Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 2 - Evidence - February 4, 2014
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 4, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 5:32 p.m. to study the regulation of aquaculture, current challenges and future prospects for the industry in Canada.
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I would like to call the meeting to order and welcome everyone to the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans as we continue our study into the regulation of aquaculture, its current challenges and future prospects for the industry in Canada.
My name is Fabian Manning, I'm from Newfoundland and Labrador. I'm going to ask the senators around the table to introduce themselves before we get to our guest.
Senator Wells: My name is David Wells from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Beyak: Senator Lynn Beyak from northwestern Ontario.
Senator Hubley: Elizabeth Hubley, senator from P.E.I.
Senator McInnis: Senator Tom McInnis from Nova Scotia.
Senator Poirier: Senator Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Carolyn Stewart Olsen, New Brunswick.
Senator Enverga: Senator Tobias Enverga from Ontario.
Senator Raine: I'm Senator Nancy Greene Raine from B.C.
The Chair: I will ask the witness to introduce herself. I understand you have opening remarks you would like to make. After that we will open up the floor to questions from the senators.
I would like to advise senators that following the discussions with our witness, we will break for a couple minutes and then come back in camera to discuss some future business.
The floor is yours.
[Translation]
Louise Métivier, Director General, Industrial Sectors Directorate, Environmental Stewardship Branch; Good evening Mr. Chair, senators, members of the committee; my name is Louise Métivier and I am the Director General of the Industrial Sectors Directorate at Environment Canada.
The Industrial Sectors Directorate implements most of Environment Canada's regulations related to the Fisheries Act. I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the role of Environment Canada with respect to the aquaculture industry.
As you said, Mr. Chair, I will begin with a brief statement. After that I would be pleased to answer your questions.
[English]
Allow me to begin by noting that although departments like Transport and Natural Resources Canada address pollution from some sources, Environment Canada is the lead federal department responsible for minimizing threats to Canadians and our environment from pollution, including pollution to water. The department fulfills this role through the implementation of a number of acts and regulations. Two key laws that directly relate to the aquaculture sector are the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Fisheries Act. Let me start with the Fisheries Act.
As you would expect, the Fisheries Act is the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Under a long-standing arrangement, however, Environment Canada leads the implementation and enforcement of the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act in most situations.
The pollution prevention provisions are a strong and important tool for the protection of water quality. Section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act prohibits the deposit of harmful substances to waters frequented by fish, except in cases where a regulation allows the deposit and sets conditions on those releases.
It is important to note that changes brought to the Fisheries Act in 2012 through the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act did not change the scope of this prohibition. It continues to prohibit the release of harmful substances to waters frequented by any fish.
Under the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act, Environment Canada has established regulations that control water pollution from several important sources, such as metal mines, pulp and paper facilities and the recently completed regulation for municipal waste water systems. These regulations override the prohibition in section 36(3) but place strict limits on the amount of harmful substances that can be released to water.
Although Environment Canada is the overall lead for pollution prevention under the Fisheries Act, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is accountable to Parliament for the overall implementation of the act. It is also the lead department for the management of fisheries resources, including aquaculture both generally and under the Fisheries Act. As such, my colleagues from DFO will be best placed to speak about the work they are undertaking right now under the Fisheries Act to manage any adverse environmental impacts from aquaculture operations in Canada.
Let me turn to the other law administered by Environment Canada that is relevant to some aspects of aquaculture operations. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is another important part of Canada's federal environmental legislation aimed at preventing pollution and protecting the environment and human health.
Among other things, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act implements Canada's obligations under the London Protocol, a marine pollution prevention treaty, by controlling the disposal of waste and other matter at sea and by requiring assessment, monitoring and remedial actions to ensure protection of the marine environment when disposal at sea occurs.
As some of the deposits made in the course of aquaculture activities might be considered harmful, Environment Canada has been working with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to ensure that the regulations DFO is developing are in line and compatible with other potentially relevant legislation, including the requirements related to disposal at sea.
Finally, Environment Canada also carries out some scientific monitoring related to the aquaculture sector. For example, Environment Canada's Marine Water Quality Monitoring Program identifies areas where pollution from various sources, including aquaculture facilities, may compromise the sanitary condition required for shellfish harvesting.
The program also recommends areas to Fisheries and Oceans Canada that should be closed to shellfish harvesting. This work protects the health and safety of shellfish-consuming Canadians and keeps international markets open to Canadian shellfish exports.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen members of the committee, this concludes my overview of Environment Canada's role with respect to the aquaculture industry. I would now be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[English]
Senator Hubley: Thank you for your presentation this evening.
There is currently a case in front of the courts that involves an aquaculture facility on P.E.I. There's a concern that assessments were done too quickly, without any public consultation. For an aquaculture facility to be federally approved, are environmental assessments under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act required?
Ms. Métivier: Every new aquaculture facility used to require a federal environmental assessment until the recent changes to the CEA Act. There were changes in 2012 as part of the Job, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, and now aquaculture facilities do not require a federal environmental assessment. Having said that, most of them still require provincial environmental assessments in most cases.
Senator Hubley: What was the reasoning behind not having an across-the-board federal approval for all of those facilities?
Ms. Métivier: I'm not in a position to answer that question. You would have to ask the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, which is independent from Environment Canada. I'm not aware of the reason they make these changes to the act.
Senator Hubley: I have a question on research programs pertaining to the environment. How many aquaculture-related research programs, both intramural and extramural, are supported by your department?
Ms. Métivier: I'm aware of the one that I mentioned, which is the Marine Water Quality Monitoring Program, for the health of shellfish.
Our Science and Technology Branch also works closely with the PMRA, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. They have been doing a lot of work on pesticide management and assessing the risk of using pesticides in water. As you know, Health Canada is responsible for regulating the use of pesticides, but our scientists collaborate on the assessment and, before they get registered, the environmental assessment and risk assessment of their impacts on water quality.
Those are the main science programs I'm aware of. There may be other science work where we collaborate very closely with Health Canada and DFO on water quality, but I wouldn't know of official programs outside of those two areas.
Senator Hubley: Do you know how much funding Environment Canada devotes to aquaculture research?
Ms. Métivier: No, I wouldn't, because we're not responsible for looking at the aquaculture industry, per se. We collaborate on environmental science related to aquaculture.
I wouldn't know how much exactly we invest in terms of resources. It is more a support role.
Senator Wells: Thank you, Ms. Métivier, for your presentation and your answers so far. I wanted to ask you about CEAA 2012 and the changes that resulted from that streamlining of the process.
Environment Canada does not receive applications, or do they review based on an application that DFO receives? After the CEAA 2012 changes, how does that process work now?
Ms. Métivier: There are no federal environmental assessments, so the federal government does not issue them. We are occasionally asked for our views on the implications of, let's say, a project on the environment. For example, if a new aquaculture facility were under an environmental assessment review from a province and it was close to a protected wildlife area, the provinces could ask DFO for input on the risk to the environment of building it that close, and then DFO would involve us and get our views. But we would not have a direct intervening role, per se.
Senator Stewart Olsen: You said that you recommend to Fisheries and Oceans areas that should be closed to shellfish harvesting. Can you tell me how you go about that? When you have more than one department and people working in different areas, I sometimes worry that the communication may lag a little bit, and then the action may lag. I'm wondering how that all works out.
Ms. Métivier: The science side is not my area, so if you're not satisfied with the details of my answer, I can provide more information on the programs.
But on the science side, we have a formal, collaborative agreement with Health Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans where we share some assessment and scientific information. We all have our roles, but in terms of closing shellfish harvesting, the final decision rests with — we essentially provide scientific advice on the water quality on the ground, pursuant to that agreement and MOU.
It is really a scientific team that looks at water quality and assesses the different applications of various pieces of legislation. There's quite good communication and coordination on the scientific side.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Do you regularly monitor shore areas, or how does that come about? Does DFO call you up and say, ``Hey, we had a lot of heavy rain and run-off and we're worried about pollution in this area''? I just don't know how it comes about.
Ms. Métivier: The Marine Water Quality Monitoring Program is an ongoing program.
Senator Stewart Olsen: You do that?
Ms. Métivier: This is something our department does, and the information is used for the other departments as well.
I could describe what we do. I have a bit of information regarding what the program does for DFO, CFIA and other agencies. We identify safe shellfish harvest areas in Canada, which includes ongoing water quality monitoring of fecal contamination in accordance with — I mean, it is technical.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Got it.
Ms. Métivier: We conduct these surveys and this monitoring on an ongoing basis under that program, and it is used to advise the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Do you ramp up in any way if you are monitoring where an aquaculture operation is? Do you do more monitoring, or is it just about the same everywhere?
Ms. Métivier: I think it would be the same everywhere. I don't think we would ramp up for any reason. It is where the shellfish are and the monitoring is the same. It is a scientific monitoring; it is not about enforcement. I am not 100 per cent sure whether, as a scientist, they sometimes see something and do more or less monitoring. We could undertake to verify that, but I'm not aware of —
Senator Stewart Olsen: That part is very important, if we're going to do more aquaculture, say, in the Maritimes or New Brunswick, to export or sell your crop, your harvest. People have to be assured that your waters have been checked regularly and monitored.
Ms. Métivier: Exactly.
Senator Stewart Olsen: For our fishermen or shellfish people, it would be very important to have regularly scheduled —
Ms. Métivier: My understanding is that they monitor where this harvest is taking place, making sure that the water quality is appropriate. They identify key sources around it that might have an impact, do their monitoring to ensure it's not affecting the quality and then they report on it. But I guess we don't make the final decision.
Senator Stewart Olsen: If you wouldn't mind, perhaps you could get some information on the procedure and the timeline. Say they found a contaminant on day one, how long after was it acted on, or just that process and how long it takes.
The Chair: Send any information that you have to the clerk and he will distribute it to the committee members.
Senator Enverga: Thank you for your presentation, Louise. It is it great to know that you are here and helping us.
In the view of the aquaculture industry, the current federal-provincial regulatory framework governing aquaculture is complex and cumbersome, and there's some duplication. To what extent is Environment Canada involved in the process of improving the industry?
Ms. Métivier: The governance around the management of aquaculture with the provinces is really the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I'm not familiar with how complex and cumbersome it is.
Our role, as I mentioned, is in the application of section 36 of the Fisheries Act. There is a prohibition about releasing deleterious substances in water frequented by fish. There are some activities of the aquaculture industry that could be harmful to water, the fish or fish habitat.
Our role is to enforce that prohibition and the disposal-at-sea requirement that I described earlier. Our role is to support the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as we do that to make sure it fits into their governance framework with the provinces, their legislation and their objectives. We have had a long-standing arrangement with them. We have many formal arrangements with them. We developed our enforcement policy with them. It is a public document which indicates how we enforce these pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act.
We try to coordinate and work together. As I mentioned, our science group also works together. I don't think there's any duplication from that aspect. We don't interfere in governing that industry at all, but we do have to enforce section 36 of the Fisheries Act. We work very closely with them to do that in a way that makes the most sense from both perspectives.
Senator Enverga: Talking about regulations, how would you compare with the regulations of other countries like the U.S. or Chile? How does it impact aquaculture? Do you have any comparison to other countries?
Ms. Métivier: That's a good question. I'm not sure whether there's a similar prohibition in other countries. I suspect there is, but I don't know. I can check that, but for disposal at sea under CEPA, that's under the London Protocol. Of course, a lot of member countries or members of that treaty have to implement the same marine pollution prevention provisions. Other countries that have aquaculture facilities are addressing it through regulations in their own country in the same way that we and DFO would address it.
When you are part of that treaty, you have to make sure you have regulations at home that implement your obligation under the treaty. Yes, a number of countries that have aquaculture facilities are under that treaty, so they develop regulations in a way that reduces and takes into consideration marine pollution, as we are working with DFO on right now.
Senator McInnis: Thank you for coming.
Talking about aquaculture and the various protocols, procedures and legislation is almost like a maze when one looks at the number of acts. I read in the information that they provided us that 17 different federal departments were involved in regulating and managing aquaculture.
If you don't know the answer to many of the questions, it is quite understandable, I can tell you. I think all of us around the table have an understanding that the natural fish that we used to be able to catch in abundance is dropping off, and we're going to have to have aquaculture. The committee has embarked on this study to hopefully bring about the proper way to have aquaculture because it is an absolute necessity as we go further on in life.
We have had some bad examples and the confusing part is that — and you can help me here — the protocol rests with the provincial government. You make an application to the provincial government, and all of them probably have a division of provincial fisheries that deals specifically with aquaculture. There's a myriad of those.
Every province in Atlantic Canada is different. The Province of Nova Scotia is currently going through huge hearings to determine what the regulations should be. They should, of course, be doing that with the rest of the country.
So this application is sent off to Ottawa and obviously Fisheries and Oceans has a role, as well as scientists and so on. What role does Environment Canada have?
Ms. Métivier: I assume you mean in approving aquaculture and setting up the —
Senator McInnis: They're making an application for a licence.
Ms. Métivier: We would not have a direct role. As I explained earlier, sometimes the province may ask for our views through DFO. It would be the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that would have input on permit applications, so they would ask for our views on environmental considerations. We would not have a direct role.
Senator McInnis: Like what? What would they ask you?
Ms. Métivier: They would ask us, for example, where it is being built; is it on a protected area? Is it going to disturb a certain species at risk? It would be around anything that our legislation would be looking at.
They may ask for our advice or our views on the environmental impact of their operation based on the permit application.
Senator McInnis: Before they drop the pin in, you would have a role —
Ms. Métivier: We may be asked for some advice.
Senator McInnis: Who would that be? Transport?
Ms. Métivier: Transport Canada may have a role if it is being built on navigable waters, so they may need a permit there. They would not likely need a permit from us, per se, except in rare cases like I said where they want to do something affecting migratory birds or something like that.
Senator McInnis: But you don't have anything to do with flush or ocean depth?
Ms. Métivier: No. But the prohibition section of the Fisheries Act, section 36, that we're administrating, which is why I'm here, prohibits the release of deleterious substances, unless authorized by regulation. They could ask for our views on the operation to ensure it's not contravening the Fisheries Act, but there is no permit required.
Senator McInnis: So the new substances and notification regulations, which are administered by your department —
Ms. Métivier: The new substance?
Senator McInnis: What effect would that have on aquaculture? Let's presume that we have a lease, the pens and the fish. Let's say they're treating them for sea lice. What involvement does your department have?
Ms. Métivier: In that case, if they are treating for sea lice, I'm not sure how it relates to the new substance regulations; I'm trying to find that. But if the issue of the treatment of sea lice is actually relevant for section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act, then in treating for sea lice, you're going to use pesticides, most likely, or a substance, and you will basically release that substance in water frequented by fish.
Right now, if it's released in a way that's deleterious to fish or fish habitat, it's prohibited under section 36(3). This is what DFO is proposing to regulate to give aquaculture facilities some conditions under which they can use pesticides or drugs.
Senator McInnis: These would be pre-approved, then.
Ms. Métivier: You wouldn't need a permit. Once the regulations are in place, it would apply to any new or existing aquaculture facilities; they would be authorized, as long as it's done under the conditions set out in the aquaculture regulations, as we call them right now — I do not know what the official name will be.
It will say that you're no longer subject to the prohibition if you undertake these activities because there is a regulation in place, and as long as you follow the conditions, you're not contravening or in violation with the pollution prevention of the Fisheries Act.
Senator McInnis: I'm asking because there was a major lobster death case in New Brunswick. That's passed, but who's monitoring what they are treating the fish with?
Ms. Métivier: You mean right now? The provinces issue permits. Right now, I'm not aware of any regulation that allows you to use those pesticides, so if that's the way they are treating lice right now, they would be subject possibly to the same issue as that case you're referring to.
Right now, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, working with us, is saying that there is a need to do this as part of aquaculture activity. We all recognize that the aquaculture sector is not in the business of killing fish. These are extraordinary circumstances, so they are working at giving the aquaculture industry the certainty and permission to do it under the Fisheries Act.
That's what these regs will do, and this is what you need.
Senator McInnis: I'm not sure that would secure the issue. With all due respect, we know what happened: They were caught, and the chemical brought in from the United States of America was illegal. I don't want to harp on this; I just think we have to know that the treatment of diseases with respect to the product has to be monitored and controlled.
Ms. Métivier: If it's regulated, it will be monitored and the regulation will be enforced. The condition in that regulation will determine what type of treatment you're allowed to do.
My understanding in that specific case, and we would have to confirm it, is that it was a one-time thing. I'm not saying that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans would allow that substance. That's not my understanding.
Senator McInnis: I am sure they wouldn't.
Ms. Métivier: So they will have it preregistered and a rigorous assessment will have been done, including the environmental risk and the health and human risk. So before it's allowed in these regulations, it will be assessed rigorously by the PMRA, our scientists and others.
It's regulated. It will have been pre-assessed, and then it will be monitored, reported on and enforced. So you shouldn't see another case like that.
Senator McInnis: Hopefully not.
Senator Raine: This is most helpful.
Could you provide the view of your department on the Canadian aquaculture industry's proposal to establish an aquaculture act? Do you think there should be an aquaculture act?
Ms. Métivier: I'm not aware of that issue. I wouldn't have an opinion, and I don't think my department would be the department to have an opinion on that.
I'm not aware of what that proposal is at all.
Senator Raine: If the industry is proposing an aquaculture act and they have not run it by Environment Canada, they might be missing a step along the way.
Ms. Métivier: I'm not sure what an act would be in that case. I'm not aware of it.
Senator Raine: I think it is the result of the fact that so many departments are involved in regulating the industry. It's seen as cumbersome. There is also a feeling that Canada has a great opportunity to do sustainable aquaculture and we might not be putting ourselves in a very good position the way we're going.
That's all I want to ask.
Senator Poirier: Your being here is helping us to understand the role Environment Canada is playing with aquaculture, this being the beginning of our study.
In your presentation, on the second page, first paragraph, you mentioned that Environment Canada has established regulations that control the water pollution from several important sources, and you name the different sources.
Once the regulations that you established are put in place, who monitors them? Do you have the authority to act upon them? Is it you who acts upon them if they're not being followed?
Ms. Métivier: Yes, indeed. Those are actually administered under me, so I can actually answer this one with a bit more detail. For example, we have a regulation that for all metal mines in Canada, we tell them which substances they are allowed to release into water frequented by fish and in what concentration, and the limit that they are allowed to release. That is in the regulation, so it's law.
We do monitor and report. As part of the regulation they have to do regular reports on their effluent to Environment Canada. As you may appreciate, these regulations are permissive. We're allowing a certain level of pollution. Otherwise, we have a prohibition, so in order to do that, it comes with stringent environmental monitoring. The condition under which we allow these releases is that they are accompanied with environmental monitoring. The mines and other sectors have to go sample where they release their processed waters into water frequented by fish. They have to test and send that to laboratories and then send that to Environment Canada. So we don't only get reports on what they're releasing, but we're also monitoring their effect on water quality. They have to report that to us, and then we assess and publish annual reports on how they are doing and on their environmental effects every year.
If we find at some point that the effects are still unreasonable or unjustified, we could amend the regulation to make them stricter or less strict. We can add new substances, but they are monitored and we monitor the impact on the environment.
Senator Poirier: What about the aquaculture? We are talking about the mines and the pulp and paper facilities. Are there regulations like that in place?
Ms. Métivier: Right now, there are none for aquaculture. They are still subject to the prohibition, and there are certain activities that could be considered as releases into the water, such as the use of pesticides.
Senator Poirier: What do you mean there are none? There are no regulations?
Ms. Métivier: There are no regulations under section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act right now. They are subject to zero. They are not allowed to release deleterious substances into water frequented by fish. Pulp and paper and metal mines have lots of processed water, so the aquaculture activities are different. But there are activities when they have to use pesticides or some treatment that they have to release sometimes or use substances that could be considered harmful to the environment. Right now, they're not allowed, and that is why the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is proposing to do a new regulation under section 36. It would be added to that list, but it will be done by DFO, not Environment Canada.
Senator Poirier: For example, they are not allowed to release anything, but let's say you get a complaint that comes in from a certain community or company or province that they have been made aware possibly somebody is doing activities they shouldn't be doing. Where does the complaint go? Does the complaint go to Environment Canada? Do you investigate it? Do you have the authority of acting on it, like removing a licence?
Ms. Métivier: Right now, Environment Canada enforces the prohibition. So, yes, if somebody complains that they think somebody has released a deleterious substance in water, we will investigate and do an assessment. Our Enforcement Branch will investigate and determine whether somebody has in fact violated the Fisheries Act, because not every substance is deleterious at every level. They will determine that.
The department is independent from us, so we don't know necessarily if they are doing an investigation. If they find a violation of the prohibition, they will enforce and take action.
Senator Poirier: They could lose their licence.
Again, knowing that in order to supply the increased demand for seafood, which it seems is going to be answered by aquaculture, what would be the environmental implication for fresh water and marine ecosystems trying to meet that demand?
Ms. Métivier: I don't think I have an opinion on that. That's beyond the application of what I do.
Senator McInnis: I have to get this on the record because it's at odds with what you have said with respect to the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act and the amendment. That amendment may not be at odds, but it's close.
The amendments to the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act — this may be propaganda, but it has caused a lot of problems and should be cleared up. Let me quote this:
A paper released by East Coast Environmental Law (ECELAW) suggests that these changes will reduce the role of the federal government in the regulation of aquaculture and, in particular, in the protection of the marine environment from the potential adverse effects of aquaculture. The paper also states that it is likely that these changes will shift this regulatory burden to the provinces.
The paper further suggests:
Amendments to sections 35 and 36 of the Fisheries Act will lead to fewer aquaculture projects being subject to the habitat protection provisions of the Act and the Minister will have greater discretion to authorize exemptions allowing for deposit of deleterious substance.
Under the renamed Navigation Protection Act, placements of fish pens and nets in small bodies of waters would not be assessed for potential impacts on use of the waterway . . . .
What do you say to that?
Ms. Métivier: Of course, I'm not familiar with all the recent changes, like to the navigation act. I'll ask Transport Canada, and for section 35, I will let DFO answer what the implications are.
I reiterate that none of these changes have changed section 36 of the act, so if that's implying that it has, the prohibition remains the same. We have not made any changes to the Fisheries Act related to the application of pollution prevention in the Fisheries Act.
From our perspective, they are not less protective, and CEPA, our international commitment and our legislation have not been changed at all, so for us it's the same. The ones that Environment Canada administers that have a link to aquaculture have not changed.
Senator McInnis: Absolutely no change.
Ms. Métivier: Section 36(3). There were some changes that allow for an equivalency agreement, and in theory there could be some linkages in governance there, but the prohibition to release deleterious substances and all the pollution prevention in the Fisheries Act have remained the same. It's still a prohibition, and CEPA as well, the marine pollution legislation.
To be absolutely clear, as I said, we have been administering the pollution prevention part of the Fisheries Act. These amendments say that we can now formalize this role. That is the only change that applies to that.
Senator Beyak: Thank you very much for a very enlightening presentation. You mention sanitary conditions that are necessary for harvesting shellfish. Could you tell us more about the actual program?
Ms. Métivier: I have committed to come back to the committee on this program. I would prefer to provide more detailed information on that program because it's a science program and it's a little bit out of my comfort zone. If I may, I will commit to provide more detail on how this program works, as per the earlier request from the senator.
Senator Beyak: I appreciate it; that sounds interesting.
Senator Wells: I have a question on deleterious substances. Many groups would say that common fish vaccines approved under the regulations are deleterious. Do you get a lot of complaints from groups regarding vaccines that are used on fish, particularly in the open-pen application?
Ms. Métivier: I can't tell you if we get a lot of complaints about it, but it is an activity that could be considered deleterious to water. It is something that we are discussing as part of the regulations that DFO intends to do.
Senator Wells: Would it be under Environment Canada's responsibility to determine what vaccines would be deleterious? Would you accept independent and perhaps not-so-independent reports or research from groups? Is that how you would make your assessment?
Ms. Métivier: The assessment is not made by Environment Canada. As I mentioned earlier, it's Health Canada and PMRA in that case and then our scientists do some assessments. We would advise on the impact of those substances on the environment.
In terms of the vaccine it's more a health issue, so it's about the people eating the fish. It does end up in the water and the water will be released, so we look it with respect to the impact on the environment as part of the assessment. I don't think we would be the ones regulating it, per se.
Senator Wells: When you partner with Health Canada, DFO, Transport Canada or any other agency, is it on a working group basis, or does it come to your department or perhaps one of your staff for an independent look?
Ms. Métivier: As I said earlier, when PMRA does an assessment, we have an interdepartmental agreement on how we support them and what part each department does. We do feed into the assessment before these things are registered or approved. I can't say it's necessarily all the time. When these things are happening or active they will come to Environment for the part they need, outside of the other piece, the other scientific program I mentioned.
I do not know if it's happening all the time, but we have an agreement and it is kind of a working group or a team. We work very closely when these assessments are being done.
Senator Wells: Thank you very much.
Senator Hubley: The thought of an aquaculture act was mentioned and may be something that will be recommended to our committee as we go forward with our study.
As far as your Department of the Environment is concerned, it would be section 36 of the Fisheries Act that you are responding to mainly, is it?
Ms. Métivier: Yes.
Senator Hubley: We would start an aquaculture act by taking a good look at section 36.
Ms. Métivier: Section 36 applies to the aquaculture industry. I do not know enough about the aquaculture sector to know the significance of this act versus other regulations and acts. That one applies, and of course the Disposal at Sea Regulations to a lesser extent, but yes, section 36(3) would be relevant in that context.
Senator Hubley: Thank you very much.
The Chair: I think we have exhausted all our questions for this evening and I would like to thank our witness for her presentation. It's great information that we will take into our study with us.
We look forward to having you back if necessity requires it.
(The committee continued in camera.)