Fisheries Committee on April 14th, 2010

[Dr. Mark Sheppard]

Gladly. I have them here, if I could leave them with you--at least the cover pages, so that would make them easier to find.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

I appreciate it. Thank you.

[Dr. Mark Sheppard]

I have the three papers that I've mentioned. There's one by Beamish and one by Jones et al., as well as the Ozawa paper regarding genetics. There certainly is a link within our fish health reports, and I'm happy to leave our fish health reports here as well for anybody who cares to look at them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I'll ask the clerk to retrieve those from you.

Thank you.

Mr. Weston.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think that this is probably the most interesting, the most frustrating and the most open debate that I have taken part in as a member of this committee.

We're hearing totally different stories. We're about to confront a tidal wave of responsibility if we consider ourselves wheels in a large machine called the Government of Canada that is now poised to accept this responsibility.

Thank you for coming and for giving your very direct answers.

If there were one question that I could ask, I think it would be this. Given that we are receiving such contrasting stories, what is the epistemology, the theory of knowledge, on what we can do to resolve these things?

Presumably everybody in this debate wants the fish to survive and thrive. There has to be a lot of common ground.

What's the next step, Dr. Sheppard, to move us to a stage where we can compare apples to apples and then do something that will promote that ultimate goal of preserving the fish stocks?

[Dr. Mark Sheppard]

That's a very astute perspective, Mr. Weston. Welcome to my job.

I have a couple of points, if I may. I'm not exactly sure how to answer your question. It is frustrating. There appear to be two different stories, but I think that's largely because the silent majority, the credible scientists who bring a modicum of objectivity to this entire topic, don't appear in the newspaper or on the Internet. They publish their articles, which are factual, and the average Canadian citizen doesn't read them. It's very technical information. So communication is one problem. I think there needs to be better communication from the industry and better communication in lay terms from the scientific community and from the provincial and federal governments.

Instead what we hear is the vocal minority who, quite frankly, are not aquaculture specialists. Rather, they are anti-aquaculture specialists. They're very good at what they do. They're very intelligent people, very passionate people, and they're very good at communicating to the media and to the Internet. That's what the majority of Canadians hear. Of course, that's what they will believe, because they're only hearing one side of the story.

The next step, apples to apples, is that there is a tremendous amount of collaboration on the go in British Columbia right now between the industry, fish farmers, and the ENGOs who, of course, want things to improve, as do the farmers, as does the province. There's always room for improvement, but there is a tremendous amount of collaboration that is happening. There is joint funding and joint projects. They are both looking at the same things, comparing notes. There is an awful lot of transparency and communication between those groups.

But that's the helpful group. There is another faction that is quite simply anti-aquaculture, and that's where the transparency stops. That's where the information is not generally forthcoming, because, in many cases, the information is abused.

Does that answer your question?

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Well, it's a good try. Thank you. I'm sure the Cohen inquiry is going to have the same question.

Can you maybe give us something a little more specific? Infectious salmon anemia is something that Alexandra Morton also mentioned on several occasions. Is that something that is monitored? What can be done about it?

[Dr. Mark Sheppard]

That's a good question.

It is monitored. It has been monitored for the last eight years. It is on our list of five pathogens of concern provincially, federally, and internationally. Every single sample that we collect at the farms is monitored for that pathogen.

Again, Mr. Weston, I don't know if you got the pre-brief, but there is a summary about ISA virus in there that explains why B.C. doesn't have it and how we plan to not get it.

For those of you who don't know, ISA stands for infectious salmon anemia virus. It has been a devastating infection with high mortality in Atlantic salmon in most of the same countries that we've been talking about that are affected by sea lice: Norway, Ireland, east coast Canada, and Chile most recently. It's not harmful to humans at all; neither are any other fish diseases that we deal with.

The difference again as to why B.C. is free of ISA is that, contrary to what is said, the Atlantic salmon that exist in B.C. right now came in as eggs originally. The brood stock and the production stock from that point forward have been developed in B.C. So live, growing Atlantic salmon are not imported into B.C.

Eggs that may be applied for, to enter B.C., can only come from ISA-free countries or regions. There have been—I don't have the figures, I'm sorry—some eggs imported into British Columbia from Iceland, for example, which is ISA-free. I think in the past--maybe 10 years ago--there were some eggs from Washington State, again ISA-free. We monitor for it, as I said, 150 times a year, 800 samples a year, that sort of thing. There are tremendous biosecurity measures taken.

Those eggs, by the way, that are imported from ISA-free countries need to be screened again. They need to be under quarantine for at least one year and be tested again, etc.

So, touch wood, B.C. has not seen and never will see ISA. That said, Mother Nature has a funny way of doing things, and the virus can be carried by other types of fish. Whether those fish show up on currents from other countries, whether those things show up in the ballast water of ships, certainly it won't be introduced from the fish farming community in British Columbia.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Mr. Donnelly.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have two quick comments, and then maybe you could answer that last question I asked about the report in the U.K.

In regard to Mr. Weston's comment, I share some of that. I think we're getting two different pictures here, and it's hard to get to the bottom of what is the accurate picture of what's happening on the west coast. But there are a number of people who have, essentially, a vested interest in seeing a resolved situation.

You mentioned the ENGOs. You referenced their agenda, that either they have an agenda or they don't know enough—I think earlier you referenced that about the information on Slice or sea lice—and that they're able to communicate their position.

I'm just really curious as to why they would put so much energy and effort into something that isn't a problem. If I think of climate change, for instance, that's a whole other story, but it's almost the reverse situation, where we had scientists for years telling the story of this problem but couldn't get that out.

The other comment that I was a little surprised to hear was the reference when I said you've drawn a conclusion that there is no problem. When I asked you that, you said there's insufficient information; there's no information to point to there being a problem. So I wonder how you can conclusively say there is no problem and then say we don't have enough information to say there's a problem. Those are two different things, in my opinion, anyway.

But I wanted to see if you could comment on the U.K. study.

[Dr. Mark Sheppard]

Before I do, Mr. Donnelly, what was the specific reference? There's no problem to...?

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Again, it's in my words--

[Dr. Mark Sheppard]

Sea lice?

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Sea lice and Slice; that's what I thought I heard you say today.

[Dr. Mark Sheppard]

Right. Thank you very much.

To answer your question about the U.K. report, I have not read it. If it came out recently, I have not read that one.

That said, again this falls into the category of extrapolating from one country to the next, extrapolating the types and genetics of fish from one country to the next, and extrapolating the activity of an Atlantic salmon louse from one country to the next. It's a common practice, which is problematic. I'm sorry; I can't comment further on the paper itself specifically.

On your other questions, ENGOs, environmental non-governmental organizations, are very useful groups. They hold everybody's feet to the fire. I'm thankful they're around. The improvements that have happened in the industry within the last 20 years are because there were good questions that needed scientific research and needed to be answered. However, we mentioned earlier there are collaborative ENGO groups that realize aquaculture is here to stay and it can be sustainable and it can be healthy. They're working closely with industry and the government to continue to improve that. Where I make the distinction is between ENGOs and activists. I hope that clarifies it.

There are some people out there who are simply very good at what they do, which is to continue to put sensationalized emotional information into the media. That's how they get support.

That is why people then, not unlike this committee or the people I have dinner parties, think there's a problem. The only access to information they have is what is reported in the media.

Again, I'm very thankful that you invited the province to this table to actually speak very openly to you about information that doesn't get out there. I think part of the reason it doesn't get out there is because if a government agency puts forth this type of information, it instantly looks like it's promoting the industry when in fact it's just corroborating and supporting the same information to citizens who tend to not believe industry, or business, or the government. If information is put forth with more energy, the worry is that it will look like it's the promotion of an industry.

I wrote down “extrapolation” because I think we have to be very careful. The activists like to say it's happening in Norway, and so it's going to happen here. They don't understand the depth of the biology and the epidemiology involved. All they want to do is take people's minds from a historically real problem in different countries and transport the problem to British Columbia in order to stop farming.

In my opinion, the reality in B.C. with sea lice is that it's very much under control. It's highly regulated. It's monitored on a weekly and monthly basis. The information is transparent. We receive it. The farming companies put it out there. There's transparency from the farms to provincial government employees, from the farms to DFO, and from the farms to credible researchers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Dr. Sheppard.

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Dr. Sheppard, for being here.

I have a few quick questions. I only have five minutes. You're giving very thorough answers, but I think you could probably give us the answers fairly quickly for some of these.

In your original presentation, you said the numbers of lice are reported directly by industry to the government website. Can you tell us by whom it's reported? How is it collected? Who verifies it? What controls are in place to make sure the industry is reporting this information accurately?

[Dr. Mark Sheppard]

Sure enough.

That's part of their fish health management plan and the sea lice management strategy. The farms are required to count their lice abundance once per month and for most of the year. In fact, they count their lice more than that: they count twice a month if their lice counts reach three per fish.

Is that, first of all, clear?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Are there any observers or anybody to verify? I mean....

[Dr. Mark Sheppard]

Yes, I understand.

It's a very standardized procedure at the farms, taught by the veterinarians who attend those farms and the provincial government as well.

By the way, just so you know, there's a flotilla of cages often, maybe 10 to 12. The farms are instructed to pick one cage as the reference cage, and that cage will be counted every month. And then the farm is at liberty to pick two other cages on the site at random or at convenience. So in total every month they must count lice from three different cages. From each of those cages they're going to count 20 fish—20, 20, and 20, so 60 fish altogether. The fish are collected by a box seine or a big seine. So many fish are gathered into the corner, thousands usually, and then what happens is there's an anesthetic tote presented there. The fish are scooped up randomly.

By the way, in that collection of fish, back to the situation we were talking about, 80% were eating the medication and 20% weren't. Remember that story earlier on? When you collect these fish, not only do you collect the robust fish but you're likely to collect the slowest, insubordinate fish that are likely to have more lice on them, because they can collect in the corners.

So they collect them up in the corners, they put a dip net in, and they randomly choose fish. They put them into an anesthetic bath, the fish go to sleep, and they count the numbers—but not just the numbers, they categorize all of the different lice stages that they are seeing.

The only thing to add to this is that we audit that on a regular basis, 70 times a year.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Good. So those audits are compliance audits, then?

[Dr. Mark Sheppard]

Yes, and we count side by side.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Is Slice biodegradable or bioaccumulative in any way, shape, or form?

[Dr. Mark Sheppard]

On Slice, again, that's a better question for an official from Health Canada and the Veterinary Drugs Directorate. It is my understanding of the pharmacokinetics of Slice that it is distributed very well inside the fish. It takes some time, once it goes in the mouth, to accumulate in the mucus and the skin. And then the lice get exposed to it and it kills the lice. But it doesn't last very long in the fish.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

So it's not bioaccumulative, then?