Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue No. 35 - Evidence - November 22, 2018
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 22, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 8:18 a.m. to study issues relating to the federal government’s current and evolving policy framework for managing Canada’s fisheries and oceans.
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. My name is Fabian Manning, a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador. I’m pleased to chair this morning’s meeting. Before I give the floor to our witnesses, I would like to ask our senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Christmas: Dan Christmas from Nova Scotia.
Senator McInnis: Thomas McInnis from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Good morning. My name is Chantal Petitclerc, senator from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Hartling: I’m Nancy Hartling from New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Gold: Good morning. My name is Marc Gold from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
Today the committee will discuss the Office of the Auditor General of Canada’s report on salmon farming, which was published in the spring of this year. For our first panel, we are pleased to welcome representatives from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada. I will ask them to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Julie Gelfand, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: My name is Julie Gelfand. I am Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.
[English]
Sharon Clark, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: My name is Sharon Clark, from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada. I am working with Julie Gelfand on the audit of salmon farming.
The Chair: On behalf of the members of our committee, I thank you for being here today.
[Translation]
Ms. Gelfand: I am pleased to be here today to discuss my spring 2018 report on salmon farming and other recent reports that pertain to fisheries. I am accompanied by Sharon Clark, the principal responsible for these audits.
In our audit on salmon farming, we examined whether Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency oversaw the salmon farming industry to protect wild fish. This industry creates risks for wild fish, including exposure to diseases, drugs and pesticides. We looked at how risks were being managed in British Columbia, and in the Atlantic provinces, primarily in New Brunswick and in Newfoundland and Labrador.
We found that Fisheries and Oceans Canada conducted research on these and other risks. We also found that the department determined where salmon farms could be located, or expanded, and under what conditions farms could operate.
However, we found that the department was not monitoring the health of wild fish. In response to the Cohen commission, the department had committed to conducting 10 risk assessments of key known diseases and their impacts on wild fish. But we found that the department had completed only one of these risk assessments. Recently, the department announced the launch of a second risk assessment — this one to examine the risk of a piscine reovirus transfer from farmed Atlantic salmon. But neither of these assessments address the risks of new and emerging diseases.
[English]
In our view, the gaps we found in assessment and monitoring meant that the department did not know the impact salmon farming was having on the health of wild fish. This is inconsistent with the precautionary approach. We also found that Fisheries and Oceans Canada did not adequately enforce compliance with salmon farming regulations. Enforcing compliance is important since the regulations are designed to protect wild fish.
As well, the department had not set limits on the amount of drugs and pesticides that fish farms can use to treat diseases and parasites. This is important because drugs and pesticides used in salmon farming can harm wild fish, especially those living on the ocean floor. The department also had no national standard for nets, and other equipment to prevent escapes from fish farms. These findings led us to conclude that Fisheries and Oceans Canada had not managed risks from salmon farming in a way that protected wild fish. Among our recommendations, we stated that the department should clearly articulate the level of risk to wild fish that it accepts when enabling the salmon farming industry.
We also recommended that the department establish thresholds for the deposit of drugs and pesticides into net pens to more effectively minimize harm to wild fish.
In the fall of 2016, I presented to Parliament an audit report on sustaining Canada’s major fish stocks. We found that of the 15 major fish stocks that were in critical condition and still being fished, 12 did not have the required rebuilding plans in place. This included certain stocks of cod, mackerel, herring and scallop. Continuing to fish stocks that are in critical condition without having rebuilding plans increase the risk of the stock’s collapse.
We found that Fisheries and Oceans Canada did not have integrated fisheries management plans with up-to-date stock information for almost 30 per cent of Canada’s major fish stocks, including those with the greatest economic value. The department reported that more than 50 per cent of the fish stocks did not have all of the reference points required by the precautionary approach framework. These reference points are used to identify the healthy, cautious and critical zones for each major fish stock. This meant that the department was less certain about the health of these stocks. Also, for 16 per cent of the stocks, the department classified the health of the stock as unknown. Without this information, Fisheries and Oceans Canada cannot ensure that fisheries are sustainably managed for the benefit of current and future generations.
We also presented to Parliament this past October a report on protecting marine mammals. We found that it was only after the death of 12 endangered North Atlantic right whales in the St. Lawrence estuary that Fisheries and Oceans Canada and other federal organizations started to cooperate to protect some of our marine mammals. They closed certain fisheries and reduced the speed of ships in certain zones.
[Translation]
We also found that the government was not adequately using other tools at its disposal to protect most of our marine mammals, such as the Species at Risk Act, marine protected areas, and the Policy on Managing Bycatch.
We will further explore fisheries in my spring 2019 reports, which will include a report on aquatic invasive species.
This concludes my opening statement. We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation. I have a question myself. From the reports you have already presented, such as the one in the fall of 2016 and others, have identified certain concerns that you have and gaps in the system. I am wondering what feedback you received. Have you seen action on the recommendations you made? What answers from the department have you received?
Ms. Gelfand: We do something called follow-up audits where we follow up to find out if the department has implemented our recommendations. It’s actually the role of parliamentarians to follow up with the department to find out whether or not they have followed our recommendations. My reports go to the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee. The reports of the Auditor General go to the Public Accounts Committee. This committee does require an action plan, and they require reports back on all the Auditor General audits. But on the commissioner’s audits, because it goes to a different committee, there is not that same level of scrutiny unless the committee actually requests it.
So I don’t know, personally, exactly what they have done to follow up. They have agreed with all of our recommendations, I can tell you that. They have indicated, in many cases, when they were going to get things done. But the follow up would be up to the Fisheries Committee, up to this committee, or up to us when we go back to the department to audit it again.
Ms. Clark: I would echo that. Their responses are provided in the report. And they are required to produce an action plan to talk about what they want to do and when. In the case of salmon farming, the responses were quite detailed and they did provide some timelines. You can look at those to see what they indicated they would commit to.
Ms. Gelfand: Compared to many of the other departments we audit, DFO are the most detailed in their responses. They often give dates. Many of the other departments just say, “Yes, we will get it done” and they never tell us when. So I just wanted to commend the department for that. They do a good job, in most cases, of telling us when things will get done.
Senator Gold: Thank you for being here. On page 2 of your report, you mention the use of closed containment land-based aquaculture systems intended or designed to reduce the risk of pathogens crossing over between the fish and external environment. You mention as well that these are expensive to put in place. It wasn’t clear to me whether you are recommending these or not. Could you elaborate more on how you see them and what your recommendation might be around their use?
Ms. Gelfand: We did not actually compare open pen versus closed containment. We simply indicate that this is a new technology; some people are talking about it more and more. It might come into place. We were looking specifically at the impact of current operations on the health of wild fish and whether or not the government was managing aquaculture in a way to protect the health of wild fish. So we are not experts on closed versus open. We simply indicated that closed containment is something that is coming up. We use it, at least to start rearing them when they are small. Some countries are looking at it in a more significant way, but we don’t say whether they are better or worse because they have different impacts. They are much more energy-intensive, but then there probably wouldn’t be as much impact on wild fish and ecosystems.
Senator Gold: It’s somewhat of a segue to my second question.
Ms. Gelfand: To your real question.
Senator Gold: It’s related, as your audit is, to managing the risk of spreading disease from one environment to another. Looking at page 7 of your report, paragraph 1.29, you mention that the department and agency have put some measures in place “to mitigate the spread of infectious disease and parasites from farmed salmon,” but you do say that “key elements were missing.” Could you elaborate on what measures you saw were in place and what, in your view, remains missing?
Ms. Gelfand: Yes. I’ll start off and then pass it over to Sharon.
There are a couple of key things, the gaps, that I can talk to you about. They were supposed to have done assessments of 10 known diseases. They had only done one. They are supposed to complete the other nine by the year 2020. From our perspective, that’s a bit of a gap. They don’t have a lot of time to do that.
The audit plan, how they actually do their audits, was quite out of date. It hadn’t been updated since 2006, so that was a gap from our perspective.
I’ll pass it over to Sharon.
Ms. Clark: I’ll elaborate on some of the gaps as well.
They do have in place conditions for the location and expansion of fish farms, so that in itself is starting to look at the impact on wild fish. You can’t just put a fish farm anywhere. There are certain conditions for where you can create it and when it can be expanded.
There are also conditions on the operations of salmon farms. They have to adhere to conditions by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for movement of fish. As Julie mentioned, they are initially grown in closed containment hatcheries and then moved into net pens in the ocean. That movement is controlled by CFIA.
There are certain controls in place. Our point is there are some things missing. As Julie mentioned, the fish health audit programs that DFO does are out of date, so they are not looking at some key things they should be looking at when they do their audits. They don’t have a process for detecting new and emerging diseases. We know they are starting to address some of these things. They are starting to put a new fish health audit in place towards the end of audits, so they are starting to look at these things.
Senator Gold: Thank you very much.
Senator Christmas: Thank you for joining us. Thank you for your report. I notice at the bottom of page 14 of your report you say that “40,000 farmed salmon were reported to have escaped in Atlantic Canada.” Could you comment on the reasons for such a large number of escapees?
Ms. Gelfand: There are no national standards for an anchoring system and the whole fishnet system. The federal government is in charge of aquaculture in B.C. for the most part, but in Atlantic Canada, it’s actually the provinces. On the East Coast, they don’t necessarily have to meet the same standards as the fishnet farms on the West Coast. Our recommendation to the department was that they enter into conversations with their provincial counterparts in those provinces to start looking at whether or not the provinces could raise their standards for the anchoring and the fishnet systems.
Senator Christmas: I understand in B.C. there were very few escapees. Can you connect that to the presence of a standard in B.C.?
Ms. Gelfand: Yes, absolutely. I would say the standard is higher on the West Coast than on the East Coast.
Ms. Clark: It’s also a function of where the net pens are located. In B.C., they are in calmer waters, in many cases, between Vancouver Island and the mainland, whereas on the East Coast, in some cases, the weather can be a factor. Large waves can break the nets and some of the equipment and that can cause escapes.
Senator Christmas: Is progress being made on developing a national standard on both coasts?
Ms. Gelfand: The best place would be to ask the department to see whether they have started to implement that recommendation.
Senator Christmas: If national standards are developed, what would you say should be the key elements in those national standards? You mentioned anchoring.
Ms. Gelfand: Anchoring, the net systems. You would look at what the requirements are on the West Coast and see whether they could apply to the East Coast and make sure that the net pens are strong enough to withhold the temperatures, the waves and the weather on the East Coast. You don’t really want to have that type of escape on the East Coast because you are usually dealing with Atlantic salmon, and they can actually start intermingling with the Atlantic salmon on the Atlantic coast. It’s less of a risk, actually, on the Pacific coast because it’s two different species.
Senator Christmas: You commented that the Atlantic salmon on the East Coast is endangered and there are already threats to the environment. With 40,000 escapees, do you have any idea what the impact would have been on wild salmon?
Ms. Gelfand: I don’t know that. I don’t know if the department knows that.
Do they?
Ms. Clark: We didn’t audit that aspect. I know they try to monitor that to see if there is any impact. So far, based on their studies, they said there hasn’t been a big impact, but again, we didn’t audit that specific aspect.
Ms. Gelfand: There was a large escape in Washington State recently, so they closed all their aquaculture activities. In Alaska they also closed them all, so the only place you have aquaculture now on the West Coast of North America is in British Columbia.
Senator Hartling: Good morning. Thank you for being here.
As we talked about earlier, your job is to make sure fish stay alive. One of the things I was looking at in the report was about the risk assessments on diseases that can develop for fish. I think one assessment was done.
Can you talk about these risk assessment diseases? What are some of the things that happen and what needs to happen around changing that with DFO?
Ms. Gelfand: They have identified at least 10 high-risk diseases that could transfer from penned salmon to wild salmon. They had made a commitment to complete the audits of those diseases by 2020, I believe. They had completed one, and announced the second. I don’t even know how to say it, PRV, another disease. There are still eight others where they have not completed the audits to see the risks.
The second thing that I would say that is disconcerting is nobody is looking at the issue of new and emerging diseases. You are going to get things like resistance to different diseases develop, just like we are getting in the human population, so either the agency or the department, somebody has to be responsible for looking out for new and emerging diseases. That was one of the big gaps we found.
Those would be great questions to ask at 9 o’clock to find out where they are in terms of the audits, such as have they updated the audit plan. What are they doing about new and emerging diseases? Will they complete the other eight they are supposed to get done by 2020? Those would be great questions.
Senator Hartling: Thank you.
Ms. Gelfand: Sorry to my colleagues in the back. That’s my job.
The Chair: You are preparing us.
Ms. Gelfand: Yes.
Senator Petitclerc: My question is almost a follow-up to my colleague Senator Hartling. You mention in some of the recommendations the gaps in scientific research. I wanted to hear from you on that because you talk about insufficient progress in doing the risk assessment, but are we on top of things? Do we know what those risks are? Do we do enough research? Do we fund enough research? Is that research communicated properly to where it should be?
Ms. Gelfand: I don’t want to leave you with the idea that they don’t do any research. In fact, they do quite a bit of research. They look at the effects of disease and parasite transmission. They are doing research on the effects of drugs and pesticides. They are doing research in terms of genetic interactions. It is not as if they are doing no research. However, we did find a difference when you talked just about research. The short-term funding.was given for research that helps make policy and decisions. Long-term funding for research is to help promote the industry. That puts the department at risk.
One of the big concerns we have is the following: Is the department at risk to be seen to be promoting aquaculture to the detriment of wild salmon? There are several factors in our audit that put the department at risk to be seen as doing that. We are trying to make recommendations so that it isn’t seen to be doing that. If you have short-term funding that helps you with decisions and long-term funding that helps to promote the industry, that doesn’t look good. You should have them be equal.
The other big issue, from a research perspective and from my perspective, is the fact that they are not monitoring the health of wild fish. If they are not monitoring the health of wild fish, how can they really know what the impacts are of aquaculture? Those were two of the big issues.
The issue of whether or not they are in conflict of interest — there are a whole bunch of reasons for that which I am worried about. There is no threshold for action when wild fish stocks decline.
At what point, when you see a wild fish stock decline, do you say stop? They haven’t set that. There is no validation of industry self-reporting. Industry self-reports on the use of drugs and pesticides, but there is no validation of that information.
There is no requirement to force industry to minimize the development of resistance to drugs and pesticides. There is no requirement to monitor the ocean floor. There is little enforcement of the regulations, and then there is the whole issue of funding of research. You put all those in one bucket and you get worried that the department could be seen to be prioritizing aquaculture over the protection of wild fish.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you very much. Are we good at sharing knowledge and results of research internationally?
Ms. Gelfand: Internationally?
Senator Petitclerc: Do we know what is going on?
Ms. Gelfand: Our staff did connect with other countries. There are other countries involved: Norway, Chile and the U.K. We didn’t audit that specifically. Again, that is another great question to find out what they are doing from a research perspective. Don’t forget that ecosystems are different. What might work at a particular latitude may not work at our latitude. Even the East and the West Coasts are different from a weather perspective.
On diseases, and new and emerging diseases, that would be something. Generally, when we look at sharing information within departments, when we look at most of the audits that I have done as I have been commissioner, we don’t see a lot of great sharing of information, even within departments. Sometimes the regional folks know stuff but the headquarters don’t and vice versa. That just a function of large organizations. Even the databases don’t work with each other or share. Generally, that is a concern.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you.
Senator McInnis: Thank you very much for coming here this morning.
It was an interesting read. You were very candid and frank in your assessment.
Before I arrived in the Senate, I was the Chair of the Association for the Preservation of the Eastern Shore of Nova Scotia. That was predicated on the fear of the unknown that the residents had about aquaculture.
When I arrived here,I made the suggestion that we have a study, and we did. We looked at aquaculture in British Columbia and the Pacific and in Atlantic Canada. It appeared to us, as ordinary citizens with no expertise, that it was kind of like the wild west. In reading your report, it seems to me that you all but said that the feeling was that you promote aquaculture and it doesn’t matter about the wild salmon. That is what I got from your report.
When I read your report, I see certain actions. For example, certain tests that were supposed to be done as a result of the Cohen commission in B.C. back in 2010, 2011. Then what happens is that you do your audit and little was done with certain checks and balances. Now they will be done by 2020.
Atlantic salmon on the East Coast — and I will come to a question in a minute — the drop in their population is daunting. There is a multiplicity of reasons why, one of which might be aquaculture. When you place these pens at an inlet, in shallow water, a stream, a river that used to have salmon in it. That industry is $150 million a year GDP at the moment, and 4,000 people are employed in that industry in Atlantic Canada. We have an inquiry before the Senate now that we will try to investigate one of the problems with it.
It strikes me and others — and I think the committee of the Senate recommended this — that there be a national act and consistency across the board. Fisheries and Oceans Canada are in charge in B.C. because of a challenge that ended up in a court case. We have a hodgepodge of legislation from the provinces, and so on. We need something consistent that lays out rules and regulations.
When we were out at Meares Island in B.C., I asked the question how deep is the water under this fish pen? It was 400 feet. How strong is the current? Very strong. That is where you need them, either there or on land. We will just have this continual hodgepodge of aquaculture because the world needs protein. It has to be done, but let’s do it correctly.
Would you recommend that we have a national act?
Ms. Gelfand: That is a wonderful question. In my role as commissioner, my job is to audit against existing policy. It is not my role to make comment on policy.
The way I describe it is that is the role of Parliament, namely to decide whether or not that is the right thing to do. My job is, if they said they will manage aquaculture and protect wild fish, to see whether or not they are doing that. I have often said if they want to put a monkey on the moon, my job is not to say whether or not that is a good idea, my job is just to say, are they going to get a monkey on the moon and have they done it? Unfortunately it is not my role. Until I am no longer commissioner, I can’t give you an answer to that. That is something parliamentarians have to decide. What rules, policies and laws is a parliamentary decision, not a commissioner’s decision.
Senator McInnis: But you wrote a number of factual situations to the problem.
Ms. Gelfand: Yes.
Senator McInnis: You can’t go to the next step?
Ms. Gelfand: In my role, unfortunately no. My job is to be an objective set of intelligent eyes that go into the department and say, you said you were going to do X, show me everything you have done. I get access to documents that most people don’t get to see. We go in and say, are you doing X? Show us and prove it to us. Then we make our report. They said they were going to do 10 audits of 10 different known diseases — show me. You have only done one, so you will get nine done by 2020? You have only done one. I am a bit nervous. Show me what you are doing about new and existing. How are you keeping wild fish healthy? Show me how you are monitoring their health. Show me how you are keeping them healthy. If they can’t show that to me, then I put them in my report.
Unfortunately, I do not go to the next step. I know several parliamentarians have been frustrated by that in the past so you’re not the first one.
Senator McInnis: I am not frustrated at all.
Ms. Gelfand: That is good.
Senator McInnis: I know your report is an independent report under the auspices of the Auditor General. I think that is wonderful. I think you are identified a lot of problems. We have to take you at your word and your report and we have to do something about it. Quite often those things are in the political domain, but they should be dealt about because this is a damning report.
Ms. Gelfand: We looked at one thing: How are they doing in protecting wild fish? We did try to indicate where they are doing good work. We try to indicate that they are managing where these pens should be. They are setting the operating rules. They are stopping pens in certain areas, as per the Cohen commission. It is not like they are doing nothing. We have identified the gaps. That is our job, and then to have the department respond. They agreed and they have action plans in here.
Senator McInnis: Thank you.
Ms. Gelfand: You are welcome.
The Chair: Senator, you will have to read between the lines.
Senator Christmas: In your comments, you mentioned that back in the fall of 2016, you presented an audit report on major fish stocks and you found that of the 15 major fish stocks that were in critical condition, only 12 had rebuilding plans.
Have you had an opportunity to go back and see how the department is doing in developing those rebuilding plans for those critical stocks?
Ms. Gelfand: To make sure you are clear, there were 12 stocks in critical condition that continue to be fished and they have no rebuilding plan.
This audit was done in 2016. I have not had a chance to go back and see where they are at. That would be a great question, again, to ask my colleagues behind us, our departmental officials.
From my perspective, when Sharon proposed this audit, I was thinking if I was the deputy minister in charge of fisheries and oceans, what would I care about the most? Mine would be to make sure there is no cod collapse. I would go to all my officials and say no cod collapse under my watch. I wanted to see if they were managing that from that perspective and we found that there were still 12 stocks they considered to be in critical condition, that continued to be fished, and they have no rebuilding plan. If I was in charge, I would be asking what are we doing about those 12 stocks?
Senator Christmas: Do you know at this point if there is a plan for stock rebuilding?
Ms. Gelfand: I don’t know that.
Senator Christmas: I want to switch my questions here. On page 13 of your audit report, you talk about a traffic light decision tree. That intrigued me. What is that?
Ms. Clark: That is a departmental response.
Ms. Gelfand: That is a departmental response to one of our recommendations. We indicate they should establish thresholds for the deposit of drugs and pesticides into net pens, and they have decided that this traffic light decision tree, which will be developed by March 2020, will help address the potential cumulative impacts.
What was happening is you were putting pesticides and drugs into one pen after another. What if they are all close together? Are they looking at the cumulative impacts? Those are their words.
Senator Christmas: Okay. For the sake of our audience, can you describe what that is?
Ms. Gelfand: Describe what?
Senator Christmas: What the traffic light decision tree is.
Ms. Gelfand: They describe it in here. They are basically trying to decide under what ocean conditions pesticides should no longer be deposited. They would determine the conditions and they would say no longer, so that is the red light. Conditions under which the risks are acceptable would be a green light. Areas where the use of such products need to be more carefully studied and controlled would be a yellow light.
They are trying to say that under these ocean conditions you stop using pesticides, maybe use them carefully or go ahead and do them. They would define those different limits.
Senator Christmas: I assume, then, that every open-pen salmon farm in Canada should have a traffic light so you can say this is a red light, meaning no more pesticides or drugs are being dropped into that pen while this one is green and things are okay. I assume that would be the system.
Ms. Gelfand: That would be a great question to ask them.
Senator Christmas: Thank you.
Senator Gold: How frequently do you think audits of this kind should be done in order to satisfy you that your work is being taken seriously, but also to assist the department in doing its work as well as I know it wants to do?
Ms. Gelfand: That is a great question. There is no rule of thumb. I would say between four and five years is probably adequate because they often give themselves a few years. In some of these recommendations they say until 2020, so maybe we would go in at 2021 or 2022.
I have a huge universe to audit. I am the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. I don’t know if you know much about sustainable environment, but it is broad. We have been doing follow ups but there are always so many other new issues that it is hard to do on a regular basis.
On the other hand, on the issue of fossil fuel subsidies, where we had difficulty getting access to information, we are doing the follow up in two years. Sometimes we do them close together, but on average I think the best amount of time is four to five years. That is just an educated guess.
Senator Gold: Thank you.
The Chair: I want to thank our panellists for appearing here this morning.
We are now ready for our second panel. In doing so, I’ll ask them to introduce themselves first. They are all representatives of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. I’ll ask them to introduce themselves with their titles.
Philippe Morel, Assistant Deputy Minister, Aquatic Ecosystems, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: I am Philippe Morel, Assistant Deputy Minister of Aquatic Ecosystems.
Wayne Moore, Director General, Strategic and Regulatory Science Directorate, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Good morning. My name is Wayne Moore and I’m the Director General of Strategic and Regulatory Sciences. My portfolio includes aquaculture science.
John Campbell, Director General, Aquaculture Management, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: I’m John Campbell, the Acting Director General of the Aquaculture Management Directorate.
Andy Thomson, Pacific Regional Director, Fisheries Management, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Good morning; I am Andrew Thomson, the Regional Director, Fisheries Management, Pacific Region.
The Chair: I understand that Mr. Morel has some opening remarks that he would like to make. He will make those, and then I am sure that our senators will have some questions.
Mr. Morel: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for the invitation to speak about progress on addressing recommendations from the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development’s report on salmon farming and its conclusion on how to improve salmon aquaculture governance in Canada.
Aquaculture is an important industry both in Canada and around the world. The aquaculture sector is gaining attention globally as an important activity for achieving not just food security but also addressing the goals for sustainable growth and development. It has been highlighted as an important sector that can contribute to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, including those to conserve and sustainably use the ocean, support economic growth, achieve zero hunger and provide nutritious healthy food.
[Translation]
In Canada, aquaculture is an important economic sector generating close to $2 billion in total economic activity.
In 2016, over 3,000 Canadians were directly employed in aquaculture, mainly in rural, coastal areas, including many indigenous communities.
In Canada, aquaculture is jointly managed among federal, provincial and territorial governments. Fisheries and Oceans Canada is the principal regulator in British Columbia, and we co-manage aquaculture in Prince Edward Island with our provincial colleagues. In all other provinces, the provincial governments are the principal regulators of aquaculture.
Canada already has a strong aquaculture regulatory regime. It is our goal to continue working towards a clear, consistent and responsible regulatory framework to support an environmentally and socially sustainable aquaculture industry in Canada.
[English]
The commissioner’s audit made eight recommendations to Fisheries and Oceans Canada on managing the risk associated with salmon aquaculture in order to protect wild fish, one of which also implicates colleagues at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Overall, the report indicated that while Fisheries and Oceans Canada does carry out significant scientific study in salmon aquaculture and has management measures in place to mitigate any associated risk, more can be done.
We remain committed to addressing the issue raised by the commissioner in the report. We are happy to share our progress report on our management action plan farming with your committee yesterday. I’m pleased to inform the committee we are on track to address all eight recommendations.
First, we are moving forward on meeting our Cohen commission commitments and completing key disease risk assessments by September 2020, as suggested by the commissioner in her first recommendation. We have identified 10 disease risk assessments that need to be completed to support the minister’s decision around the sustainability of salmon aquaculture in the Discovery Island area of British Columbia.
Earlier this month, scientific experts from Canada and around the world gathered in Vancouver to peer review four different bacterial disease risks. And later this winter, our scientists are completing a risk assessment of PRV. By early 2019, six of the 10 disease risk assessments will be completed. In response to the second recommendation, in collaboration with CFIA, we are clarifying the roles and responsibilities for managing emerging disease in aquaculture.
Third, we are clearly articulating how the department applies a precautionary approach in our management of aquaculture. We are developing a framework for aquaculture risk management, which embodies clear understanding and unacceptable harm and embraces the precautionary approach where a high degree of scientific uncertainty exists.
We will continue to work with Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada on science review to inform the development of a risk-based decision model and setting thresholds on drugs and pesticide use.
This work will also include developing on site sampling to develop a baseline of information, an approach to audit the information that is received from operators on their drug and pesticide use, addressing the commissioner’s fourth and fifth recommendations.
DFO also held discussions with its provincial and territorial partners on addressing the quality and maintenance of aquaculture equipment to prevent escapes in Atlantic provinces.
We are collaborating with our provincial and territorial partners on potential national standards for equipment, quality and maintenance to respond to the commissioner’s sixth recommendation. We are conducting a costing exercise to better understand what is required to enhance our enforcement capabilities. In the interim, we use intelligence and risk-based responsive measures to respond to aquaculture enforcement incidents.
Lastly, we have fully implemented the eighth recommendations, which recommends the department provide timely public reports with detailed information on companies, drugs and pesticide deposits, and health on farmed fish in British Columbia. In May of this year, through Open Data, a DFO website, DFO began sharing data on drugs and pesticide usage in Canada collected through our aquaculture activities regulations. We also updated our communications material on the DFO website on the health of farmed fish. This has enhanced the transparency of aquaculture operations in Canada.
We will continue to work closely with our partners and stakeholders in aquaculture management to ensure our decisions relating to aquaculture are transparent and based on the best available science and clearly communicated to Canadians.
We continue to conduct and support research to explore ways to improve the environmental sustainability of aquaculture activities in Canada. Research continues to focus on key priorities, such as understanding the transmission and infection of fish disease, evaluating genetic interaction among wild and farmed escaped Atlantic salmon, characterizing the impact of drug and pesticide use, and assessing the ecosystem interaction of cultured shellfish expansion.
[Translation]
It is also important to understand the risks associated with aquaculture. These risks can be social, economic and environmental. In understanding and assessing the environmental risks, DFO scientists have been undertaking research that targets knowledge gaps that can then help to support better, science-based policies and decisions by regulators, both within Fisheries and Oceans Canada, other federal government departments, and our provincial and territorial partners.
Our department asked Dr. Mona Nemer, Canada’s Chief Science Advisor, to lead an independent expert panel on aquaculture science to look at how science priorities are set, how science shapes management decisions and how all of this is communicated.
We expect the panel’s report to be completed soon. Furthermore, Minister Wilkinson has announced the new departmental science advisor position. The intent of the position is to enable our department to draw external science perspectives into priority-setting. This will also be an important step towards strengthening evidence-based decision-making in the regulation of a responsible and sustainable aquaculture sector.
We are committed to fully implementing our responses to the commissioner’s recommendations, and will study the upcoming recommendations of the Chief Science Advisor. We feel that these will help strengthen and improve aquaculture management in Canada, and ensure an environmentally sound and sustainable Canadian aquaculture sector.
[English]
Senators, we are pleased to have people from the aquaculture management side to respond to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Morel. We’ll go to our deputy chair for the first question.
[Translation]
Senator Gold: Good morning. We really appreciate your being here.
[English]
Although difficult, it was encouraging for us to hear from the previous panel about the co-operation you extended and your willingness to implement the recommendations as you set out. We appreciate that and your openness with us.
That said, the report is fairly troubling in some respects. I will ask you for a bit more elaboration on some of the challenges that were identified in the audit. You mentioned in your presentation and in your response to the audit that you are on the track, for example, to complete the 10 disease assessments. At the time of the audit, only one had been done.
Could you, on the one hand, explain the lag between the Cohen report recommendations and the audit, and how you have managed to get on track to get them done by next spring, if I understood the report — or at least by 2020?
Mr. Morel: That’s a good question. I’ll start and then ask my colleague from the science sector to respond.
When you are planning science work, you need to plan before. It takes time to gather the information and the right scientists around the table, and provide a report. That’s why, after the Cohen report, we only have one that is published. It doesn’t mean we only worked on one and are not doing one after the other.
The other thing that needs to be taken into consideration is that the commissioner’s report was last spring but also, based on factual information that they acquired, the department probably up to the previous fall — so it’s kind of 12 to 14 months’ difference between evidence and where we are today. During that time, we continued to work and plan.
She mentioned that we launched the study on PRV recently, but within the 10 risk assessment studies that are being done, we are also able to manage the priority and make sure that we can provide the proper information for better management. Management and science work together to make sure we have the best available tools on time. PRV is certainly very high on the concerns of Canadians and British Columbians, so it’s an issue.
I’m sure Mr. Moore will want to add more.
Mr. Moore: Thank you, senator, for your question. I note very much the slow ramp up of the process. That’s an accurate characterization, but as my colleague pointed out, it’s not unexpected. As we went through this process, when we got the recommendations, we first had to identify what we are preoccupied with. So we went back to the data gathered on farms to determine what pathogens — diseases and bacteria — might we focus on.
After identifying that list, we put together the baseline work that has allowed us to produce the subsequent ones faster and faster. Each risk assessment we undertake has five inputs. There has been a lot of research done and summarized around the oceanography — how for currents work, which is a big factor in terms of how pathogens might move in the water. Second, we have done a substantial amount of work and rolled that up around Pacific salmon ecology and biology. Again, we do this once at the front end, and it allows us to use it throughout the rest of the risk assessments.
The last piece, which is important, is the actual management practices on the farms themselves in B.C. What measures are they taking there? The two pieces, then, that differ across each study are the actual characterization of the virus or pathogen in question and, finally, the risk assessment, which is the actual looking at how the interactions happen in the water.
For each of these, as the commissioner pointed out, by the time she collected her data, we had finished one just the week before last. Because of the commonality of expertise and the availability of people, we managed to get four of the bacteria-based studies done. Now, we are in the process of publishing those four so that, when we get to January, we’ll have five in the books rather than one.
As the minister announced in September, we are doing one that people characterized briefly as PRV, but it actually has the lovely title of Idiopathic Heart Disease, Heart Skeletal-Muscular Infection and PRV. So we’ll be looking at that package. In fact, my staff and scientists are meeting this week on the West Coast to look at putting together the virus paper around that one, too, taking advantage of the full range of data from the department and also from data that’s been shared by stakeholders and environmental groups. We have also reached out to First Nations. We are trying to put together the biggest picture possible to make these assessments.
Senator Gold: Thank you. There are so many questions. It was commented about in the earlier panel that, in reading the reports, one might get the impression that the department is giving priority to aquaculture over the health of wild fish. Is that a fair comment in terms of either how the report might be read or how the priorities are structured within your department?
[Translation]
Mr. Morel: I would say no.
[English]
I would say DFO’s role is the role of regulator. It is a role that has evolved a lot over the last 10 or 15 years. First, because aquaculture is more and more important to feed the planet, since 2016, we now have more fish that are produced in farms than in the wild to feed the planet. So our role at DFO is mainly to regulate and make sure that the fish produced are healthy and the impacts on oceans are minimal.
Just the way we are structured, my responsibilities as ADM are all responsibilities about environmental protection and conservation. I’m also responsible for ocean protection and for fisheries protection, so I think it’s a clear signal that this is our priority.
The question of promotion is probably market access, and all of that is more in the role of agriculture, although agriculture is not very active in that. I would say the industry is standing up for their role in promoting their industry more and more. Aquaculture is a fairly new industry, if you compare it to poultry or dairy, which is very aggressive at promoting themselves and very present within the agriculture portfolio.
I would say that for us the priority is regulation. By regulating, we want to make sure that our regulations are not an irritant to the development of the industry. Yesterday in the Fall Economic Statement, the Minister of Finance re-announced what was in Budget 2018 about simplifying some regulations. One of the key sectors is agriculture and aquaculture. In that, he also announced that we have the intention to simplify, merge and integrate all the regulations related to aquaculture in one regulation in order to make it more attractive for investment, but also to promote better sustainable management of aquaculture.
Earlier in your debate you talked about moving towards closed containment, and one of you referred to closed containment being more costly. We know it is. What we are trying to do is to have regulations that will enable us to move towards closed containment.
Right now, our studies say it’s more expensive and the environmental footprint is not lower when it’s on land than when it’s on the sea. There will be a transition moving towards that.
Mr. Moore: If I could add a couple of points from the science perspective. First of all, I think our methods and advice are the same and they project our objectivity and independence in terms of the work we do.
The comment during the previous panel was made that some of our more permanent programs were seen as focusing on industry competitiveness versus shorter term funding, which is seen as regulatory. I would characterize that slightly differently. I think there are funds available with various lenses. The one she was referring to, the Aquaculture Collaborative Research and Development Program, is where we actually do work with industry, but we haven’t explicitly removed the mandate where there is potential for private benefit. This isn’t a subsidy program of any sort.
Really, this program has done a lot of work around developing technologies, for example, in the area of sea lice, which is a concern in a number of areas, and developing alternative technologies — non-chemical tools, for example — to address that.
I think it’s a different kind of partnership. I don’t think it is one that has a goal related to competitiveness. I think all our efforts are generally related to the well-being of the fisheries and aquaculture impacts in Canada.
Lastly, in terms of monitoring health, one of my responsibilities is to run a network of diagnostic labs that feed input into the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, whose veterinarians make determinations about disease. We push through at least 20,000 samples every year and several tests for each one monitoring the health of fish across the country.
In fact, I’m quite proud of the work that our staff does in that area and how it contributes to actually monitoring the health and well-being of fishery stocks across the country from a range of diseases.
Senator Christmas: Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing. I gather — and Mr. Moore, you mentioned it — that there is still a lot of scientific research work being done on the impact of farmed fish on wild salmon. I’m very curious about how the precautionary approach is being applied given that level of uncertainty and that we are still acquiring knowledge and understanding of that impact.
I notice on page 10 of the auditor’s report, she comments that the department had not clarified how it would apply the precautionary approach in its management of aquaculture.
Could someone explain now, in this level of scientific uncertainty, how the department is applying the precautionary principle? Could someone elaborate on examples of how the precautionary principle is being applied in this situation?
Mr. Moore: Maybe I’ll start briefly and talk a little about the science that you mentioned, and then I’ll turn to my colleague Philippe who can speak to the application of the precautionary approach, if that’s okay.
As you know, a lot of science going on, and whether it’s the wild fishery or aquaculture, any number of areas, we’ll never know everything. It’s a continuing process of assessing risk and trying to identify where to focus our energies. If you ask our scientists, they’ll certainly be strong advocates for much more money for research in this area, particularly in their area of interest, recognizing we work with what the government has been kind enough to give us and what partnerships we establish with outside partners and internationally. We can come back to that later.
In that context, we try to focus our energies on questions identified by Canadians and our colleagues — who are forming regulations and applying the precautionary approach — around aquatic animal health, interactions between aquaculture and the ecosystem at large, and questions of genetic interactions. We spoke about this when we referred to escapes on the East Coast during the previous panel.
You are correct, a lot of research is going on. We try to focus it on areas identified through inputs from our scientists, colleagues and international partners. Then that is handed over to our colleagues who can talk about precautions.
Mr. Morel: I can briefly speak and then see if my colleague in B.C. wants to add anything.
I think Ms. Clark and Ms. Gelfand were quite constructive on this recommendation for us, and I thank them for their input. Right now we are using the precautionary approach in each step of our operations. So depending on which province — in B.C., of course, we are managing aquaculture but less in other provinces. We use the precautionary principle on the risk assessment. Also, when we look at the disease impact, the citing decision, we use a precautionary approach in each of those decisions.
What we don’t have and what I think the recommendation is bringing us to is a framework for aquaculture risk management. This framework, which we have started to develop, will comprise a precautionary approach, and provide us with a more comprehensive path to manage the precautionary approach. This will bring some certainty for companies and stakeholders managing aquaculture.
I don’t know if Andy would like to add anything. You are more on the operations end of things, but I think it would be helpful for senators to hear how we use the precautionary approach.
Mr. Thomson: I would add that, as you have laid out, we have operational advice for our practitioners who make recommendations for licensing decisions, audits and how the actual operations function in the Pacific region. All of this is guided by the precautionary approach; we have guidance documents for each of those practitioners.
As an example, in the area of determining benthic impact of a fish farm on the undersea substrate, we have very specific guidance for our biologists and technicians in terms of how you assess the impact. What is known and unknown? How do you apply the precautionary approach to specific things? We have that type of guidance in a number of specific operational areas. As Mr. Morel mentioned, it is rolling those pieces up into a broader guidance document, which the commissioner was useful in pointing out. This will benefit not only the department in terms of being able to better elaborate how we apply the precautionary approach, but also the public in having a better understanding of how we do that.
Senator Christmas: As we move into the future, there are unknowns. I’m interested in how the precautionary approach would be applied in those situations where — we just don’t know, for instance, the impact of major storms on the East Coast on catch operations. I mentioned earlier that there were 40,000 salmon lost on the East Coast because of climate change.
How does the department factor in the precautionary approach in managing this? I know you have a different responsibility on the East Coast, but on the West Coast, Mr. Thomson, you have a direct responsibility. How do you factor that into your decisions, when you are trying to anticipate issues, problems or conditions that may negatively impact both farmed salmon and wild salmon?
Mr. Thomson: It is about having an opportunity to try and predict what the environment is going to do in terms of effect on the site and how the site is going to affect the natural environment. It’s not entirely a world of unknowns. For the management of the aquaculture the actual structure, we have predictive models as to what may be a 100-year storm or 50-year storm. We can put these models in place for the engineering aspects of the farm to withstand that type of storm. Similarly, with the deposition of the material on to the substrate we have predictive models. In British Columbia we have a model that is a requirement of operators called DEPOMOD, that predicts — using currents, the amount of food that is going to go in and the depth of the water — where that deposition is going to occur. We can see where that deposition is going to occur in terms of what it might affect on the bottom substrate. There are mechanisms to have a much greater understanding of what the impact is through models and predictive models so that we can manage for it. We’ll move a farm so it doesn’t impact an area of geoduck or abalone. All of this is based on our adaptive management approach of continually doing the research. We have a continual research and development program, and regulatory program, which continues to provide information about the regulatory structure in British Columbia and nationally. So we can continue to improve the regulations based on new information and new knowledge that comes forward.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Thomson.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I have a question about the precautionary approach. As you said yourself, I believe this is a relatively new field. What struck me is that the department has not established thresholds for the quantity of drugs or pesticides that can be released into the water or discarded, and no one checks the accuracy of the information provided by the enterprises.
I’d like to hear you on that. There is the precautionary approach, a relatively new endeavour, and research is ongoing, but it is somewhat worrying to see that no limits have been set. I’d like to know why.
Mr. Morel: I can begin, and my colleague will continue, because this involves both management and science. The commissioner is correct when she says that there are no limits. The commissioner was in part answering Senator Christmas’s question about the traffic light method, which is being developed. At this time we are conducting case-by-case analyses of what the ecosystem can absorb. We have no frame of reference that allows us to say that during this or that season, in this or that ecosystem, under certain weather or ocean conditions, this is the maximum quantity of drugs, pesticides or antibiotics that can be poured into the ocean to treat the fish. The work is similar to what is done in agriculture with pesticides, when agronomists decide on the ratios of product that can be used on soil. The basis for our work is not as organized, but we are working on that. We want to develop an approach that allows us to determine what is green, orange or red, according to the ecosystem and the oceanographic conditions, and the number of products that can be used to enhance fish growth. Mr. Moore, did you want to add something?
Mr. Moore: Yes. Thank you very much for the question. Yes, the regulations Mr. Morel referred to are very well documented by research, and our researchers.
[English]
In general, I would suggest that there are a number of areas that we want to emphasize. First, as each of these products are entering the marketplace, they are well regulated by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency or Health Canada. In that context, the studies that go into them are often informed by research we have done. In this area, particularly as it relates to both the individual and the collective impact, we have done a number of pieces of research.
For example, in the case of pesticides, we did a number of studies looking at individual risks associated with specific products or drugs. We looked at the dispersion pattern of these drugs. We did not actually dump them in the water, but used dyes to simulate them. We apply dyes in the water, as they might be in context, and get a sense of where they go and how they interact with the ecosystem.
Third, we have a comprehensive monitoring program under way on each of the coasts, with the concentration around the southwest Bay of Fundy or southwest New Brunswick, which is trying to get a baseline around this cumulative impact. We took close to 700 samples which established, in a methodical way, the number of aquaculture sites to examine to what extent there are residual impacts. These samples are being chemically analyzed now. We struggled to find labs in Canada to do this because of the comprehensive set of requirements we want looked at. We will take that work and determine where the key risks are. Then we will feed that into the traffic light system talked about earlier.
However, in any of these enterprises, much like getting out of the bed in the morning, it is impossible to live in a zero-risk environment. I think senators appreciate that. The key challenge is to identify on the basis of evidence where the most meaningful risks are and to find ways to mitigate and manage them. That is really what we are striving for.
[Translation]
Mr. Morel: As to the second aspect of your question, we are collaborating with a firm to develop an audit plan that will allow us to determine the accuracy of the information provided by the enterprises. The plan will be based on the risks and the audit. The less clear the information, the higher the probability of an audit. We want to ensure that the information provided and published on the website is accurate.
[English]
Senator Petitclerc: This could involve a long answer but you can also answer quickly. I understand the structure of funding for research. I assume part of the structure is from industry and part of it is subventions or something.
Are you satisfied with what is being studied and researched? The structure of funding is done in part by the industry, I assume. Are you satisfied with what is being studied and researched? Are we doing enough in studying precautionary environment, safety of the wild salmon versus, for example, versus productivity? I am interested in knowing that.
[Translation]
Mr. Moore: That is an excellent question. I’ll begin by saying that our researchers have never been satisfied with the budgets they have been given to do their work.
[English]
Generally, our researchers will always want more money for the work they do. Given what we have, am I happy with how we set out our priorities? Absolutely.
The budget that I was looking at this morning is about $14 million and change, almost $15 million. Of that amount, there is a $2 million fund that is matched up to 25 per cent by industry. The industry contribution in all of that is relatively small.
Where do we get our data? We do extensive consultation with our colleagues on the regulatory side in terms of what they need. For example, Andy mentioned the depot mode, one of the models we used. We have spent a lot of time refining and ensuring that the model works for all parts of the Canadian context. We try to respond to the problems facing our regulators. We constantly engage with our scientists, who are engaged with the world, to catch up on what the latest trends and issues are.
My director of aquaculture science has been a senior leader in the World Aquaculture Society. They are out there and engaged in the world. Last week one of our major scientists, who is undertaking a significant study on the impact of pathogens on wild populations, briefed us on what he thinks is important. We try to take that and get it together. Is it perfect? Probably not. On balance are we focusing our energies in the right areas? I am confident that we are.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you.
Senator Hartling: Thank you very much for being here. It was very interesting. Thank you for you getting up so early in Vancouver. It must be about 6 a.m. there.
I wanted to build on what Senator Petitclerc was talking about. Earlier this month you said scientists were gathering in Vancouver to look at some of those bacteria and illnesses, and so on. I think it is important to do that and to meet with other people around the world.
Going forward, with respect to what I asked the previous panel about fish health and illness, looking at emerging diseases, and so on, what is the plan for that? Is there a plan within your structure? Looking at what we know, there are those 10 but what about the future and sharing that knowledge with others in the world? How does that work?
Mr. Moore: Thank you very much for the question. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this aspect of it.
In terms of emerging diseases, as you point out with the risk assessment, we went from the data of what we see on the ground. To some extent, with respect to a lot of the work that is done in aquaculture throughout the world, what is an emerging disease in one area is because someone actually observed something happening on a farm. We talk a lot. There is a lot of discussion in Canada at the present time about a virus called PRV, or Piscine Reovirus. The name hasn’t settled yet so it is a relatively emerging area, though “emerging” in aquaculture and fisheries science could be 30 or 40 years. It is not something that turned up yesterday morning.
In terms of the emerging diseases, going back to my previous point, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is involved with what is called the International Organization for Animal Health. That’s a forum where you bring regulators and scientists together from all over the world to look at what diseases people should be focusing on. As well, we have a number of international partnerships focused around disease. Right now we are doing work with France, Norway, Scotland and the Americans. Again, this is all looking at what the important risks are.
Some of our scientists have programs and one of them, the Strategic Salmon Health Initiative, is getting quite a bit of traction. It is looking at using genetic technology to detect previously undetectable viruses or my microbes, looking at those present and then focusing our energies on what might be a risk or what things we should look at in more detail.
Again, I think it is in the process of gathering those external sources of data and staying connected not only to science but also to the people regulating, ingesting that data and then trying to make informed decisions about where to direct your research.
We pride ourselves on being responsive to our environment rather than the classical notion of scientists who are walking around with blinders on regardless of the world. Innovation science is important. In this context, being connected to the world as well is critically important.
Senator Hartling: Thank you very much.
Senator McInnis: Thank you very much. This has been very enlightening. I have always had high regard for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and what you do. I know that aquaculture presents a number of challenges. This is not a criticism, but it is what I observe.
It seems to me that we are playing catch up. The pens are in the water, the domestic salmon is in the water and now we are trying to figure out how to resolve the challenges. There are several of them. You mentioned them. The escapes are a serious problem with the gene pool, and so on. With respect to wild salmon, there is the disease and the parasites and how to treat them. It is a real challenge.
Distinguish this for me: If I have an aquaculture operation, say, near the Miramichi in New Brunswick, and we have problems with sea lice or some kind of parasite, whatever it may be, where does the Canadian Food Inspection Agency come in? Do they have to approve this? This is not a provincial thing despite where the pen is located. Who approves these drugs?
Mr. Campbell: Thank you for the question, Senator McInnis. The approval of drugs is done through Health Canada through their normal processes in which they look at all drugs and pesticides, and we provide various advice on that. In terms of where CFIA plays a role, first, CFIA is the overall lead for disease in Canada through the National Aquatic Animal Health Program. Through that we work alongside Wayne’s group especially. We provide a lot of research and advice to them to make further decision-making around how we treat disease and move products across Canada.
In Canada, depending on where you are, in B.C. or the Atlantic provinces, there are internal committees for introductions and transfers. This is how DFO, CFIA and the various provinces make a decision on how we move one product in and out of waters, ensuring that we are not transferring disease from one part of Canada to another, for example. CFIA has a major role in determining the health of products in Canada as well as disease management.
Wayne, do you want to add to that?
Mr. Moore: No.
Senator McInnis: I realize the response to the question is that it is up to Parliament and the politicians; they do those things. However, in reality, most often legislation comes from the public service.
Do you think we should have a national aquaculture act and that it be concurrent legislation? Before we had the Criminal Code we had a hodgepodge across the country. Then they brought the Criminal Code in and now we have concurrent legislation with respect to that. The ultimate goal here should be that we have a national act that is concurrent. I realize inland waters, and so on, all of that can be worked out with respect to regulations with the provinces, and so on. I also know we have a unique situation in B.C., but we won’t get there to get this thing ironed out so we have some kind of consistency across the provinces unless we have one act and a set of regulations pursuant to the act.
Have you started requesting the legislation yet?
Mr. Morel: First, I want to thank this committee for the report and the important recommendations that Minister LeBlanc, the minister at the time, accepted. He agreed with the recommendation to look at what kind of aquaculture legislation should be put forward. Just after that recommendation we started working on what kind of aquaculture act or legislation we should put in, for example, the Fisheries Act, to have a more comprehensive and clearer aquaculture legislation.
We were asked to work with the provinces. As you pointed out, it is a shared jurisdiction. It is also a sensitive issue with many provinces on what is the role of the federal government and the role of the provincial government. Our intention is not to have an act where we will take over the management of aquaculture. There is some fear from the provinces that the federal government can just take the model of B.C. and apply it to the rest of the country; something that all the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, along with ourselves, are opposed to.
Through the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers we have a strategic management committee for aquaculture that I co-chair with the provinces — the last few years it has been with B.C. and New Brunswick. We have the working group that looked at the different scenarios. One of them is the status quo and enhanced regulations. The other could be what we call a small aquaculture act, which will clarify the roles and responsibilities of provinces and provide authority for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to have national standards. And the third one is the big aquaculture act that was clearly requested, for example, by the industry.
Last year, at the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers meeting, Minister LeBlanc presented that and the ministers agreed to come back this year. The next meeting of CCFAM will be December 4 and 5 in St. John’s. We will present the results of our work there, which is the different options to have the ministers decide which is the preferable option between them. From that, we will have a mandate to start the drafting of an act or amendments to the Fisheries Act.
You are totally right by saying that the industry and international investors are looking for clarity. When you are an investor from Norway or Scotland — where most of the aquaculture industry comes from — and you look at the regime and say why is it different doing business in New Brunswick than Nova Scotia, Newfoundland or B.C., it is complicated and that is something they tell us they don’t like. Our role as regulators is to make it clearer and to ensure there are no barriers to investment. That was part of the announcement yesterday regarding the general aquaculture regulations. That is one way of clarifying our objective but it is not the only way. We will still have the discussion with ministers in two weeks in St. John’s about their intention to have, or not, legislation changes within the next few years.
I don’t know if that answers your question.
Senator McInnis: It does and I am glad to hear it. In the next few years?
Mr. Morel: I am saying that we cannot write our legislation probably in this piece of legislation but it is something we will work on. If we have the mandate we then need to go to the cabinet, draft a bill and table it in the House of Commons or the Senate.
The Chair: We look forward to that.
Senator Christmas: Ms. Gelfand mentioned in her remarks the 12 major fish stocks that didn’t have any rebuilding plans, and the report was in 2016. Can you give us an update as to where we are in terms of developing those rebuilding plans for those 12 major stocks?
Mr. Morel: Unfortunately I was not aware that Ms. Gelfand would raise that with you. It is not under my responsibility. I know we received funding to advance that plan in Budget 2017.
The other thing you will see shortly, I hope, is in Bill C-68 there are some provisions to address the fish stocks — that is,to address the question that the commissioner raised. We hope that will help us to clarify the situation.
We are working on updating the Integrated Fisheries Management Plan for all the 159, I think, species of importance for Canada. We are working on it but it is not something that we can do in two years. We are doing it by priority.
Senator Christmas: Thank you, Mr. Morel.
The Chair: Thank you, senators and our guests. This has been an informative conversation this morning, and we had excellent feedback. I wish you well in your work. To hear the news that some of the recommendations we made in our previous reports, especially our aquaculture report, is something the department is looking at and considering. We received incredible feedback on the need for an aquaculture act. It was one of the top recommendations in our report from people involved in the industry, communities and everybody who wants to see the industry be what it can be for Canadians.
We look forward to hearing more from you on that. We’ll be in St. John’s in a couple weeks, and we’re always delighted to have people come to Newfoundland and Labrador. It’s not a time for sunscreen, but I’m sure you will enjoy your trip there. Thank you for joining us.
(The committee adjourned.)