This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Follow-up petition on the protection of wild salmon from disease at fish farms

Petition

April 3, 2006

Ms. Johanne Gélinas
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Attention: Petitions
240 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0G6
Fax: (613) 941-8286

Re: Environmental Petition No. 148

Dear Commissioner,

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans ("DFO") and the Minister of Environment have sent replies to our environmental petition number 148. The Sierra Legal Defence Fund filed petition 148 in June of 2005 on behalf of the David Suzuki Foundation, the Georgia Strait Alliance, and the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union (UFAWU-CAW).

In general, the petitioners consider that DFO's response is evasive, incomplete and/or irrelevant to the questions we posed. In addition, at pages 8-10 of our original petition we posed a number of suggestions for DFO. DFO has not addressed these suggestions at all.

The petitioners thus ask that you consider this letter a follow-up petition to petition number 148. Sierra Legal Defence Fund is filing this follow-up petition on behalf of the original petitioners named above.

We have provided several follow-up questions and specific comments about DFO's response to our original petition:

DFO's Preamble

The petitioners understand that aquaculture is a rapidly growing industry and that, if it were practised and regulated appropriately, it could provide substantial benefits to society. As noted in the petition, however, our concern is that the industry as currently practised and regulated poses unacceptable risks to the wild fishery and to the financial livelihoods of people who depend on a healthy marine environment. The primary concerns expressed in our original and left unaddressed in DFO's response—are as follows:

• there are no federal or provincial regulations requiring aquaculture operators to report outbreaks of disease at fish farms;
• there are no federal or provincial regulations requiring operators to remove diseased fish from open net pens when a disease outbreak poses a threat to wild fish stocks; and,
• the federal and provincial governments have done little or nothing to monitor and study the transmission of disease from fish farms to wild stocks.

In our view, DFO's response reads more like an election speech – full of pomp and vapid generalization—than a substantive reply to any of the above points.

Question 1 (original petition): Why has DFO failed to address gaps in its knowledge about the effects of salmon aquaculture on wild stocks, including the transmission of disease both from fish farms and from escaped Atlantic and Pacific salmon? Without addressing these gaps in knowledge, how can DFO claim to apply a precautionary approach or claim to encourage sustainable development of aquaculture?

DFO's response does not address how it is dealing with gaps in its knowledge about the spread of disease from fish farms to wild stocks. The "State of Knowledge" review identified in DFO's response is a limited review of the literature on selected impacts of salmon farms (e.g. benthic impacts, near-field impacts and chemical use). The specific issue of disease and parasite transfer to wild stocks is completely absent from this review process to date.

Part of our concern (as expressed in the first two questions in the petition) is that DFO pays only lip-service to precautionary and sustainable approaches. DFO has allowed the aquaculture industry to proceed in Canada for decades and is only belatedly beginning to study the effects of the industry on wild fish stocks. This is the opposite of precautionary and sustainable approaches, both of which require that decision makers address glaring uncertainties and gaps in knowledge before proceeding with new development activities.

Follow-up question 1: please address the following question stated in the original petition: Why has DFO failed to address gaps in its knowledge about the effects of salmon aquaculture on wild stocks, including the transmission of disease both from fish farms and from escaped Atlantic and Pacific salmon? (a): Without addressing these gaps in knowledge, how can DFO claim to apply a precautionary approach or claim to encourage sustainable development of aquaculture?

Question 2 (original petition): What does DFO mean when it claims to apply principles of sustainable development and a precautionary approach to the development of aquaculture? How does enabling open-net pen aquaculture in the face of great uncertainty about the effects of this industry on wild stocks fit within these principles and approaches?

In its response to our second question, DFO states the following:

It is recognized that aquaculture operations, as with other human activities, pose risks to the natural environment. There is sufficient science, however, to show that practiced responsibly net pen aquaculture impacts are not permanent, that they are reversible, and that they can be appropriately regulated under current federal and provincial regulatory controls [emphasis added].

This statement exemplifies the vague and unsubstantive character of DFO's entire response to our original petition.

Follow-up question 2: What "sufficient science" is DFO referring to? (a): In particular, what "sufficient science" shows that the effects of disease and parasite transmission from farmed fish to wild stocks are "not permanent" or are "reversible"? (b): Is any of this science peer-reviewed and/or published in reputable scientific journals? (c): Is DFO's decision about "sufficiency" driven by science or by politics?

DFO further states in its response to question 2 (original petition) that decisions about aquaculture are made in a "fair, transparent and inclusive manner" upon "securing the participation of stakeholders, individuals and communities in decision-making to ensure best use of aquatic space". Salmon aquaculture decision-making in BC does not, at present, secure meaningful participation from communities or from stakeholders other than government and industry. Although individuals may be allowed to participate in a limited way in CEAA screenings by providing written submissions, this participation is at DFO's discretion and is (in the petitioners' experience) often a waste of time and energy—almost without fail, the Department's response to risks identified by interveners (e.g. the risk of disease transfer from farmed to wild stocks) is to assess those at-best-uncertain risks as "low" or "negligible" risks.

DFO consistently depicts uncertainty about the possible environmental effects of aquaculture as a low or negligible risk that those effects will come to pass. This again raises strong concerns that DFO is paying mere lip service to the "precautionary approach" or that it doesn't understand the meaning of the term.

Question 3 (original petition): Why doesn't DFO maintain a surveillance program to detect diseases / pathogens in wild stocks, to determine normal background levels of diseases / pathogens, or to detect a change in rate of infestation/infection? If DFO doesn't do this, who does? If no one does this, how is it possible for DFO to adequately manage and conserve wild salmon stocks?

DFO claims that it "does undertake wild fish disease surveillance".

Follow-up question 3: If that is so, what surveillance is DFO currently undertaking on diseases/pathogens in wild fish and on background levels of disease in the wild fishery in the Pacific Region, and what conclusions has DFO drawn from that surveillance?

The petitioners know of no program that has enough funding or adequate sampling to draw any conclusions about these important issues.

Question 4 (original petition): Why does DFO allow fish farms to keep infected and dying fish in open net pens? Would DFO consider fish disease pathogens originating at aquaculture sites to be deleterious substances as that term is used in the federal Fisheries Act? If no, why not?

DFO's response to this question is incomplete, misleading and in part irrelevant. DFO claims that Fish Health Management Plans required by the provinces as conditions of aquaculture licences "generally require that operators deal appropriately with disease outbreaks, including the management of dead and dying fish" [emphasis added]. This response is misleading; while Fish Health Management Plans in British Columbia require the semi-regular removal of dead fish from net pens they do not require fish farmers to remove diseased fish. For example, in a 2004 CEAA Screening Report prepared for a proposed finfish aquaculture facility at Petrel Point, BC, DFO identifies (at p. 14) possible environmental effects from "fish mortality and disposal", stating "Improper storage and/or disposal of fish mortalities may affect marine water quality, [and] cause disease transmission to wild populations…". DFO then identifies a mitigation measure as follows: "All fish mortalities… will be removed weekly from the pens…. Fish carcasses must be stored away from the main farming operation" [emphasis added in all quotes]. Remarkably, the presence of diseased fish in open net pens is not identified as a risk to wild fish stocks or as something to address in mitigation measures.

In further response to question 4 of our original petition, DFO goes on to refer to regulations on the introduction and transfer of fish. These regulations are irrelevant to the question posed in the petition.

As part of its response to question 4, DFO claims that "[e]ndemic fish pathogens [originating at aquaculture sites] would not be considered deleterious substances as defined in the Fisheries Act, as they occur naturally in Canada's oceans…". This response is incomplete.

Follow-up question 4: please answer the first part of the question as stated in the original petition: Why does DFO allow fish farms to keep infected and dying fish in open net pens?

Follow up question 5: Would DFO consider exotic fish pathogens originating at fish aquaculture sites to be deleterious substances? (a): If fish farms magnify endemic fish diseases/pathogens to levels well above natural background levels, would DFO consider that the farms are depositing deleterious substances into the ocean or otherwise creating a "harmful alteration, disruption or destruction" of fish habitat? If not, why not?

Question 5 (original petition): Why has DFO failed to establish a routine program to monitor disease outbreaks on fish farms? If DFO has devolved this important responsibility to the provinces, why has it done so, and what steps (if any) is it taking to ensure that the provinces effectively fulfill this delegated responsibility?

DFO's response begins by describing disease monitoring in relation to the transfer of fish or eggs between provinces—that topic is irrelevant to the question posed in the petition.

DFO also states that "provinces that have developed aquatic veterinary capacity have assumed responsibility for fish farm health monitoring…". While BC may have developed aquatic veterinary capacity, in the petitioners view it has failed in its responsibility to monitor fish health at aquaculture sites; as noted in our petition, there are no provincial regulations requiring fish farmers to report fish disease outbreaks to provincial or federal authorities. Diseases are monitored by private owners as required in their Fish Health Management Plans, but all data is passed on to an industry group (the BC Salmon Farmers' Association) rather than to the province or to DFO – the BCSFA reports average aggregate statistics to the province, but neither level of government has access to the raw data.

BC's system of fish health "monitoring" is equivalent to having drivers voluntarily report their own motor vehicle infractions to the Canadian Automobile Association, who would then compile and report average statistics for infractions in regional areas (e.g. the Greater Vancouver area) without reporting individual law-breakers to government. Even if the government undertook occasional "audits" to see if these regional statistics are roughly accurate, this could hardly be considered effective monitoring of compliance with motor vehicle legislation.

Finally, DFO's response does not address what steps (if any) it is taking to ensure that the provinces effectively fulfill the responsibility for monitoring fish disease that DFO has delegated to them. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans remains responsible to Parliament and to the people of Canada for the health of the wild fishery; his department cannot simply pass off its responsibilities to the province and blindly assume that those responsibilities are being met.

Follow-up question 6: please address the question as stated in the original petition: Why has DFO failed to establish a routine program to monitor disease outbreaks on fish farms? (a): If DFO has devolved this important responsibility to the provinces, why has it done so, and what steps (if any) is it taking to ensure that the provinces effectively fulfill this delegated responsibility?

Question 6 (original petition): The BC provincial government and aquaculture industry claim that information the industry collects about fish disease outbreaks at specific aquaculture sites is confidential and proprietary; they thus deny public access to that information. As the department responsible for the health of Canada's wild fishery, does DFO support the public's right to access this information?

In its response to this question, DFO does not appear to understand the conflict between its commitments to "transparency" and to "sharing information with stakeholders" and the reality of the situation in BC. The federal government chose to delegate to the provinces the federal constitutional and legislative responsibility to monitor fish disease at aquaculture sites. It cannot escape responsibility for the lack of transparency and information-sharing on this topic in BC by now claiming that it is "outside the purview of DFO's mandate".

Follow-up question 7: please address the question as stated in the original petition: The BC provincial government and aquaculture industry claim that information the industry collects about fish disease outbreaks at specific aquaculture sites is confidential and proprietary; they thus deny public access to that information. As the department responsible for the health of Canada's wild fishery, does DFO support the public's right to access this information?

Question 9 (original petition): Does DFO support a transition to closed containment aquaculture to prevent the spread of fish disease, to prevent escapes of farmed salmon, and to reduce waste deposited in the marine environment? If no, why not? If yes, is DFO willing to fund demonstration projects and to fund further research and development?"

DFO claims in its response that closed containment aquaculture is commercially untenable at present.

The Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform published a report in April 2005 entitled Closing in on Environmentally Sound Salmon Aquaculture: A Fresh Look at the Economics of Closed Tank Systems¹. This report notes that existing reviews and analyses are insufficient to determine the true financial and economic potential of closed tank technologies for salmon aquaculture in British Columbia. It also notes that shortcomings in existing reviews tend to systematically diminish the potential performance of closed containment systems.

Closed tank technology uses non-permeable barriers that can prevent the transmission of disease, parasites, waste and fish escapes from the tank to the coastal marine environment. There have been limited studies done on the commercial viability of closed tank aquaculture and these studies fall short in providing an accurate assessment of the potential long-term financial and economic benefits for these operations. The April 2005 report found four principle issues that limit the usefulness of previous analyses:

1. Economies of scale and efficiency improvements are not considered;
2. Time horizon analyses are not conducted;
3. Sensitivity analyses are lacking; and,
4. The economic value of environmental and social impacts are not identified or evaluated.

Until DFO quantifies the full economic impacts of open-net pen aquaculture on the environment and on coastal communities and First Nations, it would seem premature to declare that closed tank technology is economically or commercially untenable. In the petitioners view, open net pen technology is only considered economically and commercially viable because the government fails to consider the external costs that open pen technology imposes on other industries, on the environment and on common resources like the wild fishery.

Follow-up question 9: Has DFO ever attempted to quantify the external social and environmental costs imposed by open net pen aquaculture? (a): If yes, who undertook this analysis, and what conclusions did they come to?

Suggestions left unaddressed in original petition:

Follow-up question 10: please individually address all the suggestions listed at pages 8-10 of our original petition:

1. DFO should require mandatory disease reporting by aquaculture operators and should monitor aquaculture sites for disease outbreaks.
2. When a disease outbreak at an aquaculture facility has the potential to harm wild fish, DFO should require the removal of the infected farm fish from the marine environment.
3. DFO should monitor levels of disease in wild fish populations, especially in areas with high concentrations of fish farms. If the level of disease in wild fish exceeds the normal background levels of disease in pristine areas (i.e. in areas with no fish farms), all open net pen fish farms in the affected area should be fallowed or removed.
4. DFO should require the aquaculture industry to transition to closed containment technology. DFO should establish a timeline for the removal of all open net pen fish farms from Canada's oceans, especially from wild salmon migration routes and other sensitive areas.
5. DFO should establish a list of reportable fish diseases for Canada. A suggested list follows:

The following list of fin-fish diseases should be designated as reportable diseases both in BC and in Canada (note that we have not attempted to list reportable parasites of fish—only viruses and bacteria are covered). The list was compiled on the basis of similar diseases of note that are reportable internationally to the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), and are designated reportable in all European Union states and several states in the U.S. These are diseases that are either exotic to Canada and its coastal waters or that are common to those waters but still pose a threat to the health and perpetuation of wild or cultured fish stocks. In virtually all jurisdictions outside Canada, these particular reportable diseases must be treated by taking effective measures to eliminate the disease.

List 1

Any diseases that are exotic to Canadian waters, including:

- Infectious Salmon Anaemia (ISA)—exotic to the West Coast;
- European strain of Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS);
- Onchorhyncus masou virus (OMV).

List 2

Diseases that are present in certain parts of Canada but not in others and are capable of having a severe economic impact:

- North American strain of Viral Haemorrhagic Septicemia;
- Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis;
- Bacterial Kidney Disease (BKD).

List 3

Diseases that are endemic in Canada, but certain waters have farms or zones that are free of these diseases.

- Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis;
- Furunculosis;
- Enteric Redmouth Disease;
- Piscirickettsiosis;
- Vibrio anguillarum (vibriosis).

The disease in Lists 1, 2 and 3 should all be reportable and all attempts must be made to eradicate these diseases from any place in which they are found.

Conclusion

We respectfully ask you to forward this letter to the attention of Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, while urging the Minister and his department to provide substantive responses to the questions and suggestions set out in our original petition and in this follow-up petition. We would ask the Minister to address each follow-up question separately.

Finally, we respectfully request that you once again consider a full audit of DFO's role in regulating salmon aquaculture in Canada. In the petitioners' view, DFO has made little or no progress addressing issues identified in your previous environmental audits.

Yours truly,

[Original signed by Sean Nixon]

Sean Nixon
Barrister & Solicitor (on behalf of the petitioners)

¹ Available on-line at: http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/?action=d7_article_view_folder&Join_ID=82852

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Fisheries and Oceans Canada

August 4, 2006

Mr. Sean Nixon
Barrister & Solicitor
Sierra Legal Defence Fund
131 Water Street, Suite 214
Vancouver, British Columbia
V6B 4M3

Dear Mr. Nixon:

I am writing in response to the environmental petition submitted by your firm to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development on behalf of the David Suzuki Foundation, the Georgia Strait Alliance, and the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union (UFAWU-CAW).

Fisheries and Oceans received your petition on April 3, 2006. Our response (Annex A) has been prepared in question and answer format.

A copy of this response is being shared with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Environment Canada.

Yours truly,

[Originale signed by Loyola Hearn, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Loyola Hearn, P.C., M.P.

ANNEX A

Response to Environmental Petition No. 148
David Suzuki Foundation et. al (Sierra Legal Defence Fund)

PREAMBLE

As the federal government department charged with safeguarding the health of Canada's oceans and aquatic resources and assuring their sustainable development to the benefit of present and future generations, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) appreciates the passion, dedication and enthusiasm of the many environmental groups and private citizens who share their views and suggestions with the department and the Minister. The dialogue that takes place between government and citizens—whether as individuals or working in groups—is not only essential to public accountability and transparency; in the case of aquaculture, it has also helped Canada to shape one of the world's most stringent and robust regulatory frameworks for assuring that the industry develops sustainably. In fact, Canada was the featured country at AquaNor 2005, an international aquaculture event hosted in Trondheim Norway, and much of the focus was on Canada's world-leading environmental technologies, techniques, and expertise.

As the petitioners are aware, both from their own sources and from DFO's response to the original petition, aquaculture has been identified as one of the world's fastest-growing food production sectors. In this context, Canada's position and reputation for environmentally sustainable production is absolutely essential. Aquaculture is booming, growing rapidly around the world, and much of that growth is taking place in low-cost producing countries, many of which have minimal environmental regulation and oversight. By exporting its expertise and technologies and by continuing to participate in and advocate for further research, development, and commercialization in support of enhanced environmental performance, Canada can help to keep environmental considerations prominent on the global aquaculture agenda. DFO takes this role seriously, as Canada's oceans and aquatic resources are inextricably linked with and affected by actions in the rest of the world.

On the issue of aquatic animal health, which makes up much of the substance of this follow-up petition, a similar situation prevails. Canada is increasingly called upon to meet international standards for certification of animal health, and has recognized the need to strengthen its aquatic animal health framework. The new National Aquatic Animal Health Program (NAAHP), which received funding in the spring 2005 federal budget, is a prime example of that recognition. The NAAHP is being jointly administered by DFO and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), with CFIA leading on program administration. The NAAHP includes a proactive monitoring and surveillance program which will not only position Canada to meet international standards and help to secure seafood export markets, but also bring the inspection and certification regime for aquatic animals onto an equal footing with the regime for terrestrial animals. Clearly, the advocacy of concerned citizens was instrumental in building the political support that secured funding for the NAAHP, a program which, when implemented, will respond directly to many of the concerns raised in this petition.

For more information on the NAAHP, please visit: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/aqua/aquaproge.shtml

For details on DFO's role in sustainable aquaculture development, please see: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/Role/index_e.htm.

SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR DFO

Follow-up Question 1: "please address the following question stated in the original petition: Why has DFO failed to address gaps in its knowledge about the effects of salmon aquaculture on wild stocks, including the transmission of disease both from fish farms and from escaped Atlantic and Pacific salmon? Without addressing these gaps in knowledge, how can DFO claim to apply a precautionary approach or claim to encourage sustainable development of aquaculture?"

To suggest DFO has failed to address gaps in its knowledge about the effects of salmon aquaculture on wild stocks is inaccurate. The Department is committed to sustainable development founded on a science-based approach to managing environmental risks. Departmental scientists provide science advice for directing research and applying its findings through a number of processes among which are the development of State of Knowledge summaries and our National Advice Process. DFO is also participating in the risk analysis of aquaculture-wild fish interactions presently underway in the international science advisory processes of the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas' and the United Nations' Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Protection. Beyond that, DFO scientists partner with environmental groups, industry, academia and internationally renowned scientists in other countries to execute research projects on high-priority topics. Those scientists produce technical reports and publish in peer reviewed international journals. All of this knowledge contributes to defining our research priorities and our risk-based approach to managing the potential environmental effects.

The specific issue of disease transmission provides a good example of this precautionary approach in practice. In light of incomplete information on wild-farmed interactions with respect to disease transmission, DFO applies the precautionary approach to minimize the transmission of disease from fish farms by requiring an Introduction and Transfer permit to stock Atlantic salmon and Pacific salmon in net pens. Only fish free of the diseases VHS, IHN, IPN, ISA, whirling disease, Ceratomyxosis, Furunculosis, and Enteric Redmouth Disease may be stocked. At no time are fish showing clinical signs of any disease permitted to be stocked in net pens. Similarly, fish in net pens are monitored on an ongoing basis for the presence of any diseases transmitted to them by wild stocks to enable timely response.

Follow-up question 2: "What `sufficient science' is DFO referring to? (a) In particular, what `sufficient science' shows that the effects of disease and parasite transmission from fanned (sic) fish to wild stocks are `not permanent' or are `reversible'? (b) Is any of this science peer-reviewed and/or published in reputable scientific journals? (c) Is DFO's decision about `sufficiency' driven by science or politics?"

DFO engages in a wide range of scientific research, review and advisory activities as described in the answer to follow-up question 1, above, and in the response to the original petition. These scientific activities include peer-reviewed research, as well as close engagement with the international scientific community on a variety of priority issues.

With respect to element (a) of follow-up question 2, the response to the original petition appears to have been misread. DFO's observation that the impacts of aquaculture are temporary and reversible referred very specifically to benthic and water quality impacts on net pen sites, and was not intended to include disease or parasite transmission. It is precisely because of the potential for serious and/or irreversible harm from disease and parasites that DFO requires aquatic animal health certification as one of the preconditions for issuance of an Introduction and Transfer permit as outlined in the response to follow-up question 1.

DFO scientists provide impartial advice and recommendations based on their scientific findings. In final decision-making, however, science advice is one of a matrix of policy and technical considerations that shape the ultimate outcome. Government policy objectives such as social and economic development and innovation are also weighed, and risks assessed, prior to a decision being made. When considering the issue of sufficiency of science information, DFO is guided by A Framework for the Application of Precaution in Science-based Decision Making about Risk, a Government of Canada publication that is available at: http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/default.asp?Language=E&Page=publications&Sub=precaution&Doc=precaution_e.htm#1.0. The Framework notes that "Governments can rarely act on the basis of full scientific certainty, and cannot guarantee zero risk… even though scientific information may be inconclusive, decisions will still have to be made as society expects risks to be addressed and managed and living standards enhanced." Consistent with that imperative, DFO's decision making with respect to aquaculture regulation, management, and sustainable development is risk-based, and is premised on the best available scientific information, combined with careful assessment of additional policy objectives and considerations.

Follow-up question 3: "If that is so, what surveillance is DFO currently undertaking on diseases/pathogens in wild fish and on background levels of disease in the wild fishery in the Pacific region, and what conclusions has DFO drawn from that surveillance? The petitioners know of no program that has enough funding or adequate sampling to draw any conclusions about these important issues."

As noted in the response to the original petition, DFO monitors wild Pacific salmon stocks for the presence of IHN, and wild fish in the Bay of Fundy for ISA. It should also be noted that it is rare to detect disease in samples of wild fish, because sick fish quickly disappear from the wild population due to predation, etc. For this reason, wild fish mortalities are also investigated by DFO to identify, where possible, the cause of death.

However, the federal government continues to improve on its programs and its knowledge base, including fish health, and allocated new resources in its spring 2005 budget for development of a permanent National Aquatic Animal Health Program (NAAHP). The NAAHP is to be delivered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) as the program lead, with support from DFO. This investment in the NAAHP by the Government of Canada will ensure that Canada's aquatic animal health regime meets the international standards set by the World Organization of Animal Health (OIE). The targeted surveillance of wild fish and other aquatic species, along the lines of what is suggested in follow-up question 3, is an important component of the NAAHP, and is required to meet OIE standards.

Follow-up question 4: "Why does DFO allow fish farms to keep infected and dying fish in open net pens?"

As noted in DFO's response to the original petition, the department works with the provinces to meet our respective mandates with respect to fish health. Day-to-day management of operations, including management of endemic and production fish diseases at aquaculture sites is largely within provincial, rather than federal, jurisdiction. The provinces of British Columbia (BC) and New Brunswick (NB), where the bulk of Canada's open net pen production take place, each have specific protocols and requirements for fish health management including appropriate handling of diseased fish. NB's requirements are articulated in Section 19 of the province's Aquaculture Act, which can be accessed at the following URL: http://www.gnb.ca/0062/PDF-acts/a-09-2.pdf.

BC's requirements are set out in the BC Manual of Required Elements of a Fish Health Management Plan for Public and Commercial Fish Culture Facilities in British Columbia, June 2003, which can be accessed at: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/ahc/fish_health_fhmp_Required_Elements_June-03.pdf.

DFO works closely with the provinces on all aspects of aquaculture management and regulation and, with respect to this specific issue, provides assistance where necessary with mortality investigations and the biosecure removal and disposal of fish infected with contagious disease. It should also be noted that fish farm operators have a strong economic incentive, quite apart from regulatory imperatives at the federal or provincial level, to remove infected and/or dying fish from their net pens promptly, in order to inhibit the spread of disease to the remainder of their stock and the possible financial consequences to their operations of such a spread.

Follow-up question 5: "Would DFO consider exotic fish pathogens originating at fish aquaculture sites to be deleterious substances? (a) If fish farms magnify endemic fish diseases/pathogens to levels well above natural background levels, would DFO consider that the farms are deposition deleterious substances into the ocean or otherwise creating a "harmful alteration, disruption or destruction" of fish habitat? If not, why not?"

Section 36 of the Fisheries Act prohibits the deposit of deleterious substances into waters frequented by fish. The pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act contained in section 36 are administered by Environment Canada as the federal department with expertise in matters related to pollution. The determination of whether specific fish pathogens would be considered a deleterious substance would therefore be best addressed to Environment Canada.

With respect to whether the introduction of fish pathogens would cause a harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, the introduction of an organism that may potentially affect the health of certain fish does not necessarily affect the capacity of the surrounding fish habitat to support fish production and therefore, in aquaculture-related cases to date, has not been considered to constitute the harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat.

DFO uses section 56 of the Fisheries (General) Regulations (FGRs) to proactively manage the release into wild fish habitat of any fish that could potentially carry a disease agent. One of the conditions of introduction permits may be a quarantine period¹, and release of quarantined fish into wild fish habitat is conditional on diagnostic results indicating freedom from disease(s) of concern. This is a more targeted control than attempting to use the pollution prevention provisions contained in section 36 of the Fisheries Act for fish health management purposes. Additionally, this strategy is proactive, allowing control to be imposed to prevent harm, whereas the deleterious substances regulations require that harm be demonstrated (ie: already having happened) for action to be taken.

Follow-up question 6: "Why has DFO failed to establish a routine program to monitor disease outbreaks on fish farms? If DFO has devolved this important responsibility to the provinces, why has it done so and what steps (if any) is it taking to ensure that the provinces effectively fulfill this delegated responsibility?"

As noted in the response to the original petition, DFO's current monitoring program falls under the Fish Health Protection Regulations (FHPR). These regulations give DFO the authority to certify facilities wishing to trade fish or eggs between provinces and internationally, but do not permit DFO to establish a routine program to monitor disease outbreaks on all fish farms.

However, with the implementation of the new, National Aquatic Animal Health Program (NAAHP) under the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA's) Health of Animals Act, the FHPR will be repealed to make way for a modernized and more robust aquatic animal health framework. The NAAHP will ensure coordination and continuity of effort in monitoring for exotic pathogens of concern (a federal lead), endemic infectious agents (a provincial lead), and production / opportunistic infections (industry lead). For more detailed information, please visit the CFIA's NAAHP website at http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/aqua/aquaproge.shtml.

The province of BC also has a Fish Health Auditing and Surveillance Program (FHASP) that requires staff to inspect farm sites and collect specimens for health evaluation. Details on the province's active surveillance program are available online at: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/ahc/fish_health/fhasp.htm.

Follow-up question 7: "The BC provincial government and aquaculture industry claim that information the industry collects about fish disease outbreaks at specific aquaculture sites is confidential and proprietary; they thus deny public access to that information. As the department responsible for the health of Canada's wild fishery, does DFO support the public's right to access this information?"

The health information data collected during veterinary inspections at aquaculture sites is reported to the BC provincial government, and is outside DFO's mandate. It is not DFO's practice to critique or comment on matters of provincial policy and/or jurisdiction. The province of BC does post quarterly fish health reports on the Internet at: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/ahc/fish_health/bcsfa_database.htm.

Note: Petition 148B did not include a follow-up question 8. Numbering from the incoming follow-up petition has been retained for clarity.

Follow-up question 9: "Has DFO ever attempted to quantify social and environmental costs imposed by open net pen aquaculture? If yes, who undertook this analysis and what conclusions did they come to?"

DFO conducts research on finfish and shellfish aquaculture-environment interactions, and DFO-Science has provided advice on environmental effects and their mitigation. Advice provided has been peer-reviewed by an expert panel including academic and international scientists. Advisory processes are carried-out within the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS), and related documents can be found on the CSAS website (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/); scientific advisory report #2005/034 pertains to marine finfish cage aquaculture.

It must also be recognized that biophysical conditions—and therefore the potential environmental impacts of net pen aquaculture—vary widely across the country, and even within a given region. It would therefore be difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the environmental impacts of net pen aquaculture in a comprehensive and conclusive way. Instead, DFO and its provincial partners consider potential environmental effects on a case-by-case basis when reviewing applications to establish or relocate sites. Where negative impacts are anticipated, proponents are required to amend their proposals to mitigate those impacts to governments' satisfaction before an approval is granted. The potential impact on aquatic ecosystems and on fish habitat of any aquaculture operation is duly weighed before operation begins.

The question of social implications from aquaculture is a policy issue, and involves consideration of qualitative indicators as well as quantitative analysis. Generally speaking, the Government of Canada has identified potential for significant social and economic benefit to rural, coastal, and Aboriginal communities from aquaculture, and has seen that potential realized in many communities. In Charlotte County New Brunswick, for example, one of every four residents is employed in the aquaculture industry or in related support and service industries (eg: cage manufacturing, feed manufacturing, processing, transportation, etc.) The implications of that reality go far beyond simple economics or employment numbers. Aquaculture as practiced in Charlotte County is providing a critical mass that enables the development of infrastructure (eg: schools, clinics, roads) and tertiary industries. More importantly, it is creating a sense of vibrancy, energy, and innovation in one of dozens of coastal communities that have been hard-hit by recent downturns in the resource-extraction industries (eg: fishing, forestry, etc.) that have traditionally been their economic mainstay.

A similar situation prevails in the BC Aboriginal community of Klemtu, which has embarked on an innovative partnership with an aquaculture company. The economic impact of aquaculture in that community is not difficult to identify, as unemployment has plummeted and a new prosperity is shaping the community. But the social impacts are no less significant, with Klemtu members bringing their community's traditional ecological knowledge to bear in the future-oriented management of the aquatic resources in their traditional territories.

Concerns about the social impacts of aquaculture have traditionally focused on fears that an increase in supply of fish and seafood products would translate into a reduction in the prices those commodities could command, thus having a negative impact on fishing communities and individual commercial fishers. The Government of Canada has considered that issue carefully, and continues to monitor developments. Several realities must be recognized, however, and shape the government's policy approach to aquaculture. First, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations forecasts that global demand for fish and seafood protein will continue to grow over the coming decades, far outstripping the sustainable production capacity of wild fisheries. That increasing demand may help to offset some of the price impact of an increased supply. Second, whether or not Canada chooses to participate in the global aquaculture "boom," aquaculture remains the world's fastest-growing food production sector, and supply will continue to increase through that trend. A choice by Canada not to pursue the aquaculture opportunity will not protect commercial fisheries from the potential price impacts of farmed production. Finally, many of the countries that are aggressively pursuing the aquaculture opportunity are doing so with little regard for environmental sustainability or long-term environmental consequences. By continuing to engage in aquaculture, while meeting some of the world's highest environmental standards and regulations, Canada is developing innovative new techniques and technologies to make the industry more sustainable. Exporting that knowledge and expertise—and that concern for environmental sustainability in practices—is becoming an aquaculture spin-off industry in its own right, and provides Canada an opportunity to help shape better environmental practices for the industry around the world.

Follow-up question 10: "please individually address all the suggestions listed at pages 8-10 of our original petition."

A. DFO should require mandatory disease reporting by aquaculture operators and should monitor aquaculture sites for disease outbreaks.

DFO does not have regulatory authority to require mandatory reporting for fish diseases at aquaculture sites, but recognizes that mandatory reporting is necessary to effectively control diseases of concern in Canada. The 2005 spring budget allocated new resources for the development of the NAAHP, which will be administered and led by CFIA. Under CFIA's Health of Animals Act, mandatory reporting will be required for reportable aquatic animal diseases, as is required for reportable terrestrial animal diseases.

B. When a disease outbreak at an aquaculture facility has the potential to harm wild fish, DFO should require the removal of the infected farm fish from the marine environment.

The Fisheries Act and the Fish Health Protection Regulations do not give DFO the authority to order the removal or destruction of infected farm fish. With the implementation of NAAHP under the Health of Animals Act and the Health of Animals Regulations, CFIA will have the authority to order removal and destruction of farmed fish infected with a reportable, notifiable, or emerging disease. The provinces also have their own requirements for addressing and controlling disease outbreaks, some of which include powers to order removal and/or eradication of infected fish. The province of New Brunswick, for example, has used ordered eradications to help control the spread of ISA.

C. DFO should monitor levels of disease in wild fish populations, especially in areas with high concentrations of fish farms. If the level of disease in wild fish exceeds the normal background levels of disease in pristine areas (i.e. in areas with no fish farms), all open net pen fish farms should be fallowed or removed.

As noted in the response to follow-up question 3, DFO does monitor for IHN in wild Pacific salmon stocks, and for ISA in wild fish in the Bay of Fundy where a high concentration of fish farms exists. Sick fish quickly disappear from the wild population due to predation, etc., however, so detection of disease in wild fish is relatively rare, which is why DFO investigates wild fish mortalities and attempts to determine the cause of death. In addition, under the new NAAHP, the surveillance of wild fish for aquatic pathogens is required for international recognition of the program.

D. DFO should require the aquaculture industry to transition to closed containment technology. DFO should establish a timeline for the removal of all open net pen fish farms from Canada's oceans, especially from wild salmon migration routes and other sensitive areas.

DFO understands the interest of the petitioners—and of numerous other individuals and groups with a strong concern for the environment—in the potential of closed containment systems for aquaculture, and has supported research on such systems in the context of its ongoing support for research into new techniques and technologies that support aquaculture's sustainability. That being said, the assumption that closed containment systems are inherently more sustainable than net pens, or that they are impact-neutral in environmental terms is flawed. Closed containment systems for aquaculture are extremely energy-intensive, consuming large quantities of power to sustain them. Additionally, the large tanks involved have the potential to create concerns by shading sensitive habitat. While it is clear that the environmental impacts of closed containment systems would be different from the impacts of net pen aquaculture, significantly more study and information would be required before conclusions could realistically be drawn that one method is superior to the other in ecological terms. DFO continues to pursue research on this and other technologies, and to work with its provincial partners and industry stakeholders to develop a regime that fosters innovation in support of enhanced environmental performance.

It should also be noted, from a regulatory authority perspective, that DFO's responsibilities pursuant to the habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Species at Risk Act are carried out through the review of development proposals submitted by proponents. It is therefore up to individual proponents to develop the proposal and select the technology and methods that will be used to carry out the development. DFO's review is intended to evaluate the potential effects of the development proposal on fish habitat, valued ecosystem components and species at risk. The fish habitat review process does take into consideration the sensitivity of fish and fish habitat. If there are residual effects that are considered unacceptable, then DFO may request relocation or redesign of the proposed development.

E. DFO should establish a list of reportable fish diseases for Canada. (In the petition, a suggested list of reportable diseases, based on diseases that are reportable internationally to the OIE, as well as being reportable in the European Union and in some U.S. states. For brevity, that list has not been duplicated here.)

DFO recognizes that a list of reportable fish diseases is necessary to prevent the spread or introduction of diseases of concern to Canada. NAAHP will have a list of mandatory, reportable diseases based on the World Organization of Animal Health (OIE) and exotic diseases of concern to Canada, which will be appended to CFIA's Health of Animals Regulations. DFO's Fish Health Protection Regulations will be repealed when the Health of Animals Regulations are revised. CFIA will be the lead agency for aquatic animal health in Canada.

¹ Salmonid species that originate from facilities certified under the FHPR do not require quarantine. However, salmonids which are not from FHPR certified facilities may require quarantine and testing, except in B.C. In B.C., quarantine is required for importations of stock from outside the province, based on its stringent, eggs-only importation policy. For movements within the province, quarantine is not required, but other mitigative measures, such as health testing, may be imposed as a condition of licence.