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

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC

I'm wondering if there are any increased responsibilities that will be turned over to the province as a result of these changes. Obviously, you haven't seen the legislation and had time to review the changes, but can you speak to any possible concerns?

You've mentioned the aquatic invasive side, but there's also a habitat side. Even with the aquatic invasive side, there could be an increased amount of responsibility for the Ontario provincial government.

Certainly, there have been cuts to DFO that I would assume will make things more difficult for marine science or freshwater science. I'm wondering if there's going to be an increase in responsibility for your department, given your remarks about potential belt-tightening in the Ontario government.

4:20 p.m.

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

Anne Neary

The fisheries enforcement and management in Canada, and certainly in Ontario, has always been a combined effort. We've always worked closely with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. With our delegated authority, we're in constant contact on our invasive species strategic plan. We're talking to them; they're at the table. In our rapid response to Asian carp, DFO was at the exercise we conducted.

Because fisheries management is split between federal and provincial legislation, we've worked together closely. We're watching any changes that occur under the Fisheries Act very closely to see what they will mean for Ontario. Our premier has announced that we need to start reducing our deficit and that this will mean changes in the work we do. Our fear is that if we take on increased responsibility, we may not have the resources to carry it out. But however it lands, we're hoping to continue to work together.

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC

Thank you.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston

Thank you very much, Mr. Donnelly.

Mr. Hayes.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Bryan Hayes Conservative Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think you guys thought that you were here to discuss invasive species in the Great Lakes. It seems like this has been changed to the Fisheries Act. Let's understand, folks, that we're studying invasive species in the Great Lakes. This was a resolution that was put forward by Pat Davidson and me, being a member for Sault Ste. Marie, to discuss invasive species in the Great Lakes.

With that question in mind, there are 12 jurisdictions—eight states, two provinces, the Canadian federal government, and the U.S. federal government. We also have the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and several intergovernmental forums, including the Great Lakes Commission, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and the International Joint Commission. My concern has to do with who's in charge of making sure that everybody is talking to everybody and feeding everybody the right information so that we're all current on exactly what's going on.

4:20 p.m.

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

Anne Neary

There are many players, just as there are for any fisheries issues in the Great Lakes. We work closely with our American colleagues. We hope the tools they bring align with ours, and we're hoping that our provincial strategy will put arms around all of the different groups and involve everyone, so that we're moving forward together.

Invasive species is one of those things for which we don't have easily definable tools. There are some regulations in the federal government, and we have regulations in our Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. But there's no set of embracing regulations with clear enforcement and groups that enforce them. So it's certainly a challenge.

Who's in charge? I'm not sure. We're the provincial lead, DFO is the federal lead, but I don't know who's taking charge of the whole Great Lakes ecosystem. I think we can't really say there's anyone is charge.

Ala, you can correct me if I'm wrong on that one.

4:25 p.m.

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

Ala Boyd

You're not wrong, Anne. The invasive species strategic plan that the province worked on with the other sister ministries will establish our ministry as the lead ministry to coordinate efforts around invasive species management. In the absence, as Anne alluded to, of a single overriding, embracing and statutorily delegated responsibility, the invasive species strategic plan does establish our ministry as the lead ministry to take an overall coordination role.

4:25 p.m.

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

Anne Neary

I think one other point to make—and maybe Tim can speak to this—is that we work closely with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and our scientists are very closely linked to both the federal scientists and the American scientists and the work they're doing. So from a scientific perspective, I think we're probably well coordinated.

4:25 p.m.

Research Scientist, Applied Research and Development Branch, Aquatic Research, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Dr. Tim Johnson

Anne, I think that's an excellent point, really, and I'll say, maybe to the chagrin of my minister at times, that I probably work more closely with U.S. and federal colleagues on many of the research programs on the Great Lakes than I do with other people in the inland jurisdictions of the province. That's simply the complexity of fish knowing no boundaries. The issue of invasive species is a complex one, and it requires everybody to embrace it and work for a common solution.

As we look across agencies or jurisdictions, we've traditionally looked at DFO and the Canada Centre for Inland Waters in Burlington for expertise on lower trophic levels. So they're dealing with the invertebrates, whereas Ontario has maybe taken the lead on the fisheries side. We look to things like the Great Lakes Fishery Commission with regard to sea lamprey, which is certainly a cause they have shown tremendous leadership on. But there are also U.S. jurisdictions that may provide greater leadership on certain topics. We work closely together, and I don't think there's any one lead agency. Instead, we just make sure that we all stay in close communication and are aware of what each of us is doing.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Bryan Hayes Conservative Sault Ste. Marie, ON

With regard to the Invasive Species Centre in Sault Ste. Marie, Anne, you'd mentioned that the provincial government put in $15 million over five years. I seem to recall quite clearly that the federal government also contributed—about $9 million, I'm thinking—towards infrastructure for that particular building.

4:25 p.m.

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

Anne Neary

That's right. We've actually toured through the infrastructure and their upgraded quarantine lab for invasive pests, and it's a lovely centre. I think we're going to make good use of it. Certainly, when we began, we talked a lot with the Canadian Forest Service about forest pests but also about invasive terrestrial plants in forests and the work we could do up there.

We've taken advantage of putting in place a research chair for invasive terrestrial plants at Algoma University. Pedro Antunes is our lead for that as our research chair, and he'll be working with the Invasive Species Centre as well.

So we're working on aquatic invasives, but we're also doing a lot on the terrestrial front as well now.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Bryan Hayes Conservative Sault Ste. Marie, ON

We had a chance to meet Dr. István Imre, who's doing some research on sea lamprey control as well.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston

Thank you, Mr. Hayes. Your time is up.

Mr. Toone.

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, thanks for coming. It's certainly interesting to hear what the Ministry of Natural Resources has to say. I'm actually curious as to why in French it's called Ministère des Richesses naturelles.

I'd like to get just a little bit more clarification. You were saying there's a difference in the definitions of non-native species and invasive species. I'm wondering if there is an impact if a species is determined to be one or the other? How is that determination made? Could you speak to that?

4:25 p.m.

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

Anne Neary

It depends on what impact that species might have on our environment and our economy and on society. For hundreds of years there have been invasive species and things that have come into Canada and that haven't caused a problem, that haven't taken over ecosystems, that haven't disrupted the balance. But there are also species that do disrupt that balance, and there can be large consequences.

Maybe Tim would like to speak a little bit about the kinds of consequences that some of these things can have.

4:30 p.m.

Research Scientist, Applied Research and Development Branch, Aquatic Research, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Dr. Tim Johnson

Certainly. Again, as Anne has pointed out, I don't really see it as a change in definition. It's simply a matter of clarity that when people think about something like a non-native species, if there was a moniker, people were thinking everything was harmful and then they were finding examples where they weren't. Judicious stocking of species to create fisheries, for instance, could be of benefit.

So looking at some of the harm that we see from things, there can be very direct harm, such as predation, feeding on another organism. There can be disease transmission and other things, and loss of habitat. Zebra mussels and quagga mussels have fundamentally changed the way the Great Lakes ecosystem operates, having in essence hardened the bottom of the lake. They've intercepted the movement of material. That food ultimately feeds the rest of the food web, so when we look at the harm it can be things that are very observable and direct and immediate to the public and to other people, and there can be things with delayed responses. Some of these delayed responses have really required us to broaden our thinking about the invasive species and accept that the level of harm is not always something that is immediate and has a direct visible economic effect.

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

That's an interesting point. We don't know right away, at the beginning of when a new species has entered into the Great Lakes system, if it's actually going to do harm. We might be able to guess from previous experience elsewhere, but we're not entirely sure what impact it will have in the Great Lakes ecosystem.

The only way to really know is through observation over time, and previous witnesses who have come to this committee have said that sometimes those changes can happen fairly rapidly, where entire species are almost wiped out in a 10-year period and the new invasive species has actually taken over. So I'm just curious about this. If we can't know ahead of time what's an invasive species and which ones are going to do harm, and if we get back to the changes that are being proposed by the Conservative government to actually remove the protection of fish habitat and that, as Mr. Kamp correctly pointed out, we're only going to be interested—according to the new Fisheries Act—in situations of serious harm to commercially important fish, or recreationally important fish, or aboriginal fisheries....

So whenever we're going to be speaking to fisheries that are actually going to be covered under the changes to the Fisheries Act, how do we know ahead of time? Do you have the resources to know today what's going to be an invasive species, and if the federal government isn't going to support you, how is the Ontario ministry going to be able to handle this, especially with the cutbacks that are going to occur?

4:30 p.m.

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

Anne Neary

I think there are a couple of things to say. The first is that in some cases species that come in have very direct and very noticeable and very fast impacts. I'll speak to zebra mussels and the impact they have had in populating very quickly and then forming on the intake pipes for water treatment plants and nuclear power facilities. That happened very fast. It required a huge amount of money to chlorinate and remove those zebra mussels from the intake pipes. So that's a really direct effect, and we can look at other jurisdictions and the impact that some of these species have had in other areas of the world.

We also have what we call a risk assessment tool so that we can do a risk assessment and develop models based on how we know species will move in an ecosystem, how they will behave in an ecosystem. We can look to what we see in other parts of the world, and we can actually look at the potential for a species to cause harmful impacts. Tim can probably speak on a more scientific level about risk assessment, but it's a tool that we use in many things. We often don't have 100% certainty. Certainly when we're dealing with new pollutants, for example, we don't know the long-term impacts and, in many cases, when we speak of invasive species, we don't know with 100% certainty.

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston

Sorry, Mr. Toone, your time is up.

Thank you.

Mr. Moore.

May 7th, 2012 / 4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My colleague had mentioned the legislative gap that we're going to be closing in CBSA's ability to make seizures at the border. You mentioned in your presentation six shipments that were seized. What was in those shipments and how did the seizure process play out? Where were the ships heading? Were those six shipments the tip of the iceberg? Are you very effective at stopping those kinds of shipments?

4:35 p.m.

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

Anne Neary

I believe all six shipments were Asian carp. I don't know where they were headed. It was Toronto, I would imagine.

We're as effective as we can be with the tools we have. Canada Border Services, as somebody mentioned earlier, doesn't actually do the enforcement. They notify us and we take it from there.

So are we missing some? Perhaps. Can we catch them all? I don't know. I think we're doing as good a job as we can.

Does somebody want to add to that?

4:35 p.m.

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

Ala Boyd

It was interesting to note about the shipments that were coming across the border that most of the suppliers or people who trade in Asian carp are very well aware of the ban on live Asian carp that has been in place for numerous years. In this case the tanker was drained of water, but the fish were on ice and several of them did not die in the time it took for the tanker to cross the border and be held back for inspection. The fish can be easily resuscitated once water is added. That speaks to their being a biologically very hardy species. They are very tough to suppress.

We feel it is the tip of the iceberg. We received the tip from the Canada Border Services Agency. Our enforcement and conservation officers conducted the inspection and found that there were live Asian carp in the shipment. There weren't a lot of them, but there were a number of them there. Charges have been laid, but I don't know if we've taken it through to prosecution.

Francine, I know you were involved in some of the details.

4:35 p.m.

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

Francine MacDonald

I think there are three cases that are still before the courts, and one that's still under investigation. Two charges have been successful, one with a fine of $60,000, and the other with a fine of $20,000.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB

The Asian carp really seem to have been in the news of late. Are there past examples you can point to that are similar in nature where we had success in combatting an invasive species—something that was an issue, that was successfully combatted, and that is no longer an issue?

4:35 p.m.

Research Scientist, Applied Research and Development Branch, Aquatic Research, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Dr. Tim Johnson

An example is sea lamprey. When you say “success” you're inferring that we were able to eradicate and remove it. Regrettably, that doesn't happen.

Most of these organisms are highly successful, so instead we are able to control them. Through an annual investment of about $25 million there has been a lot of science on different control strategies. This has allowed lake trout, lake whitefish, and other species fisheries to recover. Within a decade of sea lamprey being detected in the Great Lakes, the fisheries collapsed totally, with reductions of 95%. We have now seen the return of fisheries and have actually declared rehabilitation—so it's a total success.

But rather than saying we successfully eradicated the invasive, we've successfully managed the invasive, but it came at a tremendous cost.