As I said earlier, the department is doing quite a bit of research into a variety of issues related to disease and parasite transmission, the effects of drugs and pesticides, and genetic interactions, etc., so they are doing some work on that.
Some of the things that are missing include not monitoring the health of wild fish. It's very difficult to know whether or not you're having an impact if you're not actually monitoring the health of wild fish.
Another gap would be the fact that they'd only completed one out of the 10 risk assessments. They hadn't assessed whether regulations regarding their drugs and pesticides were adequate to minimize harm to wild fish, so they don't actually know if the regulations are working.
No thresholds were defined for excessive drug or pesticide deposits into the net pens. There was no assessment whether rules were required to control the cumulative effects of drugs and pesticides at multiple sites in a particular area.
There was no requirement, as I mentioned earlier, for companies to monitor the ocean floor to determine whether things like lobster were being harmed.
There was no requirement for companies to minimize the risk of drug and pesticide resistance and no validation of industry self-reporting on the use of drugs and pesticides.
There were a lot of gaps in this area that were concerning in terms of the potential spread of diseases and just controlling the effects of these drugs and pesticides.