Evidence of meeting #3 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 41st Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
How much money do they have allocated for invasive species work on the Great Lakes?
Executive Director, Habitat and Ecosystem Conservation, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment
That I don't know. I'd need to double-check what DFO has.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
On a point of order, I want to be clear on the parameter of the question. When we're talking about Great Lakes, I assume the question is not directed toward aquatic issues, since our study is on terrestrial only.
Is that what the witness is being asked about, terrestrial species in the Great Lakes area?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa
I think that is a point of order. The question was on funding, I think for the research, and I think the question is in order.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I'm trying to get an idea of how the planning process goes and I'm using that as an example.
Do you make recommendations, then, to the various departments in terms of how to take action on invasive species? Is that going to be part of the plan, that you would co-work with different departments and say “Okay, we're studying this, we're noticing that, and we believe the solution is this course of action”? Is that the type of role your department and agency plays?
Executive Director, Habitat and Ecosystem Conservation, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment
That's the kind of role we play. The one bit of financial information with respect to DFO's investment—not to get off topic—is in annex 2 of my presentation, which notes about a $4-million investment in the aquatic invasive species program. But it's not specific at the Great Lakes necessarily.
Conservative
October 4th, 2011 / 11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It seems to me that in terms of invasive species, the first thing we have to do is make a distinction between which are harmful and which are basically neutral. For those ones that are harmful, I strongly support an approach that directly deals with them.
Of course in terms of Canada being a trading nation, we have to accept that with the many upsides of trade certainly come some costs. Canada's openness to the world puts it at a heightened risk for invasive species, but the benefits of trade are so enormous that trading will continue.
To me, the key is dealing in an effective manner with invasive species that are truly damaging.
Mr. McLean and Mr. Wong, can you give me examples of any invasive species that have been established in Canada and successfully eradicated?
Executive Director, Habitat and Ecosystem Conservation, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment
The one that comes to my mind right away, and I'm not sure it goes all the way to actually having been considered established, is the work that's happening in Toronto around the Asian longhorned beetle. That was identified quickly, so we had the early detection. There was rapid response, and that beetle actually hasn't been seen in about the last four years. If that beetle were to get out of Toronto, it would be devastating to the forest ecosystems of the country.
I don't know, but my colleague from Natural Resources Canada might have an example of something that was established and then eradicated.
Manager, Canadian Forest Service, Science Policy Relations, Science Policy Division , Department of Natural Resources
That was the example I would have quoted. As you noted, the degree of invasiveness, or the degree of damage that a particular species can cause, varies. Asian longhorned beetle is a more observable beetle that causes large-scale damage, very large holes, in the trees it attacks.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Canadian Forest Service of Natural Resources Canada, as my colleague said, were able to detect that invasion and establishment early, as opposed to the emerald ash borer, which was mentioned earlier by one of the members of the committee, that is extremely cryptic. By the time you can see symptoms within an affected tree—really, the population of trees in that area—it is past being able to respond in a positive way.
So invasiveness, damage, is very much species-specific. Asian longhorned beetle is one of the few very good success stories. It's still under quarantine, but it is considered controlled in Canada. At this time there are other outbreaks in the United States, particularly in Massachusetts, that bear watching as well.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB
Sure. Again, I think it's important to make sure we assess these programs. Back in prairie Canada, there have been purple loosestrife control programs for decades, and the species is still there. It seems to have settled in with everything else that's on the ground there, and it seems to be part of ecosystem now, with minimal damage.
One of the things that I think we have to be careful of, too.... I understand the administrative need to talk about invasive alien species, the non-native species that actually cause harm, and I support that, but I think we also have to look at the range expansion of certain species due to human activities. These are native species that are invading new habitats because of human activities.
In terms of prairie Canada specifically, I think of the skunk, fox, and racoon, which are rapidly moving north with the expansion of agriculture and having devastating effects on prairie birds. So I would urge you--and all of us--not to limit this program to only the non-native alien species.
The other thing is that we don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater here, because a number of “alien species” that humans have deliberately introduced to Canada are doing very well and contributing to human well-being. Again, being a fisheries person myself, I tend to go to the aquatic stuff: the salmon in the Great Lakes, where the non-native species are very important to the Great Lakes economies, and the brown trout, a European fish introduced all across North America that is providing countless hours of angling enjoyment with very little damage.
It's very, very important to look at the ecological function of the actual species and focus like a laser on those species that actually cause harm.
I represent an agricultural area, so I'll focus on agriculture for a minute. In terms of agriculture, which are the main species that cause the majority of the damage in agricultural ecosystems?
Executive Director, Habitat and Ecosystem Conservation, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment
I would need to check with Agriculture Canada to get a list of the species that they would put at the top of their agenda.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB
Sure. Most of them are invasive species, aren't they?
Executive Director, Habitat and Ecosystem Conservation, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment
Yes.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB
They were introduced. The point is that it has been estimated that about $2 billion in damage costs for agriculture is attributed to damage by invasive species. Just as a comment for the record, it seems to me that this is a gross underestimate. I think the damage cost is much higher than that. Would you venture an opinion on that?
Executive Director, Habitat and Ecosystem Conservation, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment
Generally, on the assessment of the economic impact of invasive alien species, there haven't been systematic assessments; and generally when there is a number it's viewed as conservative. I would share the observation that it's probably low.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB
Yes, quite a bit higher....
In terms of national parks--
Executive Director, Habitat and Ecosystem Conservation, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment
I actually dove into a document and some examples. I'm not saying that this is an exhaustive list of invasive agricultural weeds in Canada, but there's the Canada thistle, and yes, it's called the Canada thistle, but it actually comes from Europe. There's also something called the ox-eye daisy, as well as leafy spurge, which you will have heard of, spotted knapweed, which my colleague from Parks Canada mentioned already, and quackgrass, wild oats, and green foxtail. These are some examples of species that are having a significant economic impact.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB
And I have every one of those on my farm.
Executive Director, Habitat and Ecosystem Conservation, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment
Do you?
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB
So I appreciate them--in a negative way.
Mr. Wong, to zero in on Riding Mountain National Park, where I'm from, I think it's the only park in Canada that is surrounded by as much agriculture and private land as it is. Do you have any programs dealing with invasive species outside of Riding Mountain National Park? If not, why not, and would you consider doing that?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa
Mr. Wong, Mr. Sopuck's time is up, so could you make your answer very short?
Executive Director, Ecological Integrity Branch, Parks Canada Agency
Okay. Thank you very much.
We do not have any programs beyond working with volunteers and the community to manage invasive species outside Riding Mountain Park. We do carry out monitoring and active management within the park, of course.