Fisheries Committee on Oct. 16th, 2012

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Concerning your slide 7, when you talk about five years after the introduction to Lake Michigan and 20 years after introduction, you are assuming, I guess, the management measures that are in place today.

Have you seen over the last few years the evolution of management practices? Are they getting better? Do we sense that in the next few years those management practices, based on the science—and I think Mr. Sopuck asked about pellets and those types of things—are advancing fast enough, as these species are advancing?

[Becky Cudmore]

Yes. We have a lot of good news stories concerning management activities that help prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species, ballast water being one of those stories. In terms of Asian carp specifically, the U.S. is having to move very quickly. Even though this is a 20-year invasion on their side, it has reached such dire consequences that they're having to move forward the advance of research, such as that on these poison pellets, as they're called. They're accelerating very quickly in order to deal with the problem at hand.

Luckily, we're in a different spot in the invasion process. Basically, we are at pre-arrival. We can leverage from the work they're doing and use it to our benefit to continue the prevention of the Asian carp species.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

One thing talked about is the ecological risk assessment being focused only on the ecological consequences, with the economic consequences to be assessed separately. We've had all kinds of estimates of the economic consequences of this invasive species getting into the Great Lakes.

Can you tell me who is going to do that assessment and when? I am very interested.

[David Burden]

The folks doing that are members of our regional departmental team. That study stands at the point that the findings have been brought together, and it is now being peer-reviewed. That will happen over the next month or two. From there, the information will be shared broadly, as was the binational risk assessment. The study will help frame our knowledge and our approach to how we deal with it.

I think the estimated completion is to be in the spring, and I would say we are on target for that.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Allen.

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Cudmore, if I understood you correctly, you think that fines are more important or would have a bigger impact—and I'm not disputing that—because of the imports of large quantities of illegal fish into the country. Do you think they are more important than the educational factor, or are the two equal?

[Becky Cudmore]

Thank you. I'm glad we have a chance to clarify that.

I don't think they are more important; in fact, I believe outreach and education would be more important. But I think we need these punitive measures as well, basically making a two-pronged approach to deal with this aspect of entry.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

As far as the fines are concerned, you are dealing with the criminal element of the country, and it's a criminal act to do it.

Also, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement includes a commitment to develop early detection and rapid response. Looking at the $17.5 million that has been allocated, I'd like you to comment on where we are right now and what needs to be done. If you could look at what the Government of Canada through DFO or Environment Canada, or provincial governments is doing, I'd like you to elaborate on that and where we are.

[Becky Cudmore]

Absolutely. We have a commitment to establish rapid response planning and a framework to better understand who does what. Luckily, there has been work done that we can build from.

We also have mutual interest with the United States in this species. These are priority species for both countries. We have in place work whereby binationally we can conduct rapid response efforts. Work is already well under way to develop a framework, develop the responsibilities, and move the yardsticks forward. We are also working with the Province of Ontario to put a rapid response framework in place domestically.

We have both ends covered and are moving that forward. We'll be able to meet this deadline under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Dr. Mandrak, is it inevitable that this is going to happen? None of us can stop floods. Is it inevitable that this species is going to be in the Great Lakes?

[Nick Mandrak]

I don't think we should treat it as inevitable. I think we should be working toward preventing the inevitable.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

If it does happen on a small scale and it is detected with the early detection that has been put in place, which I feel is very important, do you think that if we find it in the Great Lakes we will be able to eradicate it? Is that your thought, looking at the results you've had in other places around the world?

[Nick Mandrak]

Eradication is very difficult to achieve. I think we can be very successful at reducing population sizes and slowing the spread. If they do end up in the Great Lakes, I certainly think that we should not say that the game is over and all is lost. There is much that we can do to minimize the subsequent impact; that would be reducing population and slowing spread.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I suppose it's difficult for you to answer this, but it's hard for people to realize the enormous economic effect this invasion would have, if it happened. You may wish to comment.

It's sometimes difficult to get governments in general to allocate the resources or sometimes really understand what a massive destructive effect this will have on the economy of anybody involved in the fishery around the Great Lakes. I don't know how to word it, but without a doubt, as David Burden indicated, you're not overly flush with money. Is there a lack of funds in Canada and even in the U.S.? Are we spending proportionately or more than our fair share in handling these situations?

Do you wish to comment on that?

[David Burden]

The reality is that we're expending resources for an issue that, to this point, exists south of the border.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Yes.

[David Burden]

Clearly that goes a long way. The fact that we're leveraging off what the Americans are doing goes a long way as well.

To your point about the economic analysis and the impacts of this, we'll have a Canadian analysis, as I said, in the spring. We can look at what has happened in the United States and the impact it has had not only on the fishery but on tourism and recreation on waterways, and say that this would be catastrophic in any jurisdiction's backyard.

From our perspective, I've used the example in the past of the way we deal with search and rescue: we always want to deal on the prevention and education side, rather than have to deal with the tragedy at the other end of it. This follows the exact same model. If we can marshal our resources, maybe they will get it. We're doing everything we can to ensure that this invasion doesn't happen. But if it happens, we'll know probably where it's going to happen and will have had the relationships and the planning to be able to hit the ground running and deal with it, so that it doesn't end up as it has in the United States and cause damage of that magnitude.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I think it's important—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

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

Mr. Mai.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the witnesses for their presentations.

I generally sit on the Standing Committee on Finance. So I may be asking questions that have already been asked and answered.

I would like a better understanding. With respect to funding or cutbacks in the budget, Mr. Burden, you said that dealing with that is part of your job. Can you explain which cutbacks have had a direct impact on the department or its studies? Has there been an impact?

[David Burden]

There have been none regarding the Asian carp problem.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Very well.

Let's talk funding. I see that you received $17.5 million for this study. What will happen upon completion of this five-year program? We know we are talking about prevention. Therefore the money is currently being used for prevention, given that there is no other action being taken yet. After five years, once that budget has been spent, will this structure remain? Can you assure us that there will be no negative impact when it comes to the carp problem? Will you have to ask for new funding?

[David Burden]

We received temporary funding for five years. I am sure that in four years' time, my team will do what is needed to obtain the funds required to continue our work.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

As the person responsible for directing budget-related activities, you have to say, with respect to a program that has been cut back, that it depends on the funding that will be allocated. However, given the negative impact Asian carp could have in Canada, do you not believe that we would benefit from a fixed, long-term structure? The most important point is prevention. Should we not have a system whereby the bases that you have established and that you will continue to support remain, if we do not want these carps proliferating in Canada?