Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 8 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 6, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day, at 5:03 p.m., to examine issues relating to the federal government's current and evolving policy framework for managing Canada's fisheries and oceans; and 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: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. My name is Fabian Manning. I'm a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador and I'm chair of this committee.
Before giving the floor to our witnesses, I would like to invite members of the committee to introduce themselves, please.
Senator Beyak: Lynn Beyak from Ontario.
Senator Raine: Nancy Greene Raine from B.C.
Senator Hubley: Elizabeth Hubley from Prince Edward Island.
Senator Enverga: Tobias Enverga from Ontario.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Carolyn Stewart Olsen from New Brunswick.
Senator McInnis: Tom McInnis from Nova Scotia.
Senator Wells: David Wells from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. The committee is beginning its examination of the federal government's current and evolving policy framework for managing Canada's fisheries and oceans, more specifically the northern shrimp allocations. We are pleased to welcome our guests, and I would invite them to introduce themselves, please.
Hon. Keith Hutchings, Member of the House of Assembly for Ferryland, Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador: Thank you, chair. Keith Hutchings, Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for Newfoundland and Labrador and Member of the House of Assembly for Ferryland.
Dwight Ball, Member of the House of Assembly for Humber Valley, Leader of the Official Opposition, House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador: Dwight Ball, Leader of the Official Opposition and Member of the House of Assembly for Humber Valley.
Lorraine Michael, Member of the House of Assembly for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, Leader of the Third Party, House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador: Lorraine Michael, Leader of the New Democratic Party of Newfoundland and Labrador and Member of the House of Assembly for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
The Chair: It is delightful to have you here with us today. It's not very often I get the opportunity to chair a meeting with all guests from our home province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It's a bit extra special for us here today. On behalf of the committee, I thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedules to travel to Ottawa on these important issues. I ask you to make your presentations and then senators will have questions. The floor is yours, minister.
Mr. Hutchings: I thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before you this evening. We certainly appreciate it. I'm here as Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, joined as you've heard by my fellow committee members, Mr. Dwight Ball and Ms. Lorraine Michael. We're here today as an all-party committee representing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to present the united position on the 2014 allocation of the northern shrimp resources adjacent to our province announced April 4, 2014.
This committee was formed in early April to pursue the elimination of the Last In First Out policy, LIFO, and to seek a more equitable distribution of the northern shrimp allocation between the inshore and offshore fleets. This more equitable distribution should be based on adjacency and historical dependence. We have no desire to pit one sector against another as both contribute significantly to the provincial economy. Instead, we seek a balance.
At this time, we would like to provide an overview of the shrimp fishery off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, including the offshore shrimp fishery, and to discuss the development of the inshore fishery, DFO's Last In First Out policy and its implications for Newfoundland and Labrador's inshore shrimp sector. We'll conclude by making some recommendations.
Overview of the shrimp fishery: In the handout, Exhibit A shows a map of shrimp fishing areas as far as Greenland and south off the island of Newfoundland and Labrador. The offshore fleet has access to shrimp fishing areas, and this demonstrates the shrimp fishing areas. There are eight areas numbered SFA 0 to SFA 7. You will see along the coastline where there are two. There is also a small long-standing inshore fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence off our west coast for approximately 6,000 tonnes. This has been in place since the 1970s.
The offshore fleet has had exclusive access to SFAs 0 through 6 from 1978 to 1996. This fishery is conducted by offshore factory freezer trawlers, which are effectively fishing vessels with an onboard fish-processing factory. These vessels catch and then process shrimp onboard. There are 17 offshore licences owned by 14 companies, 8 of which reside in Newfoundland and Labrador. The offshore is managed under the Enterprise Allocations system, which provides each licence holder a prescribed amount of shrimp within all shrimp fishing areas. In addition, there are a number of special allocations or community quotas that are also landed by offshore vessels. These allocations are purchased under royalty agreements and then harvested by the offshore sector.
Very little of this shrimp is sold in Canada. Most is sold as a highly valued shell-on product in Russia and China. There are 10 vessels in the offshore fleet, with each vessel employing a crew of around 60 individuals, with two rotating crews of 30 people. These vessels operate virtually year-round. There are approximately 80 total landings per year in Newfoundland and Labrador ports by Canadian offshore shrimp vessels. The offshore fleet transships from four ports in Newfoundland: Harbour Grace, St. Anthony, Bay Roberts and Argentia. Economic benefits are derived from the landings, purchase of goods and services and certainly employment of the crew.
Exhibit C, Fleet Quota and Landings from 1977 to 1996: Fisheries scientists started to see a trend upwards in the shrimp resource in the late 1980s. The Newfoundland and Labrador inshore started to request access in the early to mid-1990s, certainly reflective of the downturn in our ground fishery. On this diagram in Exhibit C, you will see the threshold level of 37,600 tonnes for the offshore fleet, meaning that regardless of the new entrants after this point, the offshore fleet allocation would not go below this threshold amount. I note that the offshore allocation peaked at about 66,000 tonnes in 2009, and under LIFO in 2014 they retain approximately 60,000 tonnes pending final decisions in a couple of northern areas.
In 1997, inshore harvesters were granted access to SFA 6 by then Minister Mifflin. The aforementioned threshold of 37,600 tonnes was established for the offshore, meaning that the offshore allocation would not go below what they had the year prior to the entry of the inshore harvesters. Minister Mifflin's press release, a copy of which is included in Exhibit D, outlined new sharing principles: Specifically, adjacency will be respected; priority will be given to increasing participation of Aboriginal people; priority access will be given to inshore vessels less than 65 feet in length; and employment will be maximized in both the harvesting and processing sectors where possible. I want to mention there was no mention of LIFO at that time.
Minister Mifflin's announcement generated a great deal of fishing and economic activity over the next 10 years, despite the fact that these inshore allocations were deemed temporary.
The province saw over $200 million of private sector investment in both vessels and plants, and 365 inshore fishing enterprises were licensed. At peak, in 2008, there were more than 3,000 inshore landings of shrimp per year. Thirteen onshore processing plants were established. For context, a shrimp plant is an expensive, capital-intensive endeavour that can cost up to $16 million to set up. The province saw 3,500 direct jobs coming out of the inshore expansion.
In 2007, the fishing industry renewal strategy was developed as a joint initiative of the governments of Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador. This strategy encompassed a number of federal and provincial programs designed to support an industry in distress.
On the provincial side, we created programs to encourage innovation, support investment and facilitate transparency in licensing. On the federal side, there were capital gains exemptions, enterprise combining policies, a new ability to use licences as collateral; and, most important for our discussions here today, the temporary allocations for shrimp were made permanent in 2007.
The changes in licensing policies were tied to a surge in the resource. When the resource began showing some signs of decline in recent years, inshore quotas were reduced from a high of 77,000 tonnes in 2009 to 33,428 tonnes in 2014, based on the application of LIFO since 2010.
Furthermore, the inshore fleet took on more debt to take full advantage of becoming fully licenced participants in the shrimp fishery. The enterprise combining policy, coupled with the ability to use licences as collateral, encouraged significant investment in the inshore. With declining shrimp, the return on this investment is diminishing.
The 365 enterprises licenced in 1997 have since reduced to 280, with 234 of these now active. Over this time, three onshore processing plants closed, two due to structural damage and one as a result of a business decision. At this time, there are 10 plants licensed to process shrimp in Newfoundland and Labrador. In the handout, you can see those in Exhibit E.
This concludes the overview of the shrimp fishery. At this point, I'd like to turn to the management of the shrimp resource.
Integrated fisheries management plans: Since the inshore harvesting licences were made permanent, there have been changes to the integrated fisheries management plans, or IFMP, for northern shrimp. It was in 2003 that the IFMP first made a reference to LIFO. Quoting from the 2003 IFMP:
Should there be a decline in the abundance of the resource in the future, temporary participants will be removed from the fishery in reverse order of gaining access — last in, first out (LIFO).
In the 2007 IFMP, there is a variation on this. To quote from the 2007 IFMP:
Should there be a decline in the abundance of the resource in the future, new participants / allocations will be removed from the fishery in reverse order of gaining access — last in, first out (LIFO).
These changes were made with little consultation or consensus from the Northern Shrimp Advisory Committee. The changes have major implications for the inshore harvesters who were made permanent in 2007, as many believe LIFO would no longer apply to their sector and invested based on this understanding.
The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has made numerous representations against LIFO over the past number of years. Aside from the fact that LIFO is not applied to any other fishery, there are fundamental concerns with the policy.
Firstly, it gives no consideration to differences in areas of access. I will refer back to Exhibit A, the first exhibit, showing the shrimp fishing areas. The inshore only has access to areas 6 and 7, while the offshore has access to areas 0 through 7. The offshore can still retain well beyond this minimum threshold I spoke about earlier of 37,600 tonnes by accessing the resource in other areas. There is enough shrimp across the range of areas 0 to 7 to allow both fleets to remain viable. LIFO places most of the reduction on the inshore fleet.
Secondly, adjacency is not considered. For example, the Fogo Island Cooperative and the Innu Nation have lost their allocations, while Prince Edward Island still retains an allocation in area 7.
Thirdly, LIFO ignores the inshore private sector investment and contribution to rural communities that are intrinsic in the traditional allocation principles of adjacency and historical dependence.
Fourthly, LIFO treats inshore permanent licence holders as if they were temporary participants.
I will refer now to Exhibit F, which demonstrates the impact of the LIFO policy. As you can see, the inshore represented by the yellow bars has declined by half since 2009. The offshore sector has also declined by a much lower amount and will retain allocations above 66,000 tonnes in 2014. This is well above the threshold established in 1997. As well, a number of special allocation holders have been removed or reduced. Clearly, LIFO has impacted the inshore sector disproportionately.
Referring to Exhibit G, we are presenting the quota implications of LIFO since 2009 in tonnes. The inshore has lost access to over 43,000 tonnes of shrimp since 2009, or 56 per cent of its allocation. This compares to about 6,700 tonnes for the offshore, or 10 per cent. The offshore reduction will actually be less than represented here pending the final decision for two of the northern shrimp areas, SFA 2 and SFA 3. The special allocations have been reduced by 6,850 tonnes, or 27 per cent, during this period, with allocations to adjacent quota holdings, such as Fogo Island and the Innu, removed from SFA 6.
LIFO is simply a policy that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has the ultimate discretion to enforce or change. There is no historic significance, and there is no precedent. This policy administers a public resource and should and needs to change.
I will now ask my colleagues to discuss the economic impacts we believe will result from quota reductions based on the LIFO policy.
Mr. Ball: Thank you, Keith. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Senate for listening to our presentation today. As Keith said, my name is Dwight Ball, and I am Leader of the Official Opposition of Newfoundland and Labrador.
One of the key messages we want to convey today is that the economic impacts of any cut to the shrimp quota are significant, in particular when the cut is not distributed evenly among the inshore and the offshore fleets. The inshore fleet is losing an inequitable share of the shrimp resource based on this LIFO policy. Every 1,000 tonnes of quota reduced to the inshore sector in 2014 equates to approximately $1.5 million in lost revenue to inshore fishing enterprises; a loss of 20,000 person hours of employment in onshore processing plants, with lost wages of approximately $250,000, per 1,000 tonnes; and over $2.5 million in lost revenues to the 10 shrimp-producing plans, all of this for every 1,000 tonnes.
The quota allocation decisions made recently by the federal government do not consider the economic impact on rural communities and will affect more than 250 small boat enterprises in the inshore fleet sector, more than 2,200 plant workers and businesses throughout the province that supply this industry.
Overall, more than 100 communities in which inshore shrimp harvesters and plant workers reside will be negatively impacted. The total landed value of shrimp harvested by the province's offshore and inshore sectors in 2013 was $187 million. This speaks to the tremendous economic activity that the shrimp fishery generates in our province, Newfoundland and Labrador, and in particular, the rural areas of our province. We feel a better distribution of the shrimp resource will ensure the economic well-being of those rural communities that they are reliant upon.
I will now ask my colleague Lorraine Michael to continue this discussion.
Ms. Michael: May I first thank you as well for having us here this afternoon.
This all-party committee understands that there is a review of the underlying climatic and other conditions leading to a decline in the northern shrimp resource, and this review needs to happen. We are aware that this resource is changing, and it is possible that quotas could continue to decline.
Over time, quota cuts will lead to a significant loss of employment in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and this loss of employment will happen in both harvesting and processing sectors, with possible closure of more shrimp plants.
The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador appreciates the need to make such cuts to protect the resource, but the way these cuts are administered will be crucial to the economic well-being of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Management is a major issue. This issue has such serious implications for communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador that all members of the provincial legislature joined with industry stakeholders, the business community and municipal leaders to seek a better outcome. That is why we are presenting to you today.
If LIFO were eliminated now, it would reduce the immediate and drastic impact of current allocations on rural communities.
I will now hand the proceedings back to the chair of our all-party committee to outline our recommendations.
Mr. Hutchings: Thank you, Lorraine. Our all-party committee was created to present a united position on shrimp quota allocations. At this point I'd like to finish our presentation to discuss our recommendations.
Recommendation 1: The committee is calling on the federal government to eliminate LIFO and establish a new sharing arrangement between the inshore and offshore through a process that is consistent with those applied to the other fisheries.
Recommendation 2: The committee is calling on the federal government to ensure that the sharing arrangement considers adjacency and reflects the history of both fleets in the northern shrimp fishery.
Recommendation 3: The committee is calling on the federal government to carry out an immediate, full scientific assessment on the northern shrimp resources, and that full assessments occur annually during this time of apparent resource decline. The committee strongly believes quotas must be determined by full scientific reviews and not just surveys.
Recommendation 4: The committee is calling on the federal government to implement a plan to study the impact of climate change on the ecosystem and the northern shrimp resources.
This concludes our remarks. As chair of the all-party committee, I invite questions from the committee as we proceed with our discussion.
The Chair: I thank our guests this evening for the fine presentation that you have put forward. In the interest of time, I have decided to allow committee members an opportunity to ask a question to our witnesses with one supplementary to follow. Beyond that, I will move on to someone else. If we get a chance to go back, we will. As we always do, our deputy chair, Senator Hubley, will start off our questions.
Senator Hubley: Thank you and welcome to you today. It's certainly great to have an all-party committee on such an important issue. I think it's a good way to tackle many of our provinces. I will make my question fairly quick.
All the way through your presentation, I was wondering about what scientific evidence was in place to make the type of moves that have been made — in other words, impacting one fishery over the other. To a rural community or to Newfoundland itself, is the inshore the most valuable to the province and its people as opposed to the offshore?
Mr. Hutchings: I'll probably start with regard to your question regarding science. I think your question was did science determine where the cuts would flow, inshore or offshore. I think it's fair to say the cuts came from the policy that we're here discussing today and how that policy has evolved. From today's implementation of that policy, the cuts were rendered based on that. Initially, the science done by DFO determined it was a declining stock and subsequently there had to be some changes in allocations. While we think more science needs to be done, we respect that. However, with the LIFO policy, there wasn't fair distribution of those cuts. Truly that's our issue here today.
Your second question?
Senator Hubley: It was on the inshore versus the offshore. A lot of the recommendations show the impact it would have on rural communities and things of that nature, but which one will have a more devastating impact: reduction on the inshore or an overall reduction on both the offshore and the inshore?
Mr. Hutchings: When you look at value, the value of the offshore in terms of strict numbers would exceed the value of the inshore. However, when you look at the actual implication of those effects on rural communities, on outport communities, on businesses, on processing and on harvesters, it's devastating from an economic sustainability standpoint. It's drastic. If we proceed again next year with similar cuts of 20 per cent to the inshore, we're looking at a collapse of fishing enterprises. Those fishing enterprises, on average, operate $1-million and $2-million vessels. They've been encouraged since 2007 to buy other enterprises. They've done that, and they've leveraged more capital to do that. The impact on rural Newfoundland and Labrador is going to be tremendous.
Mr. Ball: I will speak to that briefly. When you think about the history of this, back in 1992, with the collapse of the cod fishery, people were struggling to find another fishery that could help offset the significant losses we had in our province. Along came the shrimp fishery and, though it was some years later, it did a good job in helping many of our communities with that. We don't really see around the province the number of rural communities, but the areas where we see shrimp plants and the shrimp industry as a major player, it's very significant. That was why we outlined today in this presentation about what "per 1,000 tonnes" means to our communities.
As Keith said, many of our harvesters went out and sought significant investments not only in vessels but also in shrimp plants, which then led to jobs in the communities. With cuts the way we're seeing them now, it's unsustainable in many cases and tough to adjust when you get the significant reductions that we're seeing based on those recent recommendations.
The Chair: Ms. Michael, would you like to add something?
Ms. Michael: Yes, I would like to add to it. I think Exhibit F helps to do some analysis, to get at your question, senator.
If you will remember when the minister presented, in 1997, when we had the first major move with regard to the industry, a promise was made to the offshore that they would never go below their threshold of 37,600. If you look at the chart, not only have they not gone below it, they've been quite above their threshold. As we said, it went up as far as 66,000 and now it's at 60,000.
When the inshore came in, you first had it coming in with temporary licences. Then in 2007, you had permanent licences. They certainly did some shooting up at that time, but if you'll notice, they have come down significantly, and now they're under that threshold, which is the offshore threshold. As the minister explained in one of the other charts, the percentage of loss was 56 per cent.
What we're talking about is, because both of those industries are really important to the province, there should be equity in the treatment of the two industries so that one is not suffering more than the other. While we have people employed in the offshore industry, and while certainly where the transshipment areas are in the four ports talked about local business is affected as well, as has been pointed out by the minister and by Mr. Ball, when it comes to the life of communities, that's going to be most affected by what's being proposed here to the inshore fishery.
Senator Wells: Again, thank you for travelling from Newfoundland and Labrador to be with us today. It's an important topic and I know a bit about it. One of the difficult decisions any minister of fisheries and oceans has to make is when there's a period of decline in the stock. It's easy to make decisions when there's a period of abundance.
You mentioned that the first reference to LIFO came in 2003 with respect to the shrimp quota. It seems as though the entry back in 1997 came in with some conditions. It wasn't just opened up; there had to be some conditions around new entrants, as there is for new entrants into any fishing sector. It seems to have been understood that the conditions were there.
We have a quote from the FFAW from October 10, 1997, even though there wasn't specific reference to LIFO until 2003 and Minister Mifflin made his decision on new entrants in 1996. At that time, the FFAW, the fisheries union in Newfoundland and Labrador, stated that "In the event of decline in future total allowable catch, the share for the inshore sector would be reduced accordingly, possibly to zero."
Would you see that as acknowledgement of the LIFO principle?
Mr. Hutchings: At that point in time, in 1996, the union represented the fishery. I guess our issue is that this is a policy. Policies evolve. They change. It's a policy that is administering a public resource for the better and the good of as many in society and as many in industry as it possibly can. I'd be mistaken to think that because we established a policy in 1996 or 1997, that some agreed with and some didn't, as we've evolved to where we are today and are looking at the implications of that policy, we wouldn't suggest that we could change it because of that. We wouldn't agree to that. I don't follow the logic with that.
Mr. Ball: I recognize the comments that were made in 1997. More important, though, was the action that was taken in 2007. At that point, we saw a recognition that the inshore licenses would no longer be temporary, but they would be permanent or regular by nature. Of course, the other changes came with that where you could actually take your licence and leverage financing, and this would be part of your equity. This, to me, was more of a defining moment for the inshore fishery than some statements that were made in 1997 — and I acknowledge that — by the union of the day. I think the big action, which speaks louder than the words of FFAW of 1997, was the fact that there was a recognition of the permanent regular status back in 2007, giving the inshore fishery, I believe, what they felt was a larger say in the management of this resource.
Ms. Michael: To add to that, it's strengthening it in a way. I think what happened in 2007 put them all on an equal footing, and that's what was not there in 1997. I think it changed the whole game at that point in time. I wouldn't want to interpret what the FFAW meant in 1997, but I'm sure that change in the game that happened in 2007 was a significant moment. An equal footing was established there, I believe, or an expectation of an equal footing.
Senator Wells: Those who have been involved in the fishery know that there are never any guarantees of resource abundance. If there were, it would be easier. I look at your handout, Exhibit F, the impact of LIFO, that parallel bar chart. With the new entrants of the inshore in 1997, I assume there was consultation with the offshore fleet, as well as with the community and special quotas, acquiescing to the inshore fleet entering. It looks to me as if in 2008 and 2009 the new entrants had higher quotas than the existing historical harvesters. I don't recall any complaints from the offshore fleet then. Do you have any comment on how a new entrant could have a higher quota than an existing entrant with the principle of historical attachment to supply?
Mr. Hutchings: On the historical attachment piece, we could talk about an industry, the shrimp fishery being about 20, 25 years old. For inshore harvesters, for historical attachment, you're talking about attachment to fishing off our coast a multi-species of over 400 years. That's why, in Newfoundland and Labrador, the harvesters settled there because there was an abundance of resource off of our coast. Whether it's cod, shrimp or crab that they're involved with, there is still that historical attachment. With regard to the policy, you referenced the numbers and how it continued to increase for the inshore. As Mr. Ball and Ms. Michael said, in 2007, through combining policy, they were encouraged to combine and encouraged to invest. They were encouraged to build their enterprises, with the full intention that they were stakeholders and players in this industry. For the inshore in Newfoundland and Labrador, if anybody has the historical attachment to the fishery, it's them. As I said, this is not a fight between the inshore and offshore. This is about equitable and fair treatment of where we are today with regard to the evolution of a policy and how we got there. If we're going to look forward and deal with the declines, as we're seeing in the shrimp resource, we'd better change it now and look at where we're going because, if we don't, in a year's time, if this happens again, we will have devastation in the inshore fishery. Who will deal with it, and who will be there to deal with it? That's the issue we face.
Mr. Ball: To add to Keith's comments, when you look back at 1997, what we established here was a biomass of shrimp for which we could expect some more harvesting. What kept coming out is that any time we saw growth on the way up, as you mentioned, Senator Wells, it was important that adjacency was a factor, not only historical attachment to the fishery but also adjacency — the communities that were adjacent to the resource. We've seen that throughout. For all of the presenters that we've met with over the last few weeks, adjacency has been key, so, as the resource could actually handle more harvesting, adjacency became more and more of an issue for people. So 2007, as I said, to us, is the defining moment in the inshore fishery. Adjacency, resource management and viability of the investments that have already been made are factors in the decision-making process that we think is necessary right now.
Ms. Michael: I just have one comment, Mr. Chair, and I don't mean this in any kind of way of being saucy. It may come out that way. The inshore may have gone up for two years, but they have bloody well suffered ever since if you look at the chart.
Senator Wells: If I may just close very quickly, in doing my research for this, I went to Twillingate a couple of weeks ago and had a round table with a group of fishermen. This was the first thing that they spoke about. We see the real impacts of any resource decline in rural Newfoundland, and it's difficult for all.
Thanks for your presentations.
Senator Enverga: Thank you for the presentation. Some of the questions have been answered in Senator Wells' questions and answers. My other question, though, is how hard is it for the inshore fishermen to go offshore? What will the big change be that will happen if they move from inshore to offshore?
Mr. Hutchings: Looking at Exhibit A that we set out, the inshore fleet is under 100 feet in terms of vessel capacity, 75 or 80 feet. They mostly fish in 6 and 7. In 7, the resource has very much declined, so, really, it's 6. For those vessels to fish further north, in terms of ice and various conditions there is limited capacity to be able to do that. So that's a challenge in terms of fishing in other zones. What we would have suggested, in the past, is that where the offshore has a capacity to be in these other zones and to fish other areas further north, reallocation should be looked at in terms of those zones, in terms of meeting the needs of the offshore and the needs of the inshore.
Senator Enverga: To follow that up, instead of changing their lives, would maybe more investment to help our inshore fishermen to become offshore fishermen be better? Would that help more?
Mr. Hutchings: My concern with that — and my colleagues can certainly speak to it — is that you're talking about greater capital investment because you're talking about more capacity in terms of vessels. Again, I will let my colleagues speak. The size now in terms of the offshore fleet and inshore fleet is what it is. I think we need to look at the resource and how we can fairly, within those parameters, allocate it so that both industries can carry on respective of the science. If we can make future decisions based on the science, we'll make those decisions.
Mr. Ball: I understand what you're saying. One major difference between the two fleets, as Mr. Hutchings said, is that the larger vessels with the offshore fleet allow them to actually fish the stock for 12 months of the year, whereas the inshore fishery is more of a seasonal fishery. If we were to follow your train of thought and take the inshore fleet and make it larger, then there would be capacity and desire to fish that 12 months of the year. In our opinion — not having access to the real, good science that we would like to see — it would add more stress to the existing stock.
Ms. Michael: To add one point to that, while the offshore fishery has the capacity to go everywhere, it's still more convenient for them to stay where they're staying. I think they need to go challenged in terms of using all of the stock that is part of their allocation because they don't, whereas in the inshore fishery they do use all of their allocation. Finding a better way to share the resource outside of 6 and 7 is one of the ways to deal with it.
Senator Beyak: The all-party agreement on this obviously crucial issue is very impressive. Can you tell me if the minister has responded to your letter? Has she given you a request to meet with her or any interest in updating the policy or discussing it with you?
Mr. Hutchings: To date we made an official request to meet with Minister Shea. I would recognize that prior to the decision being made I represented the province to Minister Shea in regard to our concerns with respect to what we heard in relation to proposed cuts. I did relay that information as well as to Minister Rob Moore. Right now Minister Shea is in Brussels for the Brussels seafood show, but I do expect to get an opportunity to meet with her over the coming weeks.
Senator McInnis: This is always a sad situation when you see what is happening with the decline of the shrimp. Of course in 1997 the Mifflin announcement had a number of principles, two being that existing enterprises wouldn't be jeopardized and that the participation of new entrants would be temporary and would end, apparently, when each SFA quota had declined. I would like a comment on that, but I would like you to also comment on your government, back in 2007, apparently agreeing to rationalize with respect to processing plants and harvest capacity. What was done with respect to that?
Additionally, in 2010, the Newfoundland Fishing Industry Rationalization and Restructuring Committee reported that the plant capacity needed to be reduced by 30 per cent and harvesting by 50 per cent. What was done to address those findings at that time?
Mr. Hutchings: In regard to the processing capacity in our province, we've gone from well over 200 processing facilities to this year we're down to probably under 90. In regard to the fish harvesting capacity, I'm not sure of the exact number, but we've seen significant reduction as well in the fish harvesting capacity. The number that comes from over the past 10 years is 30 per cent. I can get the exact number for you.
Our initiatives have certainly been towards rationalization in reducing numbers in the processing and harvesting sector. It has been recognized by the provincial government and the federal government in all the interactions we have that that is needed. We need to get to that nominal number to allow for fishing enterprises to be successful and certainly extend their seasonality as well the extent of the processing facilities in rural communities and their abilities to operate.
We've certainly worked hard at that and have seen results. At the end of the day is more rationalization required? Yes, indeed, there may be, and we need to be vigilant about that as well.
Mr. Ball: I think Keith did an excellent job answering the question. Just as an example, there are 10 plants, and more than half of those plants are relying on shrimp only, and there are more that are dependent on the multi-species of the 10 plants that really handle shrimp right now. In recent years we've seen three plants close. As an example, I've seen one in my own district.
A fair amount of rationalization has been occurring naturally, and the combining aspect of it is certainly helping with that, but when you're seeing the drastic cuts being discussed here today it's tough to respond to levels of cuts like that because it has a significant impact on the amount of revenue that's generated.
Senator McInnis: What is the offshore fleet saying? Is there discussion with them?
Mr. Hutchings: We had an all-party committee. We sent out invites to anybody in the industry to meet with us. We did have a presentation from the Canadian Association of Prawn Producers. Mr. Bruce Chapman is the executive director. They did a broad-based presentation on the offshore fleet focused on the investment aspect and what those companies have invested in capital. We spoke to the investment — in Newfoundland and Labrador in regard to jobs, support services and landings. I mentioned the ports of Newfoundland and Labrador.
In terms of the economic impact and what they do for our province, we don't question that. Again, I suppose their point was that LIFO was a policy that was established and indicated it was clearly articulated through all those years with changes and amendments — especially in 2007 — and what the expectations were of the inshore. We disagree somewhat with that. My understanding is their belief is that LIFO should stand as is.
Senator McInnis: Of course, they would.
Mr. Hutchings: Yes, they certainly would, as an association.
Mr. Ball: Senator McInnis, I appreciate your question, acknowledging that this is a difficult decision. We have communities in our province where there are significant economic benefits from the offshore industry. We realize that, but we have many more rural communities that will feel significant pain as a result of this. It comes down to the fact that there are a lot of pain and difficulties associated with this decision. We want to see a distribution of this pain right now so that our rural communities are not more heavily impacted as you would see some of the areas that are affected by the offshore fishery.
Ms. Michael: One of the things I heard CAPP say and Mr. Chapman say was that they didn't want us to be looking only from the community perspective. They wanted us to remember how much they invest in the industry. They asked us to remember the fact that they too have people from Newfoundland and Labrador on their boats and in the transshipment areas. There are people from Newfoundland in the transshipment ports who are employed. They wanted us to remember what the contribution of the offshore is to the province. We heard all that and we balanced that. The inshore fishers are smaller, but they too have made major investments, especially since 2007. We have to balance off everything that CAPP talked about with the added dimension of the impact on the rural community. That will be much greater with the inshore fisheries with tremendous loss overnight. This is the issue for me more than what's happening to the offshore that have, as you've seen from the chart, been treated generously with respect to the threshold agreed to for them.
We have to keep using the word "equity." That's really important. I repeat what I said yesterday when we presented to the House of Commons committee. Recommendations 3 and 4 are important, but they're in the context of the current crisis we are dealing with. If overnight we do to the inshore what's being recommended, then we'll see the major impact on the rural community. We need everybody contributing at the same time.
We know the resource is declining. We recognized that in those last two recommendations, and there are two things that have to happen. We have to try to slow down that decline, and if we are heading to a point where that resource cannot be harvested any more, everyone should be reaching that point at the same time, not one sector well ahead of the other sector. Those are some of the discussions we had after listening to CAPP and to the inshore.
Senator Raine: I find this very interesting, especially the question of the overcapacity of the fleet.
This is obviously when they made the commitment back in 2007. At that point, did you think it was still growing, the amount of the biomass? It seems to me there would have been a lot of opportunity to rationalize it by the Newfoundland government long before we get to the point where all of a sudden people are struck.
Was there an attempt along the way to rationalize and shrink down the size of both fleets?
Mr. Hutchings: I can speak for the inshore fleet. In 2007, as part of the announcement between Minister Hearn, federally, and Minister Rideout, provincially, in regard to the status of the inshore, which would have been a federal decision, becoming permanent or regular, there was the combining policy which allowed enterprises to combine and use licences as equity so they can raise capital. Within that there was a rationalization aspect to it, and from that we went from over 340 shrimp harvesters down to approximately 250. So within that element to move forward and get access as a permanent status to the shrimp resource, there was a combining policy with other things done federally and provincially to drive rationalization as well.
You're taking harvesters out, but you're also allowing them to increase their enterprise and be more profitable based on the resource available at that time.
Senator Raine: So there are fewer enterprises, but they are taking more of the shrimp.
Mr. Hutchings: With any industry, that would be how you would want it to go, and then you're at the whims of Mother Nature in terms of how that resource goes.
Senator Raine: When I look at the different shrimp fishing areas, and you talk about proximity, I see the offshore shrimp licence holders, and eight of them are from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Nunavut. Those ones are way down here, so proximity to them has got to be 7 and 6. It's a long way for them to go up to areas 1 and 2.
Ms. Michael: Not even when you look at 6 and 7, if I may point out. That's the east coast. They're over the on the west coast, on the other side of the gulf.
Senator Raine: But this is offshore.
Ms. Michael: Same thing.
Senator Raine: So are all of those 14 listed in Exhibit B actively fishing the resource?
Mr. Hutchings: Yes.
Senator Raine: They are in conflict with the onshore ones who have the small boats and need to fish closer to home. So how do they go all the way from Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island to get their shrimp? Where do they go?
The Chair: We'll let the witness answer.
Mr. Ball: First of all, I think a major focus on the shrimp fishery is in areas 6 and 7, as you notice there, and 5 would be next to that.
To your first point about rationalization, I want to go back to that. It is no different than any business at all. A fair amount of rationalization has naturally occurred. As you saw stocks, catches and volumes reduced, pricing and all that, there has been a fair amount of combining. We mentioned that number of 230-odd down from 300 or so. There has been a bit of that naturally occurring for efficiency or viability. It's normal circumstances.
You raise a good point, which is the issue, of course, around adjacency. We've heard throughout the discussion that there is a sense that adjacency actually means something.
Recognizing that we have two large fleets now, but those that are adjacent to the resource should — we're willing to manage the resource on the way down as we did on the way up, but on the way down now, it's the inshore fishery, those closest to the resource, that are disproportionately feeling less of the per tonnage that the offshore would be feeling right now. That's the argument.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Just points of clarification for me if you wouldn't mind.
I am looking at the graph and really see the difference that Ms. Michael was pointing out, a bigger decline in the inshore than the offshore. I think you mentioned as well that in number 7, the stock has really declined so that most of the inshore fishery is now fishing in sector 6.
Do they have to fish there exclusively, or can they take their small boats further up? I know that smaller boats are very dangerous and more dangerous than — but I'm wondering why they can't fish in, say, 4 and 5.
Mr. Hutchings: In regard to your question, that's farther north in regard to conditions, ice and that type of thing. These are offshore vessels that would be stationed inshore, smaller vessels under 100 feet.
The other point is that in area 6, I think that in excess of 50 per cent of the shrimp is taken from that area, so that would include the offshore and inshore. That is the predominant area in regard to the execution of the actual harvesting.
Ms. Michael: I think I'm correct, but the minister may correct me. The other thing is the distance and the incapacity or the inability of the small boats to be able to keep the stock fresh. You need the larger boats, factory freezer trawlers, to do that, and the smaller boats do not have that capacity.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Would it be possible for you to ban the offshore fishery in sector 6 and leave that for the inshore fishers? I'm trying to figure out a way, like your recommendations, that might provide a decent living for the rural areas, because I'm a rural person myself.
Mr. Hutchings: Your thought pattern is consistent to where we are in terms of looking at the overall SFAs, from 0 to 7, and is there a way to reallocate, to make the inshore able to hit a threshold that allows viability, certainly allow the offshore, if they were to harvest in other areas, to meet their viability. Those are the things we're asking DFO to look at.
If the science is not there in regard to looking at those zones and what the biomass is, let's upgrade the science on the biomass in all of these regions and at least see if we could do something like you just suggested.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you. I thought that's what you meant.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for your presentation and for being here.
In your recommendations, the all-party committee was created, and they're united in their position. Basically, what you're recommending is that the federal government try to find a solution of fairness more to the amount that they're allowed to have.
Seeing the chart on Exhibit F, I assume that you would definitely have the approval of the inshore fishermen, because it's to their advantage to come to a finer balance.
What is the feeling of the offshore fishermen, the 14 groups who are the licence holders? Where are they in this picture? What are their feelings?
Mr. Hutchings: We did a representation for our all-party committee from the group that represents a large portion of the offshore fleet. I'm reluctant to speak for them. Obviously, they advocated for the resource they have now and hold fast to the LIFO policy and how it exists.
We can only say our concern is that this not pit one sector against another. There was an innovative solution here from the senator as to how there could be reallocation to accommodate both sectors, and we're willing to work with DFO and the two sectors collectively to come up with a new way as we manage this resource to move forward in future years.
Ms. Michael: What we would be recommending, in the interest of equity and fairness, is that cuts happen but maintain the same ratio in terms of what each party is getting. So maintain the same ratio. That way, everyone is going to get cut, but they still have the same ratio in terms of what they get from the resource.
Senator Poirier: Have you had discussions with them on this? Is there an openness from them, or are we looking at another fight?
Ms. Michael: I think you will have to ask the offshore. I think the inshore would agree with us on that.
Mr. Ball: Go back to 1996. I don't think we should lose sight of the fact that there was a threshold established for some of the same reasons that we're talking about now: 37,600 tonnes. As this industry grew, and you can see by looking at the chart, which clearly points it out, there was significant growth in the offshore sector as well. Once you establish a threshold, it is the threshold. But now in 2014, although the threshold established in 1997 was 37,600, even with the cuts Keith mentioned in his presentation, it's still around 60,000 tonnes. You can see that there has been significant gain by the offshore even through all of this.
On top of that, the red line on the chart shows the offshore. These are special community allocations. They fish and get a royalty for that. They actually take a community allocation or an association allocation and they fish that on top of their own allocation and they are paid a royalty for that.
Senator Enverga: I have a quick question. We're talking about offshore and inshore. Are they basically the same type of shrimp?
Ms. Michael: They're the same.
Senator Enverga: If it was closer to the shore, could an environmental impact affect shrimp on the east shore? It's closer to the land, right? There's oil drilling around the inshore. Could that be one factor why we are not producing more on the inshore?
Mr. Hutchings: Scientifically, I'm not sure. It's the same stock, I guess. I don't know if that's the correct term. They're the same species. I think there's value in looking at more detail in the science we're doing. My understanding is that surveys are done annually, but an overall assessment is not done. This is the only year that an overall assessment was done. Our recommendation would be an annual comprehensive assessment every year and even a special assessment for those eight zones we talked about to see exactly what the biomass is in those areas. From that point we'd look at what the reallocation could be to solve some of the troubles we have between the two sectors.
Senator Enverga: My main concern is that we're putting too much pressure on our inshore shrimps. We don't want it to be like the cod fishery on the inshore. Maybe we need observation on the inshore. Could that be possible?
Mr. Ball: I'll jump into the discussion for a second. We know that in 1992, with the collapse of the cod fishery, we saw an increase in the biomass of shrimp. That was the reason you saw all the extra allocations.
Today we know from speaking to harvesters, and we don't really have the science that we would like to see, that there is an increase in the cod stock; and people will say that cod is a typical predator of shrimp. As the cod stock rises you can expect to see the ecology of it because they are connected. As the cod stock rises, harvesters are saying we could expect to see a decline in shrimp stocks.
That's why 3 and 4 speak to climatic changes, water temperatures and so on. More science is required so we can make those difficult decisions.
Mr. Hutchings: To add to that, I'll use an example from yesterday with respect to a harvester I spoke to about what they're seeing with the abundance of cod. They made the case that sometimes when you do the surveys you're not picking up the shrimp because of the abundance of cod, which are groundfish, on the seabed. They push the shrimp up to various other water columns so they may not pick them up. Those are some of the dynamics we are hearing about from those in the harvesting sector and what they're seeing.
To your point about the changes being seen in the ecosystem, we need to take that knowledge and incorporate it into the science. The ecological system may be so big that things may be happening that never happened before. We need to identify them from a science point as we move forward.
Senator Enverga: We need more science.
Mr. Hutchings: Yes.
The Chair: We've reached our allotted time. I'll allow one question from Senator Munson who was late arriving due to the sitting of the Senate.
Senator Munson: I'm the Liberal whip, so I still had work to do in the Senate. My brief question may have been asked. At the end of the day, if nothing is done, who will be the losers?
Mr. Hutchings: Quite simply, the losers will be the coastal and rural communities — our fish harvesters on the northern peninsula. We have harvesters that have nothing but shrimp. If they take another cut next year, they'll be finished; they'll be out. It would be the collapse of their enterprise — bankruptcy.
Other enterprises have taken on significant capital, but even though they have other species, bankruptcy's there. We have 10 processing facilities, 5 of them just for shrimp — they're $10-million to $13-million facilities. They need a certain volume of shrimp to operate. If you cut that margin, eventually you'll lose the processing facilities and the people who work in those facilities. Then all the support services and businesses in the regions won't have work as well. It's a trickle-down effect. It's enormous. Another event like this will devastate inshore communities.
Senator Wells: Thank you for your presentation. You did an excellent job of explaining the results of the decision by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. When the minister made her decision recently, was it a single-year decision or a three-year quota announcement? How was that done?
Mr. Hutchings: My understanding was for this year. I think in terms of the science, if I remember correctly, the allocations are a rolling four-year average. I'm trying to remember. In doing that, senator, our recommendation talked about additional science and doing some immediate science and a full stock assessment indicating where we are today. I guess that's why we advocated for that. Again, we've had some indication that it may be possible, but it's something we'd certainly like to pursue with DFO and support them in doing it.
Senator Wells: Is it safe to say that additional research would be helpful?
Mr. Hutchings: Definitely. Certainly, yes.
The Chair: I thank senators and our witnesses here this evening. You have indeed done an excellent job of putting forward your case on behalf of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We certainly look forward to working on this issue with you in the near future. It's hard to believe that such tiny fish can cause such a big problem; but there's no doubt they have.
Thank you once again.
The committee is now continuing its special study on the regulation of aquaculture, its current challenges and future prospects for the industry in Canada. We're pleased to welcome this evening three witnesses, and I will ask them to introduce themselves.
Anatole Papadopoulos, Director, Bureau of Policy, Regulatory and Governmental Affairs, Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Health Canada: Good evening, and thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Anatole Papadopoulos, and I am the Director of Policy, Intergovernmental and International Affairs at the Food Directorate at Health Canada.
Dr. Harpreet S. Kochhar, Ph.D., Executive Director, Animal Health Directorate, Policy and Programs Branch, Canadian Food Inspection Agency: My name is Harpreet Kochhar, and I am the Chief Veterinary Officer for Canada and Executive Director of Animal Health in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
Dr. Debbie J. Barr, Acting Director, Animal Health, Welfare & Biosecurity Division, Policy and Programs Branch, Canadian Food Inspection Agency: Good evening. My name is Debbie Barr, and I am the Acting Director of Domestic Animal Health, Welfare & Biosecurity in the Animal Health Directorate for CFIA.
The Chair: Thank you to our witnesses for taking the time to join us here this evening. I'm going to ask you now if you have opening remarks you would like to make, and then our senators will ask questions, I'm sure. The floor is yours.
[Translation]
Mr. Papadopoulos: Mr. Chair, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this evening about Health Canada's roles and responsibilities in relation to aquaculture.
I would first like to take the opportunity to briefly provide you with an overview of Health Canada's role in Canada's food regulatory system.
Health Canada's mandate is to help Canadians maintain and improve their health. The role we play in relation to the safety and nutrition of food focuses on, firstly, establishing policies, regulations, standards and guidelines related to the safety and nutritional quality of food sold in Canada.
Secondly, we undertake health risk assessments in support of food safety investigations as well as other scientific assessments of risks, benefits, efficacy, et cetera, as part of the evaluation of submissions from the food industry and standard-setting.
Thirdly, we provide advice and information to other governmental organizations, industry, health organizations and consumers to support informed decisions.
Health Canada also conducts scientific research and post-market surveillance in support of our mandate.
Compliance and enforcement of rules relating to food is the responsibility of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
For the majority of food products available on the market in Canada, the rules and requirements are set out in the Food and Drugs Act and the associated regulations. Food manufacturers will know by looking at the regulations what they can and cannot add to a product or say about a product before they can sell it. This means that manufacturers can take products that meet those requirements directly to market. In this sense, the government's oversight of these products is mostly done after they are on the market.
For example, the regulations identify which foods must or may contain particular added vitamins and mineral nutrients and at what levels. They also specify certain acceptable health and nutrition claims, contain standards that include microbiological and chemical criteria and set out allergen and nutrition labelling requirements.
For another, smaller portion of food products that manufacturers would like to sell in Canada, there are mandatory pre-market requirements. Specifically, in the case of novel foods and infant formula, Health Canada must review their safety — on a submission by submission basis — before they are allowed on the market.
Setting new, enabling rules of general application — for food additives, for example — also requires a pre-market submission. For products with pre-market requirements, manufacturers are required to submit specific scientific and technical information so that Health Canada can conduct a safety assessment.
Once submissions are received they undergo a detailed pre-market evaluation focused on safety and nutritional quality, with additional considerations including quality, effectiveness and international comparability.
In the case of infant formulas or novel foods, if Health Canada determines that the product is safe, the applicant will receive a letter of no objection and the product can be legally sold. Once again, in the example of food additives, if a manufacturer submits one or several of them for a new use, that new use will be authorized for all manufacturers by adding it to the list of permitted food additives that is incorporated by reference into the regulations.
[English]
With respect to aquaculture, while Health Canada does not particularly regulate this sector per se, it does play a role in ensuring that food products derived from it are safe. Generally speaking, we participate in four main types of activities that can impact on products of aquaculture: regulatory oversight in relation to chemical contaminants, regulatory oversight in relation to microbial hazards, assessment of novel foods, and providing information to the public. These four activities help to ensure the safety of fish that is to be consumed by Canadians and support informed choice by consumers.
Our standards do not differentiate between aquaculture products and wild harvest. The focus is on the safety and nutritional quality of the final food product.
Beginning with chemical safety, Health Canada is responsible for assessing the risk to human health from exposure to food-borne chemical contaminants. Some examples of contaminants that can be found in fish and seafood include mercury and polychlorinated biphenyl, or PCBs. The primary objective of this work is to ensure that chemicals are not present in food at levels that would pose an unacceptable risk to Canadians' health.
Health Canada scientists undertake regular surveillance to monitor the levels of contaminants in foods. Our scientists also conduct research and evaluate scientific data in order to better understand the effects that chemicals can have on the human body. Each of these activities is an essential component of a risk assessment which provides a basis for developing appropriate strategies to reduce or eliminate the risk of adverse effects from exposure to chemicals.
When an unacceptable risk is identified, appropriate risk management measures must be taken to reduce the risk of adverse health effects from exposure to that contaminant. One risk management measure is the establishment of maximum levels for chemical contaminants in foods. Maximum levels are established by Health Canada and are enforceable by the CFIA. These levels have been established based on the best available scientific information to ensure that Canadians are not exposed to levels of chemical contaminants in their diet that may pose a safety concern. Again, Health Canada does not differentiate between contaminant levels for wild fish or fish from aquaculture. For example, Health Canada has standards for total mercury in commercial fish that are sold at the retail level. Health Canada also develops methods of analysis for contaminants and conducts surveys to determine the level and extent of contamination of food. The Total Diet Study is an example of a national survey that Health Canada conducts to help determine exposure to these chemicals.
The second activity I mentioned refers to the microbiological safety of the Canadian food supply. There are a number of microbiological hazards associated with food products derived from aquatic organisms. Health Canada conducts research, evaluation and standard-setting activities to minimize consumer exposure to micro-organisms in fish and seafood. Some examples include the development of a risk profile on Clostridium botulinum in fresh, salted and brined fish in Canada, to better understand the risks associated with this type of product; the development of a smoked fish microbiological guidance document for CFIA and industry; and the development of methods for detection, isolation and characterization of various Vibrios species in seafood.
In both of these areas, chemical and microbiological safety, Health Canada standards are generally aligned with international standards. Specifically, Health Canada is actively involved in Codex, the primary multilateral food safety standard-setting body, to set international standards for microbial and chemical contaminates in food.
Next I'll turn to novel foods. As per Division 28 of the Food and Drug Regulations, a novel food is either a substance, including a micro-organism, that does not have a history of safe use as a food; a food that has been manufactured, prepared, preserved or packaged by a process that has not been previously applied to that food and that causes that food to undergo a major change; or a food that is derived from a plant, animal or micro-organism that has been genetically modified. Some food products derived from aquaculture can be considered novel foods and therefore would require a pre-market assessment by Health Canada.
The government's first priority is the health and safety of Canadians when assessing the safety and nutritional equivalence of genetically modified foods. Health Canada scientists conduct a rigorous pre-market safety assessment of all GM foods prior to allowing their sale on the Canadian market.
As you are undoubtedly aware, Health Canada has received a novel food submission for a GM salmon product, and a rigorous review of that submission is currently ongoing.
Finally, one of Health Canada's key actives in relation to helping Canadians maintain and improve their health is to promote conditions that enable Canadians to make healthy choices and provide information so that they can make informed decisions about their health.
In relation to mercury, Health Canada has issued consumption advice to Canadians so that they can enjoy the health benefits of fish while controlling mercury exposure. Mainly this consumption advice entails suggested limits on the consumption of certain types of fish, as well as suggested limits for certain vulnerable populations such as children and pregnant women.
Due to the health benefits of fish, Canada's Food Guide suggests that Canadians eat at least two servings of fish each week, and it's recommended that Canadians choose fish such as char, herring, mackerel, salmon, sardines and trout. These types of fish are particularly high in omega-3 fatty acids, which have been found to have heart health benefits.
Finally, in 2012, new regulations came into force that strengthened allergen labelling requirements to require clear language and the declaration of otherwise hidden allergens, gluten sources and sulfites. Seafood, including shellfish, fish and crustaceans, is one of the priority allergens and must be identified on food labels, ensuring Canadians with allergies have the information they need to protect themselves.
[Translation]
In conclusion, the activities that I have highlighted today support Health Canada's mission to help Canadians maintain and improve their health.
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, this concludes my summary on the role that Health Canada plays relating to the safety of food products derived from aquaculture. Thank you for your time today. I look forward to your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much. Dr. Kochhar, I understand you have some opening remarks.
Dr. Kochhar: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to appear today as Canada's Chief Veterinary Officer representing the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
I would also like to thank the committee for your commendable work and interest in studying aquaculture, and I'm pleased that CFIA has been asked to provide input into this study.
Joining me today is a key member of CFIA's animal health team, Dr. Debbie J. Barr, Acting Director, Animal Health, Welfare & Biosecurity Division, Policy and Programs Branch.
[Translation]
We are a scientific regulator. The CFIA's mandate is to enhance the health and well-being of Canada's people, environment and economy by safeguarding food, animals and plants.
[English]
Our work does touch aquaculture, which involves farming of aquatic organisms such as finfish, crustaceans and mollusks. Minister Shea, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, has already reported to this committee that aquaculture is the fastest growing food production sector worldwide, now supplying approximately 50 per cent of the global demand for fish and seafood and likely to continue to increase by 7 per cent each year in the future.
In Canada, aquaculture is conducted in all 10 provinces, as well as in the Yukon. The industry generates 174,000 tonnes of product, worth $2 billion in total economic activity annually and farm gate over $800 million.
Mr. Chairman, industry is responsible for producing safe food and assuring the health of the aquatic animals they produce. The CFIA's job is to verify industry's compliance with pertinent regulations.
In the case of fish being raised for human consumption and processed at federally registered establishments, we follow the Fish Inspection Regulations. This applies to all fish, whether they are farmed or wild caught. All fish must meet regulatory requirements for safety, wholesomeness and identity.
In addition to the requirements set out by the fish inspection regulations, the Food and Drugs Act prohibits the sale of fish deemed unfit to eat. CFIA testing results of domestic fish products, including farmed fish, have consistently shown a high rate of compliance. Canada's food safety system continues to be recognized as one of the best in the world.
Mr. Chair, a key way the CFIA addresses aquatic animal diseases of finfish, mollusks and crustaceans is through Canada's National Aquatic Animal Health Program. The Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers agreed that aquatic animal health should move from Fisheries and Oceans Canada to the CFIA. With the ongoing development and implement of the NAAHP, the National Aquatic Animal Health Program, after January 1, 2015, the CFIA will be the sole federal regulator for aquatic animal diseases in Canada. Co-delivered by the CFIA and Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the NAAHP is consistent with the international standards set by the World Organisation for Animal Health. The NAAHP focuses on aquatic animal diseases that have been designated as reportable or notifiable.
[Translation]
These are diseases that require immediate control measures or eradication given their repercussions on Canada's trade, economy and environment.
[English]
The NAAHP facilitates and expands trade opportunities for aquatic animals and their products through aquatic animal health certification for exports when required by importing countries.
On the import side, under NAAHP, Canada requires permits for susceptible species of finfish, mollusks and crustaceans to mitigate the risk of disease introduction into Canadian aquatic animal populations and natural waters. Exporting countries must certify that susceptible species meet import requirements, and Canadian importers must meet import permit requirements.
When aquatic animal disease does occur domestically, there can be dramatic economic repercussions. Currently, the CFIA's response to reportable aquatic diseases has been decided on a case-by-case basis. Between 2012 and 2014, the CFIA responded to seven outbreaks of reportable aquatic animal diseases. The industry was compensated over $84 million by the federal government for costs associated with ordered destruction of animals as is provided for under the Health of Animals Act. It is recognized that this approach is not sustainable for the long term.
Important lessons have been learned from these events. The agency's experience with east coast marine finfish aquaculture has indicated that the industry may not have sufficient infrastructure at present, either individually or collaboratively, to appropriately respond to mass mortality events associated with disease outbreaks. In addition, farm proximity and stocking practices are factors that influence disease spread, and permissions being granted for aquaculture sites must take these disease risks into consideration. We encourage the aquaculture industry across Canada to take stronger and more consistent precautions to minimize the risk of the introduction and spread of infectious organisms into or between the populations.
As we move to full implementation of the NAAHP, the CFIA intends to implement domestic movement requirements as of December 31, 2014. The foundation for this final part of NAAHP is the declaration of the reportable disease status of each province or part of a province and the coastal waters across Canada. Under this new part of the program, movement within Canada of salmonids and shellfish will be prohibited or permitted depending on the disease status at origin and destination.
Where waters are declared infected, the CFIA is also proposing to move from a disease eradication approach to a containment approach within the infected area. The agency is also proposing movement controls to prevent further spread of disease beyond the infected waters. Under a containment approach, animals will no longer be ordered destroyed, as eradication is not considered to be feasible.
[Translation]
In the long term, the transformation and modernization program of the CFIA's inspections includes the creation of an authorization system based on the aquaculture industry's implementation of adequate preventive control plans that will be created and implemented by the industry to protect these aquatic animals from diseases and minimize risks to human health.
[English]
In addition to strong preventative risk mitigation measures, the industry is encouraged to consider a private insurance program similar to that developed by Canada's poultry industry to cover potential losses.
A healthy future for aquaculture in Canada relies on a responsive and responsible industry. To this end, CFIA will continue its collaborative work with Fisheries and Oceans Canada and other government departments and agencies, with provincial, territorial and municipal authorities, with other stakeholders, as well as with industry to support a self- sustainable aquaculture industry in Canada.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Hubley: Thank you very much for your presentations this evening, and welcome.
We have heard a great deal of information on the role that each of your departments plays in the aquaculture industry. I'm going to look at some of the information that we had come back to this committee through our visit to the West Coast, looking at the aquaculture industry there. There was a strong feeling that the current federal- provincial regulatory framework governing aquaculture leads to overlap and duplication. The framework is complex, cumbersome and costly. That is layered against what the Honourable Gail Shea, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, has already realized, that 50 per cent of the global demand for fish and seafood will likely increase by 7 per cent each year into the future. I would think that that's not going to happen unless there is a new aquaculture act, or certainly the regulatory framework has to be modified. I'm wondering, to both of you, first the CFIA, if you can see your role being implemented into an aquaculture act that would focus mainly on the aquaculture industry.
Dr. Kochhar: One thing that is very clear on our part is that we are actually responsible for the disease aspect in the aquatic animal industry, so in terms of working with the provincial and territorial partners, along with DFO as well as Health Canada, we would be very much be part of that should there be a specific aquaculture act that also encompasses the aquatic animal diseases aspect.
Mr. Papadopoulos: As with the CFIA, Health Canada would certainly work with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and other departments and lead authorities at the federal level as required on any new legislative initiatives that impact upon our mandate. It's difficult to speculate on how that role might play out, but I would draw attention to the fact that, in the case of Health Canada's mandate and oversight, we look at the final product rather than the aquaculture sector, so we're focused on the safety of the final fish and seafood product. As such, I'm not sure if it would be subsumed per se. In other cases, references tend to be made to the Food and Drugs Act and Regulations and the standards they spell out because they apply to foods regardless of their origin.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much. I have questions for both of you. First of all, Mr. Papadopoulos, with regard to mercury exposure, when you measure the mercury in wild and farmed salmon, is there a difference in the amount of mercury in the two different kinds of fish?
Mr. Papadopoulos: I'm not aware of any differences in the levels. I know that there are differences in levels based on the type of fish because of bioaccumulation. Larger, predatory fish tend to have higher mercury level readings than smaller types of fish, and that is what drives the consumption advice with regard to certain types of fish, again especially for certain vulnerable subpopulations.
I'm not aware of whether we've measured differences between farmed and wild harvest fish, but our focus is on ensuring that those levels, whether for farmed or aquatic, are below the levels that would pose a safety risk for Canadians.
Senator Raine: Would you state that mercury levels in farmed fish in Canada are within the limits allowed for mercury?
Mr. Papadopoulos: I don't know whether my colleagues from CFIA have any data from a surveillance perspective from their role in enforcing those levels. I'm not aware of any overexposure levels from either a wild or a harvest perspective. I would have to look into the details and get back to you regarding any data we have.
Dr. Kochhar: I'll have to go back too as I don't have it off the top of my head. Generally the compliance rates for the wild fish and the farmed fish are very much within permissible limits. Should something be seen at the federally registered establishments that is above the levels, we obviously have ways and mechanisms through which we won't allow it to reach the consumers.
Senator Raine: My second question is about infectious salmon anemia. Some people state that it is a problem. I know it has been detected in eastern Atlantic salmon. Has there been any ISA in Pacific fish farms?
Dr. Kochhar: Actually, ISA has not been detected on the West Coast. I would invite Dr. Barr to give you more information about that.
Dr. Barr: We've done extensive surveillance on the West Coast of the wild fish populations. Over a multi-year period with a statistically significant population of samples, all samples have come back negative for ISA in the wild population.
With respect to the domestic population, one of the things that CFIA wanted to undertake was to see if there were gaps in the testing that's already being done. A number of tests are being done on farmed fish by both the industry and the province. Our surveillance group did a comprehensive analysis of all the testing to determine if there were any gaps that CFIA needed to fill with targeted surveillance. They were satisfied that the negative results being found indicate that ISA is not present at this time in British Columbia.
Senator Raine: Do scientists know why this virus is present on the East Coast and not on the West Coast?
Dr. Barr: If the virus gets into a wild animal reservoir, then the virus can be transmitted to the farmed fish in the vicinity. It's known to be present in the wild reservoir on the East Coast.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much.
Senator Poirier: My first question is for Dr. Kochhar. You mentioned that you would encourage the industry to consider private insurance plans similar to the kind held by the poultry industry; and there's crop insurance as well. Has any work been done on that? Does insurance exist that they could access, or would they have to start from scratch? Is there anything you're aware of?
Dr. Kochhar: I'm not aware of any existing programs. I'm not sure if we have those at present, but most of these insurance programs are related to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and their ability to support the farming community. Dr. Barr, do you have any information?
Dr. Barr: On the East Coast, one would be starting from scratch.
Senator Poirier: Even though this is considered farming, it wouldn't fall under any agriculture crop insurance or anything that already exists.
Dr. Barr: The current programs don't apply to aquatic animals at this time.
Senator Poirier: Last week we met with the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance, which supports a federal aquaculture act. Would this be beneficial to your organization, and if so, why?
Dr. Kochhar: In a federal act, there would have to be a special component related to aquaculture that actually fits into that component. That would be the only situation. However, given that we are in a mixed mandate with DFO, CFIA and the aquatic animal health stream and food as a product, it is still not clear where it would reside. Should there be a specific act in the federal legislation about agriculture that includes aquaculture, it might fit.
Senator Poirier: My next question is for Mr. Papadopoulos. You mentioned in your presentation that Health Canada does not differentiate between the contaminant levels in wild fish or fish from aquaculture.
Do you see more problems in fish aquaculture than you see in the wild fish? Are there more problems and disease, or is it pretty well balanced?
Mr. Papadopoulos: I wouldn't be able to speak to the disease factors as it's not part of my mandate. With respect to contaminant levels, what I meant to say about differentiation is that the standards set by Health Canada are at a level to protect health and safety irrespective of the origin of the fish or seafood product. That's what I mean by no differentiation, as the standard is set at the level required to ensure that exposure to a particular contaminant would not be at a level that would pose an unacceptable risk to health.
Senator Poirier: Do you have any information, Dr. Kochhar? Is there a difference between the number of problems we see in farmed fish compared to wild fish in terms of diseases and such things?
Dr. Kochhar: I will have to go back and look at it in a comparative way. However, we have a good surveillance program for the wild side of things and the farmed side of things. Nothing significant has been observed, but to be more precise I would have to go back and look at that in a comparative way.
Senator Poirier: If you could provide that to the committee, it would be interesting to see.
Senator Munson: I like the idea of the comparative analysis of wild fish and aquaculture.
Aquaculture has been given a rough ride it seems in the last few years. What is your general assessment today of aquaculture? We seem to have such a small niche in the world in terms of selling our fish, and yet you talk about one of the best surveillance systems in the world. It seems that if we have one of the best surveillance systems in the world, we have healthy fish. Can you give me your general assessment of how you view aquaculture farming and the healthy and sometimes not-so-healthy situations?
Dr. Barr: If I were to characterize that, it would also speak to your earlier question about a comparison of disease in wild versus farmed.
One thing has to be kept in mind that's unique to farming of fish in water as opposed to farming animals on land: When a wild animal dies on land because it's sick, you can find the body, to put it simply, and you can test it for diseases. It's more challenging in the wild aquatic environment. When a wild fish dies, you may never find the body, so it's difficult to make exact comparisons between farmed versus wild for those reasons.
The principles that apply to farming apply to aquaculture as well. There are a lot of steps that can be taken to ensure healthy animals, and animal husbandry practices play a large factor in whether any farmed animal is healthy or not. Farm biosecurity is a huge factor, especially with respect to ISA. That does play a role because healthy animals aren't as stressed, and stressed animals are more likely to get sick. When all of the industry works together they have good animal husbandry, good biosecurity practices in place, and that leads to a very healthy, sustainable aquaculture fish product.
Senator Munson: How do your inspections work? Do people who run these farms know you're coming? Do you have enough people to do your work, or do you come in without announcing and say, "Here we are today. It's five o'clock in the morning; we want to do a full inspection"? Do you have SWAT team aquaculture inspector-type people?
Dr. Kochhar: In terms of disease scenarios, this is more of a sampling program which is based on our assessment at the product sites. For the fish that are caught and processed at the federally registered establishments, we have a sound monitoring system because we have inspection staff available at those processing facilities. Most of the time that is a great way for us to actually look at whether there is any symptom of a disease or in general.
In the case of generally looking at the farmed fish, we have programs in place in which we actually do assessment based on frequency, which kind of farm is there, what the susceptibility is and what the biosecurity is. These are the things that are actually built into all our inspection programs.
Senator Munson: Do you have enough inspectors to do your job?
Dr. Kochhar: In terms of aquatic animal health, we are transitioning from DFO to CFIA and we are continuously putting our programs together to make sure we cover the most aspects of that particular aquaculture related to disease.
Senator Munson: In some situations, CFIA may order the destruction of diseased fish. In other instances it may be determined that it is not necessary to order the destruction of the fish, and as a result fish will be sent for processing.
The idea is you see a fish in a can, so it's okay to eat it if it's in a can but not eat it if it's sitting right in front of you. When is it necessary to order the destruction of diseased fish, and when can diseased fish be processed for human consumption? I find that confusing.
Dr. Kochhar: The destruction orders are basically intended to prevent the spread of disease from one farm to another. We provide that order to take out that particular fish farm and avoid the spread so that the cleaning and disinfection can happen.
Most of the diseases I must say, for example, ISA or others, are not a food safety concern. Basically when you are using that fish to depopulate, which is the term we use, and for the processor it is not a food safety hazard. You can process it and that can be eaten, but the intent of making sure that disease does not spread to other farms is when we go in and order the fish destroyed.
Dr. Barr: The fish itself might be sick from a disease that affects the fish, but it doesn't mean that the meat is not healthy to eat, and there is no risk to human health.
Destruction, as Dr. Kochhar said, is normally when you are trying to eradicate a disease. One factor that always comes into play is how do we minimize the impact of losses on a producer while at the same time maximizing our need to avoid disease spread and where it is possible to allow salvage of some of the value of the animals. Whether they are fish or whether they are terrestrial animals, it's an accepted way of avoiding total destruction.
Senator McInnis: I have here that the CFIA website says not to use ISA infectious salmon as bait. Do not put in the water and clean clothing at high heat. If that's true, you're saying that it could be eaten?
Dr. Barr: By other fish, not by people.
Senator McInnis: I didn't get that. You make a fish meal out of it.
Dr. Barr: No, the bait could infect another fish, so that's why they have that.
Senator McInnis: Well, I'm not sure that I want to eat it as a human when you don't want fish to have it. That's amazing.
There are many stories, rumours and so on about infectious salmon anemia, and it would be important for you to explain to the committee exactly what it is and if it is harmful to humans. I guess it's not, so we can eat it. You've answered the next question I was going to ask. You obviously have approved it for human consumption, I presume? If so, then that begs the other question: Why, then, do you slaughter them at times by the hundreds of thousands? Are there different levels of ISA? What triggers the slaughtering of these fish?
Dr. Kochhar: First, as Dr. Barr mentioned, if used as bait, fish that is infected with ISA could cause disease in other fish, so we want to avoid that. We want to contain the disease, so that's why it is not allowed. ISA is not a food safety or human health concern because that disease is not transmitted from fish to humans. It does not have any of that effect; however, it is transferred from fish to fish, so that's why we say not to use infected fish as bait.
The second component is when we order the animals destroyed. As I mentioned earlier, we order the animals destroyed for containing the disease so that it is not spread. However, they are slaughtered to salvage the value if they are infected. We also use a particular methodology where we need to have salmon at a particular weight so you can actually salvage the potential. At the point that animal is slaughtered, they can be processed further and actually used as food.
Senator McInnis: Is any notice put on the fish at Loblaws or Sobeys?
Dr. Kochhar: No, no such labelling is done.
Senator McInnis: People could be eating this as we speak and it's okay?
Dr. Kochhar: If the farmed fish is processed that way, yes, that could be sold for human consumption.
Senator McInnis: All right. I'm not sure that makes me happy.
They become diseased and experience pest infestation and so on and the industry resorts to drugs and pesticides of some sort. What is the regulatory framework governing the use of these treatments and the potential impact on humans?
Dr. Barr: Any drug that is given to any animal that's capable of affecting a human is subject to withdrawal times, and those withdrawal times have to be strictly observed. Normally, there is a train of documentation that demonstrates that those withdrawal times have been observed. Again, it goes back to the fact that while we worry about the disease in wild animals, we do have inspectors from our fish and seafood department who have to basically ensure that all fish are safe for human consumption before they are allowed to be sold for human consumption.
Dr. Kochhar: I could supplement that with this: Our surveillance programs and residue monitoring programs actually take care of that. If any drugs or any of those chemicals have been used to treat a disease, they have actually been eliminated from the fish body so that none of that residue is actually ever coming into the processing of the fish that is for human consumption.
Senator McInnis: Do you want me to come back?
The Chair: There's no back.
Senator McInnis: Am I out of time?
The Chair: Do you want a final supplementary?
Senator McInnis: I have a lot of questions. Maybe what I could do is submit them to you, and you could respond.
Dr. Kochhar: Okay.
Senator Enverga: Thank you for your presentation. Before, I used to be a sports fisherman. I fished in lakes and sometimes in the ocean. I've seen all of these brochures saying that if you eat this size of fish — several inches — eat it only once a week or, that size, only once a month.
How come we're not doing that in our aquaculture industry? What's the difference between the wild fish and the aquaculture fish, if there's any difference at all?
Mr. Papadopoulos: The consumption advice for fish represents analysis of what levels of a certain contaminant, for example mercury, you might expect to see in a fish. That's where that consumption advice derives from.
Again, the regulatory standards levels that are set to reduce or keep that exposure to a level that does not pose a safety risk would apply to any fish, whether it is from a farm or a wild harvest. I'm not sure if that answers your question.
Senator Enverga: How come we don't have that kind of limitation if it's a big salmon or a small salmon? How come we don't have those kinds of guidelines to eat this kind of fish?
Mr. Papadopoulos: Those guidelines do apply broadly. They are part of food guide advice and Health Canada information that is provided to the public in healthy eating information. It does actually apply to, for example, salmon, whether it's from aquaculture or wild harvest. That consumption advice, varied for different types of fish, based on the scientific analysis of what you would expect to see in terms of exposure levels, would actually apply to all fish.
Senator Enverga: Don't you think it should be featured, let's say, in the supermarket, saying, "This is a big fish; don't eat too much, or eat only once a week?" Don't you think it should be labelled in supermarkets so that everybody would see what they're eating and what it may cost them? Don't you think we have to label them properly?
Mr. Papadopoulos: There are a number of different tools for ensuring that Canadians have the information they need to make those kinds of choices. The government uses a mix of different kinds of instruments, including labelling, in some types of instances, for health and safety reasons. They also use education and awareness campaigns and outreach through certain partners. There's a mix of instruments there, and there's also information provided by other organizations, often drawing on the government's science and analysis. Sometimes you do see that kind of information displayed at the retail level or given out by third-party organizations that are taking the consumption advice provided by government and helping to distribute it more broadly to Canadians.
Senator Enverga: So far, I haven't seen anything like that. I've been buying fish in stores, and somehow I cannot see any labelling like that. There should be more ways for us to inform our consumers that there are numbers of fish or certain sizes of fish that we're not supposed to eat every day. Don't you believe that we should be labelling all of this fish in the supermarket or in the stores or anywhere? We should be more open with our product. Is that correct?
Mr. Papadopoulos: I would certainly agree that it's very important that Canadians have access to that kind of information. The government will use a variety of different measures to do that. Again, mandatory labelling is used in certain instance, so there are mandatory labelling requirements, for example, with respect to priority allergens or to some kinds of nutritional information. There is a high threshold for a mandatory labelling requirement in terms of having an important health and safety driver, and sometimes we can achieve the same objective of ensuring that information gets to Canadians, especially to Canadians of concern. That consumption advice, for example, with regard to mercury exposure, is of particular concern to certain vulnerable subpopulations, and there are additional outreach measures, not only through government but also through some of our partners. The medical community, for example, does a lot on its own to reach out to pregnant women regarding their consumption of fish that would have mercury. We balance that with the fact that fish has a lot of health benefits and is actually recommended for consumption. Again, there are other partners, not just governmental but also outside of government, that are disseminating that information, especially to vulnerable subpopulations because they have good access to those populations and have opportunities to engage them.
Senator Enverga: Do you agree that we're not telling the consumers enough? We're not giving enough information to our consumers about the kind of fish we have and the kind of contaminants they may have, especially with pregnant women. They shouldn't be eating this much fish or this big fish.
Mr. Papadopoulos: We have measures in place, information that we provide, for example, tailored to those vulnerable subpopulations, to the public through our website, through printed materials, et cetera. I'm not aware of evidence that that information is not reaching those populations.
Senator Enverga: Because we haven't seen anything in the supermarket, right? There's nothing like that, in this case.
Mr. Papadopoulos: I would agree that there isn't widespread or universal labelling, right now, of that information in supermarkets, but we're not aware of any evidence that that information is failing to reach those who need to be careful — pregnant women, for example — about their consumption of certain kinds of fish because, again, you have partners that are being successful in disseminating that information.
Senator Enverga: Do you believe that on your end you should be doing that, Dr. Kochhar?
Dr. Kochhar: It is a purview for which the federal responsibility does lie with Health Canada. We are partners in making sure that once the regulations are put in place, we are actually inspecting based on those.
The Chair: Do you want to follow up with an answer?
Mr. Papadopoulos: I would just add that of course we're continuously looking at our rules and regulations and our complementary and non-regulatory measures to ensure they are effective in this regard. We certainly take feedback and indicators from the public and from other stakeholders when we hear that things aren't working, and we certainly have consultations, for example, recently, on nutrition labelling, which followed the Speech from the Throne commitment to consult Canadians and parents on nutrition information on labels. We take feedback like that about the information that consumers are looking for into account when reviewing our regulatory provisions and our other measures like education and awareness.
The Chair: Thank you. I want to thank our witnesses again. You have supplied us with a great amount of information this evening. I understand that Senator McInnis will be following up with some questions to you in writing, and I look forward to his sharing that with the rest of the committee members when he receives that information.
You will be following up, too, and I look to Senator Munson sharing his answers with the rest of the committee members. I just want to make sure that we are all on the same wavelength here.
I want to thank the witnesses for coming this evening. We have a two- to four-minute in camera session shortly.
(The committee continued in camera.)