In response to the MNRFs…

In response to the MNRFs proposal to make changes to modernize Ontario’s approach to licensing aquaculture I have one overarching concern and three proposal specific comments.
My general concern is with MNRFs inability to properly monitor the activities of the aquaculture sector. As currently structured MNRF does not have a dedicated inspection program to ensure compliance with most of its wide range of regulatory rules, the aquaculture sector is only one small example. Currently there is little, if any, MNRF oversight between the established regulations (which includes licensing) and enforcement action. To properly support any regulatory regime the MNRF must appoint, properly train, and strategically deploy competent inspectors.
1. PROPOSAL: Making it easier and more cost effective for educational institutions and facilities to undertake aquaculture research by exempting certain low-risk research facilities culturing fish from requiring an aquaculture licence. The facilities would be required to meet criteria intended to maintain environmental protections and protect native fish populations
COMMENT: Allowing educational facilities to operate aquaculture activities without the authority of a licence has risks not identified in the registry posting. MNRF will lack the ability to know, with any level of certainty, which educational institutions are engaged in this category of aquaculture. It follows that there will be an inability on the part of the MNRF to conduct inspections to determine compliance to the established rules in regulation and to promote compliance or conduct investigations. This lack of knowledge, combined with MNRFs lack of an effective inspection program, will result in unregulated and potentially high-risk activity occurring.
2. PROPOSAL: Establishing the ability to change FWCA licences and authorizations, including their conditions. This proposed change would enable greater flexibility to respond to the evolving needs of aquaculture operators, while ensuring that facilities are developed and conducted in an environmentally sustainable manner.
COMMENT: Support in concept. The process for considering proponent driven requests for licence condition amendments must include a risk assessment which factors in the proponents compliance history. In order for a proper consideration of compliance history to be completed MNRF must establish an effective inspection program, which is currently lacking.
3. PROPOSAL: Changing decision-making power from Lieutenant Governor in Council to Minister on prescribing species of fish that may be cultured in Ontario. This proposed change would reduce approval timelines for industry and support facilities wishing to diversify and grow their operations more quickly.
COMMENT: I believe this change would introduce additional risk. Because adding new species of fish (to the list of fish which may be legally cultured) has other potential environmental, economic and social implications (i.e., fish pathogen introduction, water taking and effluent discharge, use of antibiotics and other animal husbandry supplements, invasive species introduction, business and market certainty, etc.) other provincial Ministries ought to continue to be formally involved in the decision making process and remain accountable for their involvement in decision making.