Sustainable Aquaculture — Issue No. 9 — Tuesday, June 6, 2006 (HTML)

2006 Legislative Session: Second Session, 38th Parliament
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON SUSTAINABLE AQUACULTURE
MINUTES AND HANSARD

4. The Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair at 7:17 p.m.

Robin Austin, MLA
Chair

Craig James
Clerk Assistant and
Clerk of Committees

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON
SUSTAINABLE AQUACULTURE



CONTENTS

		Page

Opening Statements		139
	M. Martin

Presentations		140
	T. Rundle
	D. Bailey
	G. Bacon
	J. Greig
	A. Orten
	C. August
	J. Lucas
	S. Lawson
	D. Groves
	J. Mulder
	M. Martin
	B. Frank
	R. Harry
	A. Haughton
	S. McIntosh
	C. Tuttle
	W. Bernard
	S. Hare
	J. Martin
	M. Lawson
	D. Griffiths

Chair:	* Robin Austin (Skeena NDP)
Deputy Chair:	* Ron Cantelon (Nanaimo-Parksville L)
Members:	* Gordon Hogg (Surrey–White Rock 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:

Christina August (Lions Gate Fisheries Ltd.)
Geoff Bacon (Creative Salmon Co. Ltd.)
David Bailey (Creative Salmon Co. Ltd.)
Warren Bernard (Ocean West Industries Ltd.)
Bruce Frank
Jack Greig (Lions Gate Fisheries Ltd.)
David Griffiths (Tofino Business Association)
Dr. David Groves (Pacific Organic Seafood Association)
Susanne Hare
Richard Harry
Alistair Haughton (Mainstream Canada)
Mitlanova Lawson
Steve Lawson (First Nations Environmental Network)
John Lucas (Lions Gate Fisheries Ltd.)
Sean McIntosh (Method Marine Supply Ltd.)
Joe Martin
Chief Moses Martin
Jason Mulder (Mulder Marine Ventures Ltd.)
Alan Orten (Lions Gate Fisheries Ltd.)
Tim Rundle (Creative Salmon Co. Ltd.)
Celina Tuttle (Friends of Clayoquot Sound)

R. Austin (Chair): Good afternoon. I would like to call this meeting to order. My name is Robin Austin, and I am Chair of the Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture.

Before we begin today's proceedings, I would like to acknowledge that we are on Tla-o-qui-aht First Nations traditional territory. I would like to invite Chief Councillor Moses Martin to come forward and say a few words.

M. Martin: Thank you very much, and welcome to Tin Wis. Before I say anything, I just wanted to introduce you to one of my own principals, one of our hereditary chiefs, who goes by the name of Muu-chin-ink.

Thank you again for this opportunity to welcome the committee. I know that you have a lot of work before you. You have a lot of people to listen to, a lot of people with issues who want to voice their concerns, and we're no different. We welcome this opportunity to do a presentation later on this afternoon.

Tin Wis has a long history with our people as well. Tin Wis means "calm beach," and it was a stopover place for our people when they went to go whaling and fishing. It has a lot of history. More recently we've built what you see here now. It serves as a place for our people to get involved in the tourist industry.

I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome everybody here to the Aquaculture Committee's public hearing in Tofino. It's a real pleasure for us to be in your community and to hear directly from you about this important topic.

For your information, today's meeting is a public meeting which will be recorded and transcribed by Hansard Services. A copy of this transcript, along with the minutes of this meeting, will be printed and will be made available on the committees website at www.leg.bc.ca/cmt/aquaculture.

In addition to the meeting transcript, a live audio webcast of this meeting is produced and is available on the committees website to enable interested listeners to hear the proceedings as they occur. An archived copy of the audio broadcast will also be retained on the committees website.

For the benefit of the presenters, let me also read out the mandate this committee has. The Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture was reissued the following terms of reference by the Legislative Assembly on February 20, 2006: that the committee be empowered to examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to sustainable aquaculture in British Columbia and in particular, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to consider the following: the economic and environmental impacts of the aquaculture industry in B.C.; the economic impact of aquaculture on B.C.'s coastal and isolated communities; sustainable options for aquaculture in B.C. that balance economic goals with environmental imperatives, focusing on the interaction between aquaculture, wild fish and the marine environment; as well as B.C.'s regulatory regime as it compares to other jurisdictions. The committee is to report to the House no later than May 31, 2007.

Today we have a number of people working with us. Adam Wang and Alison Braid-Skolski are here from Hansard Services. They record what is said during the hearing, and then Hansard produces a transcript of what people say, which is posted on the Internet.

We also have staff here from the Office of the Clerk of Committees. To my left, Craig James is our Clerk of Committees, and our researcher Brant Felker is at the information table.

I would now like to invite the members of the committee to introduce themselves, starting on my right.

Now I would like to encourage presenters to throw as much light as they can on the mandate of this committee to help us in our work. I would like to begin by inviting the first witness to come up to the witness table here and reminding witnesses to try and keep their presentations to within the 20-minute time frame. The shorter your presentation, the more opportunity the members of this committee have to ask questions.

I'd like to begin with Steve Lawson from the First Nations Environmental Network. Is Steve Lawson here?

I will then go on to the next one and perhaps bring Steve back when he arrives. Are Andrew Greig, Jack Greig and Alan Orten here from Lions Gate Fisheries? No?

R. Austin (Chair): In that case, Tim, could you come up and speak on behalf of Creative Salmon? That's Tim Rundle, for the purposes of Hansard.

T. Rundle: Also with me are Dave Bailey and Geoff Bacon. I'm going to do a presentation on behalf of Creative Salmon. They would also like to put forward some personal comments.

Good afternoon. My name is Tim Rundle, and I'm speaking this afternoon on behalf of Creative Salmon.

First, I'd like to thank the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation, whose territory we're meeting in today. Thanks also to the committee for coming out and touring the farmsites this morning. I commend you for getting a firsthand look. Also, thanks to the committee for your time and efforts on this important topic.

Creative Salmon is a Canadian company with salmon farming operations in Clayoquot Sound, all of which are located in the traditional territory of the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation. Creative Salmon has a very good working relationship with TFN that has developed over time and is based on trust, transparency and honesty. Creative Salmon was formed in 1990 and has been operating in this community for over 15 years.

Creative Salmon makes every effort to farm in an environmentally sustainable and responsible manner. We take our environmental stewardship seriously. Creative Salmon has six farm leases in Tofino Inlet but only operates a maximum of four sites at any one time. This rotating between farmsites is a common agricultural practice referred to as fallowing. Fallowing greatly reduces the environmental footprint of our farming operations and significantly reduces the need for antibiotic use. In fact, we haven't used it on our production fish since October 2001.

Creative Salmon's definition of sustainability is to provide economic benefits to society while having respect for our employees, local communities, the environment and the animals that we grow.

I'd just like to take a moment to comment on a very unfortunate situation that occurred this year, recently, when a number of California sea lions became trapped in shark guards and drowned at several of our farms. This regrettable accident was reported immediately to the local first nations and various government agencies. We have been reviewing our predator control methods and will do everything we can to prevent this type of thing from happening again in the future. I want to make it very clear that we did not shoot any animals. We don't have any guns on site, and we do not intentionally kill any wildlife.

Employees are key to Creative Salmon. Creative Salmon Co. provides direct employment for 44 full-time staff members, of which 20 percent to 30 percent are first nations people. All of our employees and their families live here in Tofino and surrounding communities of the west coast.

I want to ask if all the members of Creative Salmon in the audience could stand up for just a moment, please. Thanks a lot.

In 2005 Creative Salmon injected in excess of $2.3 million into the local economy through wages and benefits. Creative Salmon have an extremely committed and dedicated workforce. People are the key to our continued success. In addition, we rely on the supply and service sectors to support our activities. This provides additional jobs and economic opportunities in our community.

We are in the habit of shopping locally whenever possible for our needs. These include processors, harvesters, trucking, diving, vessel maintenance and repairs, fuel suppliers, ship chandlers, salmon farm equipment and suppliers, feed suppliers, etc. A significant proportion of these jobs are located in our communities or elsewhere on Vancouver Island. In total, the company spent in excess of $9.6 million on supplies and services in 2005.

I just want to talk a little more about our community involvement. Our community involvement ranges from assisting and organizing community events, contributing salmon and donations to a wide array of groups and providing various community-oriented educational opportunities. These include multiple fundraising events as well as salmon barbeques for Edge to Edge Marathon, MOMAR adventure race, Ukee Days, the multi-use path supper, and support for local sports teams and surfers. We are also involved in stream restoration projects as well as beach cleanup of old squatter camps in Tofino Inlet.

Creative Salmon is one of the founding members of the Pacific Organic Seafood Association. I won't go into the details here, as it will be discussed in the next time slot, but I will say that POSA is actively pursuing accreditation as a certifying body in British Columbia. As a producer member of POSA, Creative Salmon hopes to achieve certified organic status in due course.

I know that one of the things the committee is looking at is closed containment, and I just want to comment that closed containment does not fit well with our organic standards. Just specifically from a fish welfare issue, the densities needed in closed containment need to be increased to a high level, which can lead to stress, disease and probably, ultimately, antibiotic use. As well, the welfare of our salmon is critical. Happy, healthy salmon will survive and grow well. Survival rates for our company are now more than 85 percent throughout the life cycle.

Quality salmon requires a quality environment. It is clearly in our interest and that of our local community to respect and preserve our environment. I would like to encourage you to visit Creative Salmon's website as it has a lot more information about our company, our philosophy and our involvement in the community. That's at www.creativesalmon.com.

I just wanted to say a few more words from a personal point of view. Salmon farming, and in particular

Creative Salmon, has employed me full-time for 13 years. Salmon farming supports my family — a wife and baby daughter. We bought a house in Ucluelet. We're established in the community. Like many of our employees, I am involved in the community.

I just want to make the point that any recommendations your committee makes need to be workable, otherwise you are jeopardizing the livelihoods of thousands of people like myself who make a living from salmon farming. Just a final note: I'm proud of what I do for a living.

D. Bailey: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee. My name is David Bailey. I'm employed in Creative Salmon's biology department, and I'm a resident of Tofino.

First, I'd like to show my appreciation to the members of the committee for wading in on this highly charged issue. It is my hope that when your work is done here, there will be a better understanding of salmon aquaculture and its role in the sustainable B.C. economy.

This being said, I still have concerns. Chief among them is the perception among detractors to my industry that moving to land-based or closed containment is the answer that will solve all. This is shortsighted and shows a limited understanding of fish culture. Most examples touted as closed containment are better described as flow-through, with little if any treatment of effluent water.

I have worked at a land-based facility, and I'm well aware of the large amounts of energy required to operate such a facility. I am also aware of the shortcomings of such facilities in addressing environmental concerns. To suggest that regulation require this industry to move in this direction would open a whole new era of problems and controversy. It seems to make more sense to allow the industry to evolve its solutions on its own, as it has done in the past.

My other concern is that there appears to be a perception that salmon farming is just about jobs and money. Of course, this is part of it, but there's so much more. It's about sustainably producing a healthy source of protein. It's about a passion for working on the ocean and living in a coastal community.

I have worked in the Canadian aquaculture industry for 15 years. I've seen the industry grow and change to address environmental concerns. The company I currently work for is one of the most progressive and responsible companies that I've worked for in my 15-year career.

Creative Salmon started an environmental monitoring program before it was required as regulation. They've taken the initiative to do projects like seeding local clam beaches and stream restoration. They have donated to the Tofino skate park and have provided salmon and cooks to numerous barbecues in events in Tofino and Ucluelet.

The salmon farming industry in B.C. is one of the most heavily regulated in the world. It is important that the industry is well regulated and that it is effective for all concerned. The push for regulation that is prescriptive would hobble this innovative and vibrant industry.

G. Bacon: Good afternoon. My name is Geoff Bacon. I come with personal feelings about aquaculture. Years ago I worked on a cattle range in Alberta. I was always led to believe that salmon farming was bad for the environment. I was fed information based on speculation and presumption by environmental campaigners.

After moving to Tofino, I began to understand the aquaculture side of the story. It dawned on me that salmon farming was a large part of the local economy that many families depend on. I took the opportunity to go on a tour of an operating salmon farm to see for myself the aquaculture side of the story.

I was dumbfounded by the contrast between my misinformed perception of salmon farming and the reality. The staff on the farm was very knowledgable about fish husbandry and the mitigation of environmental impacts. I was so impressed by this knowledge and the care of the environment that I changed occupations.

The world's population is growing. The need for a sustainable source of protein is obvious. The feed conversion in salmon farming when compared to chicken or beef is very superior. Salmon farming is an obvious and sustainable way to meet the world's growing demand for protein.

I've seen the industry come a long way in the last few years, and it continues to do so. This is very personal to me. I feel that activists have been using presumptions, misinformation and scare tactics to muddy the public perception of salmon farming for the sole purpose of donations.

These activists are opposed to greenhouse gas emissions and are the same ones pushing my industry to closed containment and producing more greenhouse gas effects. Salmon farming must be allowed to continue to produce protein through cage culture, which consumes less energy.

R. Austin (Chair): Thank you for your presentation. I'd like to ask members if they'd like to begin some questions.

G. Hogg: You made reference to closed containment. Can you talk a little bit more about the problems associated with it? Are you able to quantify some of those for us?

We've looked into closed containment on several occasions. The concept has been around for a little while. We grow smolts in what you can consider a closed containment in fresh water, up to a certain size.

Where it starts to break down is for larger salmon in salt water. How do you get that salt water into your closed containment? You're pumping it up on land or — now it looks like this has been developed — pumping it into either a bag system or RSA, a concrete system.

To me, just looking at it on a very base level, the issue is: how do you pump this much water for the salmon? That's the number one issue — power. Now you've got to be plugged into a grid somewhere, and you're not going to be able to farm in places like Clayoquot Sound in these environments. If you're plugged into a power grid, why would you do it in a coastal community? Why wouldn't you move it closer, somewhere off San Francisco? If you're going to try to do it on generators, the amount of fuel consumption is just incredible.

For me, the real big one, just from a fish culture point of view, is that things break down. Pumps break down. This has happened in Cedar, that land-based one, several times that I know of. Systems break; it happens. Your entire company could be out of business in about half an hour without a pump or with a generator failure — let alone just from the fish welfare point of view.

From my understanding of anything that I've seen on the small number of systems that have been tried, the same densities can push up to 30, 40 or 70 kilos per cubic metre, whereas we try to keep a maximum of about eight kilos per cubic metre. So now, from the fish welfare point of view, you're crowding these fish, leading to stress.

Currently, as well, I don't know of any system out there that's actually operating. We talked to the SaRCO people. They had an artist's rendition of what one of these systems would look like. They had a single closed containment unit that the last I heard was up on a beach somewhere. There are lots of those Future SEA bags that are being tried around. My understanding right now is there may be some still in use for very limited applications, such as brood stock. The rest are in junk piles.

I still think, sure, let's continue to look at it and continue to explore it, but to mandate that we switch over to something that isn't in operation anywhere in the world is shortsighted.

T. Rundle: The environmental impact. Right at this current moment there's no mechanism that I know of in place that can filter out…. I guess some of the issues that they say it will solve with closed containment are issues of disease. As far as I understand, there's no way of filtering out disease on such huge quantities of water. They say: "Deal with the waste issue." My understanding is there's nothing in place right now that collects the waste. These test systems that have been in place — the waste goes out a hole in the bottom right to the bottom of the ocean. You're actually, in this case, concentrating it. I don't see the solutions there yet.

Could we develop it? Maybe over time, but as of right now…. From my perspective salmon swim in the ocean. They should be able to get fresh water continuously, deal with the tides, deal with the currents. For me that's a natural way to do it.

I wouldn't think of throwing cows on a barge and trying to feed them out over the ocean. I don't see why we trying to move salmon up on the land.

Clarification. You've got six tenures in Tla-o-qui-aht territory and two in fallow. Is that correct?

T. Rundle: That's right. But one Tranquil site we actually haven't…. It's been fallow since 1999. We've determined that it's not a suitable location. It's on our relocation list currently. We've been operating four sites on our remaining five tenures.

S. Fraser: Okay. Obviously, the Tranquil site is…. You've got a list. You're looking to replace it at a more suitable site. Would that be correct?

S. Fraser: Any other plans for expansion or moves? Is that in the works that you're aware of?

T. Rundle: No. And even at Tranquil, the relocation, it wouldn't mean expansion at this point in time. We would use it as an additional fallowing situation.

S. Fraser: Understood — one of the six. The total number wouldn't change in that situation.

S. Fraser: Thanks, and lastly, if I may…. I know it's a sticky issue, but on the mortality, the sea lions, that was recently reported. The predator nets — I assume they got caught. Could you explain what happened there?

T. Rundle: Yeah. We have our main grower net, and all of our nets have what's called a shark guard. Basically, it's a false bottom. It's a net that extends below the main salmon grower net. It looks to me like these animals were pushing up into that net, created a hole, swam into that section and weren't able to find their way out.

We're investigating. We've already had a meeting with net manufactures, all of our senior management, divers, some local biologists and government to discuss solutions. The onus is on us now to find a solution to that to keep it from occurring again.

T. Rundle: I think so. We've talked about stronger shark guards, different predator net systems. We're talking about possibly some semi-rigid panels to put on the bottom. If you can eliminate the sea lions from pushing up, trying to get at the dead fish, maybe they won't cause the holes in that bottom false net. Additionally, we're looking at ways of possibly either diving more frequently or some sort of other mort retrieval system to take some of the bait away. It was an extremely unfortunate situation, and we have to be prepared for that sheer number of sea lions again.

I'm not sure what's happening with the population, but we went probably to almost tenfold of what sea lions would normally be seen in the inlet. Regardless, we need to be prepared for that number and look at our entire operation and be prepared for that again.

G. Coons: Thank you, Tim, Dave, Geoff and the cast of many from Creative Salmon. Nice to see you all here.

I just had a question, again going back to the fallowing. You're being environmentally responsible, and visiting your site, I'm glad to see the organics driving methods that you're going towards. But as far as fallowing, are there government regulations that make it mandatory to fallow, or is it just site by site or company by company that decides that?

T. Rundle: It's my understanding there isn't a government regulation for fallowing, but where the regulation comes in is through environmental monitoring required from the Ministry of Environment. So you have to meet certain regulations based on sulphide levels for the introduction of fish as well as at peak biomass, which would be when there's the most number of fish on site, or the biggest size. So you have to meet certain performance standards at those rates. If you meet those standards, you can continue to grow fish on that site.

I think other companies are employing fallowing. I don't know how many. I know for us it's a standard practice, and it's something we do even if our environmental monitoring says that we could stay on that site.

G. Coons: One last question, getting back to predator control. Thanks for explaining that. I brought it up on the boat, and all of a sudden you're…. It's good to know that.

Again, as far as predator control regulations, are they consistent? Are there government regulations that at each site there is a standard set of policies or regulations that must be followed?

T. Rundle: I think every farm company is required to have a predator control plan as part as their best management practices. That relates back to the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, and that's audited or questioned as part of the yearly audit of MAL.

As far as what has to be in place, I think that's a company-specific item. But everybody has to have a plan for how to deal with predators, whether it be sea lions or birds or whatnot.

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): So you fallow more than is required or dictated by the regulations regarding the bottom conditions. Is that right?

T. Rundle: That's right. As far as I understand, there's no regulation on fallowing unless you surpass the government regulations. Then you'd be required to wait until that site came back.

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): But you do it more often. So typically in a cycle, how long would the bottom be in fallow?

T. Rundle: After every group of fish our site would fallow anywhere from four to six months as what we'd call a short-term fallow. We then put fish in on a slightly different footprint which extends that fallow more. But if we were going to leave the farmsite alone and switch to one of other sites, then that original farmsite would be left alone for probably about three years.

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): Thank you. Another issue that we've had beside the bottom condition is…. We hear a lot about sea lice. I'd like you tell me: is that a problem? What is the nature of sea lice in your farm? How many, how do you monitor it, and how do you control it?

T. Rundle: For Creative Salmon, sea lice is not an issue. Do our salmon have lice? Yes, they have a small amount of lice. Creative Salmon is strictly a chinook salmon producer. Chinook salmon, in my understanding, are better immuned to deal with sea lice. Additionally, we're in Tofino Inlet where the salinities are lower. Again, that would decrease sea lice levels.

Creative Salmon has never treated for sea lice. We've never used the product SLICE. We've never considered sea lice an issue. For us, it's a non-issue completely.

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): So you've never used SLICE, and you don't feel you have to. How often do you check for sea lice, and how do you check for them?

T. Rundle: Originally we were required, when the government came out, to monitor on a monthly basis. The chinook producers monitored for the first year, and then it was determined that the levels for chinook were very low. Now we're still required to monitor, but we don't have a reporting requirement.

The monitoring that we're required to do that's auditable is just visually from the surface. I mean, we have people feeding continuously. Also, at harvest

time, when we have fish, or anytime we're handling fish, which is very seldom, but…. We do quite often handle brood stock, which are the biggest fish and which would potentially have the most lice, and when we handle those, we check for lice.

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): Would you typically find many lice on it, or what would…?

T. Rundle: I'd have to look at our numbers, but typically, if we found one louse on ten fish….

D. Bailey: My last sample, just to give you an example, was…. I did 30 fish; I found one. It was a pre-adult.

T. Rundle: To go back to one of your guys' other comments, I would probably…. What's that? It's 0.03 lice per….

I just want to go back to the issue of predator control and your specific recent incidents. How long did it take you to notice that there was a problem there?

T. Rundle: We started seeing sea lions coming into Tofino Inlet probably the middle of November to the end of November. They just kept coming in and coming in. We started seeing some losses to predators — what we consider predator hits, fish being killed by predators — throughout that time. We didn't know there was a problem until the second week in May, when a couple of our nets floated to the surface with dead sea lions.

C. Trevena: When you say "fish killed by predators," you're talking about wild fish in the area or fish that were in your net?

T. Rundle: No, I'm actually talking about…. We had some predator systems in place, like predator nets as well as heavily weighted nets. But even with all this in place, with that sheer number of sea lions, our farms were being attacked by sea lions. When I was talking about predator hits, I'm talking about them killing our livestock.

C. Trevena: I have two subsequent questions from that. At what stage, when you realized in May that you'd had a problem and that you had, obviously, dead sea lions, did you get in touch and start making the moves — to rectify, to get together your round table — that you have done?

T. Rundle: Immediately we notified first nations and government. Then it would have been the next week we met with government again, and the middle of the next week…. I'd have to look at the dates, but by the third week in May we were sitting down at the round table trying to figure out what to do.

C. Trevena: Would it be possible — I'm just trying to visualize the setup under the water — for the sea lions to have chewed their way through a whole net, or were they quite happy eating what they could get by getting through the predator net? I'm just trying to work out how it looks.

T. Rundle: We actually had seen at one of our other sites…. You have to keep in mind that this was happening at all sites the entire time, so one of our sites had the predator net around it. What we saw were sea lions — and this was confirmed by the divers actually seeing sea lions — pushing up the predator net. That's what you saw today — that complete surrounding net. They were pushing up that net.

Then they would reach the shark guard. They were pushing that net up, and then they were chewing on dead fish on the bottom of the pen. In actual fact, we saw some small holes created by sea lions at that site.

C. Trevena: Hypothetically, other fish could have gone out through those holes. I mean, you didn't have any escapes, but other fish could have gone out through those holes.

T. Rundle: Yes. The holes were actually reported to government. The largest was ten inches, but a couple of them were eight-inch size, right on the very bottom of the nets and with shark guard in between. The likelihood of escape was considered by us to be zero, just given its location, given that no live fish were seen in that false bottom of the shark guard and given, in most cases, that the holes were not very large and were also covered with dead fish.

C. Trevena: What did you do, then, when you realized you had holes? What was your next step on those sides?

T. Rundle: Well, immediately they were sewn. We've tried adding extra weight onto the predator net underneath those nets. We tried adding some weight into the shark guard. Currently, we actually have what's called semi-rigid panel on its way — it should be in town today — that we're going to try to sew into the bottom of those nets.

These are all experiments, but it's a 20-by-22-inch — it's called semi-rigid, so it's very strong — netting that

we're actually going to sew into the bottom of those nets to prevent sea lions from being able to access those mortalities. If they can't access it, they can't cause a hole as well. If they can't access it, presumably, they'll stop and won't get themselves in trouble.

C. Trevena: My last question. When you say that you sew up the holes immediately, how quickly is immediate?

T. Rundle: Well, the divers are in our pens twice a week, as a standard practice, to collect mortalities. Additionally, they're diving once a month for net inspections. But during this whole situation we've increased our diving tremendously to do extra net inspections and extra diving. But in the cases of these small holes, they would have been diving in order to collect mortalities and notice the small holes, and they carry net twine to repair the holes on the spot, as soon as they are found.

I have to look at the numbers again, but since January we're looking at probably…. We're already diving four days a week, and we've probably added another 60 to 70 dives in that time window for either predator nets, net inspections and that. So we really did up our response, as far as diving, to meet with what we were seeing.

C. Trevena: Is there any subsequent government inspection, or is it all what you do, and then you report back to the government?

T. Rundle: We're required in situations of either an escape or in the case of a hole that would be large enough for an escape, even if we consider that…. Like, in this case we'd consider that it was a zero possibility of escape. The hole is big enough for a fish, so we're obligated to report. That's reported to the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands and to DFO simultaneously, verbally, within 24 hours, and a full written report is required within a week. I usually have that to them either the same day or the next day.

Additional to that, there's a follow-up, usually through the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. An inspector will call and discuss it further, unless it's very straightforward from what has happened. But there is follow-up from the government side on all instances, as far as I understand.

S. Simpson: Just one question. Thank you very much for the presentation, and thank you for the opportunity to come and visit Creative Salmon earlier today and see your operation.

In response to questions that Gordon asked about closed containment, you talked about the fact that there are lots of unknowns about it because it's not a proven technology, that there are no current applications of closed containment and that who knows what the future could hold if it was actually used. As you point out, it isn't in practice today.

We've had some suggestions to us about the notion of trying a commercial-scale model or a test of the notion of water-based closed containment and of doing a commercial-level effort at that to see whether it works and to deal with all the issues that you rightly talk about. I'd be interested in your view of that. You said maybe sometime in the future it has merit, but today it doesn't. What would your view be of trying to put that kind of commercial-scale model in place and running it for a couple of years and seeing if it worked?

T. Rundle: I guess my first question is: who's going to pay for it? I'm not really joking because…. A lot of people don't understand the scale of the operations. I mean, fish are expensive, the feed is expensive, and the equipment is expensive.

I would say that if someone was able to fund that and get that going, I'm sure a lot could be learned about that. I know that to date it's only been single closed containment pods — like, one here and one there. I'd be interested to know how that would work out, actually. I wouldn't say that it couldn't work. I just know in my head that there are a lot of downfalls to that. Would it be viable, and would it be fish-friendly? I don't know.

D. Bailey: If I could add my own two cents, my personal interest in that, especially for something that was on the ocean, would be treatment of effluent. How exactly would it be contained, pumped out and taken back to shore? Then what do you do with it? There are a lot more things to consider than just putting them in a bag and separating the fish from the ocean and saying you're done with it.

There are a lot of different things to consider. If you're going to do this sort of operation, you should consider treating your incoming water, as well, to prevent disease within fish that you would have to raise at high densities for it to even be economically viable.

The other question is: how are you going to power moving this water? How are you going to move this water? Are you going power diesel pumps and that sort of thing out on the ocean? It's a very large large-scale operation. We're a fairly small company, and even to deal with the biomass that we deal with, you're talking about a substantial investment.

I'd like to now invite the folks from Lions Gate Fisheries to come up. They're Andrew Greig, Jack Greig and Alan Orten.

J. Greig: I'd like to thank the committee members for giving us this opportunity. My name is Jack Greig, and I'm the manager of Lions Gate Fisheries Ltd. in Tofino. I've been involved with the west coast fishing industry in Tofino for 32 years and have managed the Lions Gate facility since 1978.

The waterfront economy in Tofino today bears little resemblance to the economy of the 1970s and '80s and

much earlier. During those years the troll salmon fleet flourished up and down our coast. Hundreds of trollers delivered chinook, coho, sockeye, pink and chum salmon to the six fishing companies that operated in Tofino. It wasn't that many years ago that trollers would idle until late in the evening, waiting for an off-loading spot to free up at the busy plants. Salmon trolling was the common bond that connected our families and communities.

Today Lions Gate Fisheries is the last company remaining in Tofino that services the beleaguered fishing fleet. All the rest are gone. The last 20 years has been a sad tale of decline. The troll fleet has been witness to failing stocks as well as denied access to the salmon they have historically fished. Many local families were forced to sell their fishing licences to a government buy-back program, leaving themselves with boats that were unable to fish and a bleak economic future.

Faced with this prospect, in 1986 we built a small salmon-dressing line in what had previously been the fish-packing room and became the first processing plant servicing salmon aquaculture on the west coast. It was this line that gave us new life. During this period we continued to operate as a fish buyer, dealing with an ever-decreasing number of fishermen.

Today custom processing of Creative Salmon Co.'s farmed chinooks represents 80 percent of our business, and 20 percent involves wild fisheries. We now provide 24 year-round jobs. The majority are filled by first nations from the Tla-o-qui-aht and Ahousaht bands, as well as from Tofino, Ucluelet and Port Alberni. Some are fishermen who supplement their meagre fishing incomes by working with us.

Over the past 20 years we have become a resource to many of the young people in our area. They come from Ahousat and, at times, Hot Springs Cove, making the long and sometimes treacherous trip by small boat. There is little, if any, economic opportunity in these isolated communities, and connecting into Tofino's hectic tourist industry is a leap that most of them are unable and unwilling to take. They grew up with fish, and for me they are the most valuable of employees.

We have managed to survive as a diversified fishing company. Currently, we buy trolled chinook salmon during the short spring and autumn seasons as well as summer tuna and shrimp. We are here to provide ice and dock services to anyone in need, yet none of this would be possible without access to the farm chinooks and the year-round processing it provides us with. Sustainable aquaculture is the key to our future existence in Tofino.

A. Orten: Hi. My name is Alan Orten, and like Jack said, that fish camp has been a source of employment for me since then. When it first started we were doing a lot of shrimp and wild salmon. Now, for the last ten years, primarily, I've fed my four kids on farm fish. I'm happy with the way they've cleaned up their practices on feeding and harvesting. I'm a diver myself, and I'm very conscious of the ocean bottom and the life in the ocean. I feel confident that fish farming has become a much safer practice, and I'm happy to be involved in it.

C. August: My name is [Nuu-chah-nulth spoken]. I was born and raised in Tofino. I've been working at the fish plant for 18 years. I've seen all the changes go through Tofino with all the tourists that are around. We can't really survive with that one season of tourists, so we rely on the fish plant to work, because we operate all year round.

Through the 18 years that I've been there, 19 of my family members have come and gone through the area, working through there to…. They go to school, and then they come in on the breaks to educate themselves to move on. That's how they've earned their livings.

If anything happens, like if anything shuts down up here, then what are we going to do? Who is going to help put food on our table if anything happens to this industry up here? Are you willing to do that for us? I've supported my family through this job all the years that I've been there. There've been a lot of good changes in this industry, like Jack said.

My husband is a fisherman. My sons are fishermen. Because of the government they can't fish anymore, so we rely on the farm fish and this industry that we have today.

Like Jack said before that, a lot of them that come in, a lot of those Indians that work at the fish plant…. Most of the crew that is there are just about all Indians, and we all rely on it. Some come all the way from as far as Victoria to work with us. That's how much they need to work. If coming from Victoria to work in a little fish plant in Tofino doesn't tell you anything, what will it take?

I don't know why you guys wanted to stop or shut down or move it onto land or stuff like that. Everything is fine the way it is. That's all I have to say.

R. Austin (Chair): Excuse me. Before you start, could you identify yourself?

J. Lucas: I was one of the commercial fishermen for 14 years. I used to be one of the persons that never, ever quit in the fishing industry. I always go out, when I have to go out, as a deckhand and put food on the table for my kids, my family.

After so many years, when the commercial fishing industry shut down, people didn't know where to go. Some people knew what they could do to get into the fishing industry again. It took me till 1993, and I've been there since.

I've been relying on this job because it's an all-year-round job. We have people coming in year after year,

month by month, to work as steady-based workers — or part-time, some of them, because they have to go to school or have some other jobs to look into.

This is my livelihood. As a fisherman, I depend on these fish farm products that come in. It keeps me going, and I'm happy with it. My kids are interested when they get older. They ask me: "Can I go work at the plant when I'm a little older?" I said: "It's up to you. You take after me when I retire."

I'd like to see it continue. If it goes on land, what are we going to do? There are going to be no jobs. I'd like to see the job I have continue and the fish farm as it is.

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): This is for Jack. Jack, you say that 80 percent of your business is from Creative Salmon at this point.

J. Greig: No. That's why the other five companies have been forced to close their doors. It's just been a steady decline in access to fish. We don't have access to the fish in these small communities. What's happened is that a lot of the fishing has started to collect in the larger urban centres like Vancouver, particularly Vancouver.

One follow-up: do you have additional capacity? If there were more farms, could you employ more people?

J. Greig: Oh yes. We could employ more people if there were more farms. But that certainly isn't in our future outlook. We've been fairly stable in the amount of work and the amount of fish we have been doing. We're connected very closely with Creative Salmon, and their projections aren't for any major increases.

As you know, I am the MLA for this area, and I requested that we come to Clayoquot Sound as part of our trip and our learning experience. A committee was formed by the Legislature, so we're mandated, as Robin said, to look at the issues, which are complex. We are very mindful of the jobs, the livelihood, the environment and protecting the wild stock. We've been tasked with trying to make recommendations on all of those and probably a few other issues too.

I know about the licence buybacks. A bunch of us fought that. Some of us went to Ottawa fighting that too. There have been a lot of mistakes made certainly, I would agree, in government policy, federal policy, DFO policy — all that too.

We're here to learn and listen, and we're here to learn and listen on all sides of this too. I just hope you know that.

S. Lawson: Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I should let you know, though, how I came to be here. I read a small notice in the Victoria newspaper probably three or four months ago, and it said that this panel would be convening and travelling to the communities. I watched in that paper and in the local paper all the time, and there was no notice. There were no times and places, no dates. It wasn't until a friend of mine received a letter from the fish farming association saying that this panel would be here and that they needed to get all the support it possibly could. There was money involved. There was support coming from businesses to the local businesses, and it was important that people come out and support.

This was two weeks ago that this letter was received. It wasn't until then that we saw a small notice in the local newspaper. So I'm a little suspicious of the way things have been set up. I've been to make presentations before, to similar committees, and had lots of time to prepare, lots of time for people to get organized. It does seem that the industry is very well organized, but the general public hasn't had the same opportunity. I do want to make that clear.

The other points that I want to make…. I'm not here to speak out against the salmon farming industry so much, although I'm not in favour of it at all. I'm the coordinator for First Nations Environmental Network, a network that's across the country and into the United States and Alaska. Our policy is not at all in favour of any form of fish farming in the way it's being conducted in Canada, particular salmon farming. Our interest is mainly in protecting the wild salmon and the resource that exists, because that is the future as we see it. It has been the past, and it also is the future.

We don't see that there is a future at all in fish farming. It's not sustainable. It won't be sustainable. Given that there are diseases, antibiotics and a large number of different creatures that fall prey to the fish farming…. There are many things that I've seen. I've seen the salmon that have died, and the oils float up to the surface and are carried all along the shorelines for miles, right into the river mouths. I suspect that those

salmon died for a reason. They died by way of disease or something that's not healthy for them or the environment. That, I believe, will not only be the key to the downfall of the salmon that are in those pens but a great danger to the salmon that are in the wild rivers.

We have, I believe, six rivers left on Vancouver Island that are unlogged, unimpacted. Some of them have been impacted by mining that took place in the early part of the century, and those effects are still coming down through the leachates from cyanides and crushed, blasted rock that were part of the mining processes. Many of those rivers have just maintained at a very small level. To put salmon farms, probably the most concentrated salmon farming area on the west coast of North America, into an area where the last five wild rivers remain is not a sane precautionary approach. I don't see that it makes science or good common sense in any way.

As far as my organization, we have advocated for closed containment, not in the sea. We view this as a grand experiment, and we see it as going horribly wrong. It started over 20 years ago in this area. It wasn't seen as such a bad thing. But it's documented that there are Atlantic salmon in every stream and every river on Vancouver Island, and in many of those rivers they are reproducing.

What we advocate is that we put our energies as a society into enhancing the rivers that exist now and bringing them back. While the Department of Fisheries has allowed the cod fishery on the east coast to crash and is allowing the salmon to crash on the west coast, we need to put that energy into enhancing the rivers and bringing them back and taking care of them the way that people here did years ago.

We're existing now on probably 3 percent of what once was. We need to bring that back, because without that brood stock and without the gene pool that's there, even the salmon farms can't exist. And we are dealing with climate change, whether it's man-made or part of a natural cycle or both. We need to enhance those stocks of fish so that they can jump those hurdles and get by these times of climate change and do whatever they need to do to mutate to survive, to evolve, as we all are doing.

I want to speak about something that you may not have heard. It's certainly not on a general formal topic, but it is that the forces of nature are conscious. There are forces of nature, and we are coming to a time in human endeavours and human history where we will have to answer for what we do. Our consciousness as humans is adapting, and it's coming closer to these elemental energies. They do exist. I personally have had experiences with them. They're probably the most profound experiences of my life. There are many people in the first nations communities and non–first nations communities who have experienced these things. There are precautions that need to be taken.

I don't expect that there will be notes taken. I don't expect that a lot will come out of this topic of conversation. But sometimes, late in the middle of the night when you're thinking about your future and the future of your family and humans and where we are now, I ask you to remember these things because they are real. They have consciousness, and they are not in approval of what we are doing as humans in altering the nature of one of the wonders of the world — the salmon that could not only feed people but feed every creature in this entire area including the trees, which affects the climate across the country.

These energies are here. They are available, they are conscious, and they are paying attention. Our time will be limited if we don't make the right decisions. Humans are capable of great wisdom. We're also capable of backsliding and doing things for reasons that are not of the highest nature, whether they be out of fear or greed or simply status quo.

That's my presentation, and I thank you once again for the opportunity. I hope we don't stop talking about this. I hope one day we'll be talking about what we can do to bring back the wild salmon, to provide all of us with an economy and to look after, to accept the challenge of caring for the land and everything that's in it — a very old one that we need to remember. A lot of people need to remember it. It's not just about the jobs.

R. Austin (Chair): Thank you, Mr. Lawson. Would you like to answer some questions?

G. Coons: Thank you, Steve. Just a couple of comments. I strongly agree with you, as I hope most people in the room do, that our wild stocks are vital to coastal communities and to first nations traditionally and culturally. It's a fight that is long and hard. The Auditor General, in 2004, made that quite clear when they did the tripartite Auditor General report — the federal government, B.C. and New Brunswick — and saw that we need to look after our wild stocks and sustain them and do what this committee is doing.

If I can just read from the committee mandate: "Look at sustainable options for aquaculture in B.C. that balance economic goals with environmental imperatives, focusing on the interaction between aquaculture, wild fish and the marine environment." As our colleague Scott mentioned, it's imperative that we look at jobs and having aquaculture that is sustainable for communities and, most importantly, maintaining and looking after our wild stocks. That is a high priority for me and, I would say, all members on the committee.

S. Lawson: I could remind you, as well, that there were several studies done in the past by the United Nations, which followed up sound environmental changes that took place. They were fairly large changes, but over time the economy prospered greatly by those changes. They were tough changes at the time. They affected economies, but they were good ones. You can find those studies in the United Nations.

S. Simpson: Just one question. Thank you for the presentation. I know that as a committee, we all hope that we'll get to meet with and talk to everybody who wants to talk to us, wherever they come from — whether we do it this time or when we're back out in the fall and doing this again, after we've had some chance to think about some of these things and have something to say. Then we'll be talking to people some more.

As you appreciate and as everybody in this room will appreciate, this is an issue that there's a lot of passion about, whatever side of it you happen to fall on — and a lot of concern. Do you have any suggestions? How do we have the dialogue? If there's one thing that I realize, it's that the challenge is how we have that discussion among people who have quite different views on this issue, to try to find a resolve. Do you have any thoughts about that?

S. Lawson: No. It's difficult. It's one that we're all facing as humans. Essentially, my perspective and what I've learned and then taught is that there are two forces that we're dealing with in human nature. There's fear, and there's love. If you were to break this down — the confrontation or the conflict or the two opposing sides — that's what it boils down to, in my mind.

If you can think of it in those terms…. Is it love? Is it love for each other and the land and every living creature? Is that where we're putting our energies to further? Or is it fear? Is it fear for our bank account or our job or the unknown or something out of the past? And do we have the courage to take the risk? It's an odd answer. I don't know whether it's the answer you were thinking of.

I would like to invite Dr. David Groves from the Pacific Organic Seafood Association to come up and speak.

D. Groves: Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice-Chairman and members of the committee and everybody else, thank you very much for allowing me to come and speak to you again on a different topic.

D. Groves: That's right. I'll actually set my watch in the right way this time so I will not run overtime, I hope.

Just a couple of very, very brief words of background. I've been salmon farming since 1974. When I left the university system to begin to grow salmon, we went and talked to DFO. This isn't a criticism of DFO. They had great experience with raising salmon in culture — little fish — and they also had a lot of experience with handling mature fish and managing harvestable-size wild fish. They had no experience whatsoever in terms of growing the stages in between.

When we talked to DFO seriously about beginning to farm salmon, they couldn't write us a licence. They didn't know what to do. We said: "We'll do it for a while, and you guys watch what we do. Maybe eventually you can write us a licence, and we can become legal."

The first thing they said was, "Don't be upset if none of your fish live longer than about a 12-inch fish," because they just die in fresh water in their experience at that stage. Even though at that point we thought we knew a lot about salmon and salmon farming, little did we know…. We got to the point where we were up to here, and we could only go ahead and solve the problems.

When we ship out smolts to Creative Salmon, basically organic chinook smolts, we see the quality of those fish when they go on the truck. When I look at the processing line of those same fish a year or so later, going through the Lions Gate Fisheries processing line, and when I see annually the 30-pound, three-year-old Big Qualicum stock that Tim ships into our hatchery as they come off the tanker truck, I can't tell you how proud I am to be part of that process. The fish themselves indicate that we understand an awful lot more about salmon, including wild salmon, than we did at that stage 30 years ago.

The other thing that gives me a great deal of pride is to be able to look around a room like this and see a room full of young people who are experts in what they do. They know more at this stage, certainly, than I did when I started salmon farming — first nations people and non–first nations people alike. It's incredible to me to see that now all these people are well-trained professionals in an industry like aquaculture.

There's one other point that I should make. All of us have grown up with the wild salmon. The wild salmon are an absolutely irreplaceable, priceless asset to this country of Canada. Nobody that I know would willingly jeopardize those wild salmon. As aquaculturists we quite frequently ask: "What is the basis of this dogma we find in the press so often that when there are farmed fish being raised, the wild fish are being killed?" It's very difficult to understand. Many of us are involved in salmon enhancement throughout the system in many ways. I'm personally involved in salmon enhancement.

We'll get back to Pacific Organic Seafood Association. As the salmon farming industry has developed, starting off as a small industry with little operators, gradually consolidated bigger companies have come into existence. There's a process of companies eating other companies, etc., until now there's not nearly as many operators. A number of us are still small operators. We can't just pick up and move to a different country or even to a different site. The members of the Pacific Organic Seafood Association tend to be small operators with not very many sites.

We've begun to look at: how do we survive as a smaller group? The people involved in this organization that are salmon farmers belong to the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association. We're not splitting off in any way, but we're looking at the prospects and possibilities of how to do this better. How do we do this organically if that is possible?

The organization started with discussions about organic production in about 2001. This has resulted in POSA being implemented and formed. We have people who are salmon farmers. We have shellfish growers. We have black cod growers. We have some processors and feed manufacturers involved in the process.

We've looked at — and you're well aware of — all the issues. We raise carnivores. There's closed containment, fish escapes, waste management, many other issues — escaped fish, for instance. We've looked at all of those issues from the point of view of finding solutions which would allow finfish aquaculture — or shellfish aquaculture, for that matter — to be considered to be organically certifiable.

A lot of evolution has gone on, and companies like Creative Salmon have certainly jumped off into space at an early stage. They didn't know, at the stage when they said, "Okay, we're not going to use any antibiotics anymore," whether that really worked, but they went ahead and did it, and it does work.

In the process of looking at organic aquaculture, from the finfish point of view, we've learned a lot more about the fish than we ever knew before, because we don't have as many crutches. This is not being critical of the industry as a whole, because the industry as a whole has evolved just to be competitive in today's fish filter world. The industry as a whole has evolved toward…. They aren't very far away from the kind of ideals that the organic people are looking at. So it isn't a split-off splinter thing. There are a number of reasons why some of the larger operators probably won't become organic for the foreseeable future, but they may eventually go that way or achieve the equivalence of organic production.

POSA, the Pacific Organic Seafood Association, has a number of objectives. The first objective is that of organic food production — the production of wholesome food products of prime quality, free from artificial ingredients and providing a significant contribution to healthy diet; production methods that minimize the use of external resources; the prohibition of synthetic input factors other than those specifically authorized by the certifying body material list.

There are animal welfare objectives. There are a number of environmental objectives: having benign effects on local biological processes; preventing escape and predation of cultured organisms; maintaining healthy water conditions; using sustainable foodstuff; managing the production so that infectious organisms, parasites and input factors have minimal effects on wild organisms in the surrounding environment; and providing for polyculture in the production system in order to close nutrient cycles where possible.

That's an objective that is an obvious one to develop. It's illegal in Canada, actually, to officially conduct polyculture. Hopefully, that will change before too long, because that's a good way to go.

There are social objectives, and there are particular objectives relative to the preservation of wild aquatic flora and fauna. This is recognizing the fact that if you're operating a salmon farm, for instance, we don't just manage the fish. We know we don't just manage the fish in our nets. We are, in fact, a centre for an ecological system that surrounds us by maybe a couple of miles on each side. It is necessary to eventually be able to manage all organisms in that system or to manage our system so in effect it all works.

In order for that to happen, we've got to know a lot more than we do about the environment around us, and that comes to a problem. We cannot go to many of the people that call themselves environmentalists and say: "What do we have to know about that little critter? How do we manage it? How do we make it safe?" They usually can't tell us. We have the problem of being able to find people who can actually tell us about these things so that we can carry out adaptive management.

Anyway, those are the overall objectives in the process of making application to COABC, the Certified Organic Associations of British Columbia, which is the parent organization for a number of organic producing segments in the province — all of them on land, basically. We are working with COABC to develop a system whereby they can express the situation where we can become a member of COABC, so that we can become certified as organic producers.

When you look at the scope of the things that we raise, probably the shellfish people are much closer to organic certification than the finfish people. First of all, there are technical problems because we have to raise the crop. We have to feed the fish to meet their energy and physiological requirements so they will meet their genetic potential and grow into top-rate salmon.

We have to be able to do that, but we also have to satisfy some of the so-called ethical questions. We were raising carnivores. They eat fishmeal. Sometimes the fish escape. There's the question of closed containment, etc. That's going to be a situation where there's an awful lot of discussion going back and forth. We've already had very good discussion back and forth with COABC.

We may or may not be able to meet their requirements. We've certainly gone along the path in a very constructive way so that even now, although we're not certified at the present time, we can certify to our customers that this is exactly how we raise these fish. We don't give them antibiotics. They get this, that and the other thing. This is the carcass quality. You make up your mind. The objective of the association, however, is to become organically certified somewhere down the line as quickly as possible, hopefully.

Just looking at some of the issues. I won't try and touch all of these issues. First of all, there's the feed issue and the fact that salmon in the wild are carni-

vores. We've had people say that's ridiculous. This is like growing tigers for food. Actually, when you really look at farmed salmon, we're looking to grow organic farmed salmon, not wild salmon. Wild salmon require somewhere between five and ten or 12 kilos of wild feed fish — herring in this area, anchovies, whatever — to produce a kilo of wild swimming salmon. That's not terribly efficient, but that's because they expend an awful lot of energy moving around, migrating, catching prey, etc.

The other thing about the wild salmon is that you must have about half of the population go into the rivers to spawn if you're going to have a sustainable production of wild salmon. You can't just chop them all. Farmed salmon survive at a much higher rate, because we can control them much more closely. They survive at over 90 percent.

If you do the arithmetic actually comparing protein production from farmed salmon to protein production in chickens, you find that they're pretty similar. In fact, the farmed salmon come out a little bit ahead. They don't waste energy keeping warm. Chickens take more than a third of their energy just to maintain body temperature, like other homeotherms including humans.

Salmon are more efficient at processing protein and lipids. They don't digest carbohydrate very well. So we're a little limited in terms of land-based food sources. You find out that they're very similar to chickens. You're not comparing them with carnivores or even wild marine carnivores — certainly not with mammalian carnivores. That's a misconception, but it's easy to demonstrate that's the case.

One of the things that the organic principles require is that we get away from using fishmeal. Now, you have to use some fishmeal because nutritionally salmon and other fish have a high level of certain amino acids that you can only supply naturally by feeding them a fish product. But there are other things. There are yeasts. There is the potential for growing green algae, which would be a good protein source and a lipid source. There is considerable potential for using land-based protein and energy sources.

One of the other requirements of organic production is that you can't use anything with GMO components. This is a good regulation. This is part of the precautionary principle. Maybe eventually these things will be demonstrated to be okay, but on a precautionary basis, none of the organic societies will tolerate anything that is GMO-manipulated.

Unfortunately, if you go to an alternate protein source in Canada, you go to canola. This is the best thing we grow on the prairies other than wheat, yet the Canadian canola crop is now thoroughly contaminated with Roundup Ready GMO canola. It's very difficult to separate it and say for sure that if I buy a tonne of canola meal to put into a salmon ration, there isn't some of this stuff mixed into it. That's very frustrating, because as a Canadian nutritionist, that is where I would want to go for a lot of the land-based ingredients. We have to look at other alternatives.

Very, very briefly. Closed containment, as has been pointed out, is not being contemplated, and it's not being contemplated in organic production at the present time. There are land-based closed containment systems all over Vancouver Island. They're called hatcheries — like our own. We do some recirculation. There are some hatcheries that are much more highly recirculating than we are. They treat their waste as we do.

The production cost for producing smolts is about $10 a pound — something like that. The selling price for wild, for-market salmon is about $3 a pound, somewhere in that area, or less. It just doesn't fly.

As we had pointed out, it doesn't say that eventually closed containment may be possible. It's certainly possible with fish like tilapia, catfish, carp, for instance. Nobody eats carp in this country, but there are parts of the world where huge numbers of carp are produced and eaten. These are all freshwater fish that don't expend very much energy.

Salmon are very active. They use too much oxygen, particularly in marine culture. They're the reason why marine culture is advantageous, because there is not an unlimited amount of fresh water where you could grow salmon or other fish. Even though we have lots of fresh water in British Columbia, it's not unlimited.

Oxygen. The solubility of oxygen in sea water is about 20 percent less than it is in fresh water. So right off the bat you have to pump more water through the system to supply the same amount of oxygen that salmon normally get. There are a lot of other impractical things.

Escaped fish. The members of POSA — for instance, those that are growing salmon — have chosen to grow chinook, a native species, rather than Atlantic salmon, which on this coast are exotic. Therefore, there are some problems about the possibility of escaped fish interbreeding with wild fish, because they could do it. They could, but actually they don't to any significant extent.

If you look at an organization like Creative Salmon, they're absolutely bloody-minded about not letting fish out. I mean, this is just straight livestock management. You don't let your cows run off into the neighbour's property without building the fence up better.

Actually, escaped Atlantic salmon are pretty benign. They've been seen in rivers. There were very few little fry found a few years ago. I don't ever expect to see a second-generation Atlantic salmon swimming around for two good biological reasons. First of all, when they hatch, they're terribly slow-growing. Pacific salmon are much better fish. They can outgrow an Atlantic salmon very quickly.

The second thing is that Atlantic salmon on this coast have never seen IHN virus. The Pacific salmon have lived with this for millions of years. They can carry it; sometimes they get it. Atlantic salmon are just goners if they're not vaccinated. And who will vacci-

nate the wild second-generation Atlantic salmon? They're an embarrassment because they're out there, but other than that, that's all their environmental impact.

I think I'll quit now, and if there are possible questions or if I can talk afterwards, fine.

R. Austin (Chair): Thank you, Dr. Groves. You've generated lots and lots of thought in 20 minutes. I'm going to ask the members of the committee that if they have any questions that come out of your presentation, they put them into writing, and we will send them to you via the Clerk. Then you can reply via the Clerk, and they'll become part of the public records. Thank you very much for your presentation.

At this time I would like to invite Jason Mulder from Mulder Marine Ventures Ltd. to come up and make a presentation.

I'd also like to acknowledge that we have Keith Atleo here in the audience. He's the chief councillor of the Ahousaht First Nation.

J. Mulder: Good afternoon. My name is Jason Mulder. I own a small diving company in Tofino. I came to Tofino in 1993 with not even the knowledge of what a salmon farm was, and I began salmon farming. I did general work on salmon farms for five years, and then I became a diver and worked for five years for one company. When those five years had passed, I started my own company and worked for Creative Salmon. I've been with them for just about six years now, I think.

I'm here today to say that salmon farming is important to me and to the people that I employ. I employ three full-time divers, and I have a handful of part-timers. I believe that salmon farming is economically viable.

That's about it. I came to answer some questions too. I think that being a diver is a fairly original position to have in the industry, being in the water. I can take a look around this room, and I can guarantee there's a handful of divers, and they've all done a lot of diving. But doing it full-time and being in the pens of these fish so often really gives an original sort of position and a view of what salmon farms are doing.

G. Coons: Thank you, Jason. Obviously, as we see, there's a huge economic impact on this community and this region. I'm sure you've dived for many years. Do you have any concerns when you look at environmental issues? Is there something we should be concerned about if we are making recommendations to make the industry sustainable and move forward so that it can work with wild stocks and the environment and cover the issues that are of concern? Is there anything out there that you could pinpoint?

J. Mulder: I, like most of the people I work with, really have a passion about fish — and wild fish as well. None of us do it because we don't like wild fish or just for the money. Everyone out there has a real absolute concern for our product and the environment.

I guess working with Creative Salmon has been a great opportunity, because they have shown extreme measures to address any situations of escapement — which I've never seen happen — any situations with disease transfer. The most recent situation with so many sea lions in the area has really opened my eyes to how committed Creative is to addressing these problems. I think what they've done here to address that situation this year, starting in December, is exceptional.

G. Coons: Just a follow-up. Again, the concern that I or the committee and whoever out there may have is that one site or one company may be following environmental impacts, as you said, to a great degree, but it may vary in different sites or different areas, farms or companies. The regulations seem to be not the same for everybody.

The fish health management plan may not be consistent at every site or every farm. There may be a reading of regulations that may not, possibly, indicate that a farm is following best practices. But I'm glad to hear that in your experience, what you're seeing is comfortable to you. So thank you.

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): As a diver, you have experience in looking at the nets from a different perspective that we didn't get a chance to look at when we were inspecting the farms, and that's from under the water.

Now, if I understand it correctly, at Creative, for example, they have the predator net, which is right underneath the whole pen. Then there's a secondary net, the so-called shark net, and then the third, the actual containment net. So there are three nets. Have I got it right?

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): What's your anecdotal telling of what you see in predator attacks or vulnerability to predator attacks of these nets? Could you tell me what's typical, what you see or don't see?

J. Mulder: What's typical is very few numbers of sea lions. This year there has been — I fail to find the words — an outrageous population of sea lions present in the area. As an example of how many sea lions we're seeing this year, an average sighting of sea lions for me in a year's worth of diving full-time would be two to six sightings underwater. This year it has been almost every day, so the situation is definitely different.

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): Typically, though. How typical is it that you have to go out and fix holes in the nets where predators have chewed through? Is that a common occurrence? A daily thing? Very rarely?

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): So once a month, once every two months that might occur?

J. Mulder: Well, like Tim mentioned, we inspect the nets routinely once a month, and we're in each pen twice a week. We document all the net inspections. A hole which would have a risk of escapement is rare.

S. Simpson: Thank you for your presentation. When you're in the nets twice a week, what exactly are you doing? What's the activity? What are you reporting? How are you helping the operation?

J. Mulder: Generally, 75 percent of our dive work is recovering fish that have died and fallen to the bottoms. That's very routine. Sorry. What's the question again?

S. Simpson: Just generally wanting to get a bit of a picture of what your job is when you're in the net….

J. Mulder: We recover the fish and just make observations about fish behaviour or how the pens are secured if they are secured and definitely report what we see.

S. Simpson: How long does that take? Is it 15 minutes? Is it half an hour that you'll be in a net? You'll be in, you look around, you recover the morts and come out.

J. Mulder: It varies quite an amount from site to site and on what we are doing inside of the net. An average routine dive would probably be five to 15 minutes.

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): One other quick question. It's regarding anchorage. Have you seen any improvements, or what's the change in anchoring procedures? I mean, you get some pretty stiff winds up here.

J. Mulder: As far as anchoring goes, I have very little experience with anchoring. We do very little diving on anchors, generally because they're so deep. I understand that sort of work can be done without divers. They can pull them up and down as they please. But I do know that anytime there's a concern that maybe an anchor line has been rubbed by a barge or something, we get called to take a look at those anchor lines and make sure they're okay.

M. Martin: Thank you very much, and good afternoon. [Nuu-chah-nulth spoken.] Welcome.

My name is Moses Martin, and I'm the elected chief of the tribe that I come from — Tla-o-qui-aht — just four weeks into my mandate. Although I've been involved in first nations politics for quite a number of years — 30-plus years — I'll just let you know right away that I've never been known to stand up and make great speeches. For me, sometimes all that is, is lip service. I'm not afraid to roll up my sleeves and go to work and get my hands dirty so that I can make improvements in my community.

I have with me Richard Harry, president of the Aboriginal Aquaculture Association; Bruce Frank, one of my hereditary chiefs; and my wife, mother of two of my children.

I want to begin by speaking about Nuu-chah-nulth principles as I know them — principles that are cornerstones of this thing called self-governance. One of them is called hishuk-ish ts'awalk.

My simple interpretation of that and the Nuu-chah-nulth interpretation of that is we recognize that everything is connected. All life forms are connected. So we have this circle of life that includes our mountains, the forests on them, the rivers, the fish in them, the ocean — all of those and human life as well.

The second principle that allows us to do the things in the way that we do is called iisaak. It tells us that if we're going to impact anything within that circle of life, we must do it with respect.

I come from a typical first nations community with high levels of unemployed people. In my nation it's not as bad as other first nations are. Our unemployment level is around 60 percent in my community. Also, my tribe numbers around 900 members, and 60 percent live off reserve. Why? Because we haven't got the employment that we need to keep our people home.

Program dollars leave much to be desired. We are often very short on different programs, so we rely on the assistance that Creative Salmon provides for us in many activities — some of the preventative activities that allow us to do things with our children, which normally wouldn't be there because of our high levels of unemployed people.

Surf lessons, surfing, basketball — all the sporting activities that give us the opportunity of teaching our children to look after their bodies in a different way rather than sitting on street corners and getting involved with drugs and alcohol and those kinds of things that are available to kids of my youngest son's age, ten years old. They have access to those things.

I'm very proud to be associated with salmon farming like Creative Salmon. It means a lot to our community not just for employment opportunities but for many things in the area. Today I support Creative Salmon, something that I wouldn't have done 15 years ago. Why? Because I fought hard on zero impact to the environment. It's something that I was good at.

I worked with the environmental groups. I fought on issues like Meares Island and interim measures one, two and three. You might have heard about our famous negotiation session that we had with the province in Victoria for 40 straight days. We finally ended up with an interim measures agreement that allows us to have a say in what goes on in our communities and in our traditional territories.

Why the change now? Well, I paid a hell of a price for what I did in those days. My family is going into the fourth anniversary of when my granddaughter went missing on June 30 — missing because she got mixed up in the wrong crowd where she was living in Nanaimo, people like the Hell's Angels. She went to a party and was never to be seen again. We get all kinds of information about what happened to her. People saw her drugged; people saw her raped; people said they saw where she was put.

I feel responsible for that because of what I did, fighting hard on zero impact to the environment. We closed down the logging industry, pretty much, in Clayoquot Sound. We've done other things that left people with no employment opportunities.

The other one that I want to talk about is that I have a son here who's involved and employed by Creative Salmon. He's here today — Richard. He, too, ended up in a city two years ago, just out of school, 17 years old. He came to me two years ago. "Grampa, I want to work." He wanted to provide me with a resumé that I could take to Creative Salmon. But he, too, now is in jail. He got mixed up with the wrong crowd as well. He and another young man got into a fight, and the fellow eventually died.

I wonder: could it be different if I had done things differently 25 years ago? Would my family still be here? I hope my two young sons won't leave here but will live here like I have.

Now I look at things very differently. I understand very well the words of Delgamuukw, the beautiful words that he spoke in that court case: "We are all here to stay."

Rather than fight people all the time about the different things that impact us, I look for ways in which I can work with the municipality, with the regional district, and how I can work in my own community to minimize the impact, if there are impacts, to the environment.

The Nuu-chah-nulth people, including my people, managed things very well for thousands of years in ways that sustained our communities by those very simple principles of hishuk-ish ts'awalk and iisaak. My daddy used to talk about iisaak to me quite a lot when I was growing up. He said:

My humble interpretation of those words is: iisaak, respect, the very first law.

Then he also said: "If you always go by that, there isn't much that you're going to do wrong" — words that I live by very strongly. I hear my dad every day. He's been gone for almost 40 years now. I wondered for many years: if that's the first law, well, what are the others? It took me 21 years to figure out that there isn't any other law. That was in the words that my dad spoke. I couldn't figure that out for the longest time.

After he left, my dad came to me once a month for 21 years. He never said anything, just was there. I'd wake up, and this cloud would go up into the corner of the bedroom, until I figured out for myself and came to my own conclusion that there are no other laws. Then he finally came for one last time. He spoke. He said to me:

Also, it's part of our teachings that…. We're told that if we had left the mountains, the forest, the rivers, the fish in them…. If we had left those things alone, they would do very well on their own. What does that tell us? Quite simply, that it's us as human people that do the damage.

I go back to what I said earlier. I would rather work together with people to minimize any impact. We all do it. We all in some way, one way or another, have an impact on the environment. It doesn't matter what it is; we'll impact it in some way — valuable lessons that I learned and paid a heavy price for. But it opened my eyes.

B. Frank: Good afternoon. I just want to take this opportunity to say on record to the panel that sits in front of me: my name is Bruce Frank, and I'm an employee of Creative Salmon.

To go to about 15 years ago and our first encounter with Creative Salmon…. Through the direction of [Nuu-chah-nulth spoken], my chiefs, under the interim measures, my friend to my left negotiated, giving us this veto power of what's going to happen in our lands. Creative Salmon were the first people to apply for a foreshore lease.

I like to tell that story because of where it built from — through the direction of my chiefs and my elders telling Creative Salmon, through their application, to pack up and get out of our back yard. Today our relationship, throughout the past ten to 15 years, has been good — through employment, through contributions, as Moses said, to our first nations sporting activities, through our children, up to our elders.

I just want to say on record, through our first nation, that my people over the years have had no use for fish farms. Through Creative Salmon working with us over the years, we have supported fish farming. To see fish farms go up into dry lands to a closed containment system, which I hear is being talked about…. My first nation would not support that, as it would be laid in our lands, which are being negotiated within the treaty.

Clayoquot passed, by resolution, membership that does support fish farming. They are the first to work with first nations, and I can say it with pride. I enjoy working with Creative Salmon and their company because they treat the environment as we would.

R. Harry: Thank you, Chief Martin, for the invitation to participate with your first nations with their presentation here to this legislative committee.

My name is Richard Harry. I'm associated with the Aboriginal Aquaculture Association. We're made up of first nations communities along the B.C. coast. We're looking at ways and means to gather the most important, most useful information so that our people can make decisions on how and when to participate with various species in the aquaculture sector.

The reason that we put the association together was to address the very concerns and issues that Chief Martin has presented to you. This is the well-being of our people. We are people of the sea. We have always made our living on the sea. My whole life has been on the sea. With the decline of the wild fishery, that way of life is disappearing very quickly. Most of us have been forced out of the commercial and wild fishery with no other means to support our families, let alone our communities to sustain themselves.

We're not in a position that we can just pack up, leave and move someplace else. We've been here for thousands of years, and I'm sure these folks will continue to be here for thousands of years. This is where we belong — on the coast.

With the decline of opportunities, we have to look at how to sustain ourselves. How do we sustain our communities? It's no different than having sustainable industries or resources. We have to be sustainable as a people. Part of that is looking after our families, looking after our youth.

The leaders that created the Aboriginal Aquaculture Association have the vision that we can participate in a meaningful way. We can take a lead role in the creation of sustainable aquaculture on the coast, and yes, we can create careers for our youth, for our young people and the present generation. I take that message directly from Chief Martin's words here.

We are going to participate. We believe that this industry has a lot of room to grow. That's why we are here. That's why I think you are a part of this legislative committee.

How do we expand this industry that seems to be stymied when there is room to grow? Are we going to forgo the socioeconomics to look after an offshore agenda as it relates to environment? Government has a mandate for jobs. That's your mandate. We will work with you to achieve that.

I hope you take these words and bring back to your government that we want to see aquaculture expanded and developed. Yes, we will work with you to make it sustainable culturally, environmentally, socially. Thank you.

J. Yap: Thank you for your presentations, all of you. I was moved by your sharing, Chief Martin. Clearly, you've gone through a journey. You shared with us that you fought the fight at one time, many years ago, and now you've reconciled and are working to make a better life for your community positively with aquaculture.

I understand and appreciate that there are others, first nations leaders, people who are still fighting. My question to you is: what would you say to these folks to help them move along and perhaps come to the kind of place that you're at?

M. Martin: I hope that people don't have to learn the hard way, like I did. Two weeks ago in a meeting between the local first nations and the environmental groups, we had a meeting in this very same hall. I tabled a proposal that would allow us to have that discussion, knowing that we all have some impact on the environment. Our proposal would have us have that discussion on how we minimize those impacts and still create employment opportunities for the many people who are unemployed in our communities.

I know there are a lot of first nations people who still don't support aquaculture salmon farming in our communities, but they still haven't taken the time to listen, to look and to see what is actually going on. I hope that we do before it's too late. Although there are many people in my community who still don't like aquaculture…. Well, what other options do we have? What other alternatives are there? There aren't very many in Clayoquot if you're not involved in the tourist industry. Outside of that, it's social assistance or going to the city.

J. Yap: It sounds like there should be more positive dialogue to help people see what the opportunities could be in a sustainable way within the community.

M. Martin: Yes, that's right. I've got a fairly new elected system — our people on the council that I sit with. Some of them have never been involved in first nations politics. They also haven't had the opportunity to actually go out on a farm to look at how things are done there.

We do have a date that we've set aside so that we can do the same thing that you people did today — go out and actually be there and ask the questions that they need to, to satisfy a concern that they have or questions that they have. Then people like Spencer and Tim Rundle have the answers to the technical questions that people might want to ask.

C. Trevena: I'd like to thank you, Chief. It's a very powerful presentation.

Obviously, your nation, your band has very severe economic problems, great unemployment. I wanted to know, though…. Obviously, you have a very good relationship with Creative Salmon, and they've helped your community. What has the industry done to give you the confidence that it is one you feel you can work with, you can support, you can advocate for, and you can bring your band and other bands along with it?

Creative Salmon goes way beyond what we require. Before my principals could support any salmon farming in their traditional territories, there were actually 12 or 13 conditions that they laid down, which they expected Creative Salmon to meet before they could say: "Yes, you can operate in our traditional territories."

Like everyone else, we all heard how bad aquaculture was and how bad salmon farming was. They contaminate your clam beaches. They do this and that. That was one of the conditions that Muu-chin-ink stressed: that we must monitor the clam beaches. That's one of the things we heard — how the clam beaches, if they're located near a farm, would become contaminated. But we haven't found that. We've monitored that for a number of years, and we've never seen any changes in the quality of clams on those beaches.

C. Trevena: Just one other question. You've got the agreements with Creative Salmon. There's Mainstream in the area and other farms. How do you feel about those? Is it your same approach?

C. Trevena: The other farms, the other representations of the industry in the area — do you feel as comfortable about those? Or is it a specific relationship that you have with Creative Salmon?

M. Martin: Well, it's a special relationship that we have with Creative Salmon, but it's the first time I've been to other ones today — the same as you have. I see the same thing there, really. I say that because of my own experiences, and I really hope we can look at it.

We've also done that in tourism. We sat, and we watched. We sat, and we watched. Pretty soon we were left out of the industry. So if there is an opportunity for us to get involved in different ways — maybe a farm of our own so that we can help sustain our communities — we have to look at that before we say no.

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): Firstly, thank you, Chief Moses, for your very moving and important message to us about respect.

My question is to Richard Harry about respect and consultation. We have heard testimony from a witness earlier that we're not offering proper respect at consultations with first nations with respect to aquaculture. You represent the association of first nations. How have we done as a government? Are we consulting? Are we listening to you?

R. Harry: I would think, like any other issue, that there's always room for improvement. I think this industry learned that when it started 20-some-odd years ago — and governments. There was very little consultation, if any at all. Between the time it started to now, there has been just a whole…. It's mushroomed to the point that yes…. It's very critical, as you know, that without first nations participation, there is no growth or development.

I can certainly say that yes, we have done that. I think the first nations, those that are ready, can be proactive to take the initiative to participate in whichever way they choose.

Your question is: does the consultation suffice? You know, my personal judgment on that is yes. If the first nation is brought in to participate at the onset, yes, you certainly can reach something that's inclusive of all parties.

Where that doesn't happen is that you do…. There are confrontations, as we know, whether it's through the courts or through the papers. I guess it's one of those situations where government really can't do enough to make sure it does play that role.

S. Fraser: Thanks again, Moses, for the moving statements. Good to see you again, Carla. And Richard, thank you.

Again, I want to acknowledge Bruce Frank and the hereditary chief of the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation, in whose traditional territory we now sit. Your words about iisaak I want to acknowledge to the audience. This has been very respectful. I really appreciate that from all sides, so thank you. Ron's touched on it, and so did John — a couple of issues.

Richard, you've mentioned about giving us advice about what to bring back as the message. Still on record, the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council has the resolution — to my knowledge, it hasn't been rescinded — opposing fish farms. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs has a similar resolution, and I know it's still on the record.

As you know, I am critic for Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. I get first nations in B.C. contacting me on a fairly regular basis, feeling that they are not being adequately, appropriately consulted or that their environmental concerns around wild stock or the rivers that they are entwined with — that hishuk-ish ts'awalk — that their concerns are not being addressed.

I guess I'm looking for advice. You've come a long way in your work, Moses, as you've mentioned, with Creative Salmon and getting that trust and, obviously, a level of consultation that you're comfortable with, but not all first nations are getting that across the province in coastal B.C. I know there's no quick solution here, but any suggestion for those nations that are not getting that level of consultation or comfort with companies active in their traditional territories? Do you have any solution on how to do that?

You're seeing 20- to 30-percent employment from first nations with Creative, and I know that means a lot under the circumstances. How did that occur, in a nutshell? Is there anything you can give to other nations to help with that? I know it's not a simple answer. I'm probably taking up too much time with it, but it's important.

R. Harry: Maybe I could comment on that. It isn't the first time that I'm asked about consultation from

government. My response recently has been that it has to be one-on-one with the individual first nation. I believe that is really crucial. You know, as an association or myself, I certainly can't speak for any individual first nation. I, too, take my marching orders from the first nations, the membership. But my advice to government would be just one-on-one with first nations. If we can collaborate collectively, we certainly would do that.

G. Robertson: Thank you for being here and speaking with us today and welcoming us to your community. Following up on Scott's question, referring specifically to first nations on the north coast who have strong wild fish populations — wild salmon on the Skeena — and who are very concerned.

I travelled to Norway last week to meet with the Norwegian government and the companies that have applications to put fish farms in the mouth of the Skeena River. Their feeling on consultation is different. They have a wild fishery that is still strong. What is your advice in a situation like this on the north coast where there still are lots of wild salmon, there are no fish farms, and we have an opportunity to steer a different course? Do you have advice for this situation?

M. Martin: For myself personally, I spent many years as a commercial fisherman — 46 years, to be exact — until I quit about 1992. When I quit and left the industry, there were something like 20,000 commercial fishermen in one way or another. You either had deckhands or boat owners, boat operators.

We've become so efficient at catching the fish that wild stock don't have a chance. They don't have a hope in hell of surviving, because when they come out of their system, they're faced with their natural predators. Then they start to come back, and they face us as commercial trollers. Then they get closer to the river system, and they face a net fisherman — two types of net gears: gill-net, seine. Then they get into the rivers and first nations people want them.

When I quit we were bottomed out in the salmon industry. We had equipment that when you were travelling you could see fish underneath you. You could tell what kind of fish they were. You could tell how deep they were. Then you had equipment on a boat that you could actually make a fish bite — the different amount of currents flowing through your equipment and then the hull. You could actually make a fish bite.

G. Robertson: Perhaps the most controversial element in recent times related to aquaculture has been the decision that the provincial government made several years ago to be able to override community wishes and community concerns — it was called Bill 48 — to make sure that projects went through. Across where I lived in Homalco First Nation's territory, it became a big issue where the community was not allowed to make the decision.

Do you have advice on whether these sorts of decisions should be community-based or should be status quo, where Victoria ultimately makes the decision about farms being sited in communities?

R. Harry: I'll answer that. The times that you're talking about Homalco, I was the Chief there. I was Chief at Homalco for 20 years. The issues that you're talking about I negotiated, and yes, they were brought before the membership. I don't think I could answer you any clearer than that. We had newsletters, you know.

I chose to step down four years ago, and those issues have taken a different turn. We looked at employment opportunities. We looked at good arrangements for an industry to come into our traditional territory.

As a first nations leader my mandate is the well-being of people and jobs. That's what we did. We are trying to remove the dependency on social programs. That is also why the association exists today. If first nations leadership in some communities choose not to, then that's their choice. And that's what's happening here.

G. Robertson: Is your feeling, though, that it should be community-based, however it works out in the community? I think in your situation, the first nation community and the non-native community had a difference of opinion, and the province had another position. The importance of local decision-making — should that be a priority over a decision being made in Victoria?

R. Harry: That's a difficult one. I've always cautioned our first nations people at the treaty table that it isn't the senior government that's going to be the issue; it's going to be other local governments. And that's what you're seeing.

My position is nation-to-nation negotiations and not a local government position for first nations.

G. Robertson: One other quick question, specifically on chinook versus Atlantic: would you have the same confidence and close working relationship and respect with Creative if they were farming Atlantic? Is it important to you what species — that it's a native species versus an exotic species?

M. Martin: When I was speaking of conditions that were laid down by my hereditary…. That was one of them. They asked them to only grow chinook.

Then, your other question, I think you hit that right on the head. Communities should have a say, because each area is unique.

I'd like to now invite Alistair Haughton from Mainstream Canada to come up and make a presentation, please.

A. Haughton: I'll make it brief. First, good afternoon, and allow me to welcome you to our community. I'll read from some notes so I don't get off track; I have a tendency just to babble.

My name is Alistair Haughton, and I proudly represent Mainstream Canada in partnership with the Ahousaht First Nation and other community members. With this said, I want to be clear that by saying we're in partnership and there's the Ahousaht First Nation…. I want to say that Tofino, Ucluelet and outlying areas all have and are made up of diverse and multiple different cultural groups. However, we see ourselves as one community. We don't see very many divisions, and we're trying to draw people together more, working as one rather than as individual groups.

We as members of Mainstream Canada have been tasked not only with operating a sustainable and profitable company but also with the care and management of our ecosystem and all that it supports. Of course, we do not take either of these tasks lightly.

Representation at Mainstream Canada is made up of professional aquaculturists who not only adhere to the clear mandate of sustainable aquaculture, which is actually quite hard to quantify, but also believe in this as professionals. We have strong leadership both corporately and locally. This leadership encourages and requires all of our members and service support team to act in an ethical and professional manner, adhering and holding true all regulatory requirements and, of course, Cermaq's core values — Cermaq being Mainstream's parent group.

I don't necessarily believe that this is the forum to extensively debate the pros and cons of aquaculture, unless you want to stay for a couple of days. Moreover, I believe it's our past and present actions and governance that speak to our commitment, work ethics, foresight and integrity in the day-to-day operations of our business, in tandem with the stewardship of the environment we live in.

You had an opportunity today to visit one of our sea sites. I explained briefly how we used to operate and how we operate now. We do not believe that we're at the end. We don't believe, as I said, we're at the middle. We're continually somewhere between the beginning and the middle, and we're always evolving on a daily basis for the future.

Nine-tenths of our professional team — suppliers, contractors and community members — are made up of unique and dedicated individuals and family groups who have been directly and indirectly involved in many resource-based industries prior to aquaculture. We've all witnessed the evolution of these industries. In many cases they're collapsed due to a long-term effect on the environment. We've seen detrimental effects and damage done to companies due to public perception — and in many cases, quite negative public perception.

Some of these industries are rebounding, but the environmental pressures and prior impact caused will hinder their rebound and in many cases will not allow them to fully recover. For us, we've learned from these instances and these cases specifically. We've had the opportunity to watch these industries evolve and in many cases get knocked down, and whole communities collapse. We will not allow that happen with our industry.

Many of our people see aquaculture for what it is. It's basically a fresh start; it's a new beginning. Aquaculture has been around locally, from its early days, for 20 years. But it's gathered the international attention probably in the last five.

It's really building quite a head of steam. We understand that. We saw this five years ago. We strategized, and we understood that it was going to take a long time and involve a lot of trust and confidence-building in order for the public, government and other stakeholders to feel confident in what we were doing — that we were not going to make similar errors as we had done prior, not just in aquaculture but in resource-based industries.

We've entered this with a conscious understanding of the damage that we cause if we're not diligent and vigilant in what we do daily. Our team deploys itself daily in accordance with our best management practices, which we follow, and in accordance with our environmental management system, which of course is an independent auditing system designated as ISO 14001.

Based on the past and what has occurred in sister resource-based industries, we employ foresight, communication and professionalism on a daily basis. We proactively assess our risks and take the appropriate actions to mitigate them. By this I mean that we as a team look forward, we look at what's evolving around us and on the horizon, and we invoke community support and involvement. We invoke everybody to come to the table and come to some solution and provide us with some foresight and some ability to manage the risks that are potentially coming our way.

We work closely with the Ahousaht First Nation as we operate in their traditional territory. Our relationship was tense, to say the least, in the early days. Then it eventually evolved into more of a business relationship. That really isn't conducive to working in a community. As community members, we wanted to work more on a personal and respectful level so that we didn't have to necessarily have meetings similar to this and lots of fluffy talk. It was more right down to the facts, deal with the issues and come to some resolve.

We worked very hard to build a respectful relationship. As Chief Moses said earlier, there are still people within the community who do not support aquaculture, as I myself don't support other areas either. I have that right. It's nothing anybody here does. What we've done is invested in the community and given our word, which we'll stick by, that we are open to criticism and suggestions. Of course, we welcome all input

and advice when it comes to how we mould our business and carry our practice forward.

Again, we are professionals in our chosen field. This industry has evolved in the last five years to a point where more universities and colleges have developed specific course material in aquaculture. We see it as something that is good for the populace at large. It can and will take care of a specific area where, as certain resources are depleted, other resources need to take their place. It's just a fact.

We're recruiting externally as well as internally. For the people who have been with the company for a very long time — and there are quite a few — it's our job to train those people to the standards that are adhered to at a community and professional level. Again, we don't see this as the end or the middle; we see it as a beginning. We projected at least another three years of something similar to this, as we evolve. It is a matter of gaining trust, respect and having the public at large understand that we're not going to make the same errors as we've done in the past. I mean "we" as in as the populace at large. We're going to work at this, and we're going to make it so that it's done properly.

I'd like to throw a few numbers at you. It wasn't really my intention to put the numbers forward. I was rather hoping that we could just explain the position that we're professionals, and we have a very strong ethics code as well as core values that we adhere to daily.

Locally we are the community's largest full-time employer — Mainstream Canada. Companywide we employ roughly 300 people. It fluctuates. We currently have here in the Tofino area roughly over 30 percent first nation employment level within the company. Again, it fluctuates, as do our non–first nations employees. I'll split it into two groups. In the year 2006 we'll expense short of $100 million; $50 million of that will be expensed in this area.

As I explained to you earlier, our employment levels have dropped off, and we have removed key components from our company. We have focused on what we do best, and that's grow and husband and take care of those fish. That's what we do. We're not anchor specialists. We're not welders. We're not mechanics. We're aquaculture, and that's what we do.

We've removed those units from the company and employed them into the communities. One of our mandates is to build capacity within the community. As I mentioned earlier, I don't necessarily believe it's a good thing to have communities wholeheartedly dependent upon one industry. We've seen what that can do.

Our job is to assist capacity-building in the community so it's more diversified, so it's not all hinged onto one area. People eventually do become upset with a specific company if their whole lives are tied to it. That's just the law of nature.

As I said, we're ISO 14001–certified. Primarily that was done to ensure that from a corporate level as well as from the public level, there was a good, solid understanding that we were being externally audited by a non-involved party — a party who could stand back and take a third look at what we were saying and either agree or disagree and set us straight.

We continue to do four to five times above the required level of monitoring. By that I mean sediment monitoring at sea-site level. We have very specific stocking policies. I explained those earlier. We don't move split down. We actually produce less tonnage in biomass than we did previously, yet generate more in the revenue. We've become very good, and we're evolving. We'll become even better.

Escapes — not happening. Can they happen? Sure they can happen. We're taking precautions to make sure they don't. Again, we mitigate risk.

We believe in transparency. Traceability I explained earlier. I could trace back — a matter of going to a database — exactly what fish came from where, who fed it, who brought it there, where its parents came from.

Compliance. Three years ago this company was at 24-percent compliance with the government. It literally was the black sheep of the family in aquaculture. It was in shambles. We're currently at 100 percent. However, it's not the end. The government audits at different levels throughout the year, and they are always watching — ever vigilant.

Environmental work with the first nations, for instance…. We saw the risk evolving on the horizon with the Broughton regarding sea lice. We joined in partnership with the Ahousaht, Tla-o-qui-aht and Creative Salmon. We joined forces to do our own wild stock sampling. We ensured that we were doing comparative studies in areas that, of course, had no farming operations in them, so we could have some qualitative comparative analysis done. That continues to this date.

We've decreased in-site usage, as I said. We've removed from our line plan six sites. We won't use them again. We've seen an increase in fish health management overall. We've had a complete decrease in fish health issues. Our focus is on animal welfare. As I explained earlier, it's our job to take care of that animal. Whether it's destined for the tabletop or not, it's our job to take care of it while it's with us, and that's what we practise.

All moneys generated by this operational company are reinvested into the community. We don't siphon off money to other countries or foreign lands. It all stays here and is reinvested. Three years ago we invested $50 million in the local community in the sense of infrastructure, upgrades of equipment, and in July of '05 we invested $33 million on the other side of the Island.

S. Fraser: I know we're probably running late here, so I'm going to try to be quick. You mentioned your relationship with the Ahousaht. Eight years ago Chief Martin and I, with the central region board…. There was near violence at some point there.

You mentioned that there's 30-percent first nations employment. How many members from Ahousaht does that represent?

S. Fraser: We heard from Chief Martin that there was a protocol agreement being arrived at and that there were certain stipulations. Were they employment-based? I'm thinking for the interest of other first nations that maybe aren't having a successful relationship if they have environmental concerns or if they have other concerns. What was entailed in the protocol agreement?

A. Haughton: The agreement is confidential. However, the basis of the agreement is not monetary or anything like that. Again, it has an issue that we will respect and take care of the environment; that we're allowed to operate in the traditional territory; that we'll respect when we're told we're in trespass of a certain condition — i.e., that we're getting too close to a specific area of traditional use; that we will assist the community in developing employment opportunities. And that's what we do.

In all honesty, it's a very basic agreement. It just spells out that we're not going to dirty the pool basically. As I said, it started out very businesslike, but it's now evolved, and it's still evolving more into an open…. Communication was a big one in there. We had to be able to communicate. That was one of the key areas. There was no communication between the company and the first nation at that point.

S. Fraser: Okay. Thank you, Alistair. Just to finish off, is that communication with chief in council? Is that how it's done?

A. Haughton: Yes, sir, with chief in council, as well as with all other community members — communication as to letting people know what we're up to and where we're going and letting people within the company know what's happening, because there was a lot of first nation involvement within the company. The management of the company at the time did not disseminate what was happening with the company. They wanted the people to understand where the company was going and feel part of the company, the company plan, culture — so definitely communication with the chief in council, of course.

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): You mentioned sea lice, which is a major issue of public perception. What is your experience with it? Is it a problem for you? What are typical counts?

A. Haughton: No, it's not. In this area there are a couple of parameters, I'm sure, that come into play. The prevalence of lice locally isn't that high. There aren't a lot of localized carriers in the area. You'll notice that on the other side there was a study conducted, and they discovered that there's probably a localized host, probably pelagic fish lying low that are kicking about. I don't fully understand the full cycle in the sense of the larvae stage and how it carries forward, but I know enough that from the site level, our densities are extremely low. Our fish are very, very healthy when they enter the water.

Just really quickly. You've got the pen. You'll notice today that you didn't see a lot of guys swimming around in the corners. Those guys up in the corners are the guys who are about to kick off. Sometimes they don't kick off. They stick it out for 20 months, 18 months, till the pen is harvested. If you have that type of stock within the pen, there is more prevalence of disease. They're more of a target to the predator-like sea lice. Sea lice are just looking for a place to hang out. If the fish tend to be strong, virile, of good health and moving about, there is far less prevalence of attracting and getting lice, especially if you keep densities down. That's a big one.

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): One very quick question. Wild salmon are very important. Do you see that your operations are affecting or impacting wild salmon? If so, how?

A. Haughton: No, I don't see that they're affecting the wild salmon. I'm a sport fisherman. As well, I worked on many fishing boats commercially. I saw a lot of lice prior to the evolution of the aquaculture industry. In some areas I do see higher lice issues — absolutely. I believe that is either case specific to the area or an environmental issue in that they're just higher in specific areas. We've caught fish north of here, wild stock — I mean, just loaded — and south, nothing, and then just at the mouth over here, just loaded again. I don't know where they're picking them up, but they're getting them.

S. Simpson: Thank you for the presentation, and thank you for the opportunity earlier today to visit your facility.

I have a couple of questions. One comes out of a point that you made in your presentation when you talked about the importance of transparency and the commitment of Mainstream to transparency. I think that is important. What we know is that there's an awful lot of debate around issues related to aquaculture and assertions made on one side or both sides about what is and isn't fact and what is and isn't occurring. I would think more transparency helps to dissolve some of that and makes it a more singular discussion.

One of the areas that we've been learning a little bit about is fish health, which obviously is a pretty critical area. All of the farms have fish health plans, as I understand. That's a requirement. But I also believe those plans are not public documents. I'm just wondering if you could tell us whether you see reasons why they shouldn't be public documents — whether there's proprietary information or what — as we start talking about how to increase that transparency. So in the case of a fish health plan, somebody could say: "Well, at Mainstream here's what the plan says should occur, and here's what occurs."

A. Haughton: As we mentioned earlier, the plan is a basic template drawn up by the government. It's fill-in-the-blanks. If your pen of fish has a prevalence past 15 percent of X, what will you do? For most companies, the X equals the same. The vet makes the call. The vet, a doctor of veterinary medicine qualified to operate in the province of British Columbia, looks at the fish and makes the decision. We have very little interaction when it comes to the veterinary health of those fish. The vet makes those decisions. The code laid out by the veterinarian council is easily obtained, and it has most of that information spelled out in it — how they are to carry out their duties in the care and maintenance of fish health.

I don't see any reason why the fish health plan would not be public information. The template itself is on the government website somewhere, hidden in there. I found my birth certificate in there once.

I believe, though, that if a lot of people in the industry feel a little bit standoffish, it's because other similar agriculture and companies involved with livestock do not have to disclose that information, nor are they ever pursued for that information. You have the aquaculture industry being targeted, in many cases, to produce information that really is not very relevant from our perspective.

Yes, from a transparency perspective, you'd think we're hiding something. We're not. It's a basic, bland-as-hell document. The vet makes the calls. We are not allowed to make any decisions when it comes to therapeutants, medicants — anything like that. We can't just order it up.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that, but in terms of the document…. As you say, you get a document that's a fill-in-the-blanks document from government, and it says: "Answer these questions. Give us this information that we require for you to complete a plan." But there's nothing in there, I understand, other than that some people in the industry may say: "How come us and not somebody else?"

My interest is that there's nothing in there you can see, on the face of it, that says: "If I make this information public, it compromises the operation of my business versus maybe somebody I compete with."

A. Haughton: Yes, you're correct. There's nothing in there that's going to…. It's not proprietary in that sense. I didn't mean to make it so bland in that it's just some fill-in-the-blanks document. It's extremely bloody thorough. All they're asking for is specific thresholds. They want some consistency across the group, which is a very good approach to have. However, certain areas have different salinities. They have different issues when it comes to algae and things like that, so there are different trigger and level points. That's all they're asking you to do — fill in those triggers.

S. Simpson: Thank you for that, and I have one other question. We spoke a little about this earlier today. It's a more global question about the industry on the coast. We now know that as a successful mid-size operator in the industry…. We have seen the consolidation with Pan Fish, Marine Harvest and Stolt into a single company that has 85 percent of the industry in a single company, largely. What does that do? We know that kind of concentration sometimes creates challenges in an industry — if you concentrate in that way. I'm just curious: as an operator, do you see challenges around that?

A. Haughton: Sir, I don't mean to be flip, but size is not everything. It has to do with how you perform. This is going to sound cheeky, but it has to do with how we carry out our business. Creative, if you want to look at it, is a small operation, and they've found a very good market in the way they're able to distribute their product. They found specific buyers who are interested in that typical product. They raise a good product, and they're able to market it to a very specific group — actually, at a premium. They do very well, and the same with our company.

In the sense of competitiveness, you're right. There's always going to be some ability, as the bigger group, to dump on the market and smother prices and do that sort of thing. But we're big boys, and I don't honestly believe they're that cheeky. They are going to play fair, and especially with our company.

We're able to recruit and garner loyal clientele to our product. That's what it's about. It's about being able to deliver a really high-quality product, and people say: "I'm going to stay with you. The prices are fair. The product is good."

G. Hogg: The general public's — probably more so the urban public — image and understanding of issues necessarily lag behind the reality of where issues are,

so the public perception in the large urban areas is different than it is in a community that is so intricately involved in fish farming and knows people and has a grasp of it and an understanding of change that happens.

You made reference a couple of times to the fact that things are dramatically different today than they were five years ago. You talked about three years ago in terms of your company's compliance and the changes, so I'm assuming that there have been some dramatic shifts in the way practices are carried out. I'm also assuming that the grasp and understanding that exist probably in the large urban areas come from a basis or understanding that existed perhaps three or five years ago.

Can you give me a short course in how things are different today? If I were to look at what is happening in this area with respect to it five years ago as opposed to what's happening today, what are the significant changes or differences that are taking place? And what's the impact of those changes? In just 30 seconds or less. I'm kidding.

A. Haughton: First and foremost, the technology at the time, even as short as two years ago, was not really up to speed with what was happening out there in the sense of tide, currents — you name it — and containment. It just was not there. Uplift systems, as I showed you today, feeding systems — those beasts are evolving daily as the industry builds.

When we were given the task to clean up the company, we took over with the understanding that we have to change out everything. To do that, we had to change the way that people perceived our operation locally, and from that, hopefully, it would grow larger. We had to build capacity and trust with the community so that they believed we were going in the right direction.

Through that, we basically started to employ people to come to the sites to do the work — the auxiliary work, the anchoring of the sea sites, engineering firms, firms that come in and drop the gear. We started to employ higher standards when it came to the containment nets, the predator nets, as we have seen earlier today.

G. Hogg: Sorry. If I could focus a little bit. Are there, say, three things that the urban public still assumes about fish farming which have been a dramatic change not necessarily just with respect to Mainstream but more broadly? Are there three global things? They assume it to be detrimental to wild salmon; they assume it to be environmentally deleterious.

There are a whole bunch of assumptions made out there that are based on what happened three to five years ago. What's different today that would say to those people: "It's not the same thing. The judgment you're making is not based on the world that we're working in today"?

A. Haughton: Escapes, benthic impact…. You got me. Did you have to say three? Couldn't you just leave it at two?

A. Haughton: Well, I would say escapes, benthic impact, and the overall view of a bunch of bloody cowboys out there having a wild, good old time and just pillaging, pretty much, and not having any concern further than where we can see our noses at the end of the sea site.

G. Hogg: How are we changing that? Is that perception starting to change? Are you taking some responsibility for that perception change? I think that's part of our responsibility in terms of that. But what role are the companies playing in that as well?

A. Haughton: The role of our company to put that message out…. Is that what you're asking me — to put that message forward?

G. Hogg: I think that part of our responsibility is to ensure that the broad public understanding is based on reality, not based on old news or on assumptions. We're trying to understand what the reality is, trying to get a grasp and understanding for ourselves in terms of that.

Secondly, before there can be active action taken by governments, government has to have a fair amount of support from communities at large. I think you have a fair amount of support, as do the other farms within this community. How do we take the common ground that exists there and make sure that it is understood more broadly across the province and that people across the province can make decisions based on good information, not based on the three criteria that you just gave me?

A. Haughton: Who here works, directly or indirectly, for Mainstream? Put your hand up.

I talk to these people. I show them, and their managers and so forth show them. We talk, and we learn together. We discuss the issues at hand. We show the people who work within the company what we're doing as a company and how we're improving our act.

Could you just put your hands up again? Don't be so chicken. Gail, you used to work for us. Put your hand up.

A. Haughton: How many of you have a family member? Jeez, that's it? A bunch of loners.

What we're hoping is that that will, of course, spread out from the group. It's going to take a long time. We don't have the capacity to do media and mass media campaigns. That looks a little bit cheesy from our standpoint.

I invite people like yourselves to come forward, as you did today. And I encourage you to come more often. Come see what we're doing and, if you are able,

go to other communities, especially the metropolitan areas, and say: "Actually, we've gone first hand, and these guys are not lying. They're telling us the truth."

J. Yap: Yes, I'll drill to the heart of what I think Gordie was trying to get at, and that is: what is your company doing in terms of investing in getting a message out? The other side has done a better job and continues to do a better job of reinforcing their message. So what is your company doing? What is industry doing to get out its message that, in your words, you're not going to make the same mistakes that you've made in the past and you're doing what needs to be done? What are you doing to get your message out?

A. Haughton: Not much. We're not as well coordinated as we should be. I don't mean just our company; I mean all of us. We need to be far more coordinated, and we need to be far more directive in our campaign. I don't mean to say "campaign," but an information campaign, a truthful campaign.

The fact is that we're not in the slur business. We don't go around making wisecrack remarks and half-truths, little bits here and little bits there, and just stir up the public. It's not our job.

J. Yap: Perception is the reality, which I think we all understand. If there was one message you'd like to get out — maybe you've given this some thought — what would it be?

J. Yap: Other than "Hi, Mom," what would it be to the people in urban areas throughout British Columbia? That your industry is now on the right path and doing all the right things? It's sustainable? It's positive? What would it be?

A. Haughton: In all honesty, I would say: come and see us. Come with an open mind, and that you're not going to garner or collect information and then disseminate it in a negative way.

Noting that we are running behind schedule, I'm going to ask if it's possible for Rose Zilliken to make her presentation. She's cancelled? Well, that's fortunate.

I would like to invite Sean McIntosh to come make his presentation, and we will recess after that.

S. McIntosh: Good afternoon. My name is Sean McIntosh. I'm the general manager of Method Marine Supply in Tofino, which is an independent fuel company and industrial supplier to all of the marine industries left in Tofino and Clayoquot Sound, one of the most important ones being the aquaculture industry.

We employ ten full-time, year-round staff and three seasonal staff. We also have another little outdoor store on the main street for just clothing and stuff like that.

Method Marine enjoys a very good professional relationship with the finfish aquaculture business, operating in Clayoquot Sound, being Mainstream and Creative. We do a significant amount of both fuel and industrial hardware business with these companies. It's not just a small part of our business.

I'm here today, basically, to give a little bit of support for the industry. We've seen the decline of other industries in Clayoquot Sound — logging and commercial fishing — and it would not be a good thing for the community to see the decline of one of the last viable industries. The other one is tourism, which is very seasonal in Tofino, and we can't rely on it to make the whole business.

For us it's just an important thing that this panel in this process recognizes the importance of viable industry that's left in Clayoquot Sound and is not swayed by public opinion in thinking that closed containment is the way this industry might be best suited. It has been stated over and over again that it's not an economically viable solution to this industry.

Over the past decade the marine community has seen the withdrawal of the major oil companies, and this is just another industry that's changing. Tofino, Ahousat and Ucluelet are now serviced just by small, independently owned marine fuel stations like us and don't have millions of dollars of backing to fall back on as more and more industries seem to be declining and swaying by the roadside.

There's a very, very high impact on small communities like Tofino when industries leave. People should realize that Creative Salmon and Mainstream, as Alistair explained better than I could ever have done, have improved the way they've maintained their operations — changing things, he says, over the past three or five years to make it more viable to the environment and just follow the regulations that are set forth. It seems to me that they're probably exceeding a lot of those regulations.

S. Fraser: Thanks, Sean. Good to see you again. What percentage figure do you get from the industry? Have you got any estimate?

S. McIntosh: I would be saying probably 30 percent of our business is from finfish aquaculture. It's a year-round business. It's not just like the bang in the summer, with the tourism. Being year-round, it allows us to keep three or four people full time in the winter and not have to worry about all the layoffs and the short-staffing and things like that that have to go on if the business wasn't there.

We seem to have caught up there, remarkably, so we'll now recess for 40 minutes and return later.

I would like to let people know that, unfortunately, John Yap and Gordon Hogg had to leave for some other commitments in their constituencies prior to this meeting being organized. They will certainly be reading all the transcripts of what is said here and will be a full part of the deliberations when we do have those deliberations.

I would just like to take this opportunity to introduce myself to the people behind me as well. I'm Celina Tuttle, and I work with the Friends of Clayoquot Sound. I work on our wild salmon and aquaculture campaign.

I hope the committee will bear with me, because I don't usually read from notes, but I'm going to. I've been sick the last few days, and I must admit I'm nervous. My dear friend Rita always says to me: "Celina, speak. Even if your voice shakes, speak." So I'm going to.

The Friends of Clayoquot Sound has been working for more than ten years — along with other members of the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform — to protect the sound, its marine environment and wild salmon from the impacts of open-net-cage salmon farming.

As illustrated by the recent drowning deaths of more than 12 and perhaps as many as 17 sea lions in the predator nets of two salmon farms outside Tofino, the current practice of open-net-cage salmon farming is not an activity suitable for Clayoquot Sound, a designated UN biosphere reserve.

Clayoquot Sound, recognized for its unique and diverse terrestrial and marine environments, was established as a biosphere reserve in May 2000. Biosphere reserves are intended to demonstrate a balanced relationship between people and nature. Without question, the goals of a biosphere reserve — conserving biological diversity, promoting sustainable economic development and maintaining cultural values — are often conflicting.

We've heard about the numbers of salmon farms and tenures within British Columbia. I understand that currently there are 24 of them within Clayoquot Sound. Three multinational corporations own over 80 percent of these tenures: Pan Fish, Marine Harvest and Cermaq Mainstream. In the sound, tenures are owned by Mainstream, recently acquired by Pan Fish, and by Creative Salmon, whose shares are owned by Japanese and B.C. investors.

I'd like to say right now that I'm not a scientist and not an economist. I'm a concerned Canadian, and I work for an environmental organization. I'm an advocate for people and for people's rights around the world. Although I'm not an economist, there are several who have looked at the economic benefits associated with the industry in B.C., and I understand that the committee is also commissioning its own comprehensive economic analysis of salmon.

In Fishy Business the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives documented the economics of salmon farming. Some noteworthy items — I'm sure you've already heard these, and you will be hearing them again as well — are: "In the latter half of the 1980s, companies from Norway, facing more stringent regulations and size restrictions in their own country, decided to expand here, where regulations were more lax." This is reported and recorded in Hansard, as these proceedings will be.

In the 1990s the industry in B.C. tripled production while adding no new jobs. Fish farms here are following worldwide trends, becoming increasingly mechanised and requiring fewer workers. The subsidies, tax credits, compensation, support through R and D and indirect government expenditures related to the industry are substantial.

In August 2000, for example, the DFO, or Department of Fisheries and Oceans, committed $75 million over five years directed at enhancing the sustainable development of Canada's aquaculture industry. In September 2002 the B.C. government created a $5.1 million fund to support independent research into aquaculture and the environment.

Another item from the Fishy Business report: the wild commercial, sport and first nations fishing industry supports over 16,000 jobs. In April 2006 IBM Business Consulting released a study to determine the economic value of wild salmon in the Skeena watershed. It found that wild salmon contribute some $120 million in direct annual revenue.

There are people who've been working on these issues for years. I'm fairly new to the issue. They've been working on it, and you will be hearing from them as you work your way up the Island.

A letter from the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association requests Tofino's mayor, John Fraser, and other councillors to show their support for the industry by coming here today and through written submissions, because the industry returns more than $600 million annually to the B.C. economy and more than 90 Tofino businesses supply goods and services to the industry.

The livelihood of a large majority of residents here in Tofino and elsewhere in the Clayoquot Sound Biosphere Reserve is based on tourism — ecotourism, wilderness tourism, whale-, bird- or bear-watching, marine tourism, bed-and-breakfasts. Fundamentally, tourism depends on the health of our oceans, the beauty of our coastlines and the diversity of our marine and terrestrial ecosystems. B.C. tourism is huge throughout the province, not just in Clayoquot Sound.

For days after the drowning deaths of the sea lions at two of Creative Salmon's farms in Fortune Channel, tour guides and operators called to express their outrage and anger. Tourists from all over came to our office. Some came that day to commiserate, others to complain and others to learn.

I later met one woman who expressed a sense of betrayal: how could this be allowed to happen, and in a biosphere reserve? She wasn't on the bear-watch tour that first sighted two of the dead bulls on a beach. She didn't read the news articles or hear the interviews on the radio or even the phone calls from listeners. She learned about it on the Internet, through one of several listservs from Ontario that she subscribes to. She loves this place for its wilderness and its beauty.

I was very struck by what Moses and the woman from Lions Gate said, and Richard Harry as well. Sustainability of your people is an important thing — to put food on the table, a roof over your head and to have hope in your heart. It's important, too, to have not so much the right to have choices but the possibility to make choices.

I've been fortunate. My work and my experiences have taken me around the world. I've been to southern Sudan. I've been Sri Lanka. I've been to Mozambique. I've been to Cambodia, and I've been to Vietnam. I can say with absolute certainty that indigenous people around the world have been marginalized.

Some of them have reconciled themselves to the way things are, and others continue to fight for the things they value and the way they want and would like things to be. That's incredibly important.

I would like to say to everyone here that I and the people I work with are not against salmon farms. We are not against the industry, and we are not against the people that work on the salmon farms. We're not even against government.

What I and other people would like is responsible government, and we would like responsible management of this industry. We want them to be responsible for the activities they undertake and to be accountable. I do have my concerns about big industry, multinational corporations. I won't hide that, and that speaks all the more to why we need really strong, enforceable regulations.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has actively promoted open-net-cage salmon farming while failing to safeguard wild salmon, traditional fisheries and fish habitat.

I remember when the east coast fisheries collapsed. I lived in Ontario. My friends from Newfoundland…. Their families fell apart, completely traumatized. Members of their families even committed suicide — things we don't hear about. That has happened here in British Columbia, as well, with the collapse of the fisheries. It's a horrible, horrible thing for people to have to go through, and to try to see your way out of that, I would imagine, is just an incredible experience.

Through the federal aquaculture development strategy, DFO has been an advocate for the industry, appearing to have abandoned protection of wild salmon and ensuring a healthy fishery for coastal communities that depend on fishing. DFO has ignored its own scientists as well as independent, peer-reviewed published research.

As I said, I am not a scientist. There are many scientists out there on both sides of the fence, if you want to look at it that way. I've heard here today that there needs to be transparency. Well, there really does need to be transparency, and there needs to be acknowledgment that there are other points of view out there.

If you're going back and doing your research, the science issue was a big one, and it had a lot to do with the collapse of the fisheries on the east coast. There is science on both sides coming out with different conclusions, but that doesn't mean that either should be discounted. It means we need further exploration and transparency and cooperation. That's between the scientists, the industry and other stakeholders.

Despite proven threats to wild salmon and oceans and human health, the provincial government has allowed farms to cause more, not less, damage through flawed waste management regulations; weak regulations limiting escapes; reduced monitoring and enforcement staff, leaving the industry to essentially monitor itself; and weak criteria for siting farms.

I've heard today that a lot of these are improving, and that's good. That's really good to know, and I'd like to see the regulations and the infrastructure there to uphold those improvements and support them.

Other key concerns with open-net-cage salmon farming. You're going to hear this again. We've all heard it, and it's on the table because it's important, and these things need to be dealt with.

Pollution from salmon farm feed and feces. The waste from feed and feces has been linked to increased mercury levels in rockfish, a main component in the diets of many coastal people. Rockfish sampled in Ahousaht First Nation's territory in Clayoquot Sound were found to have the highest levels of mercury. That's from farm feed and feces.

Colourants, chemicals, antibiotics, herbicides and pesticides. Salmon farmers use a wide range of substances, including synthetic pigments to artificially colour their fish, antibiotics to treat disease, chemicals to treat sea lice and other parasites and disinfectants to wash nets.

All of these contaminants make their way into the marine environment, into the food chain and into our food. Again, there's different science out there. Let's bring it together and look at it. This is a serious issue.

There's no such thing, in my mind, as organic farmed salmon. On February 22, 2005, the Certified Organic Associations of British Columbia outlined the 11 conditions that must be met as a minimum acceptable basis on which to move forward in this area. As reported in the Globe and Mail today, a former employee of Friends of Clayoquot Sound is being sued by a salmon farm striving for organic status.

The transfer of disease and parasites to wild salmon. Many salmon farms are located along wild

salmon migration routes, and these diseases and parasites can spread to juvenile wild salmon as they head out to sea. There is mounting scientific evidence supporting the linkages between open-net-cage salmon farming and transfer of disease and parasites to wild salmon stocks. And that's mounting evidence.

It's out there. People are doing it. People who would rather be doing other things have made it their mission to show that there are links here. You will hear from some of these people later in your talks as well.

Escapes of farmed salmon. Despite government and industry assurances that escaped fish would not survive, Atlantic salmon have been found living in B.C. rivers and streams. The long-term ecological effects of escaped farmed salmon in B.C. waters are unknown. We just don't know, and we can't take those kinds of chances.

There's loads of evidence out there about introduced species, and no, they don't come up right away. It takes years. That's not to say there'll be a problem with the escaped Atlantics or the escaped chinooks, but we don't discount them because they haven't happened immediately.

The drownings, shootings and deaths of marine mammals. Open-net cages in the water containing tens of thousands of fish are equivalent to ringing a dinner bell in the ocean for mammals whose main occupation is finding fish to eat.

There's another reason: Clayoquot Sound, the biosphere reserve. Those farms are located in Fortune Channel with its currents and its tides, its very high marine biodiversity. The farms are located in that area.

Feed for farmed carnivorous fish. Salmon farmers often claim that their industry is increasing the world supply of fish, when in fact the salmon farming industry is accelerating the depletion of fish stocks and straining the food supply for people in poorer nations.

It takes between 2.5 and 3.5 kilograms of wild fish, ground up as meal or oil, to produce one kilogram of farmed salmon. It is illegal in Canada to use fish suitable for human consumption as fish food, so herring, anchovy, sardines, pilchards and other species are often taken from the waters of the developing world.

As a result, there are fewer fish for subsistence fisheries in these countries, and the demand created by the fishmeal and fish oil industries pushes the prices of fish, a key dietary staple in many developing countries, beyond the reach of many families.

Corporate responsibility. In December 2004 Raincoast Conservation Society published Diminishing Returns, an examination of the multinational corporations that control the B.C. salmon farming industry. The report detailed a litany of offences and diseases, outbreaks and violations against Cermaq Mainstream, owner of 16 salmon farms and 11 sablefish licences in Clayoquot Sound.

In 2002 Cermaq was charged with and fined for 19 counts of provincial regulatory violations. In 2003 charges for massive overstocking were laid. On June 5, 2006, Fundación Terram, a Chilean environmental organization, cited Mainstream as producing 140 percent more than its allocated levels authorized by the government. We in Friends of Clayoquot Sound are currently seeking information on new tenures within Clayoquot Sound that were stocked without proper provincial approvals.

Representatives of the MTTC first nations were in Norway last week at the Pan Fish AGM, explaining how their traditional way of life is threatened by the salmon farming in their traditional territories. Effluent from the farms is poisoning their clam beds, and there's research on that out there as well.

The Freedom of Expression Foundation in Oslo, Fritt Ord, has sold off its holdings in Pan Fish because of its concerns over Pan Fish's fish-farming operations in Canada and Chile. Fritt Ord has strict ethical guidelines for its investments, and it has consistently veered away from investments in weapons production, alcohol and tobacco.

That particular organization, I believe, was really instrumental in bringing pressure to bear on companies that were producing anti-personnel mines when I worked on that issue. It's really important to look into those things: the stockholders, the investments and, again, transparency.

Misinformation and steps toward a more responsible industry and a more responsible government. It is misleading for the salmon farming industry to claim that it is an industry that is feeding the world, one that can provide organic fish, one that relieves the pressure on wild salmon stocks or one that is integral to the B.C. economy.

The precautionary principle that states that where there is some evidence of serious harm, final definitive proof should not be necessary before protective action is taken is one recommendation that we, Friends of Clayoquot Sound, and that I, personally, would like the special committee to take away from these hearings. There are well-founded concerns about the long-term impacts of current industry practice, and many are supported by peer-reviewed science and research but ignored by government.

Recommendations. Many of the local businesses I have spoken to in the weeks after the sea lion deaths and prior to this hearing are unable to come here today. I know that many of us in Tofino have expressed concern about the timing of the hearings. This is the busiest time of year. Bookings are increasing and visitors arriving, and it's just not possible for many to leave their businesses during this important, critical summer season.

I'd like to ask, too, if a second set of hearings will be scheduled for the fall. The current deadline for written submissions is July 1. Again, the timing is challenging, if not impossible, at this time of year. We would like to request the deadline for written submissions to be moved to November 2006.

With respect to site visits, despite an early request from me and my organization to participate in the site visits in order to give committee representatives an alternative view of the salmon aquaculture industry,

the committee proceeded to arrange these sites with industry representatives — Mainstream and Creative.

I have sent a letter to the committee in the Clerk's office on that, and I'm expecting a reply as to how that was arrived at. I believe the woman I spoke to said, when I asked how that could have happened despite my early request…. She was very nice and, I think, uncomfortable. She didn't know.

How can I say this? The public weren't wanted. That's unacceptable in this public hearing. There are alternative views. You can't go out to the farms with just the industry. There are other issues to be considered, as well, and other viewpoints and perspectives. I'm hoping, too, that there will be an opportunity for Friends of Clayoquot Sound and other non-industry representatives to take you out.

It is sincerely hoped that hearings and a more realistic time frame for written submissions and an opportunity for site visits will be accommodated.

I'm really hoping for transparency on this whole issue between industry, between government, between environmental NGOs and scientists. This is an issue that affects all of us, and it's not going to go away. The oceans are for everybody.

Salmon in the Pacific Northwest have been here forever. There are histories and cultures and stories and entire lives that are built on that and written on wild salmon in our ecosystems. In order to protect wild salmon, coastal ecosystems, coastal communities and human health, the industry and government must develop technology that eliminates the risk of disease transfer to wild fish and escapes of salmon into the wild.

Guarantee that fish farm waste is not released into the ocean…. That's our ocean. It's not industry's toilet bowl. I know there are all kinds of issues around human waste going into the water, but that doesn't mean industry can get away with it just because they can. It's not acceptable.

Label all farmed fish so that consumers can make informed choices. Develop fish feed that does not deplete global fish stocks. Ensure that wildlife is not harmed as a result of fish farming. Prohibit the use of genetically modified fish. Eliminate the use of antibiotics, biocides and harmful chemicals in fish farming. Respect the views of coastal residents by not locating salmon farms where first nations or other local communities object.

Most importantly, if this committee is to maintain its credibility, you must urge the province — you must do everything in your power — to ensure that the province does not allow further expansion of the industry until the committee has finished its work and until your recommendations have been tabled and implemented.

In closing, the salmon farming industry, the provincial government and the federal government would like to see a rapid expansion of fish farms in the province. Our political leaders need to think seriously about the consequences of doing this. The oceans belong to everyone, not just those who profit from exploiting them. The return of the salmon has been observed and revered by cultures around the northern hemisphere for many thousands of years.

Thank you for giving full consideration to these concerns and proposed solutions. I really want to thank you personally, on behalf of the organization, on behalf of all kinds of people that I talk to every day and have for years, for doing this. It's hard work, and it's not easy. I don't envy you wading through all of the controversies and all of the stories and all of the one-sided perspectives.

It was really nice to hear Moses today talk about working with people to find solutions. It's really important, and we all have to work together. I don't think I can say any more than that. Thanks very much for your patience. It was great.

Oh, one more thing. Look after the ocean, and the ocean will look after you. It's beautiful, and it's so true.

S. Fraser: Thanks, Celina. You did well, considering you had to read all that.

Just a couple of clarifications. I know it's not perfect, but the Legislature rose a couple of weeks ago — two and a half weeks ago — and we got a window of opportunity when we could hit the road. The Legislature goes back to sit later. I understand it coincides with Tofino's busy time for tourism and such, but at least it's before the July-August window. I appreciate that maybe it would have been better to do this at a time of year when everyone's got more time here, but we don't have more time during that time of year. It was not an easy scheduling thing to do. We've got a pretty tight schedule as it goes.

We haven't closed off anything as far as being able to return to locations if there's more work to be done. I expect we will.

Just on some of the issues you've touched on. There are a lot of gaps in information, and science has got both sides of the fence. Your position is noted. The Auditor General said the same thing in his 2004-2005 report regarding….

S. Fraser: We are mindful of that too. I think it's something we all have in the backs of our minds, that there are gaps, and what does that mean? There were recommendations put forward by the Auditor General. You could argue they haven't been addressed yet.

I hear your comments and your concerns, and I appreciate your passion. As far as putting back that date for submissions, I don't have a problem with it. I don't know if there's a logistical problem. We do want to hear from the public.

S. Fraser: I can't speak for the committee. There may have been a logistical reason for giving a time line there, but I'm certainly open to listening to that.

As far as transparency goes, everything we're doing from here on in — all these meetings; we're travelling all over the coast — is verbatim in Hansard. You notice that some of us aren't taking a lot of notes. We don't need to. We'll be getting all these things for bedtime reading afterwards.

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): I just have a couple of questions. I respect that you're not a scientist, and you didn't claim to be. You did mention a factor of two and a half to, I think, three and a half conversion factor of feed to protein. That doesn't coincide with what I've been informed from a scientist in the food field. I'd like to know what your source is.

Could you quote the source so we could look at that, examine that as a fact? I can't take it from you as a fact, since you admit you're not a scientist.

C. Tuttle: There are different figures out there. It ranges from 2.5, I think, to 4.5, but I'll find a couple of the different ones. Yeah, there're a lot of things out there.

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): The factual sources would be very helpful for this committee, because we need to deal with facts.

You mentioned that the Chilean environmental authorities upbraided, I think, one of the companies for allowing a density of 140 percent. Now, was that in Chile, or was that here?

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): So that was Mainstream, but it didn't relate to the B.C. operations?

C. Tuttle: No, that's right. Except the reason I mentioned it is because Mainstream had done that in Canada previously, and they were actually sanctioned for that in 2002 and 2003. In 2006 they were cited for doing the same thing in Chile. So it's one company; it's one multinational corporation.

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): Right. I take your point. I was just clarifying. It sounded as though it was in Canada, and I wanted to know if it was in Canada, and it wasn't in Canada at the 140-percent level.

You also referred several times, quite vigorously, about mounting evidence, mounting evidence, mounting evidence. Could you point us in the direction of where that mounting evidence is?

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): You're not ready to supply us with any specifics on it tonight?

C. Tuttle: Well, sure. There is research from Alexandra Morton and Craig Orr and Rick Routledge. I do have some documents, but my printer wasn't working today. I can submit all of this stuff and the details as well.

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): It would be helpful to have it in writing, and some of those, of course, we will hear about. But we are pleased to hear that — I think you said you're fairly new to the issue — you're not against salmon farms.

G. Coons: Thank you, Celina. I just have a comment here. Again, you mentioned responsible government and responsible industry and strong enforceable regulations. I think that's a key reason why we're here, and that's why we're here in this room tonight.

G. Coons: Okay. The other issue that I was looking at…. You mentioned the precautionary principle, and that's a key component, in my mind, of all DFO actions that they take. You saw that as a concern. Could you expand on that?

G. Coons: Just expand on the precautionary principle and your concerns about that.

C. Tuttle: Well, I think there's a rush, a push, to expand the net-cage salmon aquaculture. We don't know all the impacts of that industry. We don't know the long-term ramifications, the repercussions, of dumping all the feces and the feed, the chemicals — where they're going — and escapes. So because we don't know is not a reason not to be conscious: "Oh,

I mean, come on. This is the whole problem with pesticides and other chemicals — chemicals we see every day and we're exposed to every day: "There's no evidence." Well, there's no research being done, or the research has been buried somewhere. The precautionary principle is something that most scientists subscribe to, and it's something that I would like to see from this committee. We don't know these issues. Let's not run amok and open up the whole coast until we know, until we've got a really, really good handle on these things. Just because the research isn't there doesn't mean there's not a problem. Sorry.

C. Trevena: Thank you, Celina. Thanks for your presentation. I've got a couple of very quick questions. You mentioned at the start that there are 24 fish farms in Clayoquot Sound. Is that active leases that you…?

C. Trevena: Okay. You also mentioned a bit further on that there are some tenures being stocked without provincial approval. Are those…?

C. Tuttle: I said we're looking into that. I didn't say there were. We're looking into that. We're looking for clarification and more information. Yes.

R. Austin (Chair): I'd like to call Whitey Bernard from Ocean West Industries to come up and make a presentation.

My name is Warren Bernard. I've been a resident of Tofino for 44 years. I resided the last 22 years on the Tofino Inlet side of the peninsula. I've worked and served and recreated in Clayoquot Sound all of those 44 years as a self-employed businessman, a mayor and a councillor, and in about every volunteer organization at some time or another. During my years in municipal politics I was the Tofino representative for the three-year Meares Island planning team and a regional director for Alberni-Clayoquot, where as a member of the economic development commission I was involved in the very beginning of fish farming and oyster culture in the sound.

As I had a background in commercial fishing before I became agent and marine dealer for Chevron Canada, I was concerned enough to watch the development of this industry carefully. As the Department of Fisheries and Oceans phased out and closed the commercial west coast salmon fishery, our marine business interests naturally focused on the budding fish farm operations.

Also, as a director and secretary-treasurer of the Tofino Salmon Enhancement Society for the last 21 years, I have worked with the farmers, and they have helped us in our endeavours. In fact, Scretting, a major food supplier, has donated the feed for the 250,000 to 750,000 fry that we incubate and place back in their native streams each year.

In the process of acquiring our brood stock for the hatchery programs, our volunteers and paid employees swim the rivers in southern Clayoquot Sound and have done so for 20 years. Yes, our teams have found a few Atlantic salmon. We examine these fish, and we turn them over to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The few fish found were in terrible condition and not spawning, and the chinook and coho in the system were aggressive and harassing them constantly.

Among other suggestions, therefore, is a recommendation for closed container systems. Let me state that having served on the sustainable development committee that was held in the Tofino-Clayoquot area under Robert Prescott-Allen, I know that non–business people telling someone how to operate an industry is the fastest way of making such an industry unsustainable. Closed containment fish farming in Clayoquot Sound is about as uneconomic and non-practical as the once proposed single-tree extraction by horses for logging operations here in the rain forest.

Like any new industry and technology, the fish farmers have had their problems. In my opinion, they have overcome, improved and advanced their expertise to the point that they are now putting an excellent product on the market to the extent that farmed fish is a major provider of food worldwide.

Tofino has survived and is a progressive, forward-looking community. We need diversity in our economy. Along with tourism, we need the fish and shellfish farms, the processing plants, our crab fishers and sport fishers to keep our community viable, balanced and sustainable.

In closing, I would ask this committee to consider the major importance of fish and shellfish farms to our community, our area and the economy of the province, remembering at the same time that the Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture are the lead and legal agencies for the monitoring of these industries.

S. Fraser: Thanks, Whitey, very much. Well put. I've got a couple of questions. It's interesting the way you put it. You mentioned the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, as they phased out and closed the commercial west coast salmon fishery. I mean, that's certainly a lot of people's interpretation with DFO.

W. Bernard: Well, the west coast salmon fishery, the wild fishery for troll fishers, was based — a lot of it — on American stocks. If you'll read a book by Dennis Brown, who was a former organizer for the UFAWU — it's called Fish Wars — I think you'll see a very good explanation on how the DFO, or the Liberal government, traded off those American-bound fish and closed our troll fishery or made it unsustainable.

I mean, the guys that have licences in the troll fishery right now are transferring up north because there may possibly be one opening on the west coast this year. You can't live on that.

They couldn't get an agreement out of Alaska to quit intercepting our fish, other than Fraser-bound sockeye, so they traded off the west coast troll fisheries. The writing was right there, as plain as the nose on your face.

S. Fraser: I have read the book. Dennis Brown's book is powerful and quite accurate, I think, from everything I can see, and I appreciate that.

W. Bernard: Yeah, I know Dennis and have dealt with him in my years in the UFAWU.

S. Fraser: Just wondering, with that in mind. You mentioned it in the last paragraph, reminding us that the Department of Fisheries is a lead agency here. Based on your earlier statement, does that give you comfort?

W. Bernard: It's a political issue on the salmon, not a scientific issue. I know, from my own venture into development, which you're aware of, and my years with Chevron and my creation of a marina…. I've dealt extensively with DFO, and I have found that they are the most obnoxious, hard-to-get-along-with agency in the world. I have no understanding or conception of why someone would say that they weren't doing their job monitoring fish farms, because they run around killing flies with sledgehammers constantly.

C. Trevena: Thank you, Mr. Bernard. I'm very pleased that you actually cite something that may no longer be an apocryphal story — the issue of Atlantics being found in our rivers. We keep hearing about them, but your salmon enhancement society has actually found them. I wonder how many "a few" is and over what time span.

W. Bernard: Earlier on there were several large losses of Atlantic salmon due to pen failures in Clayoquot Sound. If you read the press releases, there was all sorts of conjecture by the Friends of Clayoquot Sound and other environmental organizations that this was the death of the wild stocks.

Because I've been involved with our salmon enhancement society for so long…. We go every year to three major rivers, and our crew swims several other rivers for DFO and reports back on what's in the rivers now during the spawning season for the coho and the chinooks. They found a few Atlantics that had grown….

The two or three I looked at were around four and a half pounds, and they were in the river. They observed them in the river and watched the behaviour. They caught a couple of them in the gill-nets when we were taking our brood stock for our enhancement program and brought them back in. We froze them and then gave them to DFO. There's no way that those fish were going to compete with the wild stocks, and there weren't enough of them.

I don't know whether you're aware that in the 1930s every effort was made to transplant Atlantic salmon into Puget Sound and the Gulf of Georgia to introduce them as a sport fish in British Columbia. Every effort failed. They tried eggs in the river. They tried wild fish and hoped they'd home in on rivers. They did every conceivable thing because they wanted a sport fishery of Atlantics, and it failed totally.

W. Bernard: In the reports I had, in the Tranquil River I think they counted nine and in Cyper River about half a dozen. It appeared to our hatchery manager, who's very experienced in this and has been at it for a long time, that they were following the coho. They didn't appear to be getting anywhere near the chinooks. They were much too aggressive for them, so they followed the coho, which meant they would go into the upper reaches of the river.

C. Trevena: What time gap was it between the escapes and these fish being found in the rivers?

W. Bernard: The relationship was…. When a lot of that aged species was discovered in the rivers, I think the fish that escaped were probably around the two-and-a-half-pound range. The few that showed up were in the three-pound range, which probably picked up with that year's migratory stocks and followed them. There's no evidence in the brood stock years after those escapes that any have showed up.

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): Mr. Bernard, just to clarify the time when this was done — the nine and the six. What year was that that you found them?

W. Bernard: I'd have to go back and get that information from our hatchery manager.

W. Bernard: It's about three years ago, to my recollection, but that has been documented with DFO.

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): I'm just trying to get a rough time frame. You continue in your stewardship of the river. Have you found Atlantic salmon subsequent to that?

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): Last year, no Atlantic salmon, and the year before…. How many rivers do you and the diving team look at?

W. Bernard: We do Cyper, Tranquil and Kootowis, and they also swim the Moyeha and the Bedwell. Those are the three majors in the southern portion.

S. Hare: I have a very important person, Joe Martin, a long-term salmon fisherman and member of the Tla-o-qui-aht band, who I'd like to share my speaking opportunity with. I've invited my family to come and sit with me.

J. Martin: I'd like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to come here and speak. My name is Joe Martin. My Tla-o-qui-aht name is [Nuu-chah-nulth spoken], and I come from the house of [Nuu-chah-nulth spoken].

I grew up in Opitsat. I lived in this part of the world all my life. I have seen many drastic changes. When my brother Carl and I lived at Opitsat, we shared a room that overlooked the water to Tofino. At that time Tofino had only three visible lights. My father was a fisherman, hunter, trapper, canoe builder. He took me and my brothers with him wherever he wanted to go. If it was fishing, he didn't leave us a choice to come or not. He said: "We are going fishing. We are going hunting. We are going to build a canoe."

That's all my dad did all his life. He fished up here in Fortune Channel, up in Tofino Inlet. At that time there were millions of sockeye that came into the Kennedy River system, as well as many other salmon that lived in all the other rivers and streams that are here — Tranquil, Warn Bay, Deer Creek — where people used the resources of all these places.

When I was little, I grew up at Opitsat, and in the summertime my grandparents would take care of us. My grandparents, my grandmother, my grandfather…. When it was time to eat, he would teach us things, and that was about respect. The first thing we have is self-respect. The next thing we were taught about respect was to respect our mothers, our sisters and all women. The elders in former times could speak about this respect for hours. It was the first law of our tribe. The very first law of our people was to respect, and not only ourselves. The very next thing that was taught to us was to respect our environment.

I have seen many changes in this place. I worked as a logger for 12 years in the forest industry — clearcutting, raping and pillaging mountains. I worked up in those hills along with my uncle Moses Martin. There were some days when I felt sick to my stomach seeing what was happening to the land — the mudslides, the rivers that are supposed to be clear running the colour of a cup of hot chocolate. In my opinion — and this is my opinion — I do not think that the fishermen ever overfished. It was the destruction of salmon habitat through the forest industry that killed it.

I have seen my father's livelihood deteriorate right in front of his eyes. My Uncle Moses had to quit fishing at the same time. It was not my father's choice. The remaining stocks that we have in these rivers, in my opinion, are at risk from fish farming. I have seen this place change very drastically.

I have been a member of the Wolf clan of our tribe. We are the people who are to protect this land and to speak about it when we can't. That's a responsibility that's given to us. It was started when I was very little — like these little ones here — when my grandparents would teach us first about respect and then our responsibility to the community. Now it's our responsibility to these children who do not have this voice that the industry has. They don't have it.

I am concerned about the wild stocks and the environment. I heard someone allude to fish farming as one of the things that is left here in Clayoquot Sound. Now what are we going to do when all these things are destroyed? I have a very difficult time with it.

You know, I could look into the eyes of each one of these people that work in the fish farm industry and say: "I cannot blame you for wanting to have a job." I can't — how can we? — but we do have to be careful with these things. It's important to be careful with what we have left. That is going to be the future of these little ones, our people — Tla-o-qui-aht — and all the coastal people that live along here.

I've seen the salmon stocks deplete from here. You know, as far as I'm concerned, it was the destruction of salmon habitat in the forest industry that killed the fishing industry. I don't think it was from overfishing. And now we're going to be increasing the fish farm tenures on the coast. What's going to happen to the stocks in the ocean? You're going to be taking more of those, and then those things are going to be gone.

I know we have had liaisons with the fish-farming community in our tribe, but damn it, I've never, ever read one report from that liaison in our newsletter that

we get at home — not once. The only time that we ever read a report from it is when they give money to our surfing club or canoe race, and it bothers me that this is going on like that. I don't like it — not one bit. I'm more concerned about those wild stocks that our people have left and the coming generations that we have behind us. These ones are not speaking for themselves today. They are not. We have to.

S. Hare: This is the third time I've presented before a board. The first one was the government, the second one was the David Suzuki Foundation report on fish farming, and this is the third opportunity I've had to speak.

Over 15 years ago, when the first government commission was done on the fish farming here, many elders who have passed on were here saying that they didn't want fish farming in this area because of what…. Someone mentioned about the precautionary principle. It was unknown science. Nobody had done it. It hadn't been done here before, and the waters and the fish, which have been one of the main food sources here for all the people, could be at risk. I remember their concerns about escaped fish, the reproduction of the fish, the diseases and all sorts of things that everybody said would never go wrong, would never happen. They all have come true.

Whitey Bernard spoke about the Atlantic escaped salmon, and he mentioned five rivers that they've discovered the salmon in. I have no motive other than the fact that I love our environment and I love the wild salmon. I don't have any profit motive; I have no jobs…. I'm here simply because my future and my children's future here is extremely important, as the future of the wild salmon are.

If we, collectively, let anything happen to these wild salmon, which have nurtured and fed the people for so long — and really, honestly, we live on the wild salmon; that's what literally creates our flesh — it would be incredibly disrespectful to ever allow their species to be jeopardized in any way. We're all collectively responsible for that here.

I've found groups of Atlantic salmon in rivers like the Ursus here. We go out trout fishing. When we go camping, we live off the land. I've seen schools of Atlantic salmon in the Ursus River, schools of more than a dozen fish. All the way up the river we saw the dark backs of the Atlantic salmon. We never caught any trout. Atlantic salmon don't die in the river, so they're not a migration like the wild salmon. They don't die here. They live longer than our wild salmon and don't die and feed everything like our wild salmon do here.

We're breaking the circle of life by putting these salmon in pens. We talk about respect, but we're not talking about just humans and jobs. We're talking about the foods and the sources and waters that nurture everything that we depend upon. So where's the respect for our salmon when we're putting it in a pen, raising it like a zoo creature with some sort of feed that's been gotten from somewhere else?

Right now as we sit here, there are Chilean indigenous people and northwest coast indigenous people in Norway speaking to the fish farms' annual general meeting to say no, they don't want fish farms in their territory.

Alaska, which has banned fish farming, had the courage and the foresight to say: "No, we don't want anything jeopardizing something that is so crucial to our environment and our economy." They are thriving. Their Copper River salmon sell for $50 a pound. Their smoked salmon sells all over the world and is in incredible demand, and it sells for much, much more than that. There's a wildlife-viewing business. There's sport fishing. There's commercial fishing. The people are prosperous.

When we maintain our integrity with the lands and the waters and the life around us, it all comes back. Someone said: "You take care of the ocean, and the ocean takes care of you." Well, that's what has been happening forever.

I don't believe that these people who are working in the fish-farming industry couldn't find positive jobs in the salmon industry if we started doing what Alaska does and started taking care of the rivers and had incubation boxes at every one of those rivers. If we enhance the natural systems, not go against the natural systems, we will all benefit, and we will prosper.

I know when the logging industry…. When we tried to stop the destruction…. We were some of the people who were actually doing filming for the Pearse commission on salmon fishing here on the west coast. We were travelling up and down the coast with our cameras to show people what was literally happening by the one industry destroying those rivers.

We had to fight to be able to speak about our concerns. You know, everybody said it wouldn't be a problem, just like these fish farm industries are saying there's not going to be a problem. The problem exists now. I've watched the diseases. I watched when those fish farms in the Bedwell collapsed and the rotting salmon….

The algae blooms here created a huge die-off of the fish. These algae blooms are pretty unpredictable. We've had a fish processing plant quarantined here. We've had dumping of tons and tons of Atlantic salmon and fish farm salmon at sea due to diseases. There's always a different bloom that's happening because of the nitrogen buildup and the warm temperatures. If we get a lot of runoff from the fresh water, if we get a lot of rain, you get a different algae blooming. You get the fresh water on the surface. You get huge amounts of permutations and combinations that we can't control.

These diseases that they quarantined this fish farm for were killing massive amounts of salmon in Japan, Australia and New Zealand. In Norway they had to kill entire rivers in order to get rid of some diseases there because they were so persistent. They had to literally kill the life in those rivers.

The herring. I watched the herring come in this year. They didn't come into Clayoquot Sound in any

places where there might be fish farms, because salmon are the enemy of herring. They love to eat herring. So do you think that the herring are going to spawn around the fish farms where they used to spawn all over the inlets? I watched them spawn down here in the national park. I know they have a huge herring spawn fishery over on the east coast, where there are no fish farms, and up in Hesquiat Harbour, where the natives had the courage to take their guns out and shoot at anybody that was ever going to start herring fishing in their area.

Protection is the first mandate — protection of the wild stocks. When Steve Lawson mentioned those six rivers that are still wild and untouched…. Do you know how sacred and special those places are? You have no idea of the diversity in these places — the trout, the salmon, the plants.

When we take a fish like the salmon, which should be out there building their immune systems on all the wild things they feed on and travelling in the ocean through all those areas…. When they spawn, they feed everything. I watched the basking sharks disappear up in Sydney Inlet because the fish farms polluted the bottom, and the basking sharks sit on the bottom. You won't see basking sharks in here. We're losing not just wild stocks of salmon, but we are losing everything that's sacred to us here by doing what's happening.

I'm concerned about jobs; I'm concerned about the well-being of people. I know that when we turn things around and we put them into positive energies…. Get people taking care of the rivers. Get people incubating the natural systems and enhancing….

They talked about salmon enhancement here while they were logging, clearcutting these forests. It was a total conflict of interests. It was an impossible…. Now we're dealing with the same thing again. We're dealing with an industry that's been stacked in here today.

If we lose our wild salmon and the indigenous species…. I mean, you talk about Creative Salmon raising indigenous salmon from here. Chinook, which are really special fish, should never be put in pens. They need to feed on all the diversity that's in those rivers and in the ocean. They need that immune system. When you have a disease that starts in one of those pens due to a combination of factors like fresh water, warmth, algae blooms, anything, it's going to migrate much quicker into your wild stocks than even your Atlantic salmon would be a threat to.

I'll tell you. Those Atlantic salmon are thriving. They are reproducing here, and they're voracious eaters. They're an invasive species that has been foolishly allowed to be here, and we can't get rid of them. I challenge anybody here to try to get rid of all the Atlantic salmon that are in our rivers here now. In fact, I've heard from Atlantic salmon fishermen and natives on the east coast that we have more Atlantic salmon in our rivers here now than they have on the east coast.

If that threatens our wild fish — our trout, our steelhead, our wild stocks — then we should none of us be forgiven. We are all collectively responsible, and there should not be a fish farm, ever, located near any….

Why are the fish farms here? We don't eat fish-farmed food. We don't need them. We eat wild fish. By putting them in these places, we've jeopardized everything that is sacred, and we've cut off the food for the bears, the wolves, the cougars, the trout, the gulls, the herons, the eagles, every migratory bird that comes through here that feeds on our wild stocks in the fall. We still have some, and those are important. Once those diseases migrate….

I've watched those pens become so stagnant with dead fish floating on the surface. The oil and the foam from the rotting fish and the dead fish on the bottom weighted down the pens so much that all the dead fish on the surface started floating away. Winds were blowing the foam and the disease up into the inlets, into the rivers. And do you think for a minute that the eagles or any of the gulls or any of the living species aren't going to carry those diseases into those rivers? They will.

R. Austin (Chair): Certainly. Be very quick, because we're getting tight on schedule here.

M. Lawson: I just want to speak on behalf of my daughter. She has quite the voice, but you can't really understand her yet.

I just want to say that I was born and raised in this area as well. I have visual accounts. I don't have statistics, and I don't have the information that you guys probably want and need. I've seen it. In my short time, 22 years of living here, it's changed drastically.

Just being a whale-watching guide and knowing that my job is to be out there trying to watch and inform people about what goes on in the area, what I see is that it's not getting any better. Let's just say that.

There are wild salmon disappearing, and I know for a fact that has a lot to do with the fish farms. I see not only the fish farms attacking the wildlife that we have out there — sea lions, things like this, bears, eagles — but I see more fish farms going in everywhere I go.

I was up the inlet today. I was bear-watching, and one of the fish farms last year has gotten twice as big somehow. There's a new fish farm on the point there. Everywhere you turn, there's a new fish farm.

M. Lawson: You see, you don't really understand her yet, but she's trying to get it out.

What I see are fewer people on these farms as well. I don't understand where the money is going. It's certainly not coming into Tofino. I'm sure there must be

some fuel that gets bought from Method Marine or places like that, but I see big, huge automatic feeding systems. I don't see people on these farms anymore. If I do see people, it's maybe one or two. I don't understand where the money is going. It's not coming into town; that's for sure.

This is just what I see. I don't see it. I see, basically, wildlife and wild stocks dissipating. I see that we have to be so careful with what's left, instead of trying to bring back something that's hardly going to be there. If you have five fish, and you try and bring back a species with five fish, it's not going to happen. We have to try and see what's going on before it's gone. It's so important. This is 22 years. This is a short, short life that I've seen these huge, drastic changes in the sound. This is just what I've seen.

R. Austin (Chair): Okay. Thank you for your comments. For the purposes of Hansard, could I get your name, please?

Noting the time, we have one last presentation. I'd like to call Dave Griffiths of the Tofino Business Association.

Thank you, David. You don't need to read your whole submission. You could just précis the highlights of it, if that would be okay with you.

Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee. It will be a brief presentation that I'll make on behalf of the Tofino Business Association or TBA.

The TBA was formed in the fall of 1994 by a group of local business people to represent all the economic sectors operating in the Tofino area. Its mission is to effect informed decision-making by all levels of government and to encourage sustained economic and community development.

Its vision is to provide the leadership for committed local business people to create and support a dynamic, diversified and sustainable local economy. Its values include ensuring a fair and equitable opportunity to earn a living, reside and participate in the community and to promote maximum economic and social benefits through wise stewardship of natural resources.

TBA is a member of both the Canadian and British Columbia chambers of commerce. It is currently comprised of 35 member companies, employing more than 500 full-time staff and contributing a substantial amount to the local economy and tax base.

The TBA membership includes some of the largest and smallest of Tofino businesses and represents all sectors of our local economy, including tourism, forestry, the service sector and aquaculture. Aquaculture for both traditional and new species is growing throughout the world as a viable economic industry and is becoming a major contributor of food to a growing world population.

B.C.'s coastal communities are ideally situated to consider this industry. Many communities which are experiencing severe unemployment due to the decline of the wild fishery are considering this industry. However, suspect and misleading information is being used by opponents and detractors to sway opinion on the industry.

The TBA recommends that the provincial and federal governments fund legitimate and responsible scientific research into the impact of aquaculture on the environment and wild fish stocks. The TBA supports a sustainable and diversified local economy, of which finfish aquaculture is a significant contributor through the generation of solid, year-round employment for local people. Our member aquaculture businesses, Creative Salmon and Mainstream Canada, are well-run, professional companies that continue to adapt innovatively to improve their operations and to minimize their effects on the environment.

The TBA urges this committee to consider all the facts presented in a rational manner. In the ongoing debate to win over public opinion, some environmental groups have utilized suspect slants and spurious claims in what essentially amounts to a faith-based campaign to persecute honest, hard-working people who are simply trying to exercise their rights as Canadian citizens to earn a living in accordance with the laws of the land.

Please realize that hard-line, anti-aquaculture positions will do little more than create acrimony, division and unemployment in our rural coastal communities. Thank you.

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.

1)	Creative Salmon	Tim Rundle, Dave Bailey, Geoff Bacon
2)	Lions Gate Fisheries	Jack Greig, Alan Orten, Christina August, John Lucas
3)	First Nations Environmental Network	Steve Lawson
4)	Pacific Organic Seafood Association	Dr. David Groves
5)	Mulder Marine Ventures Limited	Jason Mulder
6)	Moses Martin, Richard Harry, Bruce Frank
7)	Mainstream Canada	Alistair Haughton
8)	Method Marine Supply	Sean McIntosh
9)	Friends of Clayoquot Sound	Celina Tuttle
10)	Ocean West Industries	Warren (Whitey) Bernard
11)	Susanne Hare, Joe Martin, Mitlanova Lawson
12)	Tofino Business Association	David Griffiths

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