Fisheries Committee on Nov. 29th, 2018

[The Chair, Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we will have a briefing on reports of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, spring 2018.

I'd like to welcome our guests.

We have Philippe Morel, assistant deputy minister, aquatic ecosystems sector; Mr. John Campbell, acting director general, aquaculture management; Mr. Wayne Moore, director general, strategic and regulatory science; and by video conference, we have Andrew Thomson, regional director, fisheries management.

From the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, we have Dr. Penny Greenwood, national manager, domestic disease control section. Joining her is Dr. Michelle Illing, acting executive director, animal health directorate.

We'll start off with a presentation from the department. When you're ready, you have seven minutes or less, please.

[Philippe Morel, Assistant Deputy Minister, Aquatic Ecosystems Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Thank you for the invitation to report on our progress on addressing the recommendations from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development's report on salmon farming and its conclusions on how to improve salmon aquaculture governance in Canada.

My colleagues from the Strategic and Regulatory Science Directorate, the Aquaculture Management Directorate and, in the regions, Fisheries Management of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, are here to provide you with answers and give you more information on our measures.

My colleagues and I had the pleasure of addressing these recommendations at the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans last week.

As you know, aquaculture is jointly managed by federal, provincial and territorial governments. Fisheries and Oceans Canada is the primary 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 primary regulators of aquaculture activities.

Canada already has a strong aquaculture regulatory regime, but it can be improved. It is our goal to work towards a clear, consistent and responsible regulatory framework to support an environmentally and socially sustainable aquaculture industry in Canada.

The commissioner's audit made eight recommendations to Fisheries and Oceans Canada on managing the risks associated with salmon aquaculture in order to protect wild fish, one of which also implicates the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

We have agreed with the recommendations set out in the report and are on track to deliver on the work necessary to address all eight recommendations.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency are the two federal entities managing aquatic animal health in Canada. We coordinate our efforts and collaborate to deliver the national aquatic animal health program, or NAAHP. The agency is the federal lead for the NAAHP, whereas Fisheries and Oceans Canada provides research and laboratory diagnostic support. CFIA authorizes movements of aquatic animals under the program, subject to relevant import or domestic program requirements.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada also authorizes live fish movement based on the consideration of disease, genetic and environmental risk, via licences issued under section 56 of the fishery (general) regulations. These regulations are set to be amended to continue to clarify the roles of the department given the full implementation of the NAAHP in 2015.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the CFIA collaborate on studies exploring the disease interaction of wild and farmed fish to progressively adapt and improve fish health management practices and oversight. Additional measures are also in place in most provinces to further manage aquatic diseases.

In British Columbia, where Fisheries and Oceans Canada is the lead regulator of aquaculture and issues aquaculture licences under the pacific aquaculture regulations, licence conditions are in place to ensure the continued conservation and protection of wild and farmed fish.

In Atlantic Canada, the provinces are the lead regulators of aquaculture and have developed a regionally standardized approach to disease evaluation via the issuance of a certificate of health for transfer for live cultured finfish.

In response to the commissioner's report, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency established an interdepartmental working group in May 2018 to directly address emerging disease issues. The working group is currently finalizing a draft joint policy on the management of emerging diseases of aquatic organisms in Canada, and is on track for implementation by the department and agency in April 2019.

The joint emerging disease policy would establish an interdepartmental committee to manage emerging diseases and provide for formal processes, including the timely dissemination of information between and within organizations. This committee would also work in close consultation with provincial veterinarians.

With respect to the work of the emerging disease committee, we will also explore how to better and more clearly communicate to Canadians the federal approach to managing emerging diseases in aquatic organisms, which is a key goal under the 2016-19 aquaculture development strategy that was approved by the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers.

Additionally, the federal government is pursuing further initiatives that will help mitigate potential environmental impacts of aquaculture operations, such as a proposal to work together with provincial and indigenous partners, and industry to develop a collaborative, area-based approach to planning and managing aquaculture. This approach would assess and address potential cumulative environmental impacts within a defined, large-scale region.

The Government of Canada is also committed to advancing innovation in the aquaculture sector, particularly to improve environmental protection. Specifically, the government is embarking on a study that will look at the economic feasibility of different aquaculture production technologies along with their environmental footprint.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada understands that we must continually assess and adapt our management approaches to ensure we are protecting the environment, while fostering responsible growth and innovation in Canada's aquaculture sector.

I will conclude my remarks here, and my colleagues and I will be happy to respond to any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

[The Chair]

Thank you.

Now we'll go to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

I believe, Dr. Illing, you're going to start. You have seven minutes or less, please.

[Dr. Michelle Illing, Acting Executive Director, Animal Health Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

I appreciate this opportunity to speak to our role in the regulation of agriculture, which includes aquaculture, and our ongoing collaboration with Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

The agency is the federal regulatory lead for animal disease. This includes diseases that affect terrestrial and aquatic animals. The list is broad and includes diseases that affect cattle, swine, horses, deer, bees, finfish, molluscs, crustaceans and other species.

On the international scene, the CFIA is recognized as the leading competent authority on animal health. We are Canada's representative at the World Organisation for Animal Health, sometimes known as OIE, and contribute to the development of international standards that are science-based and risk-based in order to facilitate safe trade of live animals and animal products.

Under the Health of Animals Act, the CFIA has the authority to control any disease of any animal, diseases transmitted from animals to people, as well as toxic substances.

As stated by my colleague, the CFIA works in collaboration with Fisheries and Oceans Canada to deliver the national aquatic animal health program, or the NAAHP, under the Health of Animals Act and supporting regulations.

Since the full implementation of the NAAHP in 2015, fish health management has moved from DFO to the CFIA, as the agency has the mandate to protect Canadian wild and cultured aquatic resources from serious disease.

The CFIA also has the mandate to maintain competitive international market access for wild and cultured fish and seafood.

DFO plays a key role in the delivery of the NAAHP through provision of laboratory diagnostic services and research.

Consistent with other animal health programs delivered by the CFIA, the goal of the NAAHP is to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic animal diseases to both cultured and wild aquatic animals.

The NAAHP has the following components: an import control program, which includes control measures for foreign and domestic animal diseases; a domestic and foreign animal disease control program, supported by disease response plans and the requirement to notify the CFIA if disease is suspected; a domestic movement control program, which includes declaration of the disease status of Canada and parts of Canada; and a supporting disease surveillance program.

In addition, the NAAHP is designed to meet international aquatic animal health standards and works to maintain competitive international market access. In this realm, the NAAHP also includes an export program, where the CFIA certifies the disease status of cultured and wild aquatic animals leaving Canada.

As presented by DFO, the CESD audit of CFIA and DFO programs recommended that the departments clarify their roles and responsibilities for managing emerging disease risks to prevent the spread of infectious diseases and parasites, as well as mitigating the potential impacts of salmon farming on wild fish.

The CFIA and DFO have agreed with this recommendation and have since been working together to develop and document a formal process, as my colleague mentioned, a joint policy and associated framework, to discuss and evaluate emerging diseases and clarify the federal government response to mitigate potential impacts to wild fish. The scope of the joint policy has been broadened beyond salmonids to include infectious emerging diseases of finfish, molluscs and crustaceans. The draft policy will be completed by the end of 2018, and we're on track for implementation by April 2019.

The CFIA will continue to work closely with DFO, provincial and territorial authorities, indigenous peoples and the industry from coast to coast to streamline our regulatory authorities and deliver our mandate under the NAAHP to, first of all, implement controls to prevent aquatic animal diseases from being imported into or spread within Canada; and second, to safeguard Canada's natural aquatic animal resources.

Thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to your questions for both departments.

[The Chair]

Thank you, Dr. Illing.

Before I go to questions, I will remind the committee that we'll go to probably 5:45 p.m. with the questioning so that we have time to break and move into committee business.

[Colin Fraser, West Nova, Lib.]

It's not 5:45 p.m. It's 4:45 p.m.

[The Chair]

Yes, it's 4:45 p.m. At 5:45 p.m. some of us will be home. I tried to sneak in a few extra minutes for the committee, but it didn't work.

Now with the questioning, we'll go first to the government side.

Mr. Hardie, you have seven minutes or less.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, all, for being here.

Aquaculture is a sensitive issue out on the west coast, as I'm sure Mr. Morel and his colleagues are certainly aware.

Do we have enough science to really be convinced that aquaculture poses no risk to our wild salmon populations?

[Philippe Morel]

I will respond to what Mr. Moore mentioned to the Senate, that if you ask a scientist a question, the response will be no, there is never enough science. I think we have very good science, but I think the ocean is changing. We always have to adapt our science to the new ecosystem and to the interaction with fish that we are not used to be seeing there. I'll ask Mr. Moore to give more of an answer.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Be very brief, if you can, because I have a lot of questions.

Thank you, go ahead.

[Wayne Moore, Director General, Strategic and Regulatory Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Very briefly, as you pointed out, we always welcome more resources to do more science. I think the process we have with working with managers, with stakeholders, to identify priorities means we're putting our money and our energy and the talent of our people where it needs to go.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I was going to ask about that. There was a fairly large allocation for new science, new scientists, new capacity. How much of that has been dedicated to the health of wild salmon?

[Wayne Moore]

In terms of the new resources, it's hard to parse out a specific share. The reason is that, of the new investment money that's going into, for example, the national aquatic animal health program, which we spoke about, into aquaculture research.... They are all areas, in addition to direct investments in salmon research as well and stock assessment that impact wild stock. There's not a linear relationship between the two.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

The fact is that for a long time, questions have been raised. Certainly the report that you're responding to suggests that we're not necessarily covering all the bases, at least to the auditor's satisfaction. We keep getting reminded of the application of the precautionary principle because there are a lot of things that we haven't known that we don't know, and yet we've forged ahead.

I guess this is another leading question. When we look, for instance, at the location of the aquaculture installations, especially in the Broughton Archipelago, if we had it all to do over again, would we allow those things to go in there?

[Philippe Morel]

This is very difficult to answer. We will certainly have more scrutiny than we did at the time, but that doesn't mean the conclusion would be different. So more scrutiny, more consultation before issuing some siting licences.... I don't know if Mr. Thomson can add to that, if he has some information to share.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

If there's not a definitive answer of yes or no, then “it depends”, I suppose, is an answer. It just leaves a window of doubt open.

The transparency of the operations on the west coast is in question. I've had numerous conversations with Alex Morton, who attempts to go in and conduct research. She's driven off and banned from being there. I think sunshine is the best disinfectant here, because the more that happens, the more there appears to be gaps in either perception or reality. I don't know why she isn't given full rein to go in and conduct what she wants to conduct, peer review it, and either disapprove of it or support it, as the case may be.

Sir, from Vancouver, do you have a thought on that?

[Andrew Thomson, Regional Director, Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Yes, thanks very much, Mr. Hardie, for the question.

In terms of transparency, our regulatory program, which requires a significant amount of monitoring and reporting as well as auditing by our regulatory staff, is largely reported on our website. There's a vast amount of data as to sea lice counts, use of antibiotics, how much deposition, predator control and interactions. All this data is on the website. In terms of transparency there really is a very significant amount of information already put out into the public sphere.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

You're dealing with a perception issue, and as long as you have a situation where somebody is forbidden from going on and exercising what talents they can bring to the table, it is going to raise questions—and questions have been raised.

This question is for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Are you comfortable with, if you like, the sharing of duties and authorities with the DFO? On the one hand you have the responsibility for the health of the fish, which leads into my last question, but the DFO, of course, has a responsibility to basically help and support the aquaculture industry, even though the Cohen commission said that was a bad mix for you guys. As far as the CFIA is concerned, are you convinced that the health of these fish is adequately monitored and that they are indeed in good health?

[Dr. Penny Greenwood, National Manager, Domestic Disease Control Section, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

When we talk about health, health is a combination of factors. Under the fishery (general) regulations, we have actually only taken over the part of fish health that involves disease, with the implementation of the national aquatic animal health program.

The genetic and the environmental health factors still rest with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and we're very clear about the division between those things.

There are a lot of things that come to bear on an animal's health. I think we're comfortable with that. We are looking at separate components of that, all of which contribute to the overall health of the fish.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair]

Thank you, Mr. Hardie.

Now, we'll go to the Conservative side with Mr. Arnold.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to all of the witnesses for being here today.

It was interesting in the spring when we went over the commissioner's report with her and started looking at some of the fine details in it. The one troubling thing that I saw, which was cause to have you in for this meeting today, was the two departments' responses to the recommendation.

The recommendation is, “Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency should clarify their roles and responsibilities for managing emerging disease risks to mitigate potential impacts of salmon farming on wild fish”.

I have to make sure I get the responses right because they contradict each other.

This is from DFO: “Agreed. Fisheries and Oceans Canada will continue to work collaboratively with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the federal lead for managing diseases of both farmed and wild fish....” Note that DFO identifies CFIA as the federal lead. CFIA's response is that CFIA “will work with Fisheries and Oceans Canada to develop and document a formal process to discuss and evaluate emerging diseases of concern to either government entity and decide which entity will assume which role or responsibility with regard to such diseases in order to protect wild fish.”

Fisheries and Oceans has said that CFIA is the lead role and then CFIA says you have to get together and sort that out still. Why is there the discrepancy in the response? Has there been progress made towards sorting out that discrepancy?

[Dr. Penny Greenwood]

During the audit, they felt that the roles and responsibilities were clear on the existing fish health topics, so in my previous answer, I have just said that DFO is clearly responsible for genetic and environmental and we're clearly the lead for disease.

The thing about emerging disease is that we never know when an emerging disease comes up whether it's going to be one of great significance to Canada or not. The way that the national aquatic animal health program works is that we don't necessarily have controls on all diseases. Through consultation with our stakeholders, we decide which disease we're going to put specific controls or responses on and which we will allow industry or the provinces to manage.

As a result of that, the DFO would like to be at the table for those discussions and those consultations to be able to make the primary decision about whether or not this is going to be a disease that CFIA adds to their list, for which they will have a response or a concern about. There may be components associated with the environment or genetics that play into that as well, so it was necessary for the emerging diseases to say that, since it's a little bit fuzzy, we will specifically address that through policy.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

How have you addressed that between the agency and department?

[Dr. Penny Greenwood]

As both of the introductory comments noted, there has been a working group, from both the department and the agency, that has been sitting together. They have drafted a policy which should be finished by the end of 2018. That policy says there will be a committee that will be formed from the department—both national headquarters staff, as well as regional staff, and both from the west coast or the east coast because they are very significant players on the fish health files, obviously—and from CFIA. As we bring information of different sorts to the committee, that committee will develop a list of what the current emerging disease concerns are that the department and the CFIA think are of importance. Then they will together decide how to proceed with risk assessments and decisions on whether or not CFIA will have a response, surveillance or controls over that particular disease.