We did talk a little about that. This was mentioned in the Cohen commission report on the same issue. The way I would describe it is that I think Fisheries and Oceans Canada is at risk of claims that it prioritizes aquaculture over the protection of wild fish. Let me tell you why I think it's at risk.
There was no threshold for action when wild fish stocks decline. If a wild fish stock goes down, there's no threshold at which the department clicks into gear.
There was no validation of industry self-reporting on the use of drugs and pesticides. The industry provides those reports, but there is no system to find out if those reports are valid, no system at all.
There was no requirement to minimize the development of resistance to drugs and pesticides on the part of industry and no requirement for it to monitor the ocean floor near or underneath those pens.
We found little enforcement of aquaculture regulations. We also found that long-term funding is given for research done with the aquaculture industry, and I guess in support of the industry. The research that's done in support of the department doing the regulating is only supported by short-term funding. Given that whole picture, we think the department is at risk of being seen as prioritizing one over the other.
In terms of where the government may think about moving if it decides to split, it's Parliament's job to make that decision. I'm not sure that the CFIA would be the right place. The places you could look at, or that have been mentioned by other people, include Agriculture Canada, because this is farming; Industry Canada, because this is an industry; and Natural Resources Canada, because this is a natural resource. Any one of those three I know have been discussed if the regulatory role is split from the promoter-of-the-industry role. I don't think that CFIA would be the right one, personally. Those would be some the government could think about.