Fisheries Committee on April 29th, 2019

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to follow up with Mr. MacIsaac on my colleague Mr. Johns' question.

How do you define significant start-up costs? It sounds like a fascinating area. A global G7 nation like Canada should be looking at this area. We pride ourselves in science, and growing science.

[Prof. Hugh MacIsaac]

We talk about the issue of sensitivity. If I'm going to use a DNA marker, how sensitive is my DNA marker to the presence of low amounts of DNA of that species? We have thousands of genes in our DNA, and you have to select the right gene. We know from previous work which genes we should be looking at. Then within those genes you need what are called primer pairs. Primer pairs allow you to bind onto the DNA. Each primer pair is going to have different sensitivities. What you have to do in the lab for each species, you would have to test different genes and different primer pairs for each gene to determine which of them had the most sensitivity. They could vary up to seven orders of magnitude. We're talking a vast difference in the potential use. You then pick the ones that have the highest sensitivities. That means they are best able to find DNA of a species when it's present at minute quantities in the environment. This is where the significant start-up cost is.

Of course, you have some machinery that you have to get to do the work. For each of the species that you're concerned about, you have to do some significant lab work in order to determine which gene you are going to go forward with in the future. It's going to be different for every species that you choose. Once it's been done you would publish this stuff in public databases, and everyone else in the world would be able to use that same gene and that same primer pair into the future.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

That sounds fascinating. A lot of it was over my head, on the DNA match.

[Prof. Hugh MacIsaac]

We've tested a couple of other things. We had automated camera systems where you have a flow field. If an organism is present in that flow field, you interrupt the light through it. Based upon the pictures that you get from that, you can try to match a library of images to what you're getting. We found that system did not work well. For zebra mussels they also have a larval stage called a veliger larva, which is very small. It has a unique property that if you hit it with polarized light, you get a star pattern or a cross in your field. When you're looking under a microscope, typically most things look more or less the same, but if you are using this polarized light technique, then if you have these veligers present in your sample, you will see these crosses, and they stand out.

We found that is a very effective way to find if you have them.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

I have a specific question. You referenced Prince Edward Island. We do have tunicate. One of the concerns that comes from the industry as a whole is some of the preventive methods they're using are causing issues with some of our other commercial fisheries. For instance, the lobster fisher is not happy spreading lime to control the tunicate. You seem to have done a lot of research. Over the past 10 years, have we seen an acceleration in invasive species dominance? Is it stable across the board?

[Prof. Hugh MacIsaac]

Just in P.E.I. or in Canada?

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Just in Canada.

[Prof. Hugh MacIsaac]

No. We continue to find new species in most places where we're looking. It's a real problem that we have. If you don't find any new species in the Great Lakes, is it because we've stopped the problem or we've stopped looking for them?

What you want is a standardized search effort through time—

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

—which is what you referenced, because the costs are very quantifiable after the fact. We're all seeing it.

Another comment is that in agriculture, and P.E.I. in particular is very sensitive to that, when a disease or invasive species is detected, there's a very stringent protocol that comes into place to move on it. For instance, farmers have to spray to disinfect their farm implements, just simply going from one field to another of theirs. They have some really rigid protocol and regimes in place in the agricultural sector to prevent the spread. It appears we're not doing that within the water system.

[Prof. Hugh MacIsaac]

I think there was a trial and error period in P.E.I., particularly with moving aquaculture species around, and at first, people didn't realize they were going to be the pathway that was going to move the species to another bay. I think that phase we've passed and people now recognize that both equipment and boats that they're using can move these species around. I know when we're sampling, we have to be very careful as well. We either sterilize our nets if we're going between systems or we just use different equipment in different areas.

If we're moving the actual stock, that poses a huge problem, because these things have a huge surface area, and a lot of these nasty critters that we're talking about, these tunicate species, are ideal. They hunt for substrates like that to settle on, so it's not surprising that we see a huge problem in the aquaculture industry, particularly with the mussel culture.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Ms. Wallin, do you want to comment?

[Gail Wallin]

I'd like to comment, but you're right that we don't have that standard. In the agriculture industry, there are lots of practices that we've learned because we want to protect our economic value and the health of our.... We're just starting to get there in the aquatic area. Whether it's ballasts or shipping containers, there are all sorts of ways invasive species are accidentally introduced. Boaters, fishermen, could potentially be protectors of our water if they were trained and given the right tools. We don't have those standard practices yet.

In B.C., we're piloting a new project called invasive wise marinas. Marinas are a really common source for boaters, so if they can take that leadership role voluntarily.... Those are the kinds of tools that are in place.

You mentioned the pet and aquarium trade. I'll close by saying that many of our aquatic invasive species are introduced unintentionally when someone dumps their aquarium, etc. We can change those practices, but it takes the engagement of citizens.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

I have a quick question for Mr. Bouzan from Newfoundland.

You referenced natural evolution as a control methodology or the reason we are now seeing more invasive species.

[Andrew Bouzan]

I was strictly refreshing a bit of history on how the world used to be before 90% to 95% of all trade on earth became marine. Between the ballast waters and the antifouling, it is virtually accessible to any species around the world. Unless strict measures are put in place to prevent the spread of species latching on to hulls or finding themselves in the ballast waters, then any place will potentially be a new home, given that they're there.

This approach has been taken in a variety of ways to reduce or stop transfers of aquatic species across the world, including having toxic substances put on hulls of ships, which we know is now banned. I know the United States back in 2001 required vessels to release ballast waters at sea before getting into coastal waters. That's a key aspect to preventing aquatic species from getting into coastal waters.

I read something a while ago about using heat or UV light within the hull of the ship to try to destroy or kill undesired species. You can also coat the vessel's hull with a non-toxic layer of vinyl resin, I believe, and then reinforce that with glass and it will reduce not only the drag on the ship itself but also the ability of fouling species to actually get onto the ships themselves. I believe that was through Hydrex underwater technology.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Bouzan.

We go now to the Conservative side, to Mr. Arnold again, for five minutes or less.

Go ahead, please.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, and if I have some time left, I'll share it with my colleagues, if possible.

I'd like to shift back to the actual study motion and what we're looking at here, which is to examine “the Department's resources dedicated to identifying and eliminating aquatic invasive species...whether such resources are distributed across Canada in an equitable and consistent manner and whether the AIS program has the resources required to be effective”.

Getting back to the mandates and so on, is there a clear jurisdictional mandate between the provinces and federal government? Answer quickly if you can, because I have a whole series of things I want to get through here.

Mr. MacIsaac.

[Prof. Hugh MacIsaac]

I'm not sure. I would say that in most cases, there probably is not.

[Gail Wallin]

I would second that. There are some areas that are clear, but there are lots of grey areas to be clarified at the federal level and with provincial and territorial governments.

[Dr. Anna Warwick Sears]

I'd sign on to that as well.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I saw nods from most. Is there anybody who disagrees?

Okay, great.

We have people from different parts of the country here. We've seen significant funding going to the Great Lakes for the sea lamprey and Asian carp. Are those funding levels effective? Is there anybody who can speak to whether those programs on the sea lamprey and Asian carp are effective ?

Mr. MacIsaac.

[Prof. Hugh MacIsaac]

With the sea lamprey, the U.S. and Canadian governments monitor lamprey abundance annually. You can see there's a very significant reduction associated with this expenditure.

It's money well spent, but it's the type of thing where you're spending it for the rest of your life. We can't get them out.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Yes, and that's what we've seen, again, with the Auditor General's report. You're probably better off spending a few dollars on prevention. I liken it to immunization against measles and other communicable diseases.

What are the risks if we carry on at the current levels of funding?

Ms. Warwick Sears.

[Dr. Anna Warwick Sears]

I think I presented on it.

I thought about the statement I made, that after climate change, aquatic invasive species are the biggest threat to our regional economy. I asked myself if that was a true statement. I really believe it is.

People really come to the Okanagan for the lakes. Our entire economy is built around the lakes. It's all about the lakes—our drinking water systems, everything.

We will lose our whole community and our culture if (a), we cannot control Eurasian water milfoil and (b), we get invasive mussels in there. The reason we're so vulnerable to invasive mussels is that we have so much calcium in the water it will make them grow faster and breed faster. All of our infrastructure is in the lake.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you.

Ms. Wallin, what levels of federal resources come into your programs in B.C.?

[Gail Wallin]

I'll speak to B.C., but I also work with chapters across Canada. We get other federal funders, such as Environment Canada, but basically, as a provincial organization, we don't get any funding from Fisheries and Oceans.

With respect to the question that was asked earlier about leveraging, we can usually leverage a 1:2 to a 1:4 ratio from the federal government.

DFO right now is a zero funder. You haven't had that model. It needs to be there.