Evidence of meeting #37 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 ontario.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Anne Neary  Director, Applied Research and Development Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Ala Boyd  Manager, Biodiversity Branch, Biodiversity Policy Section, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Francine MacDonald  Senior Invasive Species Biologist, Biodiversity Branch, Biodiversity Policy Section, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Tim Johnson  Research Scientist, Applied Research and Development Branch, Aquatic Research, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Georges Etoka
Kristen Courtney  Committee Researcher

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston

I call the meeting to order.

I'd like to thank our guests for appearing before us today as we continue our study on invasive species. We look forward to your testimony and the opportunity to ask questions of you.

Ms. Neary, I believe you're going to lead off with a presentation today. During your presentation, if you don't mind, introduce your associates here with you today.

I believe the clerk has probably informed you already that we generally allow about 10 minutes for opening presentations. Then, if I interrupt you during the questions, it's in the interests of fairness, as I'll be trying to ensure that all members have similar amounts of time to ask questions and receive answers. So I apologize in advance if I cut you off or if I motion to you in advance for you to wrap it up.

Whenever you're ready, the floor is yours, if you want to proceed with your presentation.

3:40 p.m.

Anne Neary Director, Applied Research and Development Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee.

On behalf of the Ministry of Natural Resources, I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to discuss aquatic invasive species with you today. I'm Anne Neary. I'm the director of the Applied Research and Development Branch with the Ministry of Natural Resources.

With me today is Ala Boyd, the manager of our biodiversity policy section; Tim Johnson, our senior research scientist for the Great Lakes; and Francine MacDonald, our senior invasive species biologist.

The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, as you perhaps know, is the provincial government lead for aquatic invasive species. We develop and enforce legislation and policy on invasive species and are responsible for fisheries management in Ontario, including the Great Lakes.

Over the next 10 to 12 minutes, I'm going to quickly go through some of the threats posed by aquatic invasive species in Ontario and then briefly cover some of the actions we're taking.

The Great Lakes basin ecosystem is one of the most biodiverse in Canada. It's home to thousands of species of fish, wildlife, and plants and is vitally important to the economy of Ontario. In fact, the combined value of the Great Lakes recreational and commercial fishery to Ontario is estimated to be more than $650 million annually.

Since European settlement, more than 180 non-native species have become established in the Great Lakes. The most problematic have been round goby, sea lamprey, zebra mussels, and quagga mussels. These species are considered invasive. We refer to them as "invasive" rather than “non-native” because of their ability to cause harm to the environment, economy, and society.

These species have altered the food webs in the Great Lakes. They've contributed to the decline and disappearance of fish and wildlife and have contributed to unanticipated human and wildlife health concerns, such as botulism outbreaks and harmful algal blooms on the Great Lakes. The impacts on society and the economy have been equally significant. Zebra mussels alone cost Ontarians about $100 million annually in control measures at nuclear power facilities and water treatment plants. I'm sure you have also heard of Asian carp, a recent significant threat to Ontario's Great Lakes. Ontario is taking action on this front. It is clear that prevention of new invasive species, particularly Asian carp, is by far preferable to and less costly than attempts to eradicate or control these species once they've arrived.

The fisheries of the Great Lakes are far too important to the interests of Ontario and Canada to not take preventative action. Ontario has delegated authority under the Fisheries Act for fisheries management in the province. Under this authority, our ministry develops Ontario fishery regulations and is responsible for their administration and enforcement. Regulation changes are approved by the federal Governor in Council.

Before 2005, live Asian carp were imported into Ontario for human consumption. Ontario recognized the significant threat they posed to the Great Lakes fishery, and through these regulations we made it illegal to possess live Asian Carp as well as other high-risk invasives, such as northern snakehead.

We give high priority to enforcing these regulations, and our conservation officers work cooperatively with the Canada Border Services Agency to prevent live Asian carp from entering Ontario. Since 2010, MNR has seized six shipments of live invasive carp at the U.S-Canada border. These seizures have highlighted the need to consider additional regulations or tools to improve compliance.

In 2011 we worked with Fisheries and Oceans Canada to develop a provincial rapid response plan for Asian carp. The plan guides our actions if Asian carp are detected in Ontario waters. Our scientists are working with Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission on binational, biological, and socio-economic risk assessments for Asian carp. Risk assessments help us understand the potential impacts to the Great Lakes and identify areas of the lakes that would be most vulnerable to invasion.

However, Ontario's actions to address Asian carp cannot succeed in isolation. Actions in the U.S. are required to prevent the introduction of Asian carp into Lake Michigan through the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, as inaction will have profound impacts for Ontario.

We closely monitor activities in the U.S., we've communicated our concerns, and we've supported U.S. efforts that will protect Ontario. For example, in 2009, Ontario supported the State of Michigan's motion to the U.S. Supreme Court for a preliminary injunction to close the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. Since that time, we have been encouraged by the U.S. government and the State of Illinois' efforts to develop an effective control strategy for Asian carp.

In addition to working with our U.S. partners in binational waters, it is important that Ontario keep its own house in order by having a province-wide strategy for all invasive species. For this reason Ontario just recently developed an invasive species strategic plan. It's an inter-ministerial plan with the Ministry of Natural Resources as the lead and includes the provincial ministries of agriculture, environment, and transportation. The plan builds on the national strategy on invasive alien species, namely, prevention, early detection, rapid response, and management and adaptation.

Our strategic plan highlights Ontario's existing work, and identifies gaps in current programs and future actions to address priority areas.

Leadership and coordination are fundamental to the plan. Invasive species are a complex problem and no single ministry or government is engaged in all aspects of this issue. We must continue to work together and establish clear federal and provincial roles and responsibilities. This is particularly important with respect to rapid response, control, and management.

Legislation, regulation, and policy can be very effective. For example, since the implementation of Canada's ballast water regulations, no new invasive species have been detected in the Great Lakes since 2006. This is a huge step forward.

But gaps still exist in Canada and Ontario's regulatory tools. For example, aquatic invasive plants used in the water garden industry, such as European water chestnut, are not covered by federal legislation that prevent their import to Canada. Over the past decade, Ontario and Quebec have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in eradication programs for these plants.

We're very encouraged by the aquatic invasive species regulatory framework that Fisheries and Oceans Canada recently proposed. The framework will provide a comprehensive approach to regulating the import of invasive species and enable their control and eradication. However, new authorities bring increased responsibilities, which cannot fall solely to Ontario. Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency must continue their roles in prevention, detection, and control. Ontario is working with Fisheries and Oceans to better understand its roles and responsibilities, and the roles and responsibilities of the federal government as well.

Understanding the risk and impacts and the likelihood of occurrence of aquatic invasive species is crucial to knowing how to manage our resources. We're working with Fisheries and Oceans Canada's Centre of Expertise for Aquatic Risk Assessment on the key invasive species threatening Canada, specifically the Great Lakes region. Our scientists also work with the Canadian Aquatic Invasive Species Network in Windsor to develop rapid response models for invasive species.

Research and monitoring are essential to understanding invasive species. They allow us to assess impacts and identify new and innovative control measures. The Ministry of Natural Resources is leading research on the impacts of invasive species such as quagga mussel, round goby, and bloody red shrimp in the Great Lakes food webs. With advances in technology, our science programs are also evolving. For example, our scientists are investigating the application of environmental DNA as an invasive species detection tool, and we're also involved in research to develop innovative control measures for round goby.

The leadership shown by the federal government in sea lamprey control is critical to protect our Great Lakes fishery. Our reliance on Transport Canada to continue to inspect ocean-going vessels and make sure they comply with ballast water regulations cannot be overstated.

We recognize that neither the federal nor the provincial government can succeed alone. The role of citizens, communities, and other levels of government and organizations in invasive species prevention has been a core component of our invasive species program for over two decades. We partner with organizations such as the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters to increase the awareness of anglers and boaters of the importance of prevention, and we've had great success.

The federal government has also been engaged in Ontario's invasive species strategic plan. We recognize the government as a key partner in our strategic plan, given the strong linkages to the national strategy.

A good example of our partnership is the joint Canada-Ontario Invasive Species Centre in Sault Ste. Marie. Ontario committed $15 million over five years in 2008 to develop the centre. Its primary objective is to coordinate federal and provincial efforts and, in doing so, optimize our resources to address invasive species. Over the past five years, more than 100 partnership projects have been funded by the ministry through the Invasive Species Centre. Federal partners in the centre include Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the Canadian Forest Service, and Environment Canada.

Both of our governments are dealing with significant financial pressures and have announced plans to eliminate the deficit. Key departments involved in aquatic species are proceeding with regulatory reform. Changes may have significant impacts on the delivery of our programs and partnerships.

With Environment Canada's recent cancelling of funding for its invasive alien species partnership program, the federal government and the provinces must seek new ways to engage our Canadian citizens. Invasive species are a problem that we can't combat alone. Environmental groups have been and will continue to be key players in preventing their introduction and spread. In these challenging economic times, continued investments in prevention and early detection are critical. These are far more effective and less costly than managing established invaders. The federal government has a lead role in aquatic invasive species prevention, from preventing ballast releases to the Great Lakes to developing national regulations preventing the import of invasive species of concern to Ontario and Canada.

Some of the proposed Fisheries Act changes dealing with fish habitat and fish health are also of importance and interest to Ontario. With the exception of fish habitat, the management and administration of Ontario's inland fisheries have been delegated to the province. A weakening of legislation may compromise our ability to successfully manage our fisheries and conserve biodiversity.

We support streamlined and enabling regulatory tools to better manage Ontario's fisheries, but it is important that we work closely together with the federal government to adopt consistent approaches. Effective implementation can occur only with the provinces at your side, laying out roles and responsibilities together.

Ontario is also facing major financial pressures. It's critical that both levels of government work together to make the best use of our available funds. Greater collaboration by governments during fiscal constraint will be critical in due diligence and delivery. We need to resolve this together.

In summary, as Ontario moves forward to implement its invasive species strategic plan, we hope to continue to benefit from the federal government's ongoing efforts and regulations to protect Canada from the consequences of invasive species. We must build on our history of strong collaboration and positive relationships as we develop legislation and policy, deliver programs, and do the right research and monitoring to allow us to prevent and respond to the threat of invasive species. The biodiversity of our nation and the important fisheries of Ontario depend on it.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston

Thank you very much, Ms. Neary.

We're going to start with Ms. Davidson for questions.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for your presentation here this afternoon and thanks to your colleagues who have joined you here to answer our questions.

This is an area that we have a great deal of interest in. Several of us are from the Great Lakes area and we're certainly seeing first-hand some of the devastation that's being caused by some of the invasive species. We do know that your ministry in Ontario certainly plays an extremely important role, so I was glad to hear you speaking of the coordination and the working back and forth, not only with the federal jurisdictions but also with the American jurisdiction.

One of the things you started off with—and I may have misunderstood you—was the value of the sport and commercial fishery in Ontario. I thought you said that it was $650 million annually, but we heard from the DFO people that it was a $7 billion industry annually. Are we talking of different areas or...?

3:50 p.m.

Director, Applied Research and Development Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Anne Neary

For Ontario, or all of Canada and the U.S.?

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

For the Great Lakes.

So you were just talking Ontario then, were you?

3:55 p.m.

Director, Applied Research and Development Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Anne Neary

Yes, we were just talking of Ontario. It is in the billions if you look at the U.S. economy and other....

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

So it's $7 billion then across the Great Lakes, with the total industries. Great.

You also talked about regulations and the enforcement of things. You talked about the ballast water regulations. We've been told that the States has just passed new regulations that will be coming into force next month.

How is that going to affect Canada? Do you know if there are going to be regulations passed here that will be the same?

3:55 p.m.

Director, Applied Research and Development Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Anne Neary

Are you talking specifically about ballast water regulations—

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Yes, ballast.

3:55 p.m.

Director, Applied Research and Development Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Anne Neary

—in the U.S.? Maybe I'll ask Ala to provide more information on that.

3:55 p.m.

Ala Boyd Manager, Biodiversity Branch, Biodiversity Policy Section, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

I will provide a little bit more information and then I'll look to Francine.

Yes, the U.S. recently passed new regulations, providing a consistent framework that will enable consistent regulations to be applied for ballast water management across the entire basin.

Before now, each individual state was responsible for providing oversight on ballast water. Some states, such as New York, were looking to pass very significant and very aggressive state legislation that would have exceeded, in fact, what Canada has put into place through Transport Canada. So yes, there has been a recent move to pass new regulations, and we have been very supportive of the U.S. efforts in that regard.

Francine, would you like to add to that?

3:55 p.m.

Francine MacDonald Senior Invasive Species Biologist, Biodiversity Branch, Biodiversity Policy Section, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Yes, maybe I will add just a little.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Maybe you could address something that's unclear in my mind. I have asked this question before of other witnesses. What's the difference with a ship that coming through? Where's the differentiation? Where do they have to abide by the U.S. rules and where do they have to abide by the Canadian rules?

3:55 p.m.

Senior Invasive Species Biologist, Biodiversity Branch, Biodiversity Policy Section, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Francine MacDonald

There's joint enforcement of the Canadian and U.S. regulations. Right now, the difference between the Canadian and U.S. regulations is that Canada's regulations are more comprehensive. They deal with ships that have ballast and ships that don't have ballast—the no-ballast-on-board ships, which I'm sure you've heard of them.

Currently, the U.S. regulations do not deal with NOBOBs. So that has been an area of concern for a number of jurisdictions across the Great Lakes, particularly the Great Lakes states. As Ala said, a number of those states have introduced their own regulations, which causes problems because shipping is at the international level, not the regional level.

So what the U.S. Coast Guard has done is to introduce an environmental impact statement outlining their plan to create regulations that will develop a standard for ballast discharge. That ballast discharge standard will be consistent with the Canadian regulations. Assuming that that process goes through and is approved, we hope it will be consistent with the Canadian regulations.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Thank you.

Ms. Neary, you also talked about Ontario’s having an invasive species strategic plan. Can you talk to us about that, whom you work with on that, and if there were an issue, how that plan would come into play?

3:55 p.m.

Director, Applied Research and Development Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Anne Neary

It was a plan we developed over the last couple of years. We're just in the stages now of finalizing that plan. We posted on what's called our environmental registry for comments, so it went through that process, and we're at the point now where it's going to be finalized.

It was developed in conjunction with other ministries. We had the ministry of the environment at the table, and we spoke to the ministry of agriculture. We have a number of groups. As I mentioned, it's based on prevention, detection, response, and then management and adaptation.

I'll ask Ala to talk about how it will work once it's in place and whom we will work with. We had a bit of an exercise on rapid response for Asian carp and it basically followed the plan itself, but I'll ask Ala to talk about the plan.

3:55 p.m.

Manager, Biodiversity Branch, Biodiversity Policy Section, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Ala Boyd

Thanks, Anne.

As Anne mentioned, Ontario's invasive species strategic plan has been in development for the last couple of years and we've worked with numerous ministries to develop the strategic plan.

It lays out our primary objectives for managing invasive species and also builds on the fact that there are numerous gaps and weaknesses in the provincial infrastructure, if you will, to manage invasive species. So we've identified several areas of priority focus, including improved leadership and coordination, while being respectful of the roles and responsibilities held by involved agencies. For example, we recognize that our ministry of agriculture and food has a specific role to deal with invasive agricultural plants, but we have a specific role that enables our ministry to deal with aquatic invasive species.

We have also identified legislative policy gaps that will need to be addressed; research and monitoring gaps; science issues; and issues of risk assessment.

As well, there is a need to continue to conduct outreach and engagement to build greater public awareness among our stakeholder communities, our partners, and citizens at large.The single most important thing we can do collectively is to continue to see an educated and aware public that is taking individual action against inadvertently or otherwise moving invasive species or introducing invasive species. Most of the introductions of invasive species we've seen in Canada have been by very well-intentioned and well-meaning citizens who simply failed to understand the impact of some of their actions.

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston

Thank you, Ms. Davidson. I'm sorry, your time is up.

Mr. Chisholm.

4 p.m.

NDP

Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much for being here today to speak with us.

I'm a member of Parliament from Nova Scotia, but let me assure you that as a member of this committee and as the fisheries critic for the official opposition, I am very seized by the concerns that have been brought before this committee about the problems with invasive species in the Great Lakes. It's a huge and complicated issue.

I marvel at the challenge your organization, and the federal government, the U.S., the commercial fisheries, the land owners, and environmental groups all face in trying to grapple with these species, as well as the complexity of understanding the connection between the different species. We heard the other day about the goby that eats the mussels that created botulism—it's unbelievable—plus the sea lamprey and so on. Clearly, the partnerships are pretty key, to say nothing of the determination of staff like yours.

Ms. Neary, you raised concerns about the proposed changes to the Fisheries Act, particularly as they relate to habitat protection. I wonder if you would speak to those a bit because, in some of the testimony I've heard over the past couple of weeks, habitat is so difficult to nail down, as it's so interrelated. Would you speak to that?

Also, would you advise the committee whether or not you or your department was advised of the proposed changes before they were introduced in the House a couple of weeks ago?

4 p.m.

Director, Applied Research and Development Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Anne Neary

To start with, I think we're certainly very supportive of enabling tools and trying to streamline our policies and regulations, and the provincial government is going through a similar exercise. I think it's necessary.

The challenge with the changed wording of the Fisheries Act is that I think we aren't fully aware yet of what it will mean for us. We've been working with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to try to better understand what the wording changes will mean. When we're talking about habitat it's pretty clear what we're talking about, rather than ecosystems and “adverse impacts to fisheries”.

I'll tell you a little story. I was previously with the Ministry of the Environment, and a lot of their legislation deals directly with adverse impact. It's that kind of wording that makes it difficult to understand the level of enforcement, how far down the road you can go to justify those words “adverse impact”. It's understanding what the new wording means and the definitions around the new wording that will help Ontario understand its role.

In that respect I think it will be a challenge. It's certainly a challenge that we face every time new legislation comes in. It's more a matter of working through what it will mean for the province, for the federal government, and where our roles and responsibilities diverge and where they meet.

We did find out early on that you were considering changes but weren't sure what those changes were. I'm with the applied research group, so we wouldn't find out immediately. We would probably find out through the work we do with our policy folks.

Ala, do you have anything to add?

4:05 p.m.

Manager, Biodiversity Branch, Biodiversity Policy Section, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Ala Boyd

Well I can echo what Anne has spoken to. We have not seen any of the specific details of the changes to the Fisheries Act with respect to the fish habitat provisions, but we're anxious to receive some of the details and continue to work with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to better understand the implications of what it means for Ontario.

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

I appreciate very much what you said about the responsibility of the federal government on the moves it has to make and so on, and that you will work with those and continue to carry out your mandate as best you can.

I guess what I'm trying to get my head around, as I think some members of this committee are too, is what the effects will be. I think that's where you're coming from; it's about what the effects of these changes will be. It's important for us to hear from people like you who deal with this on a daily basis and with the consequences of events both immediately and down the road with all kinds of different effects.

Would it not make some sense to you, and would you not agree, that before these changes were to become law that there be a full consultation so that bodies like yours would have an opportunity to examine them, have input, and ensure the final changes that are made do the less harm?

4:05 p.m.

Director, Applied Research and Development Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Anne Neary

Certainly we would welcome the opportunity to provide comment on what the changes mean. When you have something before you to provide comment on, it's often difficult without having the dialogue as well. The dialogue always helps to meld, I guess, what the words mean. As anybody knows who deals with enforcement of legislation, it gets down to what those words mean and what we can do. What tools can we use to adequately enforce the legislation?

Certainly we would welcome dialogue and consultation.

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

That's it, Chair?

Okay, thank you very much.