Yesterday the issue of aquaculture came up in the House.
Seizing the opportunity Michael posed some pertinent questions to the Minister of Agriculture and Lands, the Honourable Steve Thomson.
Below is the draft transcript of the exchange and the official Hansard will be posted as soon as it is available.
Enjoy!
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(HANSARD)
________________________________________
COMMITTEE A BLUES
MONDAY, APRIL 12, 2010
Afternoon Sitting
________________________________________
CSA – 20100412 PM 005/PLP/1435
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE AND LANDS
(continued)
M. Sather: I’d like to ask the minister some questions about aquaculture, specifically about sea lice. The minister will know that it’s a considerable concern both within the industry and outside the industry about what effect sea lice are having on not only our farmed fish but also our wild salmon.
A concern that has come up was with regard to resistance that sea lice are gaining to the drugs that are used to control them, specifically one called SLICE, and that this resistance is already occurring in eastern Canada and in Norway. The industry is concerned about it.
Alexandra Morton has obtained information on sea lice around the northern Vancouver Island area where she does her work. Information that Marine Harvest has provided shows a clear pattern between application of SLICE in April 2007 and a subsequent drop in sea lice for six months, followed by an increase in sea lice numbers. This is the typical pattern that one would expect with the application of the drug. It knocks the sea lice back for a period of time, and then they recover.
However, the information that’s been provided by Grieg Seafood shows a different pattern. Their Esperanza fish farm, for example, shows that although sea lice numbers dropped from 40 sea lice per fish in October 2009 to about eight sea lice per fish after treatment with SLICE that month, that level, at eight, is still almost three times the provincially allowable level for sea lice.
Ms. Morton says, and I think she makes a good point, that this high survival rate of sea lice shows that the sea lice are developing resistance to the drug. She goes on to say that the surviving lice began reproducing right away — that is, right away after the application of the drug — and the numbers had already increased to 13 sea lice per fish by January, again indicating drug resistance.
Dr. Mark Sheppard, who is the veterinarian, aquatic animal health, for the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, said that there is no indication of resistance to SLICE in these data. Can the minister explain how it is that his staff feel that this data does not indicate a resistance to SLICE?
Hon. S. Thomson: As you know, there’s a lot of work being done through our fish health monitoring program and through scientific research into this. There are a number of factors that impact numbers of sea lice, including salinity and a whole other number of factors in terms of the management.
Thank you for referencing the good work of Dr. Mark Sheppard on this. Both provincial scientists through our health program and federal scientists that are undertaking research in this area do not find direct evidence of resistance to SLICE. The situation continues to be monitored.
There’s research continuing on it through the fish health programs, but the information that you’ve put forward around direct resistance is purely speculative at this point. There are a whole number of factors. Resistance may be a part of it, but that work continues to be done by those leading scientists and is part of the fish health monitoring program.
H. Bains: Dr. Sheppard also said that there was a very large and very late run of chum salmon bearing sea lice and that these fish reinfected after the SLICE had worn off. They had reinfected from this run. But according to the manufacturer, SLICE provides “ten weeks’ prolonged efficacy against all species and stages of lice.”
The sea lice treated in October should have continued to decline to at least the middle of December, but the data show that the numbers of sea lice went up right after the drop in November post-treatment. So the sea lice numbers started going up sharply before the apparent run of chum salmon. That would have been in December.
Can the minister comment on that? What evidence can he provide that there was a very large and very late run of chum salmon? Where and when did that happen?
Hon. S. Thomson: This is a very technical argument in terms of how SLICE works. The reinfestation is not an indication of resistance. As I stated earlier, there’s no evidence, in all the scientific data and research by the scientists, of resistance. There are many questions around how the whole SLICE works.
I think what would be best, and I’d be quite prepared to have our scientists sit down directly with the member opposite and go through all the science that’s available with the current information around this…. The comments that resistance is developing are purely speculative, and all the evidence that we’ve been provided through our fish health program and the federal scientists is that resistance is not developing to SLICE.
M. Sather: I’ll certainly take the minister up on that.
Alexandra Morton has documented instances of large quantities of blood flowing from fish farm underwater discharge pipes — and the minister may have seen the graphic video that she has on that — containing larval lice and eggs coming out of the pipes. What is the government doing to address this issue?
Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm that the reference that the member opposite is making is not to a fish farm; it is a processing plant. That plant is regulated under the waste discharge permit or under waste discharge regulations under the Ministry of Environment. Following that information being provided to us, the site was investigated by and inspected by the ministry and the Ministry of Environment, and all the reports back indicate that the plant is operating in compliance with its waste management permit.
M. Sather: When Alexandra Morton has asked for sea lice data from fish farms, the ministry has instructed her to ask those fish farms for that information, in several locations. So why is the public not privy to sea lice data from private fish farms when the farms are operating in public waters and there are definite risks to wild salmon?
Hon. S. Thomson: The ministry publishes annually the fish health reports on an area basis. We have been operating up to this point on the assumption that the individual data was proprietary information of the companies, and so we’ve been meeting the obligations in terms of public reporting through the fish health reports. We know that a number of companies — Marine Harvest, for example — do publish individual data on an individual site–basis. That’s their decision. But the specific individual data is viewed as proprietary information of the individual companies, and so we have managed the reporting through the annual reports of the fish health reports.
The issue has been raised as part of the ongoing discussion now in terms of transfer of regulatory responsibility to the federal government, and that issue is being reviewed and addressed during those transition discussions with the federal government.
M. Sather: I have one last question. Why did the province not attempt to keep shellfish aquaculture within provincial jurisdiction, and therefore, the monitoring could be done by the province?
Hon. S. Thomson: In response to the question, the decision to transfer the regulatory authority for shellfish as well as finfish as part of the transition as a result of the Hinkson decision was a pragmatic decision. The federal government asserted their authority in terms of management of aquaculture overall. In discussions with the industry and supported by the industry, the decision was made to transfer full regulatory authority to provide an efficient, streamlined, regulatory one-stop process for the aquaculture industry, including finfish and shellfish.
