Alberta
Montreal urban fish farmers say their Arctic char cuts greenhouse gases and waste
MONTREAL — A warehouse basement in an industrial area of Montreal, near the intersection of two highways, feels about as far from a fish habitat as it gets.
But walk through the doors of Opercule’s self-described “urban fish farm,” and the unmistakable smell of fish fills the air.
After donning rubber boots and lab coats, visitors are greeted with the constant hum of the plant’s filtration system. Inside the dimly lit warehouse basement, thousands of sleek, speckled Arctic char swim in a dozen or so round pools, their fins smoothly breaking the surface or sending up alarmed splashes as they scurry away from people who approach the tanks.
The business is the creation of David Dupaul-Chicoine and Nicolas Paquin, who met each other when they were studying aquaculture in college on Quebec’s Gaspé Peninsula. What began as an experiment raising fish in Dupaul-Chicoine’s garage has turned into a commercial operation that they expect will soon produce between 25 and 30 tonnes of Arctic char per year.
By raising fish on land and in an urban setting, Dupaul-Chicoine and Paquin say they hope to avoid some of the problems associated with open net fish farms, which are suspected by some conservationists of harming wild stock by spreading disease or parasites, or by escaping and interbreeding with them.
“We’re not trying to prove anything, but we’re trying to do things the way we think they should be done,” Dupaul-Chicoine said. “We’re raising fish to sell them and we’re thinking about every little step in the production. The way we deliver, the way everything is done, we try to do it in a more eco-friendly way.”
The business uses a recirculation system that filters ammonia and carbon dioxide from water, which is then reinjected with oxygen and pumped back to the tanks — vastly reducing water use. Their city setting cuts greenhouse gas emissions, as deliveries to restaurants can be done on electric bicycles. As well, they only kill fish once the animals are ordered, reducing waste. They’ve even replaced Styrofoam delivery containers with insulated cardboard, they say.
Arctic char was chosen because it sells for a good price and the animals stay healthy in close quarters.
The only downside on the environmental front, they say, is that the fish plant uses “a lot” of electricity. Their business model, Dupaul-Chicoine said, probably wouldn’t make sense if it ran on coal; luckily for them, however, Quebec has ample cheap and relatively clean hydropower.
The pair say their biggest challenge was obtaining the necessary permits — a process that took them about two years after they started their business in 2019. Because it takes 15 or 16 months for a fish to grow from an egg to market size, their first sales only came at the start of 2023.
An indoor filtration system like theirs also needs maintenance and a constant stream of electricity. Among their most stressful moments was a two-day power outage during an ice storm earlier this year; they worried that their generator would go down and cause them to lose fish.
“You have to make sure you have backups, and backups of the backups,” Dupaul-Chicoine said.
Grant Vandenberg, an aquaculture specialist at Université Laval’s agriculture and food sciences department, says land-based water-recirculation farms have some advantages over net pen farms — which are enclosed cages that float in natural water sources. Land farms eliminate concerns over environmental interactions between wild and farmed fish, and waste is easier to collect and can even be recycled into fertilizer for plants, he said.
However, land-based farms are more expensive to start and operate, and require more labour, machinery and energy than do net pens, Vandenberg said. “I think it would be very difficult for some to be able to compete economically,” he said, noting that consumers have the option to purchase imported fish produced cheaper in other countries or provinces.
Vandenberg said that despite the controversies, fish farming has an important role to play in preventing overfishing of wild stocks. Improving fish-farming technology, he added, is reducing the industry’s environmental impact.
Just as agriculture has largely replaced hunting when it comes to meat, “we have to stop hunting fish as well, and I think the answer is to produce them,” he said.
Fish farming will also improve food sovereignty, Vandenberg said, noting that Quebec — which doesn’t use open-water net pens — produces only seven per cent of the trout it consumes. He said Paquin and Dupaul-Chicoine’s operation in Montreal presents an interesting model because the plant’s proximity to its market reduces shipping costs and ensures fresher fish.
Dupaul-Chicoine and Paquin said it cost about a million dollars to launch their fish farm, which includes a processing facility, and they admit it wouldn’t have been possible without provincial government grants. However, they said they’re pleased with early sales, noting they recently passed the break-even point in terms of operational profitability.
Both said that, so far, they have no regrets. “Before this I had a career as a mechanical engineer and I decided I wanted a change,” Paquin said. “So for me, it’s fun, even though it’s hard.”
Once they’ve proved to investors and themselves that their business model can be successful, they’re hoping to expand into a bigger facility.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 13, 2023.
Morgan Lowrie, The Canadian Press
Alberta
Alberta government should eliminate corporate welfare to generate benefits for Albertans
From the Fraser Institute
By Spencer Gudewill and Tegan Hill
Last November, Premier Danielle Smith announced that her government will give up to $1.8 billion in subsidies to Dow Chemicals, which plans to expand a petrochemical project northeast of Edmonton. In other words, $1.8 billion in corporate welfare.
And this is just one example of corporate welfare paid for by Albertans.
According to a recent study published by the Fraser Institute, from 2007 to 2021, the latest year of available data, the Alberta government spent $31.0 billion (inflation-adjusted) on subsidies (a.k.a. corporate welfare) to select firms and businesses, purportedly to help Albertans. And this number excludes other forms of government handouts such as loan guarantees, direct investment and regulatory or tax privileges for particular firms and industries. So the total cost of corporate welfare in Alberta is likely much higher.
Why should Albertans care?
First off, there’s little evidence that corporate welfare generates widespread economic growth or jobs. In fact, evidence suggests the contrary—that subsidies result in a net loss to the economy by shifting resources to less productive sectors or locations (what economists call the “substitution effect”) and/or by keeping businesses alive that are otherwise economically unviable (i.e. “zombie companies”). This misallocation of resources leads to a less efficient, less productive and less prosperous Alberta.
And there are other costs to corporate welfare.
For example, between 2007 and 2019 (the latest year of pre-COVID data), every year on average the Alberta government spent 35 cents (out of every dollar of business income tax revenue it collected) on corporate welfare. Given that workers bear the burden of more than half of any business income tax indirectly through lower wages, if the government reduced business income taxes rather than spend money on corporate welfare, workers could benefit.
Moreover, Premier Smith failed in last month’s provincial budget to provide promised personal income tax relief and create a lower tax bracket for incomes below $60,000 to provide $760 in annual savings for Albertans (on average). But in 2019, after adjusting for inflation, the Alberta government spent $2.4 billion on corporate welfare—equivalent to $1,034 per tax filer. Clearly, instead of subsidizing select businesses, the Smith government could have kept its promise to lower personal income taxes.
Finally, there’s the Heritage Fund, which the Alberta government created almost 50 years ago to save a share of the province’s resource wealth for the future.
In her 2024 budget, Premier Smith earmarked $2.0 billion for the Heritage Fund this fiscal year—almost the exact amount spent on corporate welfare each year (on average) between 2007 and 2019. Put another way, the Alberta government could save twice as much in the Heritage Fund in 2024/25 if it ended corporate welfare, which would help Premier Smith keep her promise to build up the Heritage Fund to between $250 billion and $400 billion by 2050.
By eliminating corporate welfare, the Smith government can create fiscal room to reduce personal and business income taxes, or save more in the Heritage Fund. Any of these options will benefit Albertans far more than wasteful billion-dollar subsidies to favoured firms.
Authors:
Alberta
Official statement from Premier Danielle Smith and Energy Minister Brian Jean on the start-up of the Trans Mountain Pipeline
-
Economy14 hours ago
‘Gambling With The Grid’: New Data Highlights Achilles’ Heel Of One Of Biden’s Favorite Green Power Sources
-
Energy2 days ago
Net Zero’s days are numbered? Why Europeans are souring on the climate agenda
-
Opinion2 days ago
Quebec’s ban on gender-neutral bathrooms in schools is good news
-
Energy2 days ago
Biden Has Taken More Than 200 Actions Against Domestic Oil, New Report Says
-
Opinion1 day ago
Misleading polls may produce more damaging federal policies
-
International1 day ago
Trump campaign says he will pardon Jan. 6 prisoners on ‘case-by-case basis’ if re-elected
-
conflict1 day ago
NYPD says protesters had weapons, gas masks and ‘Death to America!’ pamphlets
-
illegal immigration15 hours ago
Biden’s DOJ Threatens To Sue Another State For Enforcing Immigration Law