Fisheries Committee on May 30th, 2012

[Sarah Bailey]

I was going to say, as an example, that I can give you the level of effort that's been given towards ballast water over the last five years or so, during which time we've seen progress. Between Transport Canada and Fisheries and Oceans, we've spent about a million dollars annually on research and development, and Transport Canada dedicates a million dollars annually to the inspection program to enforce the regulations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Hayes.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is going to be a really simple question, or it's going to sound simple. It was mentioned that there have been no new species introduced in the Great Lakes since 2006. How do you know that? In other words, what has been done, and what can you say that can substantiate that?

[Sarah Bailey]

That's based on reports from the general scientific community. There actually have been two plant species reported in the last year; we're not sure if they're established or not. But that number for 2006 is for ballast-mediated species. The last species that was thought to have been brought in by ballast water was reported in 2006.

There is not a comprehensive monitoring program to sample all ports in the Great Lakes. This is based on what all the people who are out there doing the work are finding.

It's also based on our four lines of evidence, where we've sampled ballast water coming in from ships, identified what's in there, and looked at the effectiveness of the ballast water programs. With those four lines of evidence, we're able to comfortably say that the risk from ballast water has been reduced.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

You mentioned all of these people out there doing work. Does anybody really know how many people are out there doing research work?

We've heard from the Canadian Aquatic Invasive Species Network, the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission, the hunters and anglers, provincial MNRs, and university research groups.

My concern is in terms of efficiencies. I simply want some assurance that the left hand knows what the right hand is doing and that all this information is being shared and communicated, so that work is being conducted effectively.

Can you give me some sense that communication is happening, how it's happening, and who is coordinating it?

[Nick Mandrak]

Thank you for the question.

I think we're doing a good job of communicating with all the organizations that are carrying out research specific to AIS and doing research in general that may lead to the findings of AIS in the Great Lakes.

Within DFO, we have an AIS database, and anyone who receives funds from DFO or from CAISN is required to submit their findings on an annual basis to this database. So we do have a coordinated database.

CAISN does coordinate annual meetings where people get together to say, this is the research we are doing and these are our findings.

I think among the research community there is good communication, and CAISN and the DFO AIS program are good coordinators of that communication.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

A number of risk assessments have been completed by your group on, apparently, the Asian carp, the northern snakehead, the smallmouth bass, and the round goby.

I have two questions. First, once an assessment is completed, what happens with it in terms of an implementation plan?

Second, what are the current risk assessment priorities, and how are they determined? I mean, if you've done these, what's next?

Those are my two questions, but if you only get to one of them, that's fine. Hopefully, somebody else will pick up on the other one along the way if they feel it's appropriate.

[Becky Cudmore]

I appreciate the question.

We've done quite a few risk assessments since 2006, when we started. The results are useful in many ways, and I can give some very specific examples.

We've done a risk assessment for bloody red shrimp, which arrived in the Great Lakes in about 2006. Through the risk assessment we were able to identify other areas where it may be and where maybe we should start monitoring those areas looking for them. That summer, we implemented a monitoring program for bloody red shrimp and did find them in those areas. We were able to get at them a lot earlier than we would have without the risk assessment to help guide where we should look.

The Great Lakes are huge, and we need these risk assessments to help us target our vulnerable areas.

The risk assessments also come with a level of uncertainty. What is driving uncertainty or certainty with a risk assessment? A lot of our risk assessments have identified research priorities that we need to take in order to increase our certainty or our comfort level with the level of risk a species poses.

Probably one of our proudest results was our 2004 risk assessment for all of Canada for Asian carp. The risk assessment result was that the risk was high should Asian carp be introduced into Canadian waters. That led to the ban of possession and sale of live Asian carp in the province of Ontario. So there was a very direct link from our risk assessment results to seeing regulations in place by the province. Subsequent to that, the Province of B.C. has also banned possession and sale of Asian carp, based on the results of our first risk assessment.

The second question was on determining our current risk assessment priorities. One of my jobs is to basically scan the radar. I'm looking at what pathways are available for invasive species to travel to Canada and what species are on those pathways. Is there anything happening in the States? Are there species there that we should be concerned about in Canada? Is there something going on in Europe?

We also talk to the provinces, NGOs, and anyone who will provide us with information about what their concerns are, what the next potential invasive species are that they are concerned about.

We compile that information, and we'll do a rapid assessment: is it in a pathway to Canada, could it survive, and would it have impacts? That list is then vetted through a national executive committee we have that's made up of representatives of scientists and managers from across DFO. They prioritize, based on the information we have available.

In some cases, we are formally asked by either our own agency or other agencies to conduct a risk assessment. That helps move things up the priority list because it's a formal request for science advice. That's how we come up with what we're going to work on that year.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I apologize for being late.

Thank you for being here.

Regarding the $17.5 million that has been announced, what amount will be going to the Centre of Expertise for Aquatic Risk Assessment or the DFO Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences in Burlington?

Also, have you escaped the cutbacks? If you did, great. If not, what effect do they have? Could you give us some of the details?

I hope I'm not repeating things.

[Becky Cudmore]

With regard to the funds and where they're going to go, we are still working on those details right now. We know that the Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences is very strongly committed to working with the U.S. on preventing the introduction and establishment of Asian carp in the Great Lakes. I don't think any would come to the Centre of Expertise for Aquatic Risk Assessment, but we would certainly want to leverage those funds and do any further risk assessment work if it was deemed necessary.

On your third question on the cuts, to my knowledge, the aquatic invasive species program has not been affected by the recent round of cuts.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Very good. Can you tell me basically how the $17.5 million will be spent?

[Becky Cudmore]

Sure. We have an Asian carp strategic plan. It will be for Canadian activities, but also to work with our American partners. The funds would stay here in Canada. It's to deal with a prevention program for Asian carp.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Is there anything for education?

[Becky Cudmore]

Absolutely, prevention and—

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I think the big problem a lot of times—we could talk about a lot of different things—is that people import these fish, these invasive species. They take them in. A lot of people do not realize what they are doing. I'd just like you to go on that angle a bit, if you are.

[Becky Cudmore]

Absolutely, I cannot stress enough how important outreach and education is for industry, community groups, and the general public in terms of preventing aquatic invasive species. Some of the ideas that we're working on now include education of importers and retailers who are importing these things in Ontario, and also any industry groups, so that we can work with them, because the more eyes on the water, the better. That would be commercial fishermen, recreational fishermen. We definitely would like to reach out to them.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Very good. And the people who buy these just to have them at home...? Most Canadians would not do this if they really knew what they were doing. That would be my opinion.

[Becky Cudmore]

Right. The intended reason for bringing these in is not to release them into the wild. We think there are many reasons why they are being released.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

They have them in their home pool or whatever, and then they get tired.

[Becky Cudmore]

Yes, there are lots of those examples out there.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

On the recent findings of the possible snakehead in B.C. waters, have you any comment on that and what effect it could have?

[Becky Cudmore]

In Burnaby, B.C., a fish was videotaped. Dr. Mandrak and I looked at it and we believe it is a northern snakehead. We do know that in Canada there are no laws prohibiting importation of any aquatic invasive species. We just don't have those regulations.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Should there be? That would be another question, if I have time.

What should be done, along with education? Should there be laws passed? How do we enforce these laws? I suppose like every other border—