Fisheries Committee on Oct. 16th, 2012

[Nick Mandrak]

We did not model what the ultimate size would be because there is some uncertainty still around that bioenergetics model. Certainly, the model indicates there is sufficient food for them to survive and establish a reproducing population. What the ultimate size would be, we're not certain. But if you look at the productivity in the western basin of Lake Erie, for example, and compare it with the Upper Mississippi River, where there are millions and millions of individuals, the productivity is similar.

[Becky Cudmore]

If I may add, you are correct that the size of the population will determine the degree of impact, so a larger population will have a larger impact. That was one of the results.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Yes, I think I understand that. I simply don't know how to draw conclusions on what we should think the ecological consequences could be if we're not able to draw some assumptions or estimates on what that surviving established population might be.

I found a couple of things interesting in the report itself. The report says that on the 20-year timeline the ecological consequences for the Great Lakes—all, perhaps, other than Lake Superior—are moderate. Somehow I think it's going to be more than moderate. I know in the 50-year timeline you're saying high, perhaps high. Do you have any further comments on that?

[Nick Mandrak]

I think that's related to the idea that we expect it will take time for the population to spread and increase in size. They will probably not mature until about five years of age. The generation time is an intermediate length of time compared to Great Lakes fish. We considered spread and the time it would take to increase the population size and felt that they would be closer to their maximum population size 50 years out than 20 years out.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Good. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Kamp.

Mr. Donnelly.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to pick up where my colleague left off on the enforcement. You mentioned the Ontario government has the boots on the ground in terms of enforcement. You also mentioned that in your opinion one of the benefits to the Fisheries Act changes was the ability to increase fines. My colleague asked about the seeming disconnect between the two. That's where I'm confused as well. Maybe you could explain how those changes to the Fisheries Act allow DFO to increase fines, but then you talk about the Ontario government being the enforcement agent. I'm not quite clear what that connection is.

[David Burden]

In Ontario the province has the delegation; they've assumed the role of fisheries resource management. As a result of that they're using the federal Fisheries Act as their vehicle for managing the commercial fisheries on the Great Lakes. If through the amendments to the Fisheries Act the ability to increase the level of fines is up, they would have the benefit of doing that. They can use the federal legislation. They are, as I said, the boots on the ground to enforce that legislation in the province of Ontario.

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

Do you think the increased fines will act as a greater deterrent?

[David Burden]

When we look at the number of shipments that have been coming in that we've caught, and the prosecutions, I think I've said it here before that a $50,000 fine on fish that is $4 or $5 a pound in the Toronto fish markets is seen by some to be the cost of doing business. If we can do the education and outreach and we can use the punitive measures to correct that behaviour through the enforcement under the act, then I think it's a two-pronged approach that will give us a higher degree of success.

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

Could you fill us in on how many charges have been laid in the past on average, in a given year, and what those average fines are?

[Becky Cudmore]

I think there were three in the last year, and $20,000 to $50,000 in fines. It did vary. The higher fine was because it was a second offence.

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

Do you think the increased capacity of fines will act as a deterrent and the Ontario government can use a bigger hammer to deal with this problem?

[Becky Cudmore]

Yes.

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

How does Asian carp relate to other invasive species in terms of the ecological risks? Obviously, this is an important element but there are other invasive species. Where is this on the priority list? Is this our top or mid priority in the Great Lakes, or are zebra mussels or sea lamprey?

[Becky Cudmore]

I think those are our top three right there. Sea lamprey, Asian carp, zebra mussels have had devastating impacts on the ecological as well as the economic sides of things. Those would be the top three that we are currently dealing with. We also conduct risk assessments looking at potential species to make sure they don't arrive as well.

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

Thanks.

The $3.5 million a year is for Asian carp. Is that enough? Are we putting in the same kind of resources to the other two top priority invasive species? How are we dealing with them and the resources needed?

[David Burden]

I'm happy you came back with that question. I didn't want to leave on the record the thought that we had huge amounts of money.

Clearly, when we were developing the annex and our negotiating position, we were also looking at what we were doing with Asian carp and other aquatic invasive species. The funding we have within the department is sufficient to allow us to meet our obligations under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The money we have is focused on the four pillars we've talked about. We can do it within that amount of money because we're talking about something that hasn't gotten into Canadian waters yet, so we can go a lot further.

The other reality, and it's to our benefit, is we can leverage significantly off the significant investment the Americans are having to make as a result of these species getting into their waters and not being addressed immediately.

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

Can you also answer about the amount of resources going toward the other two invasive species? There's $3.5 million a year targeted for carp. What about the sea lamprey and zebra mussels, and addressing ballast water?

[David Burden]

Again, I don't have the whole suite of numbers. The program we use for sea lamprey is probably the big ticket. It's an established issue we're dealing with, but again is an issue we're dealing with in partnership with the Americans. The Americans contribute money, as do we, through a formula through the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. The total budget for that would be just under $30 million in total for the program for sea lamprey. We talked about zebra mussels and the impact they would have on infrastructure, so to speak, water intake, sewers, that kind of stuff. We don't really have, at least in the information I have, a handle on how to eradicate zebra mussels. They're established. Other than a maintenance of cleaning up and trying to reduce the clogging aspect of these things on intakes and that kind of stuff, I'm not quite sure what more we can do. You don't want to be using pesticides on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Donnelly.

Mr. Allen.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you, folks, for coming back to be with us today.

On slide number 5, where you talk about the habitat matching levels, you have one slide for the bighead carp and the silver carp. I note that the habitat levels are significantly better for the silver carp than for the bighead carp.

Can you talk about the differences between those two species of carp and what allows them to have what seems to be a much greater range all the way into the northern fishery areas? This is very concerning. Can you talk about what those differences are?

[Nick Mandrak]

Yes. Thank you for the question.

First of all, I should point out that this map is based on matching the climate in North America to the climate in its native range. The silver carp is found much further north in its native range than is the bighead carp. In fact, I was working in Khanka Lake, on the Russian-Chinese border north of Vladivostok. This is a large lake that gets about a metre of ice in the winter, and we were catching silver carp there. This fish is very much a cold tolerant species. The main difference between the silver carp and bighead carp is simply the silver carp is found further north in its native range.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

What is the larger threat? Is it the bighead or silver carp?

[Nick Mandrak]

The silver carp is the one that tends to eat the phytoplankton, the algae, the smaller plankton. The bighead carp feed on the zooplankton. It's like a one-two punch. The first thing any native fish feeds on after it hatches is phytoplankton, and then it moves on to zooplankton. To me, this is the real impact. It is competing with every other species, not just a select species. It competes with every other species because it's competing for the food that every other species eats at some point in its life.

The issue with these bighead carp is they quickly outgrow the mouth size of any predator, so within the first year of life, this fish will be 30 centimetres long. They quickly outgrow the gape size of a northern pike or a muskellunge, so it will quickly have no predators.