Evidence of meeting #34 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was know.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
As well, contrary to most impacts of natural disasters, the impacts of biological invasions are typically more persistent and sometimes irreversible.
4:30 p.m.
Associate Professor, McGill University, As an Individual
It sounds like you've been reading some of the stuff I've written.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
There you go.
In your opinion, is the Government of Canada providing adequate resources to deal with this threat?
As well, do you believe this is the right time to be cutting monitoring and funding in science?
4:30 p.m.
Associate Professor, McGill University, As an Individual
Most governments, including ours, aren't. We're not alone in that.
Just to elaborate on what I proposed, a colleague of mine, Norm Yan, a professor at York University, suggests that we should treat invasive species with the same kind of serious attitude that we treat natural disasters. Most invasive species probably will not have undesirable negative impacts.
Most natural disasters, or at least the phenomena that generate them, most of the time are negligible. We prepare for extreme hazards that may never happen, because if they did happen it would be unacceptable. So we have building codes. We have safety regulations. Various countries in the world have detection and monitoring and infrastructure in place to prevent something that may never happen, because it would be unacceptable if it did.
We don't do that with invasive species, even though the country is under siege, as I indicated, with billions of animals moving into North America, tens of thousands of species, mostly unregulated. Once they are here, when they become established they are very difficult to eradicate. So we're talking about a cumulative problem.
When I speak to policy-makers, I often liken invasive species to hidden taxes—that usually gets their attention—because they appear out of nowhere, like a hidden tax. Once they're established, they don't go away, like a hidden tax. Usually the cost increases over time, like a hidden tax. And yet this is happening all the time.
I think the reason we don't treat it with the same kind of seriousness and coordinated effort that we do for natural disasters is that they're usually reported in the media as isolated monster stories. You might hear about a mussel over there, a sea squirt or tunicate over here, a fish over there. Yet they're all symptomatic of the same phenomenon: a form of global change that I call, because it's catchy, “global swarming”.
Every country on the planet is susceptible to it. There is no doubt that this form of global change, which interacts with all other forms of global change, is a stress on regional economies, on our natural resources. It poses a threat to human health. It affects all aspects of society. Those nations best able, best equipped, best capable of dealing with it will have a huge advantage as globalization proceeds.
Now, we're far behind in that, in my opinion. We don't have to be. We have great scientific expertise here.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Dr. Ricciardi.
Dr. Johnson, according to the 2008 report from the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans failed to assess the socio-economic risks posed by aquatic invasive species in order to estimate the overall risks. The report stated that without further analysis, the department lacked key information necessary to set priorities or establish risk-based objectives to reducing the harm caused by aquatic invasive species.
I have a two-part question, in the thirty seconds that we have left. In your opinion, has DFO provided adequate socio-economic risk assessment of aquatic invasive species in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River basin? And how important is such an assessment to your work and to Canada's ability to reduce harm by invasive aquatic species? And perhaps you could add how this could best be remedied.
4:35 p.m.
Professor, Department of Biology, Laval University, As an Individual
I'd like not to answer the first question because I don't work in the Great Lakes, per se. I have not worked with Great Lakes DFO personnel, so it is hard for me to tell.
I can say that on the east coast there are individuals who are making exceptional efforts in trying to get the information together, both at EML and at the Moncton lab.
The second question was....
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
Remedy. Certainly there are exceptional individuals working diligently, but what's the solution?
4:35 p.m.
Professor, Department of Biology, Laval University, As an Individual
I'd like to take the chance of saying.... And I don't want to put monitoring on to government; I think monitoring has a terrible reputation, unjustly deserved, because without that baseline it's very hard to work. I'm not saying that the university scientists should get to do the fun stuff and government scientists should do the drudgery year after year, but the government is there year after year. Scientists sometimes go with their interests. That's a critical role that has to be evaluated. Some core funding needs to be put into that, in all aspects. I think we can monitor things for both invasive species and for other environmental parameters. That would be very good.
The remedy.... Well, obviously more money. I don't know how.... It's a big country. It's unfortunately a big country and it's spread pretty thin. I'm sorry that I can't give you a better answer.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Bryan Hayes Conservative Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to avoid talking about money, because more money doesn't necessarily solve the problems. And I'm going to avoid talking about Prince Edward Island, because this study is on the Great Lakes.
My first question is to Mr. Johnson. I have two questions, one to each presenter.
Mr. Johnson, I want to get a clear understanding of how the Canadian Aquatic Invasive Species Network is prioritized in terms of what is at the top of the list. You indicated that you're not an expert on the Great Lakes, so I'm assuming that this Canadian Aquatic Invasive Species Network is not all about the Great Lakes either. How do you prioritize what you're going to do next as a committee?
4:40 p.m.
Professor, Department of Biology, Laval University, As an Individual
There are two phases of CAISN. We're in our second phase now. If I could speak to the second phase, because I think that better answers your question, the scientists involved in the first phase sat down at one of our annual general meetings and discussed what we thought were deficits in our knowledge and what we thought were promising avenues for research that could be done at a national level in Canada.
We identified themes, we vetted those themes with all members, we asked for proposals, and then we screened those to come down to what we considered was a related set of four themes. Those were early detection, rapid response, multiple stressors, and dealing with uncertainty. Dr. MacIsaac can tell you much more about it. I don't want to take away from him.
I think it was an excellent process of working with government scientists. The opportunity to work with government scientists was exceptional, as was working with other invasion biologists across the country. I'm delighted by the people. The intellectual stimulation and the satisfaction I get from contributing has been something I don't achieve often as an individual scientist.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Bryan Hayes Conservative Sault Ste. Marie, ON
So any four of those themes could be applied to the Great Lakes, or all of those.
4:40 p.m.
Professor, Department of Biology, Laval University, As an Individual
All of those. In fact, I say I don't work on the Great Lakes, but I have projects in the central region, which includes the Great Lakes. I'm involved in a project with Dr. Ricciardi. I'm involved in a project with a DFO scientist in Burlington.
We're taking conceptual.... We've networked in a true sense by taking people with different expertise. So I'm not identifying the zooplankton, my DFO colleague is, but we're bringing in my ideas and combining them with her ideas to move it forward.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Bryan Hayes Conservative Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Ricciardi, here's my big concern from some of your statements. There may be and very likely are invasive species in the Great Lakes that we're not even aware of and that are causing damage we're not even aware of.
4:40 p.m.
Professor, Department of Biology, Laval University, As an Individual
Almost certainly.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Bryan Hayes Conservative Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Then you mentioned that there are 20 species that we're not even sure are invasive, and we haven't even studied them.
How would it be determined what should be studied next? In your opinion, what should be studied next of those species? Who makes that decision?
4:40 p.m.
Associate Professor, McGill University, As an Individual
Do you mean which species should be studied?
4:40 p.m.
Associate Professor, McGill University, As an Individual
We are developing models to identify, by creating a kind of criminal profile, if you like, of a species that could cause harm or undesirable impacts. We're not the only ones doing this. This is something that's going on around the world.
Even if we're not aware of what species might show up next, ultimately we might have a screen that allows us to identify which species coming in poses the biggest risk, based on this profile. This is an essential form of risk assessment, so it's through risk assessment when properly applied that you can identify threats, even before they've shown themselves to be a threat, in which case it's easier to prioritize to keep them out, or once established, easier to decide if we're going to invest resources to have to eradicate them.
We can't keep everything out. We can't stop everything, nor do we have to. What we have to do is identify where the biggest risks are. What is likely to cause the most damage? Through risk assessment—and the leaders of that are in Australia and New Zealand—which is part of the priority of CAISN, we can develop methods that when applied on the ground can allow us to foresee not only the next threat, but maybe even the next vector that's going to bring it in, or what emerging vectors also will bring in multiple threats.
One way I did this years ago—it was a simple method actually, at the time; now we're becoming more sophisticated—was to identify trends, based on invasion history, and then extrapolate from them.
Most of the species that are introduced in the Great Lakes come from Europe. That reflects opportunities created by trade traffic, primarily. We can see what's invading Europe now. We know that ballast water released from overseas shipping has been historically the most important vector for invasion in the Great Lakes, at least until 2008, and we can assume it will continue to act as such. Therefore what species are colonizing ports, like Rotterdam, Hamburg, and so on, from which we receive shipping traffic and thus pose a risk of coming here?
We have done this. When I did this, I identified about two dozen species that are considered to be high impact where they're invading across Europe, that will likely survive transport in ballast water, and that are in those ports and therefore likely interfacing with ballast water traffic.
This is a big roulette wheel spin. Just because they're there and just because they may be taken up by ships doesn't mean that they're actually going to establish. They may need multiple tries. It's a roll of the dice, but we're loading the dice in their favour in many cases.
I did that years ago, and one of those species has actually arrived, and that is the last species we know of that arrived through ballast water shipping. That was the bloody red mysid shrimp, which you'll hear more about in the future. That one was identified in 2006.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
April 25th, 2012 / 4:45 p.m.
NDP
Jonathan Tremblay NDP Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
Professor Ricciardi, although we talked about this earlier, I would like to explore the issue further.
In order to prevent invasive species from becoming established, the recommendation in the 2008 report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development was to take an approach that allows for early detection and to develop the ability to react quickly. But, based on your document, the legal capacity needed to support this type of management is lacking at the moment.
I will start with this question before going into more detail. What can be done to rectify the situation?
4:45 p.m.
Associate Professor, McGill University, As an Individual
We have no system that coordinates expertise, taxonomic expertise for example, that would allow us to rapidly identify species, which is the first stage towards assessing a threat. The next stage after that is once you know what you have coming in through ballast water or whatever vector, or that has already been found in the Great Lakes, you have to decide, is it a threat? Then you apply the risk assessment models I talked about.
There is no regulation to do this. There is no coordinated monitoring system in place. There is no system that synergizes the activities of large numbers of people who are scattered throughout the country. Actually, the closest thing we have to that is CAISN, the Canadian Aquatic Invasive Species Network, which is NSERC-funded. The point of that was to harness the expertise of people, including people of taxonomic expertise, people of risk assessment expertise, people who understand the ecology of various kinds of organisms—and we mentioned a few of them here, ranging from fish to mussels to tunicates, and all kinds of things—-who are scattered across the country, and give them an opportunity to work together and inform government. We need to do more than that, but that's what we have so far.
Did I answer your question?
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Jonathan Tremblay NDP Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
What steps need to be taken to set up a system for early detection? For you, as someone from a Quebec university, do the steps start in the gulf, the estuary, in Chicago, in the various tributaries? What are the steps needed to develop an effective system for early detection?
4:45 p.m.
Associate Professor, McGill University, As an Individual
I'm not a manager, but you'd have to have someone find the organism, so that requires monitoring. You'd have to be able to identify using, let's say, an expert database, who is capable of identifying species of that group of organisms, whether it's fish or molluscs or other kinds of invertebrates, or plants, get it to them rapidly, have them identify it perhaps using molecular techniques like DNA sequencing, and then once we know what it is, it has to go through risk assessment.
We already have this in place, I think, with respect to human pathogens, I would imagine, with the centres of disease control. I would imagine we could combine that kind of approach that's already being used for screening pathogens, for identifying them, and coordinating expertise and rapid response. We would do that for non-pathogenic species or exotic species that don't affect humans.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Jonathan Tremblay NDP Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
So basically, you have to act quickly. It is all about rapid detection. Everything needs to be done.
