Evidence of meeting #46 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 prevention.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Let me switch topics. The International Joint Commission happens to be here this week. I don't know if they have anything to say about the joint cooperation you were talking about. I was pleasantly surprised to hear that you're not finding impediments in the course of dealing with political boundaries or agency separations. It sounds as though there's a lot of cooperation.
Is there anything I should be asking the International Joint Commission this week when we have a chance to meet with them?
Acting Regional Director General, Central and Arctic Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
That's like asking a kid in a candy shop, what would he like?
Clearly, one is continued binational cooperation. Frankly, this is not a political issue. This is an issue of cooperation. We've seen it across various entities. There's the work that's being done by the IJC. There's the work that's being done, as I've indicated, through the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee, and the work we're doing with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and other binational organizations.
I guess my call would be for folks just to continue what they're doing, and if there's a way of doing it, increase that kind of cooperation and integration.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
May I ask a last question?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
No, your time is up, sorry.
Mr. Woodworth, the floor is yours, sir.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and bienvenue à tous. Thank you for coming today. I am the newer member on this committee, so some of the exotic fisheries terminology around pseudofeces and piscicides is still a bit fresh to me. I hope I won't misunderstand the evidence that I've heard.
I want to focus on the question of barriers. I'm going to start with Ms. Cudmore. I'll begin by just making sure that I have it straight that the bighead carp are not in Lake Michigan. Am I right about that?
Senior Science Advisor, Central and Arctic Region, Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatics Sciences, Burlington, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
You're correct.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I'm looking at what would be slide 4 in the deck. It indicates there are five entry points from the Chicago Area Waterway System, and two of them seem to be not associated with any waterworks or facilities, waterway structures. Those would be Indiana Harbor and Canal and Burns Small Boat Harbor. Am I reading that correctly? Those seem to be direct access points into Lake Michigan.
Research Scientist, Central and Arctic Region, Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatics Sciences, Burlington, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
And Calumet Harbor as well, number 3.
Senior Science Advisor, Central and Arctic Region, Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatics Sciences, Burlington, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Yes.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I skipped that one because it seemed there was a waterway structure further upriver.
Research Scientist, Central and Arctic Region, Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatics Sciences, Burlington, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
It's a lock-and-dam structure, and we know that the fish can pass through lock-and-dam structures, as they have throughout the Mississippi.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
There was mention earlier of electrical screens. Could you clarify for me whether those screening mechanisms are in place in all five of those locations?
Senior Science Advisor, Central and Arctic Region, Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatics Sciences, Burlington, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
To maximize the ability to prevent dispersal through those five areas, the electric barrier is actually quite further downstream. It's number 7. The populations are still quite a way downstream from there.
Senior Science Advisor, Central and Arctic Region, Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatics Sciences, Burlington, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
The idea is to prevent them from moving up and then through those areas. It's that bottleneck area, number 7.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
You may have helped me to understand one of the things that I found troublesome, which is on page 9 of your report, which indicted that the management team had proposed the question on how effective the barrier is, and the answer was that a detailed evaluation of the effectiveness of the barrier was not conducted in this risk assessment. From my perspective, that would be the first thing to do. I would want to be sure that the barrier was effective.
You're indicating that the problem hasn't reached point 7 yet. Is there any other way to examine the effectiveness of that barrier, in a theoretical way at least, or give us some assurance about how effective that is?
Senior Science Advisor, Central and Arctic Region, Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatics Sciences, Burlington, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
There is a study under way in the United States to determine the effectiveness of the barrier. To date the work that has been done to monitor the situation of the barrier is showing us that it is working as it's intended to. They do tag other species in the area and they do swim up toward the electrical barrier and get uncomfortable and turn around and head the other way. Although we didn't evaluate the barrier per se, we took into account that it is in place and it is working as intended.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Forgive me for being cautious, but the phrase “working as intended”, can I hear that as equivalent to 100% effective?
October 16th, 2012 / 10:45 a.m.
Senior Science Advisor, Central and Arctic Region, Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatics Sciences, Burlington, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
No, I don't think anyone would argue that activity such as that would be 100% effective, but it is dealing with the adult species, and with the young as well. They've been doing studies to determine the most effective level of electricity required in order to prevent that movement.
Conservative
Senior Science Advisor, Central and Arctic Region, Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatics Sciences, Burlington, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I believe the barrier effectiveness is due either later this calendar year or early next calendar year.
Senior Science Advisor, Central and Arctic Region, Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatics Sciences, Burlington, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Yes.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Very good, thank you.
There is another area I was interested in, and forgive me if I've lost it in the conversation to this point. I'd like to be clear about the jurisdictional responsibilities.
I'm going to address these questions to Mr. Burden. The lead on this file would be with DFO, not with Environment Canada. Is that a correct statement?