Fisheries Committee on Oct. 16th, 2012

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Has anybody been charged for bringing invasive species into this country? Have there been many? How effective has it been?

[Becky Cudmore]

Yes, there have been people charged by the province for breaking provincial law by possessing live Asian carp. There have been at least three court cases that have gone through and people have been fined.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

You mentioned the importance of early detection, Ms. Cudmore. I'd like you to elaborate on that.

[Becky Cudmore]

Sure.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I think it's down the scale a little farther than we want it to be.

[Becky Cudmore]

We do want to be on the proactive side, not the reactive side, when dealing with aquatic invasive species. In the past, by the time we see them, if we're not actively looking for them, they show up and they've already become well established in the system. It becomes very costly and really ecologically ineffective to deal with those species.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Is it possible? Has it ever been successful? Dr. Mandrak talked about fishing and taking tons and tons of them out. What effect does that have?

[Becky Cudmore]

He was talking about fishing down an established population. If we can detect things early, we don't even have to get there. The idea is to do very targeted surveillance in key areas where we think they are first likely to show up, as well as to use key techniques in order to find them as early as possible. Then we don't have to go down the road of control.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

You do believe—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. MacAulay. Your time has expired, sir.

We'll now move to a five-minute round, and Mr. Toone will lead off.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It was mentioned in your introductions that Asian carp DNA was found in the Great Lakes. I'm not sure what that means. Could you elaborate?

[David Burden]

There's a scientific answer to it. There seems to be a lot of discussion on this. I think Nick and Becky would tell you that what the research means on this is still very much in its infancy.

Clearly, if something like ballast water is brought into Canada from a vessel that's gone through an area that has Asian carp established in the United States, even when that's treated—essentially it's going through a food processor, is the way I equate it in my simple mind—there's not going to be live fish coming out of that, but there is going to be the DNA evidence that fish were there. That's why we're seeing these positive hits of environmental DNA. Does that mean the fish are there? Not necessarily in a circumstance where we have to go into a rapid response, but clearly it's a marker we want to look at. If you're seeing positive samples, then clearly you want to be able to marshal your efforts, as Becky was saying, and go in there and do some kind of treatment, or some kind of fishing, or something like that to address it.

From a scientific perspective, you could get more detailed analysis of that from my colleagues. I think that's the issue, from my perspective.

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

That clarifies it a bit. Thank you.

It seems to me that we recently signed the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement with the U.S. We had previously announced $17.5 million to fight the introduction of Asian carp. What are the targets for invasive species? What are you looking at? What kind of financing are you looking for? What staffing levels are going to be required? I'm not sure what the annex to the agreement actually means concretely.

I'm very happy that we announced $17.5 million to fight Asian carp, but the U.S. has put in $1 billion over the last three years for the water quality issues of the Great Lakes. To me, $17.5 million doesn't sound as though it's going to go very far. What are the actual targets the department sees for the next few years? What are you looking to do, exactly?

[David Burden]

Clearly, all of the research and all of the work we're doing, even the work we're doing on Asian carp, and the $17.5 million is focused purely on Asian carp, we could use that, and we are using that, for all other aquatic invasive species. The approach we're using, the scientific research, education and outreach on one versus another can be used for one species and then be spread across to others. We are able to leverage a lot of the funding we put in there. While it's earmarked for Asian carp, it would help with every other invasive species.

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

All right. Concretely, you said earlier that with the changes to the Fisheries Act there are more fines available in cases of infractions. What is your capacity for enforcement? What's the actual ability to be on the ground seeing where these violations are taking place?

[David Burden]

I think that's where the coordination and integration is coming home to play. Clearly, in the Great Lakes, the fisheries are managed by the province, so it's the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources that has the boots on the ground, so to speak, to address that. What we've been doing, and Becky and her team have been instrumental in this, is providing the advice and support, the education. How do you know what an Asian carp is? How do you identify them to the folks at the Canada Border Services Agency? If we're looking at these shipments that have been coming in, we have the education so the customs officer can say that it's something we want to be wary of. They alert OMNR, which has enforcement people there.

That's one example of how that comes together, but I think we could probably come up with a half dozen others very shortly.

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

You mentioned that the province has a large role to play, certainly in the commercial fishery. The science, which is what I think we're talking about today, that's DFO.

[David Burden]

That's right.

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

There have been significant cuts to DFO recently. I can't believe that you're able to do what you were able to do last year. There has to have been an impact. I'd like to understand. What is your actual capacity to do the enforcement that the annex to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement actually mandates you to do?

[David Burden]

Let me answer that question in two ways. I've been around government for more of my life than I was out of it; I guess that's the way to put it. I've seen programs come and go. I've seen budget increases and I've seen budget reductions. Every time I looked at our budget, I noticed we had an infusion that exceeded what we lost. Yes, we have to make choices. Everybody has to make choices.

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

There's more money than the cuts--

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Toone, sorry, your time has run out. Thank you.

Mr. Kamp.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for coming back to us to give us more information, particularly with respect to this risk assessment. It's an interesting study, partly because these appear to be interesting animals.

Let me begin with your presentation. In slide 5, the key results survival page, you say that enough food and habitat exists throughout all five of the Great Lakes, especially Lake Erie, for these fishes to survive and overwinter. I'm wondering if you can tell me what that means. I'm assuming it doesn't mean enough food for 10 females and their partners and maybe the first generation of offspring. Can you tell us what that statement means in terms of number of fish? It goes to Professor MacIsaac's statement as well. Is there enough food for them to be in great abundance? Could you give us more information on that, please?

[Nick Mandrak]

Yes. That conclusion is based on a bioenergetics model. That is the standard model for determining whether or not there's enough food in an area for a population to become established. We're talking about an established population that would number in the thousands. There's certainly enough food in terms of the plankton and the pseudofeces. The pseudofeces is really an emerging food that we never knew they would use, based on the European literature from where they are native. It's something that's based on recent studies done by our colleagues in the United States, that this is a new food source. There's certainly plenty of food to establish a reproducing population with thousands of individuals.

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

That's what I'm having trouble understanding. Eventually, we'll get to the end of the assessment when the ecological consequences of this will have to be determined. Aren't the consequences significantly tied to your assumptions on the size of the population that could survive? Are you saying it's a massive population that could survive and cause these great ecological consequences, or is it a smaller population? I'm not quite sure I see that connection clearly in your report.