Fisheries Committee on April 29th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 35 of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

I want to start by acknowledging that we're gathered on the ancestral and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people, and by expressing gratitude that we're doing the important work of this committee on lands they've stewarded since time immemorial.

I also want to welcome two new members to our committee.

I welcome the Honourable Hedy Fry.

Welcome back, Mr. d'Entremont.

Today, pursuant to Standing Order 108, the committee is meeting to continue its study of recreational and traditional fishing for softshell clams.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Before we continue, I would like all in-person participants to consult the guidelines written on the cards. The measures are in place to help prevent audio and feedback incidents, and to protect the health and safety of all participants, particularly the interpreters.

I will advise members that all witnesses appearing virtually have done the required technical testing.

I have a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating via video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic. Also, please mute yourself when you're not speaking.

For interpretation, for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

This is a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses.

From the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, we have Evelyn Soo, director general, food safety and consumer protection directorate.

From the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, we have Alistair Struthers, director, aquaculture policy and regulatory affairs.

By video conference, from DFO, we have Céline Gaudet, regional director general, gulf region; and Sylvain Vézina, regional director general, Quebec region.

From the Department of Environment, we have Joanne Volk, director general, environmental science directorate; as well as Arash Shahsavarani, director, emergencies and marine science division.

We will move into opening statements from the witnesses. You have five minutes or less.

We'll begin with Ms. Soo.

[Evelyn Soo, Director General, Food Safety and Consumer Protection Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

Good afternoon. I am pleased to appear before you today to speak to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's role in the Canadian shellfish sanitation program, CSSP.

The goal of the program is to minimize the risks of consuming contaminated bivalve shellfish such as oysters, mussels and clams. This protects the health and safety of consumers, supports trade within Canada and internationally and plays a key role in Canada's coastal and economic landscape.

The scale of the CSSP is significant. It monitors more than 2,000 shellfish harvest sites along the 78,000 kilometres of coastline spread through the Pacific, Quebec and Atlantic regions. The CFIA plays an important role in protecting the health and safety of Canadians and supporting trade by minimizing the risks associated with consuming contaminated shellfish.

Under the CSSP, the CFIA runs a surveillance program that monitors shellfish harvest areas for harmful marine biotoxins. CFIA's marine biotoxin monitoring program begins once DFO and ECCC have completed the work to classify a site. The CFIA conducts marine biotoxin monitoring only in harvest areas that are appropriately classified for harvest. Based on the results of the laboratory analyses, the CFIA provides recommendations to DFO on whether shellfish harvest areas should be closed or can reopen safely.

The CFIA also licenses and inspects 272 parties that process, package and label shellfish for export or interprovincial trade as well as parties that import shellfish into Canada. As a science-based regulator, the CFIA verifies that licence-holders are meeting their food safety obligations and, when necessary, conducts food safety investigations and overseas recalls.

The CSSP supports three distinct shellfish harvest sectors, each playing a vital role in Canada's coastal and economic landscape. The CFIA plays a role in supporting each sector.

The first is the commercial harvest sector. This includes shellfish harvested for interprovincial trade and exports, and it's valued at approximately $475 million annually. Aquaculture exports alone are estimated at $240 million a year, with the United States, the European Union and Asia representing the major export markets. The integrity of this program is, therefore, not only a matter of public health; it is also a matter of economic significance for Canada's coastal communities and our international trade reputation.

The second sector is harvesting for indigenous food, social and ceremonial, FSC, purposes. In addition to the existing support for indigenous FSC, budget 2024 allocated $25.1 million over two years to the CFIA, ECCC and DFO to expand program activities that support some coastal indigenous communities' access to shellfish for food, social and ceremonial purposes. With this funding, the CFIA established new biotoxin surveillance stations and conducted biotoxin testing in the CFIA laboratories. By March 31, 2026, the CFIA had signed 23 memoranda of understanding with first nations communities and analyzed approximately 700 samples for marine biotoxin hazards.

The third sector is recreational harvesting. This includes traditional harvesting by local communities for personal consumption, recreation and cultural or heritage purposes. Recreational harvesting remains an important cultural and community tradition, particularly in Quebec and Atlantic Canada.

In closing, I would like to underscore that the success of the CSSP rests on the strength of federal collaboration and communities. No single department has the regulatory authority to deliver this program alone.

The CFIA takes seriously its responsibility to coordinate across partners, maintain the integrity of national standards, liaise with foreign authorities and ensure that Canada's food safety system commands the confidence of Canadians and our trading partners around the world.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Soo.

Next we will hear from Alistair Struthers for five minutes or less.

[Alistair Struthers, Director, Aquaculture Policy and Regulatory Affairs, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Chair and honourable members, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today.

My name is Alistair Struthers, and I am the director of aquaculture policy and regulatory affairs with Fisheries and Oceans Canada. I am joined by my colleague Sylvain Vézina, the regional director general for the department's Quebec region, and Céline Gaudet, the regional director general for the gulf region, both of whom manage the fishery in their respective regions. We are also joined by colleagues from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Environment and Climate Change Canada, both of which play important roles in the overall management of the shellfish sector.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada manages shellfish fisheries in Quebec, including the Baie des Chaleurs, within the broader Gulf of St. Lawrence ecosystem. Shellfish fisheries in Quebec and gulf regions include both wild and aquaculture activities and support commercial, recreational and indigenous food, social and ceremonial harvesting.

The shellfish sector is managed through such measures as harvest seasons, minimum size limits and daily fishing limits. Decisions related to access, expansion or changes to shellfish harvesting opportunities consider not only resource sustainability but also environmental conditions and food safety requirements, which can vary significantly by region and species. At the national level, DFO’s fisheries management sector establishes the regulatory framework and policy direction, while regional offices implement these regulations and policies, applying them in a manner that reflects region-specific biological, environmental and operational considerations.

The Canadian shellfish sanitation program, or CSSP, is a federal, interdepartmental program delivered jointly by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Environment and Climate Change Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Its primary objective is to protect public health by ensuring shellfish harvested in Canada are safe to consume, while also supporting indigenous harvesting, domestic fisheries and Canada’s international trade obligations. Our partners will speak to their respective roles in the delivery of this program during their opening remarks.

Under this program, Fisheries and Oceans Canada is responsible for opening and closing harvesting areas based on recommendations and evidence provided by federal program partners, and for informing the public accordingly. More broadly, Fisheries and Oceans Canada supports the long-term sustainability of shellfish harvesting through precautionary management, stock assessments where information is available, and effective licensing, compliance and enforcement. Our conservation and protection branch ensures compliance with shellfish harvest regulations, including the management of contaminated fisheries regulations, in areas subject to closure or restriction. Fisheries officers maintain a presence on the ground, investigate potential illegal harvesting and work collaboratively with program partners to ensure that public health protections are respected.

The expansion of harvesting opportunities—including for softshell clams—is dependent on scientific testing, assessments and sustained monitoring capacity. In the Baie des Chaleurs region, many shoreline areas have historically not been fully assessed under the CSSP, or were classified conservatively due to limited or outdated data or the presence of multiple pollution sources.

At the same time, it is important to note that the CSSP’s geographic coverage across Canada is prioritized based on public health risk and known harvesting activity. The program has experienced increasing demand over the past two decades, while core funding has remained relatively stable.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada recognizes the importance of shellfish harvesting to coastal and indigenous communities and is actively working with federal partners to improve program delivery. Recent targeted investments through budget 2024 supported increased engagement in indigenous communities and addressed long-term closures affecting food, social and ceremonial harvesting. Additionally, federal partners are advancing modernization initiatives, such as digital mapping tools, to strengthen program efficiency.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada remains committed to working collaboratively with our federal partners, provincial governments, indigenous communities and stakeholders to balance public health protection with sustainable access to shellfish resources.

We would be pleased to respond to the committee’s questions. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Struthers.

We'll conclude with opening remarks from Joanne Volk.

You have five minutes or less.

[Joanne Volk, Director General, Environmental Science Services Directorate, Department of the Environment]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee. My name is Joanne Volk. I am the director general of environmental science services with Environment and Climate Change Canada. I am joined by my colleague Arash Shahsavarani, the director for emergency and marine science at Environment and Climate Change Canada. We are both responsible for managing the national and regional operations at Environment and Climate Change Canada for the Canadian shellfish sanitation program.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today as part of your study on recreational and traditional fishing for the softshell clam, or Mya arenaria. I am pleased to speak on the role of Environment and Climate Change Canada in supporting the Canadian shellfish sanitation program. As you just heard from our colleagues at the table, Environment and Climate Change Canada is a partner in this jointly led program, working in close collaboration with Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Our primary responsibility within the program is to assess and monitor the sanitary quality of shellfish harvesting waters. This includes shellfish growing areas of Quebec, including the Baie des Chaleurs, within the broader Gulf of St. Lawrence. This work is one of several essential elements towards reducing risks and maintaining public confidence in shellfish safety.

Our activities begin by identifying potential sources of sanitary pollution. This involves comprehensive coastal surveys to identify both point and non-point sources of sanitary pollution, such as waste water discharges, agricultural runoff and failing septic systems.

These surveys are supported by ongoing water quality monitoring, where we measure levels of fecal coliform bacteria—an indicator of sanitary pollution that may pose a risk to human health.

Based on this evidence, ECCC makes recommendations to our CSSP partners on harvesting areas according to risk of sanitary contamination for bivalve shellfish.

As an example, when water quality deteriorates, whether due to heavy rainfall, infrastructure failure or other sanitary or pollution-related emergencies, Environment and Climate Change Canada provides recommendations to our partners regarding temporary closures to protect human health.

The Canadian shellfish sanitation program was originally designed with commercial harvesting in mind. Its structure reflects the need to support both food safety and international trade, including alignment with the United States. Like other food safety systems, it relies on multiple layers of protection to minimize risk; however, as your study highlights, shellfish harvesting in Canada is not limited to commercial activities. Recreational and indigenous food, social and ceremonial harvesting are also vital, and they present distinct needs.

In recent years, Environment and Climate Change Canada has taken important steps to improve program delivery.

Through budget 2024 funding, ECCC has expanded its engagement with indigenous communities to support safer harvesting practices and remove barriers to access shellfish harvest areas for food, social and ceremonial purposes. These efforts have strengthened relationships and improved information sharing.

Looking ahead, enhanced and improved program delivery will require continued collaboration with partners, provinces, indigenous communities and harvesters themselves.

ECCC remains committed to its role in providing timely, science-based information on sanitary water quality of shellfish harvest areas to help reduce risks to human health and support the sustainable use of shellfish resources for all Canadians.

Thank you for your attention.

We look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Volk.

We will now begin our first round of questions.

Mr. Arnold, go ahead for six minutes, please.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here.

I want to start off with this question, though I'm not sure who might be able to answer it.

From the time that Environment and Climate Change Canada identifies a possible or potential source of contamination, how long would it take for a sample to be collected and taken to the lab and for it to be determined whether an area is safe or it has to go through CFIA's testing of clams or mollusks? It sounds like DFO makes a decision based on that.

How much time would elapse?

[Arash Shahsavarani, Director, Emergencies and Marine Science Division, Department of the Environment]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question. I'll try to answer briefly.

When a pollution source is identified, it doesn't necessarily mean sampling will be required. For example, if there is a failure in a waste-water treatment system and our modelling indicates that the risk is great, we may immediately advise DFO that there is a risk and an emergency closure is required. It's not automatic that a source of pollution equals sampling; that process is determined based on the risk.

For sampling times, we have 30 hours from the time we take a sample to get it to the lab and analyze it within 24 hours, and we get the data after that.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

From that data, are you able to recommend that DFO close the area? Who makes that decision?

[Arash Shahsavarani]

If the data suggests that the levels are extremely high and an emergency closure is required, we would provide that recommendation to DFO right away.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

If an area had been closed, how long would it take for the sampling to go through that process and for a recommendation to be made that DFO open the area?

[Arash Shahsavarani]

This highlights the complexity of the process. A single sample cannot determine whether an area is safe or not. When we detect a high level of contamination, we have some degree of certainty in terms of the risk level. However, for an area that hasn't been tested or has been closed for a long time because of testing, it may take up to two years of sampling before we can be certain that the area has a consistent, safe pattern for reclassification and opening.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

It literally takes less than three days to shut down an area but up to three years to reopen an area, even if the testing is clear. Is that correct? That doesn't seem proportionate.

[Arash Shahsavarani]

Again, that highlights the complexity, because when we detect a bacteriological presence, that's evidence of pollution. However, if we don't detect a bacteriological presence, that doesn't equate to the absence of potential pollution from an area that can have collections two or three weeks later.

For an opening or a classification, we need a series of datasets that cover a variety of environmental conditions so we can have that assurance of safety. An example could be an area where there could be sporadic outflows or runoffs. If we don't have that pattern of sampling over time, we may miss the opportunity to detect those risks.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

It sounded like you said you could identify a potential area and test it within 36 hours, or less than three days—72 hours—to be able to close a site.

What I'm getting at is the complexity that seems to be involved here. There are three different government departments and agencies involved that all have to work together. They can shut down an area within hours or days, but it takes them three years potentially to open up an area.

Can somebody square that circle? You just said it could take up to three years of testing, but if an area tests clear for six months or a year, why would it take another two years before that area could be opened?

[Joanne Volk]

I'll try to clarify.

When an area is monitored in a consistent fashion and is normally open, and let's say there is a storm and we close it because emergency runoff pollutes the area, we know it would typically happen that way owing to the pollution source work I mentioned, in which we understand where the sources are in a particular sector.

We model it numerically to understand where the pollution will go, and we have a fairly good idea of how long it will take to clean itself. This is an area that is being managed or monitored in a consistent fashion and would be opened and closed due to an emergency.

Those areas are opened fairly quickly after the events occur. My colleague can correct me, but I believe that in areas where we have consistent monitoring, they can open as soon as seven days after the event or 21 days after the event.

The areas that remain closed for extended periods of time—some of them have been closed for years—are the ones where we would have to go back in and re-evaluate the pollution sources, because they may have changed within that period of time. We would do additional work to understand the flow of the pollution when it comes in and we would resume a monitoring routine. It takes a while for the monitoring routine to build up a sufficient dataset, again, to be able to statistically say with confidence that we understand what is going on in the area.

There is a difference between those.

Thank you.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Next, we're going to Mr. Cormier for six minutes.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being with us today.

I apologize to the interpreters, but clam digging is something we've been doing back home for many years. I started this activity with my grandfather and father. I do it now with my kids. For some people in my region, I can understand that it's hard to accept that, on a nice summer day, they can't engage in this activity. It's also difficult for some people who earn a small income from it from one year to the next.

Ms. Volk, I'm glad you clarified the issue of the opening of harvesting areas. So it doesn't always take three years and, in some areas, it can take less time.

Let's try to clarify this so that people in my area—I know that some of them are listening to our debates—really understand what's happening. When a decision is made to close an area on the Baie des Chaleurs, for example, in my region, it's done mainly for the safety and health of the people who will consume those shellfish.

Ms. Gaudet can probably answer my question, since she knows the region.

Is testing done systematically in all the small bays along the Baie des Chaleurs, for example, or is it done randomly? For example, it may be one day in one region and another day in another.

My question is more about testing. Where are these tests done?

Thank you.

[Céline Gaudet, Regional Director General, Gulf Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for his question.

In terms of the Baie des Chaleurs and my region, the Gulf of St. Lawrence region, there are about 27 harvesting areas. In the so-called classified areas, our colleagues at Environment and Climate Change Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency conduct tests and give us recommendations. We then act on those recommendations.

There are also areas that are unclassified. They are generally untested, and they remain open. They aren't no-take zones. However, we make recommendations through public awareness campaigns. Sometimes there are signs on beaches. Harvesting is not recommended in those places, because there are risks and we don't know exactly what's there.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I want to talk about the type of contamination.

As you know, on the coasts, in our regions, there are a lot of cottages and houses. Some were built many years ago. They certainly have septic systems that are no longer adequate. Also, when big storms or heavy rains happen, water flows toward the coast and carries other types of contaminants, such as the ones we mentioned earlier.

Given that the water warms up along the shores of the bays, are there more contaminants in those areas?

Are contaminants more prevalent now than they were in recent years?

The question is for Ms. Gaudet or any of the other witnesses.

[Céline Gaudet]

Thank you for the question.

I will direct it to my colleagues at Environment and Climate Change Canada, since they are the ones doing the testing.

[Arash Shahsavarani]

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for his question.

Yes, there are more and more emergency closures because of rain-related events. There is also the issue of septic tanks in poor condition.

Yes, because of climate change, there's more rainfall and, as a result, we have more emergency closures.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I'm going to talk specifically about my region, but this could happen elsewhere.

Have there been any deaths or cases of poisoning in recent years?

Have people who consumed shellfish from certain regions where the test results were negative been poisoned? Have there been any deaths related to this?

Do you know if there's any data on that?