Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 16 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 2, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 5:35 p.m. to study the regulation of aquaculture, current challenges and future prospects for the industry in Canada.
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I'm pleased to welcome you all to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. My name is Fabian Manning. I'm a senator for Newfoundland and Labrador and I'm the chair of this committee.
Before I give the floor to our witnesses, I would like to ask members of the committee to introduce themselves first.
Senator McInnis: Tom McInnis, Nova Scotia.
Senator Meredith: Don Meredith, Ontario.
Senator Hubley: Elizabeth Hubley, a senator from Prince Edward Island.
Senator Raine: Nancy Greene Raine, British Columbia.
Senator Munson: Jim Munson, Ontario.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Carolyn Stewart Olsen, New Brunswick.
Senator Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier, New Brunswick.
The Chair: Thank you to our committee members. The committee is continuing its special study on the regulation of aquaculture, its current challenges and future prospects for the industry in Canada. We are pleased to welcome once again senior officials from Fisheries and Oceans Canada to discuss proposed aquaculture activities regulations.
I understand you have opening remarks, but if you could take the time to introduce yourselves first for the committee members, I would appreciate it.
Kevin Stringer, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: We will. Thank you for having us back again. I am very pleased to be here. My name is Kevin Stringer, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management.
Eric Gilbert, Director General, Aquaculture Management, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: I am Eric Gilbert, Director General, Aquaculture Management.
Wayne Moore, Director General, Strategic and Regulatory Science, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: I am Wayne Moore, the Director General, Strategic and Regulatory Science with the department.
The Chair: Thank you for taking the time to be with us this evening. Mr. Stringer, my understanding is that you may have some opening remarks and then we will get to questions from senators. The floor is yours, sir.
Mr. Stringer: Thank you very much. I have a few informal comments to provide context. I'm pleased to answer your questions on the proposed aquaculture activities regulations.
As we stated last week when we had the opportunity to appear before you, and as you already know from the extensive studies this committee has been doing, the global demand for fish and seafood continues to rise. The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization predicts that, without any production increases, there will be a global 40 million tonne seafood shortage by 2030. The department and I, as a fish manager, will do what we can to see that some of this — and as much of this as possible — is addressed in the wild fishery, but the reality is that much of this demand can only be met through increased aquaculture production.
With its vast and rich aquatic resources, Canada is in a good position to provide some of that contribution. Since the aquaculture industry is predominantly situated in rural and coastal Canada, this opportunity can contribute to growth in those areas, providing meaningful, well-paying, full-time employment.
At the same time, our job as government is to ensure that any such growth takes place in a sustainable manner. This means developing and maintaining a strong and modern regulatory regime that can enable growth while protecting the aquatic ecosystem for future generations of Canadians.
[Translation]
Canada's aquaculture industry is already an important industry. At this time, the Canadian industry produces over 45 different species on fish farms, with salmon, mussels, oysters and trout accounting for 97 per cent of the volume produced. British Columbia and New Brunswick are the largest producers, if we take into account the volume of farmed salmon they produce.
In 2012, Canada generated over 174,000 tonnes of aquaculture products worth $834 million. So it is a very important industry for Canada.
[English]
We take it seriously at DFO and we have, as our department's core piece to work in the aquaculture area, the department's sustainable aquaculture program. Budget 2013 announced $54 million over five years to renew the sustainable aquaculture program. It consists of three fundamental pillars.
The first pillar is science. Much of the science work to support this regulation is done under the science program to get us to this point and to move us forward. Also, in science are areas like the interaction between the wild fishery and aquaculture fisheries or farmed fish, diseases and those types of things, so it's a robust science program.
The second pillar is reporting to Canadians. Many of you will know that under Pacific aquaculture regulations, in our B.C. regime, we do extensive reporting on fish health, sea lice, disease outbreaks and escapes. We require the reporting, and we report to Canadians on it. The reporting we're requiring in this proposed aquaculture activities regulation will be a foundation for national reporting going forward.
The third pillar is the management and regulatory framework. The aquaculture activities regulation is a core piece, a foundational piece, of our regulatory agenda. In Canada, the regulatory regime is complex. Federal, provincial and territorial governments share jurisdiction over aquaculture. In the majority of jurisdictions, the provinces are the principle regulators responsible for aquaculture licensing and a system of tenure management.
In B.C., the federal government is responsible for the operational regulation of aquaculture, including licensing, site approvals and establishing operator requirements, but the province remains responsible for issuing leases. In Prince Edward Island, responsibility for the aquaculture licensing and leasing has been delegated to the federal government.
While the specific split of responsibilities is complex across the country, we do work closely with the provinces, and we have worked closely with the provinces and territories on this regulatory proposal. We work closely to ensure we're well coordinated and coherent. Of course, the Fisheries Act provisions apply everywhere in the country.
The proposed aquaculture activities regulation does not represent any kind of significant policy shift in terms of enabling aquaculture operators to do things they previously could not do, or to stop them from doing things that they were doing, but rather they largely constitute a clarification of how they can operate, specifically pursuant to sections 35 and 36 of the Fisheries Act.
We're building on and consolidating existing federal and provincial regimes. We have sought to include elements in the regulation that provide an increase in operational certainty, an improvement in environmental protection and an increase in transparency, particularly with the new reporting.
Overall, the proposed regulation authorizes activities associated with the installation, operation, maintenance and removal of an aquaculture facility. It deals with the deposit of drugs and pest control products to treat cultured fish for pests and disease, and it deals with the deposit of organic matter such as fish feces and uneaten feed.
The proposed regulations are intended to clarify conditions under which aquaculture operators may conduct activities under the Fisheries Act section 35 dealing with habitat and section 36 dealing with pollution.
The proposed regulations are the first regulation at a national level that deal with aquaculture.
Much of the discussion in the public domain has revolved around section 36 of the Fisheries Act, and section 36(3) specifically prohibits the deposit of deleterious substances, pollution, in waters frequented by fish unless authorized by regulations. There is a suite of regulations. There's the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations, the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations and a number of other regulations as well. These authorize certain deposits subject to certain conditions. The aquaculture activity regulations will extend this to aquaculture activities — that is, it will clarify the legal requirements, like the other regulations for the other industries, for how to apply section 36 to aquaculture activities.
If adopted, the regulations will be supported by a set of policy and program components. We will have a legally binding aquaculture monitoring standard, which is referred to in the regulation. We will have a guidance document for regulators and licence holders. We will have an annual reporting template for licence holders. We will have a federal interdepartmental memorandum of understanding between our department, Environment and Health Canada setting out an agreed-upon approach about how we're going to manage this.
[Translation]
The Aquaculture Activities Regulations have been in development for some time, with the provinces and territories participating actively in the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers process. We are committed to showing maximum transparency in the development of these regulations.
[English]
We have had extensive engagement over many years. When we went to publication for this proposed regulation in Canada Gazette I, we hosted in September and early October 49 technical sessions across the country. The purpose of these was to explain how the regulation would work, the implications of the regulation and to facilitate and encourage those who were interested in contributing to the formal consultation under the Canada Gazette process, which was open for 60 days, from August 23 to October 22.
We had 400 invitations sent out. We had hundreds of people attended. The sessions were well attended, and the discussion was well informed and well engaged. While there were differing views, I think it's fair to say that the provinces and territorial governments and the aquaculture industry generally are supportive of the regulations. They may want to see some change. Industry may think we're being too hard on them. Some others expressed views opposing aquaculture more generally and, therefore, these regulations in particular. We received some very good input through the process and through the formal consultation process that we will be considering for amendments to the final regulations.
We'll also be developing the tools over the next while, in preparation for presumably when we get to Canada Gazette II, to bring the regulations into effect. At the same time, we'll issue a regulatory impact analysis statement, the reporting template, the monitoring standard and the guidance document. We'll also be working at the same time to develop and execute implementation plans.
This is an important piece. We very much appreciate the input that we've received to date. We know that this committee has done a lot of work on aquaculture, and we really look forward to your views and your questions. We are very pleased to be able to help you with your study on this. We thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and we look forward to questions you may have for us.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stringer, for your presentation and the work you are doing in the department with your colleagues. The expertise at the end of the table is something that is pleasing to us all. I'm going to turn to Senator Hubley first, our deputy chair, to begin our questions.
Senator Hubley: Thank you for being here this evening and giving us more information.
Mr. Stringer, I think you had mentioned that our system in Canada is complex, and it certainly was complex in the information that you shared with us this evening. The regulatory system is complex, and something we've heard from stakeholders is that this may be one of the reasons why the industry is not growing the way it should and the way we think it might be able to grow in Canada.
I think in Scotland they identify their success to having a robust regulatory framework in place that is appropriate and strikes the right balance between growing the aquaculture sector and protecting the marine environment on which the aquaculture sector depends. Of course, they've moved ahead in their infrastructure and they talk about national strategies and marine plans.
How long do you think it will be before we in Canada might be looking at something of that nature, that collaborative approach to the aquaculture industry? I feel it is an industry that has great potential in Canada and, as you mentioned, our rural and coastline communities are going to benefit if we can get the right mix together to promote the industry.
I'm wondering how you would see the industry moving forward to perhaps more of a user-friendly regime that might have a positive effect on the industry.
Mr. Stringer: Thank you for the question. I'll ask my colleagues to jump in.
I'll start with the objective that you outlined where you said what Scotland was looking at or is adopting is similar to what we're looking at, which is that the world needs aquaculture. Aquaculture is here to stay. It is important that it be developed in a sustainable way, and governments are responsible to make sure that the aquatic ecosystem is there for future generations of Canadians. Enable the growth, but make sure it's done in a sustainable way. That is the objective. I think it's fair to say that the provinces and territories generally share that objective.
As I said, the regime is complex. We have different regimes in different provinces and territories, and even different splits between the federal government and the provinces and territories.
I'd speak to two or three things. The first is structure and governance. We have sought, over the past four or five years, to ensure that we are being coherent, cohesive and connected with the provinces and territories in coming up with a consistent regime. Under the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers, we have a governance structure that enables us to get together and try to coordinate our regimes as much as possible.
As the second piece of that, we do have a National Aquaculture Strategic Action Plan initiative, which we developed with the provinces and territories, and with industry involved. It speaks to a number of the elements of the regulatory and policy regime to ensure that we're connected. We've made progress in the past few years. We've renewed the introductions to transfer policy and regime, and the Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program. We've done that with provinces and other government departments. We have been working to overcome the challenges of jurisdictions, all of us working together. That's the first thing.
The second thing is that we've come together with industry more and more in terms of identifying a strategic plan for aquaculture. Again, we come at it from different areas. Industry is interested in growth; we're interested in enabling growth but making sure it's environmentally and responsibly done. They have tabled their proposed regulatory regime. We are moving forward on much of that. The Aquaculture Activities Regulations are one core piece that most look at, certainly industry, as a piece that's required for operational certainty, which will help with access to capital and all those types of things. We've got that.
The third element is our own regulatory agenda. The AAR, Aquaculture Activities Regulations, is a core piece, but we have more that we're planning to move forward on. Regardless of how it's done, the sense is we need to advance on it and I think we've made more movement in the past three or four years than we have in the past couple of decades.
We are getting there, but there's much more to do and it does remain very complex.
Mr. Gilbert: That was very good. I strongly support everything he said. I have one thing to add.
Kevin presented the higher level, the broader perspective, and that is a fact that has made a difference. It improved collaboration between the two levels of government. When you think of industry expansion in this country, there are only two ways to do that. Either you get an authorization to expand an existing site, or you get access to a new site. As we said previously, this is a shared jurisdiction. In both cases across the country, besides P.E.I., the two levels of government have something to say either through the lease issuance or the aquaculture licence issuance process. One deals with the allocation of space and the other with day-to-day management of the operation.
In order to improve the coordination, I think it's a fair statement that in B.C., we have a single-window approach. When there is a site application for an expansion or a new site, both levels of government process the applications together, having all the communication lines open. We even agreed to announce the results of this process at the same time for both the lease and the licence.
For the rest of Canada, there's a willingness to move toward that and we are factually trying to do that. I can't say we'll call it single-window in all cases, but based on what the provinces are sharing with us, they all agree we should move toward that.
Senator Poirier: I have one question. It's under the sections 5 and 6 of the proposed regulations. The owner or operator of an aquaculture facility would have to consider the use of alternatives to the deposit of drugs and pest control products and make a record of that consideration.
I was wondering if you could better define what ''alternative'' would include.
Mr. Stringer: Thank you for the question. I'm going to start this and ask Eric to speak to the specifics of what the example could be.
I would note that one of the things we said in our remarks is that most of this regulation is a consolidation of what currently exists. This is not a new requirement, but I'll ask Eric to speak to what specifically is in mind, the sort of thing you might consider when using proposed section 5.
Mr. Gilbert: We're asking the industry to look at alternatives and, to be honest, in some ways they don't need us to tell them that.
Currently on the East Coast, treatment for sea lice, for instance, is reaching the 10 per cent cost of production. It is becoming a lot of money that the industry is spending using the current pest control products that are accessible to them.
The overall management regime that the province and ourselves, with Health Canada, have put in place is all about lowering the impact of those products at the minimum level that we feel that sustainability is achieved and that is the case right now.
Moving towards greener technology would help from an economic perspective, but also from a social acceptability perspective. This provision within the AAR is all about maintaining the pressure on the industry in order to make sure they are looking at those alternatives and, as soon as they are available and efficient from a cost perspective, they take them over and implement them. I'll give you an example of those technologies.
As you know, for sea lice treatment, currently there are only two products authorized to treat the fish. One is Salmosan and the other one is hydrogen peroxide, the latter being 99 per cent of the volume used across the country. Some new technologies are currently being developed. The first time I heard about it, it made me smile because the new product we recently discovered is used in Chile and there is a pilot project right now on the East Coast. The new product is warm water. We just discovered that warm water helps to get rid of sea lice attached to salmon. It doesn't kill them, but they just pop up, you recuperate them and solve the problem. Wayne might want to explain this further, if you desire. This is an example that, in the AAR process, we're going to ask the industry to report to us on a yearly basis if they have considered other technology.
You need to think about this process in terms of years. Each year DFO, the regulator, will be aware of all the new technologies and will list them in the reporting template. We will ask the industry to justify why they're not using them. If it makes sense, we might put more pressure on the industry to take over.
All this said, in the previous example that I gave you the idea didn't come from the regulator but from industry because of the economics and social acceptability — the issue that I just mentioned.
Senator Poirier: If the industry finds alternatives, which they report to you, do you share those alternatives with all other aquaculture growers out there? Do you share the knowledge?
Mr. Gilbert: Of course. Our officers in the field are on top of those stories and can talk about it on a daily basis with whomever they deal. In consideration of alternative technology, the industry will have to report to us on a yearly basis.
Kevin put some emphasis on the other pillar of our program, which deals with reporting to Canadians. All this information that we will gather on that front will be collated, analyzed and reported to Canadians on a yearly basis. We will keep Canadians aware of the new technologies that come into use.
Senator Raine: You said the information will be reported to Canadians on an annual basis. Are you talking about the reporting of a disease outbreak? Anything like that would be reported to the neighbouring farms immediately, I would presume. That's quite different from a regular reporting regime.
Mr. Gilbert: Yes, and there are different communication lines in place. For disease outbreaks on the West Coast, for instance, we're reporting now on the website, I think on a three- or four-month basis. Every four months we provide on the website the disease outbreaks that we face.
I mentioned different communication lines. The industry has an official committee in place. They share amongst themselves all that information. As soon as there is an outbreak somewhere, it's not good for anybody if the industry lets it spread. They share that information, I would guess, at least on a weekly basis. There are not many players, so they keep all members of the industry informed of any developments on that front to minimize the impact of any disease outbreak.
Mr. Stringer: There are requirements now for the immediate reporting of specific things. They're in different pieces of regulations.
New and interesting in section 12 of this regulation is an annual report on the whole thing, which includes things we weren't getting reports on before, such as the point that the senator from New Brunswick made that has them report how they considered alternatives and how they landed on the decision they made. It includes all the things they are required to report on immediately, plus all of the other pieces in this regulation.
It's an interesting piece. As I said, it will provide a foundation for some national reporting, which we'll be able to do for Canadians. The reporting requirement here is to us — government.
Senator Raine: My concern is that, as you know, some people are very much afraid of aquaculture and think it's going to impact wild stock. If the industry has information that they aren't sharing, there is immediately on the other side a suspicion that they're trying to cover up or hide something. I would encourage the industry working with DFO and provincial regulators to be as transparent as possible as quickly as possible. A one-week delay feeds the fire of the fear that people have of this.
From what I've seen in our travels, the fears are vastly overrated and that it's a question of communication.
Mr. Stringer: You're hearing the fears that are there, and accurate information would help, right? A big part of this is to try to address that. It is on an annual basis. There are other requirements in other pieces of legislation for immediate reporting. On the West Coast, in particular, where we're responsible for it, we have a pretty robust program. Eric or Wayne could add to that. We hear you, senator, and that's important feedback for us.
The only other thing I would add is that, as many senators know because they were there, we spent a large part of last week with the industry. About 100 were in town for a forum and their annual general meeting. It's something that they are aware of and understand; and something that they know we're working on too.
Senator Stewart Olsen: When I look at these, I see an enormous amount of new paperwork, an enormous onus being placed on anyone wishing to start up a business. Most of the ones we're seeing are small and struggling. Large industry, of which there aren't many, will have the market share. Who, in their right mind, would get into this industry with this amount of paperwork on their shoulders?
I recognize what you're doing and the pressures to have an industry that's safe. However, I also recognize that I don't see anywhere in here our responsibility, our assistance to these growers or our provisions for perhaps help with new regulations when they are going to start up. All of this reporting sounds really good and will look good to a certain group of people, but for another group of people who are struggling to start their business and keep it going, this will look like the straw that broke the camel's back.
I would like your comment on that. How are you going to move forward and help the industry? It's an enormous source of protein for the world. It's a great opportunity in this country, but we cannot proceed if we come up with page after page of regulations that will further confuse. I know you say you have consolidated. That's all good, but I see nothing in here that's progressive and forward-thinking.
Mr. Stringer: Thank you for the comments and the question. I would say two or three things for your consideration.
First, it really is a balance. We want to ensure that we're being environmentally responsible and that there is transparency. That's important for reasons that people here have spoken to already.
The critical thing in this proposed regulation is regulatory certainty and operational certainty; and that's what industry is seeking. Industry has expressed concern to us and the provinces that they don't quite get the rules. The rules are all over the place in many pieces of legislation and regulations. Can you bring it under one piece so we're clear about how section 36, in particular, operates?
We have had some instances where an industry was not certain how and under what conditions they could apply. It's a matter of concern about the operational certainty for it. That's why industry was interested in this set of regulations.
That's what industry gets out of it. There are other pieces of the regulatory reform agenda that would speak more directly to the issues that you are talking about. They will be pieces that hopefully will be coming forward, as well. For industry it really is regulatory certainty.
Mr. Gilbert: It's not an easy one. Like many regulations, there is more between the lines than you can read. I have to make a few comments.
This is a concern or issue we have had in mind since the beginning of the development of this new regulation. Kevin mentioned in his opening remarks that we are trying to build on existing regimes. I will give you an example of what I mean.
We're imposing on the industry to report to us on an annual basis on biological oxygen demand, which is an indicator of organic matter deposit. The industry is currently doing it across the country in all provinces. They are submitting their reports to the provincial government. In our standard, we build on what the provinces are doing. We're not asking the industry to do anything differently. At the end of the day, when the industry shares their report electronically with the provincial government, they will have DFO on their distribution list and then they're covered. In terms of paperwork, it doesn't mean anything else for the industry.
The regulation is based on a risk approach. If you look at all the conditions imposed through the regulation — and, again, it's not that obvious, but if you look at the template that we developed — we have six or seven sections in the template. I can tell you that based on risk we will ask, for instance, the salmon industry to report to us on more parameters than we will ask the small land-based trout farmer or the shellfish industry. For the two latter, it's only one section out of the six that they have to fill in, and it's very easy. It's not a lot of work.
When we develop the regulatory impact assessment statement, we consult the industry. We provide them with the overall approach that we are trying to embed into the new regulation and we give them an example of a reporting template. We ask them to tell us how much work this would represent for them. We had our own estimate of the cost on our side done by modelling and theoretical approaches because we are not part of the industry, but we asked them to look at them and give us their number on what they thought it would cost on a yearly basis. I can tell you that the two numbers were pretty close.
Based on the feedback we received, in terms of reporting, the industry feels this is acceptable. This is not putting a burden on them that would jeopardize their activities.
Senator Stewart Olsen: When you say ''industry,'' most of these are really more favourable to larger industry than smaller industry, for instance, your biomass regulations. I'm just not 100 per cent sure that you are considering in this some kind of support or encouragement for smaller companies that are just starting up.
I hear you when you say it's not more onerous and I know the difficulty. Mostly when you write regulations, it is always more onerous for everyone. That's why I really want to hive down to this. I think what the industry had asked for was a simplification. I never heard that word ''consolidation;'' I think they said ''simplification.'' Make it easier and don't complicate it.
I hope that when you drafted them, you looked at perhaps some way that it might be easier to do all of this, rather than being more onerous.
Mr. Stringer: Thank you for the comment and the question. I guess the additional point that we would make is about all of the pieces in here that really speak to what is in other regulations. If you had to pull all those pieces together, you would have a pretty thick document. What we've actually done is bring it down to a six-page regulation. That was the objective. Whether consolidation is the right word or clarification or operational certainty or making a simpler, clearer regime, that is the objective.
At the same time, it is also the objective to make sure that there is transparency. Yes, there is a requirement for industry to report that wasn't there before, at least on the annual basis, and it ensures that we have environmental protection.
We are hoping that it's balanced. Certainly we're hearing all views and considering whether we make adjustments before we get to the final regulatory package.
We really appreciate the comments, and thank you.
Senator Wells: Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing. Mr. Stringer, I know you've been in the department for a number of years. How have you seen the department change over the years with respect to serving and regulating the aquaculture industry? I know that the percentage of seafood products produced through the aquaculture sector is increasing. We learned on our trip to Norway that 70 per cent of Norway's seafood is aquaculture. How is the department evolving to look after this growing industry? It's something that's only going to get bigger.
Mr. Stringer: Thank you for the question. It has changed enormously since I joined. I first went to DFO in 1998. I actually think in those days, and I may be exaggerating one way or the other, there were under ten people, maybe five, working on the aquaculture file. It was not that major a file for DFO at the time, despite the fact that we had responsibility for it. It's been a challenge and something raised by the industry.
In 1999, I think, the government created the commissioner for aquaculture, and that was a small group that was connected to government but not part of it. It was merged into the department in about 2005. That was probably the first time that it got its own sort of major directorate leading up to what it is now, which is a $25 million a year budget, or $30 million. It's $26 million this year and $30 million next year, so it has become a major file.
The reality is that it accounts for 30 per cent of the fishery now in Canada. It accounts for 14,000 jobs across the country. It accounts for a significant part of the landed value of the fishery. I've got responsibility for the wild fishery and the aquaculture fishery. I would say I will do our absolute best to make sure that the wild fishery continues to fill that gap and continues to grow, but the reality is that, if the numbers we hear from the food and agriculture administration are anywhere near accurate, we will need aquaculture. The department has equipped itself, and other governments have as well. It has had substantial growth in terms of its portion of the budget and attention, and in terms of its stature.
Senator Meredith: Thank you, Mr. Stringer. It's good to see you again. We are hanging out on Tuesdays.
You mentioned Budget 2013. Of the 50 questions that I have, Senator Poirier — I thought I would throw that in there — the 2013 budget indicated you said over $53 million or $54 million allocated to the aquaculture industry. You talked about the science supporting the wild, and this is where I guess Mr. Moore comes in as well. Talk to us about that. You mentioned to Senator Wells about the growth of the wild. In terms of the numbers, what are the signs saying, given climate change, given changes in temperatures, in terms of just the growth of that sector itself and the certain species? Talk to us as well about the aquaculture industry in terms of filling that. What are the pros and cons? What is the science telling us? I'm curious to hear your comments on that, gentlemen.
Mr. Stringer: Let me start is, and I'll ask Wayne to jump in in terms of the science specifically. How the stocks are doing writ large, the wild stocks? You also spoke to changing oceanographic conditions, and that's a reality in certain parts of the ocean, frankly.
Let's start on the West Coast. This past summer, we had an extraordinary year for salmon. Since we started keeping really good records in the 1950s, it's in the top five in terms of the returns for sockeye salmon on the West Coast. Other species, not quite as well. There have been long-term slight decreases in some of the species.
Moving to the East Coast — and I'm skimming the surface here — lobster continues to be a major fishery in good shape and not showing signs of a downturn, which is good news.
We are seeing concerns around shrimp and crab in the Newfoundland Shelf, but we are also seeing groundfish coming back. We are seeing signs of not just cod, but certainly Atlantic halibut is growing, haddock is growing, and some other species as well.
So it really is hit and miss. Our job is to make sure that we are taking advantage of all the positives and that we're creating the conditions so we get as much growth as possible.
I'll ask Wayne to speak to the rest.
Mr. Moore: Mr. Stringer has correctly identified some of the major trends that are happening from a wild species point of view. You specifically referenced climate change and some of the changes that go on. Some of these cycles are happening at fairly large levels.
For example, with increased acidification in some areas, we see emerging impacts potentially on shellfish. We have a lot of work under way trying to understand what the implications are. Are they longer-term trends? Will we see adaptability, or will we see some movement of species? What are the implications there for opportunities and problems?
There are some shorter-term events. For example, we are hearing in the news today about El Niño and the impact on the weather we are experiencing today, but that will also have an impact on fish stocks —for example, how will that shift? That is another area we are looking at.
In terms of aquaculture specifically and in terms of the work we are launching, as mentioned, there has been a significant investment, a renewal of the Sustainable Aquaculture Program. We are concentrating our work in a number of areas over the years to come and a number of topics we have heard about tonight.
For example, in support of the regulation, release of organic matter: How is the organic matter related to aquaculture sites? What's the impact on the environment? What are various ways of helping to mitigate that so we can facilitate growth in a sustainable way?
Another area which we also talked about tonight is around fish, pest and pathogen management. What are the most effective tools that we have in place to help manage pests where they do appear, again while minimizing the impact on the environment? Some of the ideas we talked about earlier, such as the warm water, again techniques we will be evaluating and looking at. What is the efficacy of these things? Do they work as well, and under what conditions do they work well?
There are a couple of other areas under the general heading of interactions between wild and cultured stocks, between wild fisheries and aquaculture. One area is, again, the issue of disease. A big concern we have had raised in British Columbia is to have a better understanding of what are the disease interactions between wild and cultured stocks, do they exist, what direction do they flow in, and what are the dynamics around that, in order to understand those relationships a bit better.
Lastly, on the East Coast we are also looking at issues around wild and cultured interactions around salmon. Certainly Atlantic salmon is a priority issue in a number of the Atlantic provinces. We want to better understand whether there are issues surrounding the interaction between wild and cultured salmon there.
That's to give a sense of some of the areas we are working on now and, hopefully, a little appreciation of the situation with the wild stocks, too.
Senator Meredith: Thank you so much. I will forgo my other 49 questions and turn the table back to you.
The Chair: We appreciate that, Senator Meredith.
Senator Raine: In British Columbia there was a moratorium on fish farms for a while because of the Cohen Commission. In February 2014 Cermaq applied for two new aquaculture licences. My question is with regard to those licences.
I understand that the siting is in the jurisdiction of the province and that some people are complaining that there hasn't been enough consultation. I would suggest the consultation that's been done has been through the website of the industry, but by not proactively going out and seeking consultation.
Is there any role for DFO to engage in public consultations as part of your review of aquaculture operations?
Mr. Stringer: Thank you for the questions. I'll start, and ask Eric to add.
There is a formal process for new sites and expansion of sites. The process is generally started by the province. It goes up on their website, but on their website it invites people to contact DFO if they have an interest in a particular site.
The proponent is required to have an open house to engage the public. We ensure that we engage with local and affected First Nations and key stakeholders. It's a formal process. I think it's actually probably on our website how the formal process works, but I'll ask Eric to add to it.
Mr. Gilbert: This is what I called a few minutes ago the single-window approach. Both levels of government have a role to play. The provincial government is allocating the use of the space, so the seabed for a given site, either finfish or shellfish. We issue the aquaculture licence that regulates all the daily operations of the venture.
That being said, we are also involved in the evaluation of potential impacts. We use a science model. For any specific site, with the request we have for volume production and so on, we can estimate what the impact would be. That information is shared with the proponent and, if we have questions, we ask them to do more study.
I have to say that this is an extensive process, for both levels of government, for a given company to meet all the requirements. We're talking about a quarter of a million dollars that they have to put on the table upfront even before they get the licence. They are keen on putting that money on the table, because they know they have to comply with all the regulations. Once they get the licence, then their investment is deemed profitable.
What I said is true for a new site application. The two that you are referring to were major expansions of existing sites. I'm not 100 per cent sure, but I think they were in the north part of Vancouver Island.
The process is about the same for a major expansion of any given site. The threshold we have to decide what is major and what is not is exactly the same that we have in the AAR regulations on section 8 where we talk about either, in one shot, a 10 per cent increase in the footprint, in the volume; or 10 per cent that would be cumulative over five years. So it's not 50 or 75 per cent. As soon as we go over 10 per cent, we are asking the industry to go through the same process.
On the First Nations side of things, it's one of the major pillars of the evaluation process. We have to have direct communication with First Nations. Kevin mentioned that the industry or the company has to hold an open house and get in touch with First Nations. It's always the case in B.C., because they know that if they want to expand an existing site or have access to a new site, they need to have First Nations support, so they get in touch with them a long time before we even get involved in the analysis of the application.
Once we're there, we also have direct communication with the relevant First Nation and we formally ask them their views on it. We send a letter. I'm aware of cases where we didn't receive any reply to an official letter asking their views on a site for any given application. We went back to them up to three times to make sure they were comfortable, and they were, but it took us a letter and a lot of communication to get there.
So, that's kind of a must for us, to have a very broad and significant consultation process, not only with First Nations but all stakeholders.
Senator Munson: Thanks again for being here. You talked about six pages of regulation. The words used have been ''clarification,'' ''consolidation,'' ''simplification,'' but there are certain folks who still don't like what they see.
One person is Mr. Bill Ernst, and you're probably familiar with him. He is a retired Environment Canada biologist and he had an editorial in The Chronicle Herald in Halifax last month. He suggested the proposed regulations would reduce environmental protection from aquaculture activities.
In his view, the assessment conducted by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency dealing with pesticides, Health Canada and veterinary drugs as part of the product approval and registration is based on pre-used data provided by manufacturers. He also argued that the proposed regulations would ''make no provision for collection of environmental impact data for pesticides or drugs in the aquatic environment.''
Could you address those concerns? They sound pretty serious to me.
Mr. Stringer: We're familiar with the concerns, as you point out. I'd say a couple of things.
Number one, the work that's done by the PMRA is being done now, so this is not something that changes with the new regulation.
In terms of data for environmental risk assessment, with the reporting requirements we have in section 12, for the first time ever we are going to be able to compile these on a national basis. We think we will have more data.
I did say in my opening remarks, and we do take this very seriously, that when we're out talking to stakeholders in technical engagement sessions and hearing from people, we do hear some people saying they don't like aquaculture and therefore don't like this regulation in particular. The reality is that, in terms of the types of activities being discussed in this regulation, particularly the ones in the editorial that you quoted from, these have been going on and operating in the past. Those who are concerned about it were hoping we would say ''you can't do that anymore.'' The reality is that we've clarified how to do it and put some rigour and reporting around it. That's really what it speaks to.
Mr. Gilbert: One point that needs to be clarified here is the fact that you're right. The way that the Aquaculture Activities Regulations are designed as of now doesn't plan for any post-deposit monitoring of the use of pest control products and drugs. The reason we didn't put it in is because, as Kevin said, PMRA is involved in the risk assessment both for the human health perspective but also on the environment, which has been done by the PMRA for years. They check if risk assessments were done properly on some occasions.
There are not that many products authorized in Canada and in use right now. We're talking about two: Salmosan on the East Coast primarily, and hydrogen peroxide on both coasts. Both are authorized under a specific process. They need to have the provincial government to request the use of those products, which is what happened. But when the provinces do that, they also have their own conditions for use.
A good example is that for the first time on the West Coast, hydrogen peroxide was authorized a year ago. The provincial government asked for post-deposit monitoring of the impact, and they did. The result was communicated to the province, and they declared that there was no impact because hydrogen peroxide is the same product we use to clean our kitchen counters and it degrades in water rapidly in one atom of hydrogen and one molecule of water. The impact is localized and short in time.
With all this being said, Environment Canada was part of the development of this regulation since the beginning. They have been involved for years. They shared concerns that hydrogen peroxide is fine and Salmosan we know, but what if there's a new product authorized? Through the memorandum of understanding that we're just about to sign off among the three departments — Environment Canada, Health Canada and ourselves — the departments have committed to do a science review. That review will be done over the next three years. One of the major components is to exactly answer that question: Do we need to impose post-deposit monitoring on the industry for the use of those products? If yes, what kind? What should it look like?
This will be told to the management side of things by the three departments' science branches that will work together to figure out the scientific protocol that will bring all of us to a situation where we will have a clear answer to those questions.
Mr. Moore: Thank you, senator. I have three quick points to add.
The first is the important message around the professional evaluation undertaken by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. A second point would be around not only that, but the deep degree of cooperation we have in working together with the PMRA, building on research we have. We sit at roundtables and talk about research priorities, how the work we're doing through the Sustainable Aquaculture Program can help inform their work as a regulatory agency. So this isn't just separate walls; we're working closely on that.
The second point, as Mr. Gilbert pointed out, is the important role of provincial vets in making these decisions around applications. These are trained professionals looking at this and making recommendations.
Lastly, as he pointed out, is the science review, which we're in the process of scoping out now. Certainly there are some very important questions to be raised, building upon the body of knowledge that we've developed over a number of years of researching these topics.
Senator Munson: As a brief supplementary, with these answers, do you think you've satisfied Mr. Ernst's concerns?
Mr. Stringer: I think my colleagues have largely responded to that one. We've had a lot of input from a lot of people. We really do take all views seriously. We understand that people are bringing these forward with the absolute best intentions. At the end of the day, our decisions, our recommendation to the minister and what we'll seek to put in the public domain is based on science rigour. We need to be aware of views, and all range of views. We need to take them seriously and, at the end of the day, as has been pointed out by my colleagues, we will be guided by the best science advice that we've got and we will ensure we have a robust regulatory regime. We're hopeful and we think we've captured that here.
I did say in my remarks there are reviews we heard that we're contemplating during the process. We think there's potential for considering improvements to the regulation, and those are things we're deliberating on now.
Senator McInnis: Thank you for coming. This was not going to be my question, but Senator Munson provoked me to do this.
Your department enforces and you also market. I think you should add another word: ''educates.'' Don't think of this as patronizing. We have good people in Fisheries and Oceans, and you do a wonderful job. But in the community I come from, the word ''trust'' enters into it and that's partly predicated on the fact that it's hard to tell the story to every individual, but it's important to try to get that message out. I don't think you do a good enough job.
Yes, you've had consultations. You've had I forget how many around Atlantic Canada and B.C. and so on. When I look here, I see that we have the Fisheries Act, the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, pollution prevention legislation, the Health of Animals Act, control of fish diseases legislation, the Pest Control Products Act and the regulation of pest control. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act addresses the environmental risks related to drugs and then, of course, you have the Canada Shipping Act with respect to pollution from vessels and so on.
If I were out there, my perception would be that this is more than consolidation. You're turning the husbandry activities over to the industry. So, can you distinguish for me between that? Where are the differences?
We would like to hear what you have to say about the educational aspect, because I think that's very important.
Mr. Stringer: I guess I'll start with the latter issue, the educational aspect. It is very complex. The issues are really important to Canadians. I hear from fisher groups who are concerned. I hear that they want to support jobs in the community, but they're concerned about the potential impacts and they want to be assured that we're going to have a regime in which — understanding that nothing is risk-free — they're going to be able to enjoy the benefit from the aquatic environment going forward. We get that and, at the end of the day, what we're seeking to be able to do is to have a robust regulatory regime.
The second piece is around education. It is so complex and the issues are so significant. Poor Eric Gilbert. I don't know how many of these he went to, but there were 49 during a few weeks, and we had hundreds and hundreds of Canadians, most of whom just wanted to hear about it and learn about it. Therefore, I think these were successful. There were some people who were just kind of coming out to champion it and some people coming out to say, ''I don't really like aquaculture and I want to let you know that.''
But there is an ongoing attempt to make sure that an informed discussion is taking place. We know the debate is going to take place on these issues. Our job is to help to make sure that it's an informed debate, that we have the proper information in the public domain and that we are proactively getting it into the public domain.
I think what I hear you saying is that we need to redouble efforts to do that. The stakes are significant and you're hearing from people who are clearly not getting that message. I think we take that and need to consider that, so thank you.
Senator McInnis: They hear from you when there's an issue, you see. I think the quiet times are when there should be more education about the import of aquaculture and how the process is taking place. I'm certain that a partnership with the industry would be welcome. I'm sure they would share the cost. They're certainly doing a lot of research.
Mr. Moore: On the research point, that's an excellent point. We take the responsibility very seriously in terms of communicating the science in this area to scientists and Canadians at large. We have an advisory process called the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat. We produce about 300 research reports and advice documents from the department a year. They're not all on aquaculture. They cover a range of subjects, but aquaculture is, as Mr. Stringer has pointed out, taking up an increasingly important space there. They're published with executive summaries and are targeted towards a scientific audience, a user audience, if you will. In addition to that, our scientists are publishing in journals, presenting at conferences and sharing this message among those communities.
We realize that those aren't the only people we're trying to reach. We are using our website and videos to try to reach out to a broader community and to a range of audiences so that people will understand the science that has been done — presented very factually — and to share that with the broadest audience that we can so that some of these debates happening in public can be happening from a stronger base of fact. I think that's an important area where we can contribute.
Some of my staff have just come back from Korea where those debates are happening, as well. I think it's important that we be participating. I don't say this for myself, but for the staff across the country: I think our scientists are making very important contributions internationally on these debates.
The Chair: Thank you to our senators, and thank you to our panel. As always, we reserve the right to call you back as we continue with our study into 2015. Thank you for your time.
(The committee adjourned.)