Socio-Economic Impact of Aquaculture in Canada

2013 Edition

Table of Contents

1. Overview

This study provides estimates of the economic impact of aquaculture in Canada, with a focus on impacts at the community or regional level in some of the major producing areas. It relies on data for 2010. It is an up-date of a report produced in 2009, based on 2007 data.

Commercial aquaculture in Canada traces its history to the 1950s, with trout farming in Ontario, British Columbia and Québec, and oyster culture in New Brunswick, British Columbia and Prince Edward Island. The industry took off with the successful development of salmon farming. The first attempts to culture salmon commercially in Canada began in the early 1970s in British Columbia, with development work in the mid-1970s in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. A mussel industry emerged on the east coast during the 1970s, expanded rapidly in Prince Edward Island during the 1990s, and today is the nation’s leading shellfish species by weight and value.

Today, aquaculture takes place in all ten provinces and the Yukon territory. Production of Atlantic salmon, Chinook Salmon, Trout, Arctic char, Blue Mussel, Oyster and Clam are well established. Several other species including halibut, sturgeon, tilapia, sablefish and scallop are at various stages of development.

2. Aquaculture production

Aquaculture production in Canada increased more than four-fold between 1990 and 2002 with the rapid expansion in leases and area in production. Output (in round weight equivalent tonnes) increased from 40,000 to 170,000 t, while farm gate value increased from $195 to just over $600 million (Figure 1). A decline in output and value in the early 2000s was followed by a strong recovery by 2006, as tonnage and prices increased sharply. Price weakness and a cut in production on the east coast due to changes in bay area management systems caused revenues to decline by 2008. Overall output (finfish and shellfish) stabilized at about 155,000 t, while value increased to about $900 million, due mainly to sharply increased salmon prices as output in Chile dropped.

Figure 1

Aquaculture production in Canada, 1990-2010

The quantity and value of national output is divided about equally between the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, though British Columbia leads all other provinces, typically accounting for about 50-60% of total production value vs. 20-25% for New Brunswick. Figure 2 provides a breakdown of output value by province, while Figure 3 gives a breakdown of quantity produced (tonnes) by species. Salmon is the leading species at 68.5% of total tonnage.

Figure 2

Production by species, 2010 147,000t

Figure 3

Output by province, 2010 $1,114 million

The value of output produced by the Canadian aquaculture industry in 2010 is estimated at $1.1 billion (Table 1), slightly above the 2007 value of $1.0 billion. This is the aggregate value of final products sold into the wholesale market by Canada’s aquaculture companies. Final product value is built up mainly from farm gate value, but also includes value added gained through basic processing (e.g., dressing in the case of salmon or trout, and washing and grading in the case of mussels and oysters). Many finfish producers are fully integrated, conducting both grow-out and processing activities. Many shellfish growers process their own output and also process on behalf of other growers.

Table 1 - Aquaculture farm-gate and final product value, 2010 ($000s)
Province Farm-gate
value(1)
Processing
value-added (2)
Final product
value (3)
Total value
Finfish Shellfish Finfish Shellfish Finfish Shellfish
British Columbia 511,500 22,300 41 080 19 030 552 580 41 330 593 910
Ontario 17,100 - 2 300 - 19 400 - 19 400
Quebec 8,579 829 4 046 545 12 625 1 374 14 000
New Brunswick 162,700 2,038 98 145 3 462 260 845 5 500 266 345
Nova Scotia 32,932 8,100 1 448 3 260 34 380 11 360 45 740
Prince Edward Island - 30,254 - 27 592 - 57 846 57 846
New foundland and Labrador 81,270 2,953 29 031 3 056 110 301 6 009 116 310
Total 814,081 66,474 176 050 56 945 990 131 123 419 1 113 551

Source: Statistics Canada, Cat. No. 23-222-X; 
British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Aquaculture Industry Overview, 2010; 
New Brunswick Department of Agriculture, "Aquaculture 2010"
Nova Scotia Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Aquaculture Statistics, 2010
Prince Edward Island Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Fishery Statistics, 2010;
Newfoundland and Labrador "Seafood Industry Year in Review", 2010

Notes:
1. Where farm-gate values are not reported (e.g., NL for all products and NB for oysters), estimates are based on industry 
average farm-gate prices applied to reported output.
2. Processing value added is the difference between farm-gate and final product value.
3. Final product value is as reported in Statistics Canada, Cat. No. 23-222-X, with adjustments where needed (shellfish generally) to reflect market prices.

3. Approach to measuring economic impact

Economic impact is measured using three key indicators: GDP, employment and labour income. Impacts are measured at three levels of activity: direct, indirect and induced, where direct captures the impact of the aquaculture industry itself (hatcheries, grow-out operations and processing); indirect captures impacts in the industries supplying goods and service to aquaculture (feed, equipment, advice), and induced captures the impacts arising from spending of income earned by those employed in direct and indirect activities (see Appendix 1 for details).

Economic impact arises as industry expenditures work their way through the economy. An aquaculture company’s spending on inputs becomes the revenue of many another companies, which they in turn they spend on inputs for the goods and services they produce, and so on.  Gross value of output, then, is the cumulative sum of these sales and purchases of intermediate and final goods and services. These transactions occur in the province where aquaculture takes place, and also spill over to other provinces where supply and service industries may be located. The gross value of output generated by aquaculture in Canada in 2010 was $2.7 billion (Table A-1).

Data on trade flows illustrate how important aquaculture in one province is to that province and to all other provinces in Canada.  Reading the data in Table 2 horizontally gives the value of goods and services exported by each province to support the aquaculture industries in other provinces (e.g., the value of NL exports to NS is $2.1 million). Reading vertically gives the value of goods and services imported from other provinces to support the aquaculture industry in a province (e.g., the value of NL imports from Ontario is $10.9 million).

Though most of the activity triggered by aquaculture occurs in the province of production, supply and service industries in each province benefit at least in a minor way from aquaculture activity in every other province. The spillover effect is felt most strongly in Québec and Ontario, which do not have large aquaculture industries, but benefit greatly from the multiplier effects of supplying goods and services to other provinces (indicated by the relatively high intra-provincial trade value of $80.9 million in Québec and $117.0 million in Ontario).

Table 2 - Total impact of trade flows triggered by aquaculture production in each province $000s
Imports (1) ↓

Newfoundland

and Labrador

Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec (3) Ontario (3) British Columbia Other provinces Canada
Exports (2) →
Newfoundland and Labrador 79,586 469 2,119 8,332 521 379 364 55 91,826
Prince Edward Island 524 31,647 1,739 6,006 70 106 44 31 40,167
Nova Scotia 9,934 2,744 55,923 35,567 434 617 1,267 305 106,790
New Brunswick 5,996 7,111 3,980 206,462 1,157 400 723 311 226,139
Québec 3,881 2,170 3,910 29,122 80,939 8,186 27,715 2,659 158,582
Ontario 10,857 6,198 11,419 39,260 12,974 116,993 46,961 9,246 253,908
British Columbia 7,046 247 636 2,484 1,472 1,663 597,840 5,376 616,765
Other provinces 11,797 1,446 3,748 10,757 5,757 9,970 74,298 117,112 234,886
International imports 12,094 5,467 16,569 74,412 24,921 31,783 142,284 16,816 324,346
Total impact 141,715 57,499 100,044 412,401 128,244 170,098 891,495 151,911 2,053,407

Notes: 
1. Columns set out the total value of goods and services imported from each province to produce the aquaculture output in the province indicated.
2. Rows set out the total value of goods and services shipped from the province indicated to each province and used as inputs for aquaculture production.
3. Though Québec and Ontario have relatively small aqauculture industries, the trade flows reflect the strong supply capacity for the rest of Canada.

Source: Statistics Canada, Interprovincial Input-Output Model, 2008 version

4. Economic impact results

2010 impacts

In total, the aquaculture industry generated just over $1.0 billion in GDP in Canada in 2010, with just over $355 million in direct GDP and about $710 million in spin-off impact (Table 3). The industry created just over 5,800 direct full-time equivalent jobs, with an overall employment impact of just over 14,000 FTEs. It generated direct labour income of about $193 million, with an overall income impact of almost $618 million.

Table 3 - Aquaculture Impact in Canada, 2010
  Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Québec Ontario British Columbia Other provinces Canada
Value of output
(in $000s)
116,310 57,846 45,740 266,345 14,000 19,400 593,910   1,113,551
GDP (in $000s)
Direct 46,845 42,825 16,990 47,897 6,813 8,259 184,764   354,392
Indirect 33,047 11,911 24,117 47,760 43,669 64,997 172,709 65,519 463,728
Induced 12,038 11,181 10,404 26,977 24,525 45,423 94,574 20,767 245,890
Total 91,930 65,917 51,511 122,633 75,007 118,679 452,047 86,286 1,064,010
Jobs (FTE)
Direct 619 867 199 1,454 109 103 2,477   5,828
Indirect 345 188 385 718 526 722 2,283 470 5,638
Induced 131 138 129 326 295 474 947 173 2,614
Total 1,096 1,193 713 2,498 930 1,299 5,707 643 14,079
Labour income (in $000s)
Direct 18,355 24,830 6,417 44,756 2,959 3,553 91,923   192,794
Indirect 21,703 7,643 16,761 31,418 25,244 40,360 115,394 27,140 285,661
Induced 6,211 6,247 5,867 15,208 14,176 27,037 53,990 10,723 139,458
Total 46,268 38,720 29,045 91,382 42,379 70,949 261,306 37,863 617,912

Source: Statistics Canada Interprovincial Input-Output Model, 2008 version.

Note: Figures may not sum to totals due to rounding.

Concerning the interpretation of I-O model results, two points of caution are warranted:

2010 vs. 2007 impacts

National

At the national level, the direct GDP impact is up by 10%, rising from $321.5 million in 2007 to $354.4 million in 2010 (Table 4).  This follows the increase in the gross value of output, which rose from $1,026 to $1,113 million. Direct employment has increased, rising by about 20% from 4,895 FTEs in 2007 to 5,828 in 2010. Labour direct income increased in line with employment growth (about 20%), rising from $156.8 to $192.8 million.

While the change in direct impacts is what ordinarily would be expected given the change in gross output, the mix of changes at the indirect level are less easy to explain (see Table 3 above and Table S-3 in Appendix 2). Again, both GDP and income increase predictably, while indirect employment declines. It is the decline in indirect employment that is problematic. This small decline may not have been felt or observed as it was spread out across the country. We are uncertain of the exact cause, but it could be due to an increase in the import content of industry inputs (consistent with the strengthening of the Canadian dollar), or there may have been an increase in the integration of activities within the aquaculture industry (so, activities that were indirect in the past have become direct), or any changes could fall within the margin of error of the model.  

Table 4 - Comparison of 2010 and 2007 aquaculture industry direct economic impact results
Value in $000s
except Jobs (FTE)
Newfoundland
and Labrador
Prince Edward
Island
Nova Scotia New Brunswick Québec Ontario British
Columbia
Canada
2010
GDP 46,845 42,825 16,990 47,897 6,813 8,259 184,764 354,392
Jobs (FTE) 619 867 199 1,454 109 103 2,477 5,828
Labour income 18,355 24,830 6,417 44,756 2,959 3,553 91,923 192,794
2007
GDP 20,000 42,800 22,800 69,100 8,200 7,480 151,100 321,480
Jobs (FTE) 215 790 380 1,100 80 110 2,220 4,895
Labour income 6,200 22,000 12,200 32,700 2,600 2,720 78,400 156,820

Source: Table 3 and Appendix 2, Table S-3.

Provincial

A comparison of 2010 and 2007 provincial impacts is possible at the direct level only, because of the difference in the way the I-O Model was run in the two years. For 2007, impacts were estimated by running the model separately for each province. The results reported the direct, indirect and induced impacts in that province only. The impacts exclude the spillover effects arising from the supply of goods and service created by the demands of aquaculture activity in other provinces. These spillover impacts tend to be relatively low for all provinces except Québec and Ontario. For 2010, the impacts were estimated by running the model simultaneously for all provinces, resulting in indirect and induced impacts that include spillover effects from activity in other provinces (though these effects are small for all provinces but Québec and Ontario). 

5. Regional impacts

Campbell River and Comox (Comox-Strathcona Region), British Columbia

Though in the range of 70% of salmon production occurs outside the waters of the Comox-Strathcona Region, most of the spending that drives economic impact occurs within the Region. This includes the major salmon companies that are headquartered in Campbell River, as well as many of the companies supplying goods and services including fish processing, nets and maintenance, transportation, packaging, containers, diving services, and machinery and equipment. As well, most of the employees working the salmon sites are based within the Region. Since only a relatively small percentage of production occurs outside the area on the west coast of Vancouver Island, we credit the Comox-Strathcona area with 95% of the direct impact.

Much of the indirect activity also occurs in the impact area, though exactly what proportion is not known. Data provided by the aquaculture industry suggests it is likely to be in the 50-70% range (for example, about 40% of operating expenditures is made on feed for salmon, which is imported to the area from Vancouver); so to be conservative, we use the lower bound for estimating regional indirect employment and income impacts. The same assumption is used to derive induced impacts.

Table 5, setting out the resulting impacts, shows that aquaculture generated the equivalent of just under 3,970 full-time jobs in the Comox-Strathcona area and $172 million in labour income. With the decline in forestry and the commercial fisheries, salmon and shellfish aquaculture occupy an increasingly important place in the economy of northern Vancouver Island. 

Table 5 - Provincial and Comox-Strathcona impacts - 2010
  British Columbia Comox-Strathcona
Jobs (FTE) Income ($000s) Jobs (FTE) Income ($000s)
Direct 2,477 91,923 2,353 87,327
indirect  2,283 115,394 1,142 57,697
Induced 947 53,990 474 26,995
Total 5,707 261,307 3,968 172,019

Source: Statistics Canada, I-O Model 2008 version; Census of Canada, 2006.

An estimate of the relative importance of aquaculture in terms of the share of regional employment and income is set out in Table 6.  It shows that aquaculture accounts for an estimated 8% of regional employment and income. The income impact rises to 12% when compared with earnings from employment only.

Table 6 - Aquaculture impact in the Comox-Strathcona area, 2010
  Regional Aquaculture
  Comox-Strathcona Regional impact % of regional total
Employment (FTE) 47,880 3,968 8%
Income ($000s)      
Total 2,085,605 8%
From employment 1,436,982 172,019 12%

Source: Statistics Canada, Census 2006 Community Profiles.

Note: the difference between total and employment income is accounted for mainly by investment income and transfer payments.

Charlotte County, New Brunswick

Aquaculture has transformed Charlotte County from a high unemployment-low income area to one of relative prosperity within the province. Though income and employment levels remain below provincial averages, the County has made substantial gains over the past 20 years from an economy characterized by seasonal employment and limited opportunity. Aquaculture and its supply and service industries offer year-round employment and good incomes in an export industry that has become the foundation of the local economy.

A key question concerning local impacts is how much of the total aquaculture activity and associated employment and income occurs in the area. Because all of the direct salmon activity occurs in Charlotte County, we credit it with 100% of the associated direct impacts arising from salmon, which in turn account for an estimated 98% of overall aquaculture impacts. Shellfish aquaculture, focused mainly on oyster, occurs along the eastern coast of New Brunswick in the Gulf of St Lawrence and accounts for the balance.

Much of the indirect activity also occurs in the Charlotte County, though exactly what proportion is not known with certainty. Information provided by the aquaculture industry suggests it is likely to be in the 60-70% range (for example, about 40% of operating expenditures goes toward feed about half of which is imported to the area from Nova Scotia), so to be conservative, we use the lower bound for estimating local employment and income impacts. The same assumption is used to derive induced impacts.

Table 7, setting out the resulting impacts, shows that aquaculture generated the equivalent of 2,039 full-time jobs in Charlotte County and about $71 million in labour income. With the decline commercial fisheries, salmon aquaculture occupies an increasingly important place in the region.

Table 7 - Provincial and Charlotte County impacts - 2010
  New Brunswick Charlotte County
  Jobs (FTE) Income ($000s) Jobs (FTE) Income ($000s)
Direct 1,454 44,756 1,425 43,861
indirect  718 31,418 422 18,474
Induced 326 15,208 192 8,942
Total 2,498 91,382 2,039 71,277

Source: Statistics Canada, I-O Model 2008 version; Census of Canada, 2006.

An estimate of the relative importance of aquaculture in terms of the share of regional employment and income is set out in Table 8.  It shows that aquaculture accounts for an estimated 16-18% of regional employment and income. The income impact rises to 23% when compared with earnings from employment only.

Table 8 - Aquaculture impact in Charlotte County, 2010
  Regional Aquaculture
  Charlotte County Regional impact % of regional total
Employment (FTE) 11,635 2,039 18%
 
Income ($000s)      
Total 456,411 71,277 16%
From employment 304,882 71,277 23%

Source: Statistics Canada, Census 2006 Community Profiles.

Note: the difference between total and employment income is accounted for mainly by investment income and transfer payments.

Northern / Eastern Prince Edward Island

The aquaculture impact area for Prince Edward Island (PEI) is derived from an aggregation of Census tract data capturing almost all of the aquaculture production and processing activity in the province. The impact area(s) is composed of several small, rural communities for which aquaculture provides one of the few sources of year-round employment and income. Data were collected at the census tract level allowing socio-economic indicators to be quantified, and these indicators were then aggregated to determine the industry’s significance at the sub-provincial level. The communities profiled include:

  • Malpeque Bay
  • New London Bay
  • Murray River
  • Tracadie Bay
  • Boughton River
  • Brudenell River
  • Darnley Basin
  • Rustico Bay
  • St. Peter’s Bay
  • Cardigan Bay
  • St. Mary’s Bay
  • Souris Bay
  • Montague River
  • Savage Harbour
  • Hillsborough Bay
  • Cascumpec Bay

Aquaculture makes three important contributions to the impact area economy: it provides a year-round source of income and employment in an area that has traditionally experienced few alternatives to seasonal fishing and agriculture; it is a widely-distributed activity (geographically) and accessible to those who prefer a rural lifestyle; and, it creates wealth in the sense that aquaculture relies almost exclusively on export markets for its revenues.

The impact area is credited with 100% of direct activity and impact. Much of the indirect activity occurs inside the impact area, though exactly what proportion is not known with certainty. Information provided by the industry suggests it is likely to be in the 60-70% range, including such inputs as seed for grow-out, transportation, and maintenance and repair. To be conservative, we use the lower bound for estimating local indirect employment and income impacts.Induced impacts are assumed to fall in the same range. Provincial and regional impacts are set out in Table 9.

Table 9 - Provincial and impact area impacts - 2010
  Prince Edward Island Impact area
  Jobs (FTE) Income ($000s) Jobs (FTE) Income ($000s)
Direct 867 24,830 867 24,830
indirect  188 7,643 113 4,586
Induced 138 6,247 83 3,748
Total 1,193 38,720 1,062 33,164

Source: Statistics Canada, I-O Model 2008 version; Census of Canada, 2006.

An estimate of the relative importance of aquaculture in terms of the share of regional employment and income is set out in Table 10.  It shows that aquaculture accounts for an estimated 9% of regional income and 12% of employment. The income impact rises to 12% when compared with earnings from employment only.

Table 10 - Aquaculture impact in the PEI impact area, 2010
Aquaculture impact in the PEI impact area, 2010
  Regional Aquaculture
  PEI impact area Regional impact % of regional total
Employment (FTE) 8,895 1,062 12%
       
Income ($000s)      
Total 388,373 33,164 9%
From employment 280,172 33,164 12%

Source: Statistics Canada, Census 2006 Community Profiles.

Note: the difference between total and employment income is accounted for mainly by investment income and transfer payments.

Coast of Bays, south coast of Newfoundland and Labrador

The Coast of Bays region is located about mid-way along the south coast of the province, just to the northwest of the Burin Peninsula. With some 1,365 km of coastline, and excellent biophysical conditions, its bays and inlets are home to most of the aquaculture activity in the province. Among the key areas are Bay d’Espoir, Hermitage Bay, Connaigre Bay and Fortune Bay North. The industry occupies an increasingly important component of the regional economy as the commercial fishery has declined and fish plants in Harbour Breton, Hermitage and Gaultois have closed.

The impact area is credited with 95% of the province’s direct aquaculture activity and impact (the balance occurs mainly on the northeast coast in Notre Dame Bay. With limited industrial infrastructure (including feed production), much of the indirect activity occurs outside the impact area, though exactly what proportion is not known with certainty. Information provided by the industry suggests it is likely to be in the 40-50% range. To be conservative, we use the lower bound for estimating local indirect employment and income impacts.  Induced impacts are assumed to fall in the same range.  Provincial and regional impacts are set out in Table 11.

Table 11 - Aquaculture impact in the Coast of Bays, 2010
  Newfoundland and Labrador Coast of Bays
  Jobs (FTE) Income ($000s) Jobs (FTE) Income ($000s)
Direct 619 18,355 588 17,437
indirect  345 21,703 138 8,681
Induced 131 5,867 53 2,347
Total 1,096 45,925 779 28,465

Source: Statistics Canada, I-O Model 2008 version; Census of Canada, 2006.

An estimate of the relative importance of aquaculture in terms of the share of regional employment and income is set out in Table 12.  It shows that aquaculture accounts for an estimated 22% of regional employment and 27% of income. The income impact rises to 42% when compared with earnings from employment only (reflecting the strong seasonality of employment in the region). Data limitations (consistency between the impact area boundary and that used in the Census) make it difficult to estimate total regional income against which the income impact is compared, so caution should be exercised in interpreting the result.  The relative impact shown in Table 12 is likely on the high side.

Table 12 - Aquaculture impact in the Coast of Bays, 2010
    Aquaculture  
  Coast of Bays Regional impact % of regional total
Employment (FTE) 3,605 779 22%
       
Income ($000s)      
Total 106,987 28,465 27%
From employment 67,402 28,465 42%

Source: Statistics Canada, Census 2006 Community Profiles.

Note: the difference between total and employment income is accounted for mainly by investment income and transfer payments.

Appendix 1: Notes on impact assessment methodology

1. Key concepts

Reporting on the impact of an economic activity generally begins with a descriptive profile of the activity, setting out its nature and economic characteristics and providing an overview of its linkages with other sectors in the broader economy. Key factors affecting performance and trends are discussed and quantified using industry-specific indicators. Relevant factors include resource conditions, regulatory framework and markets, with performance measured using such indicators as the quantity and value of production, number of establishments, employment and exports.

In producing its output, an industry also triggers activity elsewhere in the economy. The sum of this activity, generally referred to as economic impact, is conventionally measured with three indicators:

Economic impacts are generated through direct, indirect and induced demand in the economy expressed in terms of industry and consumer purchases of goods and services. 

The sum of impacts flowing from each level of demand gives the overall economic impact of Canada’s aquaculture industry.  Generally, the greater the domestic supply capability (multipliers) at each level, the greater will be the economic impact. Conversely, the higher the import content, the weaker the domestic industry response and the lower the impact. Output value and impacts by province for 2010, with relevant multipliers are set out in Table A-1 at the end of this Appendix.

Note that the multipliers are derived from production figures and include spillover effects from aquaculture activity in other provinces.  For all provinces but Québec and Ontario, these spillover effects are relatively small. Accordingly, the multipliers provide a close approximation of industry impacts within each province. This is not the case for Québec and Ontario; the multipliers for these provinces benefit disproportionately from aquaculture activity in the rest of Canada.

2. Quantifying the impacts – the Input-Output Model

Economists rely on economic models to quantify impacts. Models provide a simplified view of the economy, expressing the myriad demand and supply transactions in the productive process as a set of coefficients or quantitative relationships. These coefficients, including the level of employment and income generated per dollar of expenditure, are based on empirical measurement of flows in the real economy with data compiled through industry surveys conducted annually by Statistics Canada. 

This study uses the Statistics Canada Inter-provincial Input-Output Model (2008 version) to generate the economic impacts.  The use of an input-output (I-O) model is considered most appropriate for this study because this type of model:

Two disadvantages of using an I-O model are commonly cited: linearity of results and fixed inter-industry coefficients.

3. Data requirement, sources and limitations

The study requires data for two main reasons: to drive the I-O Model to generate economic impact estimates; and, to describe the aquaculture industry in sufficient detail to allow the reader to develop a clear understanding of the nature of the activity and the extent of its economic significance.

Quantifying economic impacts begins with data on the gross value of output for the aquaculture industry in each province.  Gross value of output means revenues generated through sales of final product. Final product value is used rather than farm gate because it accurately captures the integrated structure of the industry and provides a complete indicator of overall activity. Using the aquaculture industry coefficients, the I-O Model breaks down the revenues to specific expenditure categories including purchased inputs, wages and salaries and profit. As these expenditures work their way through the economy (as captured by the I-O Model), they generate the GDP, employment and labour income impacts the study aims to quantify.

The data used in this study to drive the I-O Model and produce impact estimates are obtained from Statistics Canada sources, with corroboration (where possible) by the consultants of output values and input costs from industry sources and provincial government sources. Notwithstanding the general reliability of the data, some points of clarification may be useful in understanding what the numbers mean and how they are applied in the analysis.  This may also serve as a guide for future analyses of this kind.

Canadian aquaculture industry 2010 output, impacts (1) and multipliers ($000s except jobs in FTE)
  Aquaculture NAICS 1125 (2) Fish Processing 3117 (3) Total
Indicator Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario British Columbia Other provinces Total Newfoundland and Labrador New Brunswick Total Aquaculture industry
Gross output
Direct impact (output value) 84,223 57,846 45,740 164,738 14,000 19,400 593,910 0 979,857 32,087 101,607 133,694 1,113,551
Direct + indirect impact 137,119 82,192 118,581 273,560 133,280 169,168 1,058,720 150,109 2,122,730 64,381 142,098 206,479 2,329,209
Direct + indirect + induced impact 149,523 99,657 136,858 305,347 180,600 252,782 1,204,082 189,461 2,518,309 71,276 158,375 229,651 2,747,960
Indirect impact multiplier 1.63 1.42 2.59 1.66 9.52 8.72 1.78     2.01 1.40    
Indirect + induced impact multiplier 1.78 1.72 2.99 1.85 12.90 13.03 2.03     2.22 1.56    
GDP at basic prices
Direct impact 37,340 42,825 16,990 28,679 0 0 184,764 0 310,598 9,505 19,218 28,723 339,321
Direct + indirect impact 57,418 54,737 41,107 64,149 0 0 357,473 65,519 640,403 22,474 31,507 53,981 694,384
Direct + indirect + induced impact 65,170 65,917 51,511 82,054 0 0 452,047 86,286 802,985 26,760 40,579 67,340 870,325
Indirect impact multiplier 1.54 1.28 2.42 2.24 7.41 8.87 1.93     2.36 1.64    
Indirect + induced impact multiplier 1.75 1.54 3.03 2.86 11.01 14.37 2.45     2.82 2.11    
Labour income
Direct impact 11,004 24,830 6,417 28,449 0 0 91,923 0 162,623 7,351 16,307 23,658 186,282
Direct + indirect impact 23,554 32,473 23,177 51,369 0 0 207,317 27,140 365,030 16,504 24,805 41,309 406,339
Direct + indirect + induced impact 27,512 38,720 29,045 61,457 0 0 261,306 37,863 455,903 18,756 29,925 48,681 504,584
Indirect impact multiplier 2.14 1.31 3.61 1.81 9.53 12.36 2.26     2.25 1.52    
Indirect + induced impact multiplier 2.50 1.56 4.53 2.16 14.32 19.97 2.84     2.55 1.84    
Jobs - full-time equivalent (FTE)
Direct impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Direct + indirect impact 590 1,055 584 1,436 635 825 4,760 470 10,356 374 736 1,110 11,466
Direct + indirect + induced impact 674 1,193 713 1,652 930 1,299 5,707 643 12,811 422 846 1,268 14,079
Indirect impact multiplier 1.58 1.22 2.93 1.58 (4) (4) 1.92     1.53 1.35    
Indirect + induced impact multiplier 1.80 1.38 3.58 1.82 (4) (4) 2.30     1.72 1.56    

1. Indirect and induced impacts in each province include spillover effects from exports of goods and services to other provinces. These spillover impacts are relativey small for all provinces except Québec and Ontario.

2. Impact results for Aquaculture (NAICS 1125) based on output value according to industry classification of enterprises (integrated operations except for NL and NB).

3. Impact results for Fish Processing (NAICS 3117) based on value added of aquaculture output where industry separates grow-out and processing enterprises for reporting purposes.

4. Direct and indirect impacts are due mainly to spillover demand from other provinces, not to the industries in Québec and Ontario; hence, industry-specific multipliers are not available.

5. Figures may not sum to totals due to rounding.

Source: Statistics Canada Interprovincial Input-Output Model, 2008 version

Appendix 2: 2009 impact tables

Table S-1 - Aquaculture final product value, 2007 ($000s)
  Finfish Shellfish Total
British Columbia 522,600 37,100 559,700
Ontario 17,000 - 17,000
Québec 12,700 1,000 13,700
New Brunswick 272,900 7,000 279,900
Nova Scotia 43,000 10,000 53,000
Prince Edward Island 1,900 56,000 57,900
Newfoundland and Labrador 38,800 5,600 44,400
Total 908,900 116,700 1,025,600

Source: Statistics Canada, Cat. No. 23-222-X; .

British Columbia Ministry of Environment, British Columbia Seafood Industry Year in Review, 2007;
New Brunswick Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture, special tabulation;
Nova Scotia Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture; Aquaculture Statistics, 2007;
Prince Edward Island Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Fishery Statistics, 2007;
Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Aquaculture Highlights, 2007.

Table S-3 - Aquaculture Impact in Canada, 2007
Value of output $1,025.6 million Newfoundland
and Labrador
Nova Scotia Prince Edward
Island
New Brunswick Québec Ontario British
Columbia
Canada
GDP ($000s)
Direct 20,000 22,800 42,800 69,100 8,200 7,480 151,100 321,480
Indirect 8,400 10,600 6,400 47,200 2,500 4,080 167,900 450,400
Induced 6,200 8,500 10,400 30,800 3,700 4,250 106,300 233,300
Total 34,600 41,900 59,600 147,100 14,400 15,810 425,300 1,005,180
Jobs (FTE)
Direct 215 380 790 1,100 80 110 2,220 4,895
Indirect 120 170 125 790 35 55 2,330 6,400
Induced 70 120 250 530 45 51 1,410 3,200
Total 405 670 1,165 2,420 160 216 5,960 14,495
Income ($000s)
Direct 6,200 12,200 22,000 32,700 2,600 2,720 78,400 156,820
Indirect 4,900 6,400 2,900 28,300 1,200 2,040 95,100 241,200
Induced 2,200 4,800 6,400 16,800 1,230 1,530 50,400 107,900
Total 13,300 23,400 31,300 77,800 5,030 6,290 223,900 505,920

Note: Provincial direct impacts capture only impacts of activities occurring within the boundaries of the province. The national indirect and induced impacts include impacts spilling over to other provinces.