craig Anderson, mayor for the village of Gold River. Getting back to what Mayor Bood had said about Dr. Jason Clay from the WWF, what struck me right away when he got up there was that there is no fighting amongst the environmentalists and the company. Their position is: "Show me. Show me you can do it properly. Go out there and do it, and we'll all get along." I can't remember what state he likened it to down in the States, but the Show Me state, anyways.

The one fishmonger that Patrick was talking about, where we went and where they were training the kids. You could either take the education route or go out and get your hands dirty in the industry after grade 10. It was sponsored by Grieg Seafood. They're one of the big economic drivers in Gold River right now. Over the last four years they've invested $30 million. They employ 140 people directly, between Gold River and Campbell River, and they have an annual payroll and operating costs of $28 million.

I think it's just fantastic. They run the hatchery in Gold River. They're looking to expand. The municipality of Gold River and, I think for the most part, a lot of the fishermen that come and fish Nootka Sound don't mind the fish farms being there. The technology that

they're using out there is great. There are very minimal escapements. They report to the government if they have any. When they do their processing, everything is netted off around their facilities in order that there be no live escapement of fish.

I enjoyed the trip over there. It was just fascinating, along with the…. They're raising black cod, halibut. The sea urchins were pretty neat. Through their research and development, they've spent a lot of volunteer hours on the lobster.

My impression of Norway was people working together. It didn't matter where you went, everybody was working hard, and they all had some fairly common goals. It was really interesting to see the young people being as enthused about cleaning fish as they were about going out and having a beer. It was really a thing where you could see the communities, the children and business — they were one.

It wasn't like where we have sort of a stack in British Columbia. You've got government, then you've got industry, and then you've got family. Family is very important over there.

Certainly, aquaculture is a major part of Norway, but the other industry that's there is just as important. I didn't see infighting between industry players. Everybody seemed very cooperative.

We asked about homelessness, and we were told there is none. I made it my mission to walk around Stavanger into the outlying areas, and you can't find it. Everybody wants to work there. It was really welcoming to see people that are 18 years old thinking about what they're going to do when they retire. We don't usually start thinking about that until we're in our 40s here. But they were working on it. The children in university were so enthusiastic when they spoke to us about aquaculture and what it meant to them.

Coming from a small community that was totally dependent on the forest industry — a pulp mill that went bankrupt, and we revived that…. Had we had another industry such as aquaculture in the area, it would not have been as severe an economic blow as what we took. It would have been a lot better for everybody.

I think the diversification that we saw in Norway is something that we would have to try and get more of in the rural communities in British Columbia. I live on Quatsino Sound. We have 1,500 hectares identified for shellfish by government. We have no shellfish licences. First nations got about 20 hectares, and that's it.

We've had people trying to get in there, but the task of getting shellfish permitting and licensing is onerous. I know guys that had $15,000 or $20,000 in it, and then here's just another step forward, and they bailed — three different operators.

We have to make British Columbia waters more receptive to small entrepreneurs. It was the little mom-and-pop operations that we were seeing in Norway that were actually doing pretty good — not just the big companies. You could see people that were moving around from job to job, and they could learn more than one job. They weren't afraid to learn more than one job.

I think, for aquaculture in British Columbia, our opportunities…. We haven't even started to touch it yet. It's an area of food production that we should utilize a lot better than we are.

Of course, the thing I really liked over there is that they pay their mayors really well — something we should look at in British Columbia. If you're a working person that gets elected there, you get your wage as you are mayor. You become a full-time mayor, so you are spending a good amount of time on moving your country forward. It's something that B.C. should look at. I'm not sure this committee would be the one to push that forward.

I think it's an area that we miss out on. I'm retired; I can be a mayor. It's not a big deal. But for some of the working folks, it's hard to put the time in that you need to. For me, the whole trip was about people and how they function in that country. I think we've got some room to improve in British Columbia.

D. McIntosh: I'm Dave McIntosh, mayor of the village of Tahsis, west coast of Vancouver Island — kind of in between Mr. Pepper and nowhere.

We took a terrible hit four years ago when they closed our mill. That was our only source of income for our whole community, so we lost all our jobs. We've been struggling. The opportunity to go to Norway to study the aquaculture there came up. Our community did invest quite a substantial amount of money in trying to start aquaculture — shellfish, clams and stuff — but like Mr. Pepper said, the investment that was needed was more than our townspeople could put up.

We have three tenures right now. We're actually still working on trying to get a fourth and trying to get things moving forward on this. But it's a really long, hard struggle. When we did go to Norway, it was really impressive on the variety of aquaculture over there. It's not just salmon farming. It's everything. Pretty well anything that grows in the ocean, they grow on land over there. It's just amazing what they have done and how far they have gone.

At AquaVision there were 30 nations there. I believe there were 450 delegations from 30 different nations there. It was amazing how many different countries in the world — Vietnam, Chile — have surpassed us by a long shot now. We're being left behind.

The general consensus is that the world is eating healthier now. Fish consumption is rising naturally because the world is eating healthier. Natural stocks are declining, so the need for aquaculture is very important to fill that gap that's quickly growing.

One other interesting point was in regards to all the negativity about salmon farming at a WWF presentation at AquaVision. They spoke, and they said that fish farming or aquaculture took a wrong road in its development.

We've come around. We know the negatives of it, we worked on solving them, and they have solved the issues. Now all we've got to do is just go ahead with it.

For a community like Tahsis, it might be our only saviour. Forestry is gone. We've lost that. We've acknowledged it. We can't follow it anymore because it's just not going to be there anymore. We have to turn to aquaculture to survive now. We will be turning that way, and we hope we get your support in doing so.

J. Fraser: Hi. I'm John Fraser, the mayor of Tofino. Just a little bit of background. I've been in the fishing industry for quite a while, among other jobs I've had. I was a crab fisherman for about 20 years. I've had a salmon licence. I've had a processing plant and retail fish store, all of which I sold to become the mayor. So now I'm a full-time mayor and retired.

My first and most lasting impression of Norway was a culture of success. Everybody there believes that they can do things. They said: "You know, we have the highest standard of living in the world, but we can learn. We can be better. We do this the best of anywhere in the world, but we can learn, and we can do it better." It was just pervasive all the way through everything they did — that willingness to always be better at what you're doing, no matter how well you did it.

It was an attitude that was just amazing to me. Everybody bought into it, which I think leads to the cooperation between the NGOs, the government and the business people because they all had that same attitude of: "We don't need to have poor people, and we don't need to have this. We can keep people living well on the land where they want to be." It went through everything, and it just bred success all the way down the line.

Granted, Mayor Bood made quite a bit of reference to the offshore oil and gas money, but I don't know how big a piece that really played in it. They obviously had money, but you look over at Sweden with no oil and gas, and their standard of living is just about as high. Their successes in education and life span and all those kinds of things are just about as high, so it's not just about money. It's something else.

We can use some of the things in terms of improving our own industries. The area management and their flexibility is something that I think we really should look at. I know that in Clayoquot Sound, Creative Salmon has been trying to reposition a site, because they say this site would be environmentally better. They get nothing but grief about it: "We don't want you to move your site. We want you out of here." You know, come on. They're in there, so let's make it flexible.

Let's allow them to improve their industry rather than put roadblocks in the way every step of the way. This is a company that has bent over backwards to be the most progressive fish farm company in B.C. — for sure.

I don't see them getting a lot of cooperation. It kind of brings me even to forums like this, which were really being a platform for misinformation and public dissemination of misinformation in terms of what's really going on.

I think everybody has to get together and say: "Look, some of this stuff is just not true. Let's put it out in the public. It's not true. All the evidence is that fish farming and aquaculture and shellfish farming can be done in a sustainable manner." We're seeing it being done all over the world.

The whole social conscience of the world to contribute to food sources for other people besides ourselves…. We might not need all this fish to eat, but there are certainly people in the world that do need fish to eat. It's a high-quality protein, and I think it's our responsibility as politicians to get the word out that it's okay to do these things. We're going to make it work just the way that they've made it work for the people in Norway and for the people of the world.

P. Marshall: Just to conclude, Mr. Chair, I want to apologize to the committee. At the time I was tasked with putting this together, I had several bake sales to do to put the money together to get the mayors there. I didn't have the self-confidence to see how I could get the committee there too. If there was time left, I'd strongly urge the members to follow the path of the mayors and investigate those other countries, because the parallels are eye-opening.

I think this was life-changing for many of the mayors. They've said so. It was for me too. We have the resources. To be told, literally yelled at, by a representative of WWF Norway: "You Canadians are still dithering. Get it done…."

I didn't know they had rednecks in Norway. But she was quite convincing that we have the technology here, if we acknowledge that yes, we have sea lice; that there are management ways to deal with it; that we engage communities and the public in the process and take back the role of government. That is all parties. That's not just the government party; it's the opposition, and it's the other parties involved in the political process in British Columbia.

It really and truly was inspirational. I'm sorry that my PowerPoint didn't kind of capture that. I'd like to leave you with a DVD of some of the video clips from A-Channel, which was embedded, with the group — just as evidence. I'm sorry I didn't bring enough for everybody.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to present. I'm sure the mayors would be pleased to take any questions.

R. Austin (Chair): Thank you, Patrick. I'm going to open the floor to members to ask questions.

A. Horning: I was intrigued to hear you say that everybody there works together. You mentioned the environmentalists and industry, how they were working

together. You talked about the industry, but I didn't hear you talk much about the wild salmon.

Where are the wild salmon over there? How do they communicate and how do they work with the fish farms, to start with?

P. Marshall: If I may, Mr. Chairman. What I mentioned in my presentation…. It wasn't just a school that's integrated. They have eco-based management where the sport fishers, the commercial fishers, or the catchment fishery, the fish farmers and anybody using the marine environment…. They are working locally in these eco-based management groups so that the environmentalist is at the table along with the company representatives and mayors.

In Norway the mayors are a little bit different. We have electoral area directors here in British Columbia. They'd be called a mayor in Norway. They're working as part of these committees as well. On any given day somebody who is working on a fish farm is capable of going to the hatchery, is capable of doing — whether it's seine-net or trawlers — any of those types of commercial rigging. It's all integrated, so there's no separation. They all play an equal role in determining how things happen in the aquatic environment.

A. Horning: Obviously, their success is working together, because that seems to be what I heard from all of you. Okay, my question is: here in British Columbia, where do you think we'd start, to get everybody working together?

H. Bood: I'm not sure where you'd do that one, but to answer your previous question, 99 percent of the salmon that's consumed or that's shipped out of Norway is farmed salmon — it's considered their premium product; they get the big price for it — and 1 percent is their wild fish. Their wild fish, and the enhancement of wild fish, is their number-one priority in the fjords, without a doubt. They save their wild fish, basically, for their sport fishery — like angling.

A. Horning: Okay. My other question was to do with the export of the farmed fish. Are they, like B.C., 90 percent exported? Does anybody know what their export ratio is compared to what they consume there?

P. Marshall: I don't have that answer, but I'd like to answer your previous question about where we would start in British Columbia. We have resources split amongst different ministries. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food has an aquaculture group. The Ministry of Environment has a position that's responsible for oceans planning. I think the province could lead the way, with support of opposition in all parties, if there was a focus, a transition. You're able, through Intergovernmental Affairs, to bring on Fisheries and Oceans Canada to participate as well.

If, when this committee is finished its work, this became a mandate — it would be a short-term mandate — you would be able to engage independents that are still in commercial fisheries. In spite of what people think, there's still a viable commercial fishery in British Columbia. It's just changed the same way the forest industry has changed.

If we could have that leadership at the provincial level, it would be a step towards working collaboratively. I think we see these dialogues. You can have dialogues. Everybody can have a dialogue. But until the government charts a path in terms of leadership and steps out, we're not going to have the opportunity to make that happen.

A. Horning: Well, my first reaction, I think, is that we've got to start. When I look here, I see that the mayors are working together to start with, so we've got to start.

J. Yap: Thank you, Mayors, for your presentation and for being our eyes and ears in going to Norway, attending the AquaVision convention and sharing your thoughts, impressions and ideas with us. I appreciate that. Sadly, representatives from this committee were not able to go.

A couple of questions. First of all, in one of the slides you had a photo of a land-based lobster farm. I think I heard Mayor Dave McIntosh say that they'll grow anything from the ocean on land over there. Did you come across a lot of land-based aquaculture there?

D. McIntosh: Not a lot. In their research and development they're studying quite extensively about things like sea cucumbers, sea urchins, eels — pretty well everything. The research is all being done in tanks on land.

J. Yap: So your comment was with regard to the research that's being done on different species?

D. McIntosh: Research and development. Their lobster is solely, 100 percent done on land. Their lobster growing….

J. Yap: Okay. There was no Atlantic salmon, for example, that was being farmed on land, in tanks, closed containment?

J. Fraser: The land-based was mostly for the small fish. The halibut were started on land in the first year and then moved to tanks. The lobsters were only grown up to a certain size in those round tanks you saw. It was quite experimental.

As a guy who spent 20 years in the crab-fishing industry, I was fascinated with it, because the problems

are the same. They go through so many moults before they get to a certain size, and they'll eat each other up unless you are able to manage them and keep them essentially separated or of the same size, same year class.

J. Yap: Throughout the conference, what were your impressions with regard to the possibility of land-based, closed-contained salmon farming?

P. Marshall: We asked that question of everybody over there. In order for it to be commercially viable, they needed the room that the ocean provides to do it. If you look at a map of where the Norwegian production sites are, they're all ocean-based. There are no land-based. They demonstrated through their work that it was not a viable approach.

They've also demonstrated that their techniques for environmental management are such that the issues that some of the public interest groups have raised in Canada have been resolved years ago. It was very interesting and an eye-opener to see that.

Certainly, when you're growing lobster, as His Worship Mayor Fraser has pointed out…. It was very intriguing to see the silo with trays in it. But as they pointed out, with halibut — and this was shocking to some British Columbians to see farmed halibut — it was basically so large that they had to be in the ocean in order to make it viable.

C. Anderson: Going back to the land-based, a lot of them said it was cost-prohibitive because of the cost of energy. I talked to our MLA Claire Trevena about this. At the old pulp mill site in Gold River they have an energy contract with B.C. Hydro now. Their intention is to do land-based warm-water fish there, probably within the next three years. That's only because they'd be using the waste energy from their power plant. They need to do something with that, but right now they're telling us that it's cost-prohibitive.

S. Simpson: A couple of questions. One is around the issue…. I saw the slide there where I think it said, "Sea louse resolved," and there has been some reference to having solved those problems.

What we have heard from European representatives is, in fact, an acknowledgment that sea lice are a very significant problem that needs to be managed. They look at it with SLICE and in a number of other ways, but they acknowledge that it's a very significant problem that they are trying to deal with both through treatment, through SLICE treatments and through farm-siting — how and where they site their farms to protect some migratory routes.

As was mentioned in Norway, they've closed a number of fjords to aquaculture in order to protect those fjords for the wild fishery — presumably, for their sport fishery and other things. I'm wondering. The slide you put up that said, "Sea louse resolved" — what did that mean?

P. Marshall: That was my reference to the veterinarian who is working on the Hardangerfjord project. Sea lice are an issue for aquaculture. We were presented in British Columbia that all salmon farms should be land-based because they create sea lice.

Last year we were told by the student from Alberta that his research, his numerical model, that sea lice were killing 95 percent of the wild salmon stock…. In Norway we found those things to be untrue. In fact, the practices that government enables through legislation and through enforcement, in terms of managing marine-based aquaculture…. Really, it's not an issue. It's not the issue that we were told it was. So yes, sea lice are an issue. Yes, it can be managed. And yes, it can be legislated, and it could be done environmentally.

These were all kind of new concepts to the group when we were given the presentation over there. In fact, the same veterinarian presented here two years ago. I don't spend 100 percent of my time in the aquaculture business to have known that, but they came and tried to have those discussions in Vancouver and were basically turned about by the public interest groups who were still using it as a public information campaign tactic.

When I put up on a slide, "Sea louse issue resolved," I'm saying that through a combination of things, there's a way to manage it. What they're now talking about in the Heritage fjords — there are seven of them — is relocating farms during the escapement of the wild stock, as they move out. That's basically a new concept, but that was last September. I'm sure they've made progress since then.

Also, I think UBC…. The committee will have known that it has a piece of that project, the Hardangerfjord, I think. This was also a surprise to the mayors — that Canadians are involved overseas in finding these solutions.

S. Simpson: As a follow-up to that, one of the things that the Norwegian folks and the Irish and other experts who have talked to us from Europe and in some of the literature we've read and reviewed from Europe from government officials and others there who, I believe, put a little bit greater emphasis on the problem of sea lice than maybe has been talked about today….

They also talked about how to manage around that. Certainly, the question of fallowing of farms during migratory periods and that kind of effort is something that they've talked about as ways to manage so that you can, in fact, have an industry that respects the wild fishery. I think, as was pointed out here, the wild salmon here are a more significant industry still in this province than many of those wild fisheries are in Norway.

Have you given any thought to that? We know the industry has been, and understandably so, resistant to any significant fallowing strategies that are larger-scale fallowing around migration and that. Have you thought about that in terms of how to manage that or in your thinking about finfish?

C. Anderson: I do know that in Nootka Sound, Grieg Seafood, I think, have 13 or 14 sites. Seven of them are active, and when they finish harvesting one site and pull their nets up to clean them, they will move to another site for the next growing cycle.

Around some of the fjords being closed in Norway, what they've done is stopped the expansion of aquaculture. They haven't told the other farms they need to move out. They're just not allowing them to expand.

S. Simpson: One last question. Mayor Pepper, you talked about the mom-and-pop operations. We used to have mom-and-pop operations here in British Columbia, both in the shellfish aquaculture industry and to a lesser degree in the finfish aquaculture industry. Two companies, I think, pretty much own the finfish industry in British Columbia — both, I believe, Norwegian companies.

As we see the success of aquaculture starting to grow, we're seeing, and understandably so, greater investments from some of the larger shellfish aquaculture companies that are international companies. Do you think it creates challenges for us that the mom-and-pop operations disappear? Because you made that reference, and we now have what are mostly multinational companies that are in that business and who are coming in, seeing an opportunity and taking up the business.

L. Pepper: I think there's a lot of room for the mom-and-pop operations — certainly in my area, with 1,500 hectares. I've got a community of 1,100 people. There are probably 40 or 50 of them who would like to attempt mom-and-pop shellfish operations, not that they're going to get filthy rich on it. My sister-in-law is a shellfish operator in Fanny Bay and has been for 20 years. They're struggling with population growth closing them out, but there are a lot of little operators there who would like to come up into our area if it weren't cost-prohibitive for licensing and what not.

I think the mom-and-pops are willing to put in the work. They just don't have a whole lot of money like the majors do. I think the independence of the mom-and-pop operations is an important thing, and it's something to work for. People take pride in creating their own job.

S. Simpson: Just a very quick follow-up on that. My brother and sister-in-law live in Port Alice, and I've been there. It's a great community.

What kinds of things could government do — without throwing pots of money at it, obviously — to support mom-and-pop operations being able to get on the ground in this kind of marketplace?

L. Pepper: I think that one of the simplest things for me — and it may not be for accounting people — is the licensing fee structure. Don't make them pay all those fees upfront. Let them get operational and then start paying some fees, because that's the killer. You get in so far, you still haven't got a shell in the water, and you're putting out big fees.

I think that if we could graduate the licensing system, you would see a lot more interest. I know there are people in my community who would love to get into it, but they don't have the $50,000 to $60,000 in the bank. And the banks aren't interested, because it's unproven, basically, on our coast. So that would be my suggestion.

J. Fraser: One addition to that would be particularly relevant in Tofino. We have quite a few shellfish farms in Tofino, but we don't have enough that they can afford to have a processing plant there. It becomes pretty dicey by the time you have to truck all your oysters to Fanny Bay and back. That's where most of the profit goes: in driving them back and forth across the Island.

It's an economy of scale. If you're going to support the industry, you have to support it with enough potential leases that they can operate effectively in the area where they're doing it.

P. Marshall: The other part to that was certainty — if British Columbia can provide some certainty in terms of process. There are a lot of parallels here with the forest industry. We just shut down a shake and cedar mill, only to find out that it was the cash cow for the company located in Mission, and they resent having closed it now, because it was a 50-week-a-year process.

In the same terms, with aquaculture, both in terms of shellfish and finfish, we've had this fear of multinationals. We're now to the point where there are two companies in the finfish farms. There are basically two companies in the forest industry in the Island coast region.

In the seafood sector it's a different thing. We're starting to see them become like vineyards. If we can stabilize a little bit here over a period of five years, we may see that branding by location. There's always been Cortes oysters, which have been a certain level or brand that we've not seen. We may very well see the small mom-and-pop investments come back, but they would be syndicated in with the companies which have processing. But that's something that the market determines, not the government.

Certainly, if the government provided some certainty around processes; clarity in the science; its support of the aquatic health science approach; as well as area-based management, where all types of fisheries were involved in the planning process…. These are things that would help us get to that point.

C. Trevena: If I can clarify a point right from the introduction, Patrick. I think you mentioned John Rowell and Alert Bay were on the trip. John wasn't on the trip?

P. Marshall: No, actually, I didn't. I said they were the group of communities that were approached. Mayor Rowell was unable to participate in the visit. But we keep them as corresponding members of the group, so they receive communication.

C. Trevena: I just wanted to clarify that, because I know that John didn't go on the trip, and I know that

the village of Alert Bay is not particularly in support of aquaculture at the moment.

Rather than get into debate, I have a couple of questions. One is that we've had presentations from a number of people — from yourselves before, obviously, but also from first nations who were in Norway talking about the fish-farm-free fjords and that concept.

I wondered if that had been something that you had heard about, if it had come in any of your presentations and what you thought about that idea.

L. Pepper: Claire, we did see some of those fjords, and I think it's a great idea. They have no water flows significant to what we do. They have an 18-inch tide change, where we've got 12 or 13 feet. That makes a significant difference in the fjords — right? Their waters don't move that fast, so they have to be much more careful. Where we have the flow, we have a little more latitude.

P. Marshall: Mr. Chairman, if I may. Just for clarification, nobody said that all the communities were in support of aquaculture. This was a trade and investment mission, and those communities that were able to participate could. Please don't take that we're misrepresenting any of the communities' positions. As the committee well knows, any mayor that takes a position has to consult with their council, so that's not what this was about. This was about trade and investment.

C. Trevena: My other question is really, I guess, for Dave from Tahsis and Larry from Port Alice. You're looking more towards shellfish aquaculture as the way forward. Is this something, then, that the other mayors would be looking at? Or do the other mayors feel quite comfortable with the continual development, as we're seeing, of the finfish aquaculture that is obviously so prevalent in our communities?

L. Pepper: I'll just answer the first part of it, Claire. The first nations in Quatsino Sound are 100 percent supportive of shellfish. They want it to move ahead, and I think that's a big step. I think government has to take advantage of the fact that the first nations are onside in Quatsino Sound, and let's get it moving.

Now, there might be some areas over in the Broughton where they're not onside. But certainly, in Quatsino the Quatsino band is saying: "Let's get on with it."

C. Anderson: In Nootka Sound the Mowachaht-Muchalaht do have shellfish tenures, and they actively farm them. They bring them through Gold River, and I would imagine they would travel south to Fanny Bay to have them processed there. I haven't heard them speak out a lot about the fish farms. They do employ some of the first nations on the farms out in the inlet. Certainly, if we could get more shellfish tenures out there, my council would be supportive of that.

P. Marshall: With respect to first nations, some communities have changed their position in terms of shellfish development or any kind of marine development, and it's very much becoming part of their internal governance abilities as well. We've seen the Cape Mudge move from being totally against any kind of mariculture development into now being interested in developing both their beach-based production and any type of commercial production.

The other point that was interesting, that we saw over there…. There are two live well boats operating in the Vancouver Island coast region right now. In Norway there are 500. So as a sidebar to this industry, if it was determined that there was movement of fish and farms and fallow, it spawns kind of a new part of the industry that the first nations have high expertise in, which is the management of small ships on the coast. We could very well see the need for another ten or 15 of those types of boats, and they're very unique.

In fact, after we got back from Norway, the Norwegians purchased the ship construction company in Quebec to do that very thing. Apparently, Canadians are good as shipbuilders but not necessarily of the kind that we've been building in the past.

There are some interrelationships here between decisions in first nations and decisions in local communities that present some new opportunities as well.

R. Austin (Chair): Mayor Bood, I think you wanted to make a comment to Claire's first question.

H. Bood: One of the things that I think Norway does really well is that they don't…. Their fish farm licence doesn't require them to be at one spot if there is an issue with fish migration or whatever the issue might be. If I'm not mistaken — fellow mayors can correct me if I'm wrong — their licence is for a fish farm, so if there is…. In any kind of situation there are always difficulties of some kind that crop up at some point.

They seemed to think it was rather odd that we insisted that a fish farm be in a spot. What if you pick the wrong spot, for example? You have to go through that $250,000 process…. I don't know if you have to go through the initial process to find another site or whatever, which costs a quarter of a million dollars, to my understanding. Their licence is very movable, very easily. If a problem occurs, they move the farm. I think that's something that's worth considering.

D. Jarvis: Thank you, Mayors. Those were very interesting comments that you all made.

I wanted to ask Mayor Bood and perhaps Mr. Marshall about…. I think you said her name was Eidsvik, with the World Wildlife Fund. I assume that WWF means World Wildlife Fund.

D. Jarvis: Even as we speak right now, a demonstration by WWF is going on in Vancouver with regards to fish farms. I wondered if you'd talked to her about the problem that has occurred here, that we do

not work together and that we're at complete war with them almost — to that effect, if you want use such a hard expression.

Is that fund not controlled worldwide? Do they not advise people in other sections of the world? Do you know? Have they ever talked to Canadians?

H. Bood: I think probably the Canadian branch might be somewhat different from the European branch, but I can tell you that the European branch of the World Wildlife Fund, if those could be the words I'm using, was refreshing. They weren't standing back from their environmental positions at all. They were simply engaging, rather than sniping from the sidelines.

I think maybe I'll mention a few of the things that Dr. Clay said during his presentation. He said things like: "You eliminate the 20 percent that are rabble-rousing from the bottom on the environmental side. You eliminate the 20 percent of the companies that you're never going to change. You talk to the 60 percent of the people in the middle, and there you might find a consensus that's good for the whole deal."

He made a very good presentation at the aquaculture conference. What they've done is established four or five things that are possible problems. For example, in fish farming — farmed fish as well as all the other species that are farmed — there are sea lice and contaminants from feed, and there are things that you've all worked with. Well, what they've done — and I guess you'd have to peruse their list of experts — is taken the worldwide experts in the field to actually look at those problems and try to solve them for the World Wildlife Fund, rather than going through the analysts' "I said this; you said that."

I found that to be rather interesting and unique and probably something that's going to establish some science in that area. For me, it was an entirely fresh approach that might work.

P. Marshall: The World Wildlife Fund, we learned, operates differently in different countries. The dialogue on salmon, as Mayor Bood pointed out…. They're getting groups of specialists together to debunk a lot of the information that's been presented by many of the public interest groups. If there's a protest in Vancouver by Canada's WWF — and that is World Wildlife Fund, not federation; that's the wrestling federation — there very well could be….

I was surprised that the company in our community — Catalyst Paper Corp., one of the largest employers on the coast — has a working relationship with World Wildlife Fund Canada. They had the foresight to develop a working relationship to eliminate a lot of the misinformation about their industry. Certainly, I would expect that the aquaculture businesses in British Columbia, after this, will be looking to do the same thing.

Marine Harvest and CAAR have had a dialogue. From what they reported in that salmon session in Vancouver, it's been nice for the CAAR people, or the coalition of public interest groups, to befriend one of the companies. They're sharing and learning, and that's good. But it's going to take until 2040 until they finish that process.

I don't believe that British Columbia can wait that long. You're in a position now where — doesn't matter what party you are — if you can take the steps forward to start collaboration, then as Mayor Bood points out, you end up working with the 60 percent in the middle.

I find a lot of parallels to first nation communities. In my community, in Campbell River, you have one first nation community that has a militant side. We're local, so we know who they are. We know where they live. We know what they represent. But at the same time, they have a democratically elected side that the municipality does business with, and you end up doing wonderful things for the community.

It's not a black and white situation. There's a huge grey area, and I think that's what makes people nervous — operating in the grey area.

D. Jarvis: One quick question. Larry, when you were to talking to them about it or noted that they had a lot of smaller — i.e., mom-and-pop — operations, did you find out at all if the government contributed anything, other than maybe fees? Did they put any moneys into them?

L. Pepper: I didn't get enough time to talk to those individuals. But certainly, the ones that you saw working had assistance from somewhere to get started. Their boats were better than my charter boat. They didn't get that just by walking down the street. There was an indication that there was assistance from government.

There's also one less level of government. That's one of the issues that we have to grasp from B.C. We don't need the federal government on the B.C. coast. We'd be a lot better off as a group if the group was smaller.

G. Coons: Thank you so much for coming in today. I want to pick up on a couple of things.

While I was home for the weekend, I met with the biotoxin program in Prince Rupert about shellfish and Hartley Bay having their three pilot sites ready for seeding. Haida Gwaii is all ready to go, but there's no testing facility. They've got to send it down south, and most of their clams and shellfish are going for bait. One thing that's really needed on the north coast is a testing facility. I really sympathize with how our shellfish growers and clam growers are dealing with the issues these days.

The other thing that Hank brought up was the two ends at the far ends of the spectrum. I think that what we need to do as a committee is eliminate the two ends.

Also in Prince Rupert this weekend was the PFRCC, which is the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, an independent group that advises federal

and provincial governments. They've come up with certain situations. They were doing a tour in Smithers, Terrace and Prince Rupert, and I happened to go there. I found some of their studies to be pretty pertinent, and I'd like to talk about that in a minute. As far as dealing with our wild stocks, it is a viable commercial industry we have going, and it might be different than Norway.

How do you feel about the precautionary principle with our wild stocks? Do we need to do that? There were comments about starting the process and dealing with the issues later. I think a concern with British Columbians, with the environmental community and with communities is that we need to use the precautionary principle more stringently. What's your feeling on that — anybody?

P. Marshall: With respect to precautionary principle, I think what His Worship was talking about, about moving forward and then dealing with issues…. The world looks at British Columbia with kind of chagrin, because we have more environmental standards than the government of Canada, in many cases. We have been more stringent, and we know what the issues are.

You'll see in this videotape. It wasn't Eidsvik. The Eidsviks are the commercial fishing family from Prince Rupert and Campbell River. That's different. It was Maren Esmark from WWF. You'll see her yell at me: "You have the solutions. Just apply them." So precautionary principle — nobody's saying to throw that to the wind.

One of the things we're great at in British Columbia is ocean industries. Some of our best commercial fishers are some of our best fish farmers. There's been a lot of crossover. You wouldn't see it in the major urban centres or the metro areas, but when you live out on the coast, people have a very deep feeling about the environment. The same applies to our forest industry. They see themselves as environmentalists.

I don't think anybody is suggesting, as a certain mayor up on the north coast has suggested, that precautionary principles be thrown away. We have the science, and we can work with the communities. We have a disconnect right now because we're kind of all over the map. I think many of your constituents in the Pacific region are really hopeful that there's a way forward through this. There has been enough default to moratoriums or, basically, a copout, which British Columbia needs to step up and move.

G. Coons: One last comment about the science. The PFRCC, back in 2003, one of their reports said that in their opinion the moratorium was lifted prematurely when it was lifted, because the science wasn't there.

Do you think all the science is there? I noticed that in one of these charts here it talks about the key areas of impact: feed, disease, escapes, chemical inputs, benthic impacts from siting, and nutrient loading and carrying capacity. Do you think there's enough science there to continue with open-net fish farming exponentially, or should we use the precautionary principle?

P. Marshall: That list was from the World Wildlife Fund; that wasn't something the mayors put together. In terms of the time between 2003 and 2007, there has been a lot of exposure.

Certainly this committee has brought out a lot of what the understanding is, and quite conceivably the industry wasn't where it probably should have been. They've actually suggested that there's been a lot of change. The fact that we now have the Centre for Aquatic Health Sciences in British Columbia is a major step toward it and the sharing of information on those issues — the environmental issues or the issues of practice.

Right now we're kind of in a void, as we've pointed out. You've got resources inside the province that are kind of scattered. We don't have the wild, the conservation, the farmed, the beach and the various modes of ocean industries or science collaborating, at this point. We're still in a war mode, where people are keeping their heads down from being the subject of public interest groups that are campaigning.

Someone's got to declare peace and bring the parties together. It can't be just the environmental group; that's what government's job is. In fact, government is the stakeholder.

S. Fraser: I want to thank you all for coming and actually having the perspective from mayors from the Island — I guess you're all from the Island here. That's important. I know you have to walk a walk here, representing all of the interests in your communities, and that's often very difficult to do. You've got diverse opinions throughout your own communities on this issue, and we hear it in this committee.

I want to correct something. We are on the recording of Hansard here. Patrick, you mentioned when you were referring to Shane's question about the screen on the "Sea louse solved," and you were explaining the rational for wording it that way. You referred to I think it was Marty Krkošek as "that student from Alberta."

For the record, we did receive a report. This is a peer-reviewed report; this is a PhD thesis. It was done in collaboration with the University of Alberta, the University of Hawaii, Princeton University, and the University of Victoria. It was published in the National Academy, and it was sponsored largely by the National Research Council of Canada. We get a lot of science on either side of this, and we're trying to sift our way through it. I found that was sort of downplaying that report. I want to make sure that we keep it even here.

I know we're getting perspective from the mayors. Patrick, your perspective is quite promoting of the industry. I want clarification again. You've taken more of a lead role here. You've referred to "those public interest groups," or "that student from Alberta." There's subliminal stuff here. Who pays for you now? Are you industry-sponsored at this point?

S. Fraser: So the bake sale — who would have been the main buyers of the food there?

P. Marshall: Citizens of Campbell River. Actually, may I answer your question?

P. Marshall: With respect to the student, I'm sorry; I didn't have his name with me. I meant no disrespect to his work. While I was at the salmon dialogue, I asked him the question about accountability. Unfortunately, they didn't take minutes, and I didn't see any of the committee members when he made his presentation.

I asked him the question about 95 percent of the wild stock being killed by fish farms, which was what the media reported. His response was basically, "Well, I'm not really accountable for what the media says. If somebody wants to challenge me, they can challenge me in due process," as you do when you publish — whether it's a medical journal or whatever and, as you say, peer-reviewed. My point was that it was not…. There was no accountability on his part to correct the media, and he didn't issue any corrections with respect to the information that was misrepresented from his study.

I didn't mean to downplay, and if you're finding subtitles under what I'm suggesting, I apologize for that. My intent with this committee is not to speak for the mayors of the communities. My job was to set up a trade and investment mission. I'm certainly not here to represent the companies but to reflect some of the discussion that took place over the 12 days while the mayors were in Norway.

I do apologize, Mr. Chairman. By no means am I to misrepresent the role of the research that was done, but I did ask the question. I asked several questions at that session and received some very interesting answers. It's unfortunate that there were no minutes.

S. Fraser: I appreciate that, Patrick. I just want to make sure that that particular scientist wasn't underplayed as much as — on all sides of this. The perspective you bring from Norway is an interesting one. As we see, there are a couple of analogies that were touched on in Norway.

Of course, Norway has a large role in Canada through the companies that are working here. Norway has, and Gary touched on this, a relatively small wild fishery, to the extent that it's basically been relegated to the sports fishing industry. At the most, several hundred thousand salmon return there, while we still have tens of millions. They're quite envious of us for our wild resources still here, which is still a part of all of our communities.

When we see maybe a different level of scrutiny or criticism of the industry in B.C…. There are still wild fisheries here that people are concerned about saving, whereas in places like Norway they have lost a significant amount of that fish. It's not the same level of fishery out there. There are other places — Scotland, too — that have faced, not necessarily salmon…. Do you see that? Did you get that analogy where they might understand why we might be wrestling with these issues more here than they are there? I'd like the mayors to answer this.

J. Fraser: You know, I think they were almost more desperate about it because there are so few fish left, and they realize that. They were very aware of it, and I think that the way they're managing it is really trying to support their wild fish. Not that there's many of them — that's why each one is so important to them.

In terms of the sea lice thing — for a bunch of mayors, we know more about sea lice than we ever dreamed we would. We saw methods of managing sea lice and managing farms so that they don't necessarily create a problem with the wild stocks. The laying fallow in some places — that worked. In some places siting works. There are obviously places where it's just not appropriate to have farms — where they tend to collect and the sea lice don't go away. I'd rather see them manage in terms of moving sites around, as opposed to using SLICE. I think that that can be done in a lot of cases.

Also, from my speaking with local industries, particularly Mainstream…. Creative Salmon uses no SLICE, and they don't have a sea lice problem. In fact, in my seven years of dealing with farmed fish from them, I think I saw one on a fish one time, and it was like: "Whoa, what's this?" Even Mainstream doesn't have a lot of problems, but the levels that they have to start treating SLICE at are maybe 20 percent of what's a background level of wild fish in the area. I'm almost wondering if we're not using it too much.

If you catch a salmon around Tofino, it's going to have probably a dozen to 20 sea lice on it. Always has. In my years in the business, it's been about the same. They have to start treating in anticipation that there will be three in the future. So you're starting to dump chemicals on fish that aren't really collecting sea lice at all, that have a very low background level — just another thing.

I think there are ways of managing it and there are appropriate places to have farms. I think that's what we learned.

C. Anderson: In respect to the wild fishery there, they say between 600,000 and 700,000, and it's hasn't changed in 20 years. They were overfished in the past, at the turn of the century. Along the west coast here we have the federal government, which keeps cutting back on the fish hatcheries. They're really not managing effectively.

In Nootka Sound we have the Conuma hatchery, which is federally run. I think it's probably been cut in half in the last ten to 12 years. The fish farms in Nootka Sound, from what I can understand, when the fish are released from the hatchery, it's a straight shot out to the ocean. I think it's about 35 kilometres down the inlet.

In respect to Mr. Coons's question about science and should we just ignore it and jump right in with both feet? Well, there are precautionary issues there. We should be taking precautions, but right now we're being limited as to the amount of farms that are out there. Maybe in order to ramp that up…. Take our time. There's no doubt about it, but how much time is needed?

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): Now the Chair is going to indulge itself in a question, too, if I may. But first, I'd like to especially thank all of the mayors coming here from Vancouver Island. Many of you made a very, very long trip in not so very nice weather. We really appreciate the interest you've taken in this very important question we're dealing with and the time and trouble you took to come down here. Again, thank you for being our eyes and ears in Norway. Personally, I would have liked to have gone, too, but we didn't go, and we rely on your comments.

My question comes to a comment Mayor Bood made and something that this committee at one point recommended, and that was a moratorium. Mayor Bood, I think you said, if I quote you somewhat correctly, "Look at a problem and then stop," and that's exactly what a moratorium would be. Whereas they work it out cooperatively. I'd invite you to comment on how you would advise us to approach it. Should we just call a halt to everything until we figure out whatever we need to figure out, or how should we proceed? I'd invite any mayors who wish to comment to comment.

H. Bood: I think you should look at a group of environmentalists that looked at their modus operandi — and that's World Wildlife Fund Europe — and decided that having a constant discussion with both ends of the spectrum, as I've said, wasn't useful in getting right down to the brass tacks and making decisions. I think you as a group know that. For example, Scotland has 360 fish farms in their little area. We have just a ton of coastline that's available for fish farms. I think in Norway the thing that you got loud and clear was that, done right, fish farms work.

What we got loud and clear in Norway, also, was that we're the most highly regulated fish farm jurisdiction in the world. It's not like we're lax in that end of things. It's not a choice between the environment and fish farms. Fish farms have got to fit in the environment. I think you've all seen Larry Greba, Kitasoo. Have you all been up there?

H. Bood: Yeah. You know, we had a contrarian day in Norway. We found that we were all fairly similar as far as aquaculture goes, not totally similar, but I think we were all fairly similar in supporting it. So we had a day that we devoted to looking at the problems, including sea lice, and they're there. They're there worldwide.

The impression you get from Norway — and I don't know what the impression is here in B.C. — is that the science is there, the problems are solvable, and you don't have to moratorium to solve the problems as they occur. I want to tell you that their number one priority is preserving their wild salmon. That comes before everything. It's not a choice.

I think when we came back, we put out a press release that said, "You Can Have It All," and I think that's where I'd like us to go. Don't forget the environmental side. There are some very, very smart people with doctorates and a whole bunch of letters behind their names that are doing good research. I think World Wildlife Fund is working hard to put those people together and work on those specific issues that you discussed. That's, I think, where I'd suggest you go.

When I say you don't have to sacrifice…. I know the thing that struck us all when we were in Norway is they haven't sacrificed their environment for their fish farming. "Norway was the most attractive destination for nature- and activity-based holidays" — Destination Marketing. And National Geographic rated Norwegian fjords as "the greatest, unspoiled natural destination in the world." These comments come while they are actively using aquaculture to do what, obviously, the seas of the world can't do anymore.

There's the other side of the picture. Seafood is an obvious healthy food. You need two portions of seafood a day. We had a Harvard professor tell us that that had a significant impact on a person's health. Given that there's only so much our natural fish can do — our natural aquaculture can do — they all commented that aquaculture is a good story not told well. I think I'll stop there.

J. Fraser: In terms of where to go from here, I think we've seen some examples — particularly the Klemtu example — where they went in and did the background studies all around the proposed sites prior to putting farms in. If we take an approach like that then it's quite easy to see if your farm's starting to have negative effects on the environment.

I think we have enough science built around that now that if proposed leases come with those kinds of studies in advance, then we have a very good handle on whether we're creating a problem or we're creating a solution.

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): Anyone else? Just a final comment to Mayor Pepper that maybe you could take a lead from Nanaimo. Their councils have raised their salaries three times in the two years since I left. That might help you somewhat.

D. Jarvis: I just want to ask quickly — time's running out. When you mentioned $65,000 — every man, woman and child's…. Was that pertaining to…? Because of the oil?

H. Bood: Well, it's actually their petroleum fund. What they did in Norway…. We had a day on petroleum — oil and gas too, and I'm involved in the oil and gas aspect here at home, so that's why it sort of came out today. But what they did is they basically had the oil companies pay for their pension fund through their taxes.

It was, without a doubt one of the poorest, dirt-poor countries in the world in 1965, and they had to be innovative to live, basically to eat. So they did things that other countries wouldn't have done and probably didn't do the science, as a matter of fact.

They're a very wealthy country and their social programs are next to none. We had one of our mayors go down with a cold there, and it's an experience she can tell you about — it's amazing. So that's what they've done. They focused their petroleum fund on fixing or solving their pension, and that obviously left lots of money over from the rest of the economy for all their infrastructure.

S. Simpson: I wouldn't want to suggest for a minute that Nanaimo started raising salaries because you left the council, Mr. Chair.

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): They had to upgrade their quality after I left, they realized.

S. Simpson: My question is around the collaboration that was spoken of here by Mayor Bood, among others. What we know has happened here in British Columbia at this point is that CAAR, which is the coalition of half a dozen or so environmental groups that are interested in issues related to aquaculture, has a collaborative effort going on with Mainstream.

They've been working on this for quite a while. They have a pretty significant protocol in place. They've agreed on some research. They've had some agreement on a number of things. They are trying to work this out in a collaborative fashion and do that.

I also know that CAAR has made similar overtures to some of the other companies. Now, as we get less and less companies, as they buy each other, that might not be a problem. But I know they've made those efforts to build similar relationships with some of the other companies. At this point the companies have not taken them up on it. I don't know whether that's because they're waiting to see the results of the Mainstream work.

What advice would you give to us to encourage more of that kind of collaboration to get the environmental groups, through their coalition, and more of the fish farm companies starting to talk about those things that Mainstream and CAAR seem to be talking about?

P. Marshall: If I may, that was the part of the presentation about eco-based or area-based management. Actually, CAAR is working with Marine Harvest. Clare Backman is their contact.

At the World Wildlife Fund session in Vancouver, a representative from CAAR complimented the process. But part of the problem is that it's disconnected from anything to do with what your job is and what you do in government. There's no relationship.

If you created the platform for these local eco-based management or area-based management processes to take place, it would be more tied directly into your role as enforcers and policy makers.

Right now, the relationship is nice between Marine Harvest and CAAR, but it serves no purpose tied back to government and the job of governing British Columbia. It's kind of an isolated thing out there. So if through the province you brought these resources together and started to look at that as an option…. It's something that's being recommended in the forest industry as well, through the province of British Columbia. It makes for a better, more collaborative process and tie-in to the local communities.

Right now regional districts cover zoning, and that's kind of an end process because they're not in a position to evaluate. They don't have the resources to bring the public interest groups, environmental groups that are focused on solutions, together with industry and the community. So that's where we were going with that part of the presentation.

You're at a great juncture in the history of the evolution of industry, government and public interest groups. It's pointing in the right direction, and hopefully the outcomes from this committee will enable government to play its rightful role, as opposed to deferring to these off-line discussion groups.

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): Well, thank you very much. I'd now like to, as we wrap up, defer to the member for North Island and ask her to adjourn the meeting when she's done her comments.

C. Trevena: I would just like to thank you all very much for coming. It is a long drive, I know very well. Having driven up to Port Hardy the other day from Victoria in one day, I know that it's an extremely long drive.

It's been very valuable to hear your thoughts and impressions from Norway. As the representative for North Island, and most of you — excuse me, Mayor Fraser — are from the constituency…. That's where the fish farming is. I think it's been very valuable for the committee for you to come. So thank you very much. With that, I'd like to move adjournment.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

Committee Staff:	Brant Felker (Committee Research Analyst)

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON SUSTAINABLE AQUACULTURE

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON
SUSTAINABLE AQUACULTURE