Fisheries Committee on May 7th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chisholm.

We'll go to Mr. Kamp.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for appearing before us. I appreciate the information you're providing.

On this last issue my colleague has raised, the wording of the act is certainly out there for public review. I think you can look at the details of that and begin to form your opinions on the actual wording. By the way, it doesn't use the words “adverse impact”. The prohibition uses the words “serious harm” to fisheries or to fish that support those fisheries. At the beginning of the act, you'll notice that “serious harm” is defined as “the death of fish or any permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat”. That's the direction we're going.

The minister and others have said that the act basically describes a new strategic direction and the foundation for it. The policy framework needs to be built upon that. He specifically said that those discussions will be taking place with the provinces, conservation groups, and other stakeholders. But he specifically mentioned provinces, so you can be sure that you will be involved as we build that framework on top of that foundation.

I hope that's a little bit helpful.

One of my colleagues, who couldn't be with us here today, was a conservation officer in the Yukon. He talked about enforcing WAPPRIITA when he was doing his job. That's the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act. It forbids a number of things, including the import, export, and interprovincial transportation of certain species. One of them is species whose introduction into Canadian ecosystems could endanger Canadian species.

Is the Province of Ontario involved in the enforcement of this act? This is federal legislation. Do they have an MOU, as many provinces do? I didn't see Ontario on that list. I just wondered if you've used that tool or an MOU to enforce that tool as part of dealing with invasive species, for example.

[Anne Neary]

No, I'm not aware that we have. I don't think so.

[Francine MacDonald]

No, we have not used that tool. WAPPRIITA deals with endangered species and invasive species as two pieces. For the invasive species piece, they have the ability to list species they do not want imported into the country, but it's been little used. If I think of the species currently listed as invasive, they are raccoon dogs and mongooses. So it has not been used very much. I think those were the original species listed when WAPPRIITA came into effect in the late-1990s. We have not used that tool in the past or currently.

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

You have your own legislation that says that someone can't possess a live thing that you call an invasive species, which is a harmful non-native species. Currently, as I understand it from a previous witness, if those show up at the border, the CBSA calls you.

They can't stop them at the border, as such. Is that your understanding? But once something crosses the border, it's under Ontario legislation, and you deal with it.

Have you taken a look at the changes to the Fisheries Act that address that gap in federal legislation with respect to aquatic invasive species? I think you referred to them. Do you think this will be helpful now? They will forbid their importation, for example, and movement and the other things listed there. Do you think that will help in your task, as we do this together? It's obviously a partnership to control these species.

[Ala Boyd]

Yes, we certainly are very optimistic and positive about the aquatic invasive species regulatory proposal that DFO is contemplating under the Fisheries Act. We feel that it will provide the necessary tools to empower CBSA to stop those shipments from coming into Canada; it's a tool that they presently do not have. From what we know of the regulatory proposals, we think it will be a very good tool to help address that significant gap.

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

How much more time do I have? I have a couple minutes.

I think in your comments you said that in your opinion, the vector that has introduced the majority of aquatic invasive species is the well meaning Canadians who throw things in the river or the pond or—what you didn't actually say—who flush things down the toilet, or whatever they do.

Is that your view, or how much is it ballast water and things coming in through transportation vectors rather than exotic animals somehow making their way into a Canadian's possession and then they get rid of them in an uninformed way?

[Anne Neary]

I think it's both. I will maybe turn to Tim who can probably provide a nice scientific answer to that question.

[Dr. Tim Johnson, Research Scientist, Applied Research and Development Branch, Aquatic Research, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources]

Thanks, Anne.

Basically, I think ballast water was historically a very significant source for invasive species, aquatic invasive species especially, and certainly foreign species that arrived. But I think, as Anne pointed out in her talk, subsequent to 2006, we haven't seen, or haven't detected, I should say, any new species that we attribute to that vector. However, the water garden, the aquarium, trade is an emerging and very real threat.

I think what we're going to see in the coming years is that ballast water is still very significant, and if in any way the legislation changed, I think that could be a prominent vector, but for the moment I think we're probably seeing a transition.

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

Education is important, as you were saying.

[Dr. Tim Johnson]

Education is very key.

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

Thank you, Chair.

[Anne Neary]

I wanted to thank you very much for your comments about consultation and dialogue. We do appreciate that, and we look forward to commenting on the legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Now we'll move to the five-minute round, and we'll start off with Mr. Donnelly.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being in front of the committee today.

I just wanted to pick up on the comments about the changes to the Fisheries Act, specifically on habitat protection. There were a few comments made earlier that I was hoping to get some clarification on, firstly on consultation.

Could you mention how you were consulted on these changes and when you first learned of these?

[Anne Neary]

As I say, I'm not the right person to answer that, simply because I'm involved on the science side of things, so I'm going to see....

Francine, I know you've been working with our folks to provide comments to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Can you talk a little bit more about that?

[Francine MacDonald]

I can only speak to the consultation that we've received with respect to the aquatic invasive species components of the Fisheries Act.

Ontario, as well as the other provinces and territories, is part of the National Aquatic Invasive Species Committee, and that committee has been consulted by DFO to inform us of what they're planning in terms of aquatic invasive species regulations. They have provided us with opportunity for feedback and comment on those aquatic invasive species regulations, but I can't speak to the consultation with respect to the entire act.

[Anne Neary]

I don't know when we started to provide comments back. Was it in the last month?

[Ala Boyd]

On the aquatic invasive regulatory proposal, I think we were first made aware of the drafts back in December and January, but with respect to the fisheries, the fish habitat provisions, I can't really speak to exactly when we were notified.

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

It seems a bit—

[Ala Boyd]

It's a bit inconsistent.

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

—inconsistent and cloudy.

[Anne Neary]

It's inconsistent, but I will say that certainly, there were rumours. I think everybody knows that, and the province didn't want to react in the absence of actually seeing the actual wording. It's easy to jump to conclusions before you really understand what's being proposed. We were waiting until the federal government had actually got the draft document ready to be looked at.

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

You haven't seen it since it's been tabled?

[Anne Neary]

I haven't personally, no, but I haven't been involved in that side of it. I'm not sure whether our policy director has seen a copy of the draft or been consulted.