Office of the Auditor General of Canada



Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Attention: Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development

Petitions

240 Sparks Street

Ottawa, Ontario

K1A 0G6

Dear Ms. Gélinas:

Petition to the Auditor General of Canada

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development

Please accept this document as a petition to the Auditor General of Canada and the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. This petition fulfills the requirements of the petition process in that it concerns the accountability of the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and the compliance of that department with the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and its mandate to sustain healthy and productive aquatic ecosystems and promote healthy fisheries, while at the same time enabling the growth and development of the aquaculture industry within public waters.

This petition outlines the Georgian Bay Association’s concerns about the potential adverse impacts of the proposed growth of the aquaculture industry according to DFO’s Federal Aquaculture Development Strategy (1995), DFO’s Aquaculture Policy Framework (2002), and DFO’s Strategic Plan 2005-2010: Our Waters, Our Future (2005), none of which make any distinctions in managing the growth of the industry in freshwater ecosystems that are in many facets more vulnerable to its adverse effects than are marine environments. We herein pose many questions to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that focus specifically upon the matter of our concern, that of the monitoring and regulating of the open netcage aquaculture industry of Georgian Bay and its North Channel, but for the sake of basin wide analysis, will also refer to it as the Great Lakes industry. To our knowledge, the Georgian Bay/North Channel is the only part of the whole Great Lakes Basin where fish farming is conducted. . We realize that many of our questions may also apply to other freshwater basins that support aquaculture operations.

The Georgian Bay Association is an Environmental Non Governmental organization. It was established in 1920 and now consists of 23 associations amounting to roughly 4200 families along the eastern and northern islands ands coastline of Georgian Bay. It has a continuing and committed interest in the protection and enhancement of these waters – which represent our transportation route, our drinking water source, our recreational resource and our natural environment. GBA has invested resources and thousands of volunteer hours to research and understand all the issues that impact water quality, water quantity, and natural ecosystems such as the wild recreational fishery and wetlands that sustain it. Open net cage aquaculture, currently practiced in no other part of the Great Lakes except Georgian Bay, has been the focus of eight years of review by our GBA Aquaculture Committee and its scientific resource experts. Through its combined effort, GBA has developed its Position on Freshwater Aquaculture Using Open Net Pens in the Georgian Bay Watershed (see Appendix I) and have produced information articles in many of its GBA UPDATE Newsletters as posted to its website (see georgianbay.ca – Environment – Aquaculture tabs.)

Fresh water ecosystems are different than marine ecosystems and are more vulnerable to the risks of open cage aquaculture. The Great Lakes are fresh water deposits left behind by receding glaciers and we must be committed to protecting this irreplaceable asset and preserving its cleanliness and component ecosystems for generations to come. Three distinguishing facts justify the need for a separate fresh-water aquaculture policy.

• Firstly, freshwater lakes do not possess the same flushing capability as marine bodies have provided by tide flows and forceful currents. Estimates show that less than 1% of the Georgian Bay water volume flows through the lake each year resulting in a fluid exchange (flushing) rate of over 22 years, whereas most marine coastal areas will experience 100% fluid exchange every few days.

• Secondly, marine ecosystems contain abundant quantities of growth- promoting elements, and consequently support a much higher population of active biomass (i.e. algae and other organisms), in comparison to Georgian Bay’s freshwater systems that are naturally low in nutrients (termed oligotrophic).

• Thirdly, freshwater deposits do not possess the same assimilation capacities as marine bodies. The Great Lakes are small puddles in comparison to the oceans.

A good example of the sensitivity of fresh water cage aquaculture is the local La Cloche channel site, which after laying ‘fallow’ for 9 years, following the closure of a rainbow trout fish farm, has yet to return to its natural state.

The Great Lakes Basin is already under threat of severe degradation of water quality and loss of biodiversity by a multitude of factors including exotic invasive species that enter the system through ballast waters of ocean-going cargo-ships through the St. Lawrence Seaway, climate change, acid rain, and nutrient loadings from poorly designed municipal sewage treatment stations. There are currently 10 fish farms operating in the Georgian Bay watershed of the Great Lakes Basin. All are privately owned and operated grow-out businesses for the culture of rainbow trout (Salmonid species) for commercial sale as food for consumers. It is noted that the rainbow trout produced in open net pens in this area accounts for more than 80% of total production in Ontario. Large –scale escapes occur on a regular basis that impact on the wild fishery.

The health of the Great-Lakes water quality and wild fishery are overseen by binational organizations with the mandate of directing management of this precious and finite water resource. Such organizations include the International Joint Commission’s (IJC’s) Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (now under review, and taken up by the Canada Ontario Agreement – also currently under review), and the binational Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s Joint Strategic Plan for Management of the Great Lakes Fisheries. We refer you to the IJC’s 13th Biennial Report on the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, just released February 8th, 2007 (Appendix II in this petition). The concerns expressed within these reports ought to be addressed before implementing plans for expanding open netcage aquaculture in the Great Lakes Basin. Yet there is not even a freshwater Policy made available by DFO in its Federal Aquaculture Development Plan, Policy, and Strategies.

Accordingly, GBA requests Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) to address the following:

1. The precautionary approach is a concept endorsed by the federal government in both the Oceans Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. How is the precautionary approach being applied to the freshwater aquaculture sector?

2. “In accordance with its mandate, DFO’s primary obligations are to manage and protect the fisheries resource, manage and protect the …freshwater environment…” [1] As the lead federal agent in aquaculture development, does the DFO intend to integrate growth of the freshwater aquaculture industry within the framework and guidelines of existing binational Great Lakes Management Agreements such as the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the Joint Strategic Plan for Management of the Great Lakes Fisheries?

3. Under the Fisheries Act, subsection 35(1) provides that no person shall carry on any work or undertaking that results in the “harmful alteration, disruption or destruction” (HADD) of fish habitat. Subsection 36(3) prohibits, among other things, the deposit of deleterious substances in water frequented by fish. Contravening either of these provisions of the Fisheries Act is punishable by fine or other sanctions. The Fisheries Act also provides for sentencing that directs the offender to take measures to avoid further impacts or remediate damage already done to fish or fish habitat. In the LaCloche Channel case. The operator was ordered to shut down its operations because the water quality had so degraded and eutrophication had occurred to such an extent that Dissolved Oxygen was so low, the wild fish were no longer entering into the basin. (See study, Appendix III) Why were there no sanctions imposed on the aquaculture operator who was clearly not in compliance with federal regulations of the above stated sections of the Fisheries Act?

4. Open netcage aquaculture in Georgian Bay began in the early 1980’s. None of the existing cage farm sites in Georgian Bay/North Channel have been reviewed under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act nor have any been reviewed against the requirements of the Fisheries Act. Furthermore, many of these sites have expanded operations as shown by their 5-year application for new Aquaculture Licence and Land Use Permits. We note that, “… in 2001, 426 sites in Prince Edward Island were reviewed and brought into compliance with federal legislation.” [2] Why are the aquaculture industries within Georgian Bay allowed to expand without federal review?

5. “DFO, under the auspices of the existing federal/territorial/provincial Agreement on Interjurisdictional Cooperation with Respect to Fisheries and Aquaculture, has entered into a number of bilateral Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs)… Consistent with DFO’s mandate as lead federal agency for aquaculture in Canada, scientific research, fish health and inspection, and the protection of fish and fish habitat are enunciated in existing MOUs as the federal government’s aquaculture responsibilities. The territories/provinces’ responsibilities include promotion, development and regulation.” [3] What if any MOUs exist between DFO and Ontario Regulators in regards to the freshwater open netcage aquaculture operations? And if they exist, how often does either government require a review?

6. “The Agreement on Interjurisdictional Cooperation with Respect to Fisheries and Aquaculture, signed in 1999 by all provincial and territorial jurisdictions and the federal government, contains a requirement to evaluate its effectiveness after 3 years and to make appropriate adjustments as requires.” [4] How many reviews have been undertaken of this agreement, and what was the outcome, or conclusions in regards to Ontario and /or freshwater aquaculture?

7. DFO is responsible for conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat, navigational safely, and aquatic animal health. DFO is also responsible for developing aquaculture, “in an effort to continually improve the social and economic opportunities that aquaculture brings, while safeguarding our environment.” [5] Are these two roles of DFO conducted with full scope and knowledge of the necessary and particular precautions that need to be considered when aiming to develop the freshwater aquaculture sector that must be taken, over and above those considered for growth of the industry in the marine environments?

8. What measures are being taken by DFO to ensure an integrated management approach so that aquaculture develops on an even footing with other legitimate users of Canada’s Great Lakes aquatic resources, that take into account the health and viability of the Great Lakes ecosystems, thus contributing to the long-term sustainability of this finite, mainly non-renewable water basin?

9. What measures has DFO employed, perhaps in consultation with Ontario regulators of cage aquaculture, to minimize escapes?

10. Numerous large-scale “spills” – escapes - have occurred in Georgian Bay and its North Channel (see Appendix IV). Hundreds of thousands of selectively bred, domesticated rainbow trout enter the ecosystem in direct competition for food and habitat. Some have been seen with spawning colours. A sport angler reeled one such escapee in and it had grown to 40 lbs – way larger than the naturalized species is expected to grow (about half that size). Some spills have been noted by First Nation Communities to cause total disruption of traditional angling practices as in ice fishing frenzies causing havoc in Bays where the escapes gather and winter. (See Appendix V). What watch programs, if any, are in place to monitor the effects of interactions of escapes with the wild?

11. What programs are in place to monitor the effects of large-scale escapes on competition for food and habitat with the wild fish?

12. What methods has DFO taken, in partnership with Ontario regulators such as Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, to minimize escapes?

13. When numerous large-scale escapes keep recurring (see Appendix IV), what fines or sanctions are imposed to ensure private operators are held accountable for the threats the large numbers escapes are posing to wild species within the public waters in which they operator their businesses?

14. DFO is the regulatory authority for fish health in Canada. Currently, Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS) is spreading through the Great Lakes, and recently confirmed to be in Lake Huron, where fish farms are in operation (see Appendix VI). What is the role of the Federal government should outbreaks of VHS or other rampant diseases occur. What precautions are required of the operators to prevent the spread of disease to the wild should an outbreak occur?

15. What controls has DFO stipulated to promote lower stocking densities and other preventative fish health practices to reduce the use of therapeutants and chemicals in feed?

16. What environmental performance measures specific to the practice of freshwater open netcage aquaculture does DFO render to ensure no far-field or bay-wide effects of phosphorous, ammonia and nitrate?

17. What measures are taken to quantify impacts from freshwater open netcage aquaculture in regards to nutrient loading from farm effluent and feed waste?

18. What measures are being taken to determine the environmental, and indirect human health impacts (i.e. in potable drinking water) of the use of veterinary drugs in aquaculture feeds?

19. National standards, especially those used to measure impacts from marine aquaculture cannot be deemed suitable for freshwater basins. Has DFO determined the point to which the concentration or quantity within the deposition of waste (build-up and dispersion of sludge beneath cages) from open-netcage freshwater farms results in a HADD (“harmful alteration disruption or destruction”) of fish habitat as referred to in Section 35 (1) of the Fisheries Act?

20. Can DFO site an example of the application of the precautionary approach being followed within the practice of open netcage aquaculture in Ontario?

21. DFO has conducted some research on closed containment technology. The 3rd Report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans on the Federal Role in Aquaculture in Canada has recommended these new systems should be “phased in on a trial basis”. The response to such recommendations often-times argues that, “They (closed containment technologies) have not proven economically viable unless subsidized.”[6] Yet if government were to weigh in the “true” costs (including environmental) to an economic comparison of open versus closed containment methods, such a study would show that the open netcage industry is, in fact richly subsidized by its free use of water for rearing of cultured fish and for free disposal of the farm sewage and feed waste. Will the government agree to conduct a full-cost environmental/economic study to accurately measure the costs of open vis-à-vis closed systems?

22. We suspect that the amount of incremental government funding for environmental and ecological research for freshwater aquaculture, is far less than adequate when compared to the amount of incremental funding for applied research and development aimed at promoting the aquaculture industries’ efficiency and competitiveness. Is this a correct postulation?

23. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, as lead federal agency for aquaculture continues to co-ordinate and conduct aquaculture research in partnership with industry, academia and provincial/territorial governments. What research programs are earmarked for improving understanding of the impact of netcage fish farming in freshwater basins of the Great Lakes to determine:

• The effects of the netcage farming industry on wild fish stocks;

• The potential environmental and ecological effects of an expanded fish farming industry

• Policy and governance issues related specifically to freshwater open netcage aquaculture?

GBA gives full consent to the Auditor General and the Commissioner for Environment and Sustainable to publish this report in its petitions catalogue or annual report to Parliament. We look forward to the forthcoming response.

Sincerely,

List of Appendices

Appendix I GBA Position revised final19Jun’06.doc

Microsoft Word Document

Appendix II IJC’s 13th Biennial Report on GLWQA,Feb’07.pdf

Adobe Acrobat 7.0 Document

Appendix III LaClocheStudy2004 (1).pdf

Adobe Acrobat 7.0 Document

Appendix IV MNR summary Cage Escapes.Apr,2006doc.doc

Microsoft Word Document

Appendix V WRFN Concerns to GBA- Trout Escapees 04-06.doc

Microsoft Word Document

Appendix VI Michigan DNR Confirms Spread of VHS in Great Lakes.txt

Text Document

-----------------------

[1] Government Response to the 3rd Report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans on the Federal Role in Aquaculture, in Government Response to recommendation 7

[2] Ibid. in Government Response to Recommendation 6

[3] Ibid. in Government Response to Recommendation 7

[4] Ibid. in Government Response to Recommendation 8

[5] Ibid. in Government Response to Recommendation 9

[6] Ibid. in Government Response to Recommendation 20

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download