Evidence of meeting #112 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was audit.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Would you agree, though, that the one and only question that means anything is what the effect is on wild fish, that nothing else really matters?
3:45 p.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General
That is what we looked at. Are they protecting wild fish, both on the floor—because even though there are three years of impact, potentially, there's no requirement for any industry to monitor the ocean floor during those three years....
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Well, I'll push back a little bit on that. The fact that there was environmental change doesn't mean it's negative.
3:45 p.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General
No.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
I go back to the clear-cut example: those trees come back. Yes, you may get negative effects on the ocean floor in a very small area for a short period of time, but the recovery time is three years.
In point number seven you said that the department has not set limits on the amounts of drugs and pesticides that fish farms can use to treat.
Let me say, as somebody who represents a farming community, that the farmer decides which legal pesticide to use and uses the amount that's required, based on the infestation of a given pathogen or fungus. How can the department set limits when, let's say, there's a heavy or a light infestation of sea lice and the operator of the net pen has to make a decision on the amount of the pesticide they need to use? How could the department ever regulate that?
I'm making the assumption that the product being used has been tested and is legal and is being used according to the directions.
3:45 p.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General
We made a similar assumption. We did not include that part in our audit. What we found is that Fisheries and Oceans Canada doesn't know whether the current regulations regarding drugs and pesticides are adequate. They don't know, for example, whether they need more rules regarding cumulative effects. They don't actually know whether the regulations are adequate and therefore haven't set any thresholds.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General
We didn't look into that, but we would have assumed that they were approved by—
3:50 p.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General
—Health Canada. That's who's responsible.
3:50 p.m.
Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)
Thank you, Mr. Sopuck.
Now we go to Mr. Donnelly from the New Democratic Party.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, environment commissioner, and your team for your great work on this.
Obviously, I've been looking forward to hearing the outcome of your report, and I'm alarmed at some of the things you've reported on about what's not happening with the department. I just point to your point four, where you say that the department has only completed one out of 10 risk assessments of key known diseases that it had committed to.
The federal government has been telling Canadians and me for years that there is no proof that the salmon farming industry is harming wild salmon. How the heck can they know that? Because they haven't been doing the adequate testing to prove it. Then you go on to say in your report—and I know others have brought this issue forward—that the department did not know the impacts that salmon farming was having on the health of wild fish. In our view, consistent with the precautionary principle, this gives even more importance to assessing actions that could harm wild fish.
I'm thinking specifically what the issue has been in the public. My colleague referenced researchers like Alexandra Morton and others. Piscine orthoreovirus, PRV, has been brought up as a key concern. It's a concern in other jurisdictions around the world. We're very concerned that if it comes here to the Pacific, it's not only going to impact the farmed salmon, but it's also going to impact the wild salmon.
I believe you're telling us that the government isn't doing the proper testing to even know this. Maybe you could comment on this.
3:50 p.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General
We found they had committed to completing 10 risk assessments of two diseases. At the time of our audit, they had only completed one of them, but they apparently have a plan to complete the other nine by 2020. We made a recommendation that they complete their planned health risk assessments. That is absolutely an issue.
There are a couple of other issues. I believe that not monitoring the health of wild fish to see whether there is an impact when you have a big industry going on is a huge issue, if not one of the biggest issues. There was another issue I was going to bring up, and of course it has slipped my mind.
They are doing research. I don't want to give you the sense that they're not doing anything.
They're not looking at new and emerging diseases. They are doing some work. They've done research on the effects of disease and parasite transmission. They are looking at the effects of drugs and pesticides, drug interactions. They do have a plan to complete these nine out of 10 risk assessments on these key diseases, but they have a year and a half left to do it, and they have only done one in the last little while.
There is reason to be concerned.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
A plan is one thing, but I go back to where the government has been telling Canadians already that it's not a problem because there's no proof that it's a problem. However, they don't have a leg to stand on if they aren't able to say they've been doing the testing and the testing shows conclusively that there is no impact.
I'm not talking about the last three years. I'm going back to the last nine years. Some of my colleagues on this committee will remember in different Parliaments we had studies on sea lice and then we had studies on—we were at that point talking about new and emerging diseases and viruses like PRV and others that were impacting.... At that time, researchers were saying that this is a concern. That should have been a flag for the department to be on that and being able to say conclusively.... You're telling me that their plan is now to start looking at this issue in 2018. That is a concern.
The last point I want to ask for your comment on is the precautionary principle. You raised it here. Is it not the law that businesses and industry need to be operating within the precautionary approach if there isn't the evidence that they know this is harming or may not be harming wild salmon?
3:55 p.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General
I want to make something clear.
They do look at diseases. They've looked at one out of 10, and they have a plan to get the other nine out of 10 done by 2020. They're not looking at new and emerging diseases. That is obviously a concern, but to say they're not doing anything on that issue I think goes a bit too far.
3:55 p.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General
On PRV, yes. They've just announced it last month.
3:55 p.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General
Off the top of my head, I can't. We could get that for you.
3:55 p.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General
We think, and we made a recommendation, that they need to articulate the level of risk to wild fish that they're prepared to accept, given that they're also allowing this aquaculture industry to operate.
I think they're at risk because they have, as I said before, no action for when wild fish stocks decline. They have no threshold at which point they say, “Stop.” Other jurisdictions have stopped on the west coast. Alaska has stopped and Washington has stopped. The only place where we can have aquaculture now, off the entire coast of North America, is off the coast of B.C.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
The south coast.
The last point is that the Province of British Columbia is also looking at turning to the federal government and relying on it, because it has the majority of the jurisdiction in the area of salmon farming, for accurate science and proof that it's not harming the wild salmon, the commercial fishing industry or the sport fishing industry and recreation. They play a key role. The province is recognizing it. First nations are turning to good science and the federal government to be able to say that this industry is not harming wild salmon. As my colleague has raised, it's a key issue on the west coast, for sure.
3:55 p.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General
And your question is...?