Fisheries Committee on May 7th, 2012

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

You mentioned the role of citizens, anglers, hunters, and so on. In a situation like that with the Asian carp, what do you see as the role of citizens or anglers—or is there a role?

[Anne Neary]

Certainly there is a role in education and awareness. The role they play, combined with the scientific work we're doing to try to develop detection tools ahead of time, will help us respond much more quickly.

Do you want to speak specifically to the work we're doing with OFAH and other groups?

[Ala Boyd]

Yes, both Francine and I can speak to the partnership.

We've had a very successful partnership with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. I appreciate that they, too, provided testimony here, and probably spoke to the partnership we've had in place with them for, I guess, this year it's 20 years that we are celebrating.

Our surveys show there has been an increased awareness among the angling and hunting community. It has, in fact, resulted in the changing of behavioural practices. Many anglers, as a result of the increased education, no longer dump bait buckets into lakes, because use of live bait is also another vector.

In spite of that partnership, there is much work that remains. We are concerned about certain practices among different communities. Some communities, for cultural reasons and ceremonial purposes, will release live fish into waterways. It takes an inordinate amount of effort to reach out to the different communities and address the practices they have, the views and beliefs they hold close. Our work is not going to be done, by any stretch, through an agreement with one stakeholder community. It really is broad societal awareness that we need to promote to change practices.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Moore.

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I apologize for being late and missing your presentation, but we must bury the dead.

Education and programs are things that I think are very much needed.

I think it was Ms. Boyd who indicated that ceremonial practices take place. I'd like you to expand on that. I wonder how big a task it would be—and you would know better than I—to make these people realize what harm they're actually doing. It's one of the many problems.

I forget which group it was, but we had a group here that had an educational package that would cost a little over $1 million. I'd like you to elaborate on what we need. People need to understand that they are creating a great difficulty. You're dealing with a $650-million benefit to the Ontario economy, and I doubt that many people would want to destroy that. What do we need to do in order to educate the people? Is that one of your biggest problems?

Also, if you have some time, on the ballast water issue, you've indicated that you have detected no new invasive species since the new regulations were put in place. I understand that the Americans are considering making a much stronger law, putting more technology into the ballast system in order to make sure there will be nothing alive coming into their waters. I'd like you to expand on that.

Thank you for being here.

[Anne Neary]

Maybe I'll introduce something, and then I'll turn it over to the others.

Certainly, anything we can do to strengthen our ballast regulations and make sure that we're not going to get any new invasives through that vector would be helpful.

We've had great success. As Tim pointed out, we're in a situation now where that isn't the primary vector, and things are starting to shift. As things start to shift and we start to look at bait fish, we start to look at water garden industries and things. We start to look at an increasingly urban population that is, perhaps, not as in touch with the native flora and fauna of Ontario, and certainly a population that comes from many other countries and really has no awareness of the impact they may cause.

Even if they were aware that it causes an impact, how do we make them care? How do we make them support our actions and take more care? If you don't live beside a lake, perhaps you don't view a lake as important. You may live many orders of magnitude away from the lake itself but still within the watershed. What you do in a small stream in the upper reaches of the watershed can certainly impact what happens downstream and at the output of the stream and into the lake.

It's creating that awareness. It's certainly a difficult problem. Can we do it effectively? We believe the only way to do it is by engaging others, such as municipalities and other organizations, such key environmental groups, and the people who are closer to those communities and can reach out.

Ala, and Tim, do you have something to add?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

If I may, before you pass it on to them, what would be your recommendation to the committee on the ballast water? There are going to be decisions. We'll not make the decisions, but we'll be making suggestions to the minister as to what direction he should take. Is it your view, then, that the ballast water situation is in hand?

[Anne Neary]

Certainly it has improved considerably—

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

But you can't spend a large amount of money. What I'm trying to say is that there's not enough money to go everywhere, so where should we go? Is it education? Where is it?

[Anne Neary]

Tim, do you want to speak from a scientific perspective as to what you see our biggest problem might be?

[Dr. Tim Johnson]

Yes.

Again, I think it's a very good question. As Anne pointed out, I think we've made tremendous progress with ballast water, such that it's maybe not at the top of the list. I certainly would be very fearful if we backed off in any way or were seen to slide backwards, because when we look at the number of species that arrive through ballast water and at the time course, the threat is very real. There are thousands of ships crossing the ocean and entering the Great Lakes waterways, so we can't back off on this.

However, to get to your question about the education side of things, I think, as Anne has pointed out and just as this meeting is accomplishing, it's by educating and helping people understand the problems.... Whether it's working with the shipping industry—which we educated, and which has worked with us to develop measures—or with the public and individuals and communities, or with angling groups, yes, I think the area of education and outreach is probably a priority area for us to focus on. But it can't come about by compromising the efforts that we've put into some of these other measures.

If we were to turn our backs on sea lamprey control, in just a couple of years we would be back 50 years and dealing with the decimation of Great Lakes fish stocks. We can't take money out of that program to enhance another.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much.

[Anne Neary]

I think one point to add is that invasive species come from many different sources, so it isn't a one-point source for which you can easily write a regulation to control. With ballast water we can do that, but with all the other vectors we can't do that.

I think we're doing a very good job, given the lack of regulatory tools that we have in place. That's not a criticism implying that we should have more of them, necessarily, but we really need an effort that involves the legislation and the regulatory piece where we can use it; the education and awareness piece where that will benefit us most; a rapid response, making sure that everybody is on board and that the communication is there among all the agencies in order to take immediate action; and the science that will continue to tell us where we need to focus our efforts. I think we're doing as good a job as we can with what we've got.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Tremblay.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have always been convinced scientific data help us take up any challenge. I think scientific data on fish habitat and spawning seasons and areas are essential in order to fight invading species. Data on the habitat tell us whether fish is weakened or still in good shape. Do you think changes in section 35 might entail the loss of effective data to fight invading species?

[Anne Neary]

I'm probably going to turn the floor over to Tim.

I'm not sure that we will be losing any data. We continue to collect data, and I think our research efforts will continue. That really helps us to define habitat and describe that habitat.

Tim, do you want to add a little to that?

[Dr. Tim Johnson]

Yes.

Without getting into detail, there's not much I can really add, other than to say that I think your point is very important. We need to understand the biology. On the question that came up earlier about predicting the next species, if we don't understand the basic biology, we can't undertake these basic biological and economic risk assessments, and then we can't assess the harm, which means we could be putting money into places where it could be better invested.

So yes, I think we need to do the basic science, and I think, as Anne has pointed out, we're not necessarily anticipating changes there. We do need to do basic collection to understand things, but it's hard to anticipate specifically with any one of these proposed changes what it may actually mean around that acquisition or collection of data.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Thank you.

With budget cuts being made now, what should the federal government do? What are the changes that should be made in order to improve our fight against invading species?

[Anne Neary]

That's a difficult question. I'm not exactly sure what's being proposed in terms of budget restrictions. Certainly we're all rethinking what we need to do. We're all doing more with less. The provincial government is going through a similar process. I think we just have to make sure that we're ready to respond and that we focus perhaps on prevention and detection so that we aren't in a situation where we have to put a huge amount of resources towards enforcement and management after the fact.

I think we're hoping in the province that we can continue to do a lot of the research that we're doing to try to identify problems before they may happen, and build on our collaborative efforts around rapid response, certainly for Asian carp.

Ala, do you have some points that you'd like to make?

[Ala Boyd]

It's a great question.

We are very encouraged by the aquatic invasive regulatory proposal under the Fisheries Act. It will provide an enabling framework for the provinces to consider in terms of undertaking management action. It provides a very clear legal framework that will empower the provinces for the first time to legally control and eradicate species once they become established. So there are some very positive things happening in that regard.

We don't yet have a formal policy position, as a province, on any of the proposed changes under the Fisheries Act in terms of a comprehensive suite of changes that are taking place. We understand that the changes to the legislation are one component, but it will be really important for us to understand the policies and the strategies that derive out of the legislative changes in order for us to assess what the implication to the province might be.

We do see a continued role for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in our inland waters. We feel that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has a very clear role to play in coordinating and conducting some of the research monitoring activities. We rely very much on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans centre for expertise and risk assessments in Burlington. We are a very small organization in and of ourselves, and we cannot do the kind of work that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans does in that regard.

With respect to other federal government activities, if you're asking about the types of things that we would like to see the federal government continue to focus on, clearly we would ask that you maintain vigilance with the ballast water regulations and their implementation. Again, that's just not something our ministry would have the capacity or the resources to take on in the event that there were significant changes proposed.

We are very encouraged by some of the things that are happening. We clearly need more information about some of the other legislative changes that are proposed to understand the implications to Ontario.

Again, just in summary, we would ask that you maintain vigilance with the implementation of the ballast water regulations and some of the work you've done, particularly around the sea lamprey control program, which has been tremendously successful.

[Anne Neary]

I think adopting a risk approach is critical. Certainly in times of constraint a risk framework, and a formal risk framework, is always necessary. The risk assessment work done by Fisheries and Oceans but also by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency with respect to the socio-economic impacts is critical.

We certainly would like to see those two pieces continue, because those will be the tools we use to predict the impacts of new invasive species.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Kamp.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think my colleague, Mr. Toone, raised a good point about non-native species, that some are good and some are bad, as it turns out. It's my understanding, for example, that rainbow trout is not native to the Great Lakes, but it was introduced and I think we're pleased about that. We wouldn't be so pleased if we'd introduced something that turned out to be harmful.

I'm not a scientist, but I would guess that when you introduce something—a non-native species—even something as apparently benign as rainbow trout, that you won't know all of the effects on the ecosystem until it's been there a while. I think it's also true, as the saying goes, that one man's trash is another man's treasure. As we heard from an earlier witness, sea lamprey, for example, we hate in the Great Lakes, but in Portugal it's a delicacy, and an important economic fishery for other parts of the Atlantic as well. Yet it's causing nothing but harm in the Great Lakes. Obviously, it's a very difficult task, because some things are introduced and other things make their way naturally, and others through human sources.

My understanding is that a species of eel called the American eel is being considered for listing both in Canada and the U.S., and I think perhaps is already listed under provincial legislation in Ontario. I think it's declining in Lake Ontario, if I understand correctly.

Would it be affected at all by the sea lamprey control program? Would we be trying to kill sea lampreys and at the same time having negative effects on other species like the American eel, for example?

[Anne Neary]

I'm going to turn to my scientist to answer that, because I'm sure he can do it much better than I.

[Dr. Tim Johnson]

Again, just to help you understand, yes, the American eel is listed provincially, but federally its status is still being clarified. The United States is again torn, because in eastern Lake Ontario, in the St. Lawrence River, the American eel population used to support a very significant fishery but the species has literally disappeared from that portion of its range. We find very few individuals, whereas further out on the Atlantic seaboard, off the southern U.S. states, it's still surviving.

It's difficult, as Anne said earlier, with species coming in from multiple sources. When we look at a species and struggle with how to manage it, I think it's also important to recognize that the American eel and the lamprey are fundamentally different organisms. They may share some sort of a common moniker or name, but the American eel was never parasitic. It is a predator, but the lamprey was non-native and wrought tremendous harm to the lakes.