Fisheries Committee on May 6th, 2019

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to all the witnesses for joining us today.

Mr. DeMille, I'd like to start with you. One of the things that I've learned as we've undertaken this study is the fact that there is limited funding, obviously, for AIS in Canada, so we're thinking strategically about how that would look going forward in order to improve prevention. I think that it's pretty obvious that prevention is better than dealing with an issue once it actually presents itself regarding an invasive species.

It seems to me that a number of the witnesses are saying that the Asian carp situation, which you described as being handled pretty well and which actually has been fairly effective, is disproportionately taking away funding from other AIS priorities, including ensuring that there is prevention for, for example, zebra mussels' finding their way out west.

It just seems to me that if we're using a lot of the budget or a disproportionate amount of the budget for AIS to deal with an urgent issue that comes up because it wasn't prevented—in the case of Asian carp finding their way into the Great Lakes—maybe there's a different way that these things should be funded, where you have a budget prioritized for ongoing, long-term preventative measures and then a different pot that should be available for dealing with one-off situations when they do present themselves, like Asian carp.

Would you agree with that assessment of the way that this has found its way into the budget items?

[Matt DeMille]

I think it's important to note that the Asian carp program does have a very important prevention component. It is not necessarily what you would refer to as a fully reactionary program. It does have investments all the way along, from prevention and keeping them out of the Great Lakes and out of Canadian waters right through to being prepared for detection and rapid response. That's more on that management side, that reactionary thing that you're talking about.

In short, yes, there's a need for both. I think it goes back to what my colleague said about needing to prioritize our actions. I think we need to figure out what it is we want to do. I would definitely agree with you that prevention is the way to go. We have a number of prevention programs. We are largely an education and outreach organization. Through our invading species awareness program, that's what we work on: prevention and education and outreach. I think when we're talking about Asian carp and the success of that, part of that is related to that education and outreach work we do, that preventative work, and how it feeds in so that we can have that rapid response.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

In terms of dealing with the Asian carp situation, is that likely to continue to require the same level of resources well into the future, or is it something you can actually deal with and manage and then eventually take those resources and put them into other priorities?

[Matt DeMille]

I'll let Sophie maybe take a stab at answering that.

[Sophie Monfette, Coordinator, Invading Species Awareness Program, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters]

Certainly.

I think where we're at with the Asian carp program right now is that we are still in the prevention phase. We have no established populations of Asian carp in the Canadian Great Lakes. The efforts are there to keep that in place. I think DFO certainly will be allocating funding to that, but there is also a lot of work being done to look at alternative solutions on how we can keep invasive carps out of the Great Lakes. This would apply to other species as well.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

So maybe I've misunderstood, then. Forgive me for not knowing, but I thought there was a population of Asian carp in the Great Lakes that was causing a problem.

[Sophie Monfette]

There have been captures, but there is no established population of Asian carp in the Canadian Great Lakes.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Okay.

[Sophie Monfette]

We are still in the prevention phase, for sure.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thanks for that clarification.

[Sophie Monfette]

My pleasure.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. McLean, you talked a little bit about some of the work that's undertaken in order to collaborate between the federal government and other organizations and the province. Is there something we could recommend to the federal government in order to better collaborate between the different levels of government in terms of how to share information and how to work together? Is there, for example, a working group on AIS between the federal and provincial governments where they meet regularly to discuss what more can be done?

[Bob McLean]

Yes, there is such a committee. It's the national aquatic invasive species committee, which DFO and all the provinces and territories participate in. We would definitely view that committee as a key mechanism, or as “the” key mechanism, for the federal, provincial and territorial collaboration I mentioned, and also with respect to the identification of priorities. Once that has been accomplished by the top two tiers of government in the country, then I think that provides an opportunity for organizations like ours, or the others who are witnesses here today, to participate.

I think it's important that the national committee consults on priorities, though, and does not simply meet as 14 jurisdictions in a room deciding on priorities. I mentioned in my remarks the importance of collaboration to identify priorities and identify the actions that are needed to act on those priorities.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Okay. Thanks.

Ms. Redelback, you mentioned that the invasive mussels would obviously be a major concern for the distribution of water if they showed up in your area. That would obviously impact on your organization quite onerously. I'm wondering if you could explain exactly how it would affect the distribution of water to have an invasive mussel species in your area.

[Margo Jarvis Redelback]

As I mentioned, about 53% of our irrigation distribution system is now in underground pipelines. That has been ongoing for many years. The reason for doing it is to increase water efficiencies and ensure that we're making the best use of the water. In terms of mussels getting established in our irrigation reservoirs, our pipelines in effect draw off of those irrigation reservoirs that store that water and distribute it.

We are anticipating that due to the pipelines being in the ground, typically below frost in a lot of cases, there is the possibility that those mussels could get established over a winter and continue to reproduce in the pipelines, especially where there are areas of ponding over winter. Pipelines are normally drained over the winter season. However, there are ponds in places, in coupling joints and things like that. We are concerned that the mussels could get in there, establish and continue to reproduce.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Can I just briefly ask—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Sorry, Mr. Fraser. You're way over time.

We'll go now to Mr. Calkins for five minutes or less, please.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

My goodness, where do I start? As an Albertan, I guess I'll go with Ms. Jarvis Redelback.

Can you give us any indication of what the value of those assets would be in today's dollars, if we were to sum up the cost of building all of the reservoirs, all of the irrigation channels and all of the physical assets that have been put in place to enable the irrigation system to work?

[Margo Jarvis Redelback]

We're probably at about $3.6 billion, when considering canals, pipelines and all the control structures in those canals.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

That's the value of the infrastructure that's at risk if zebra and quagga mussels get in there.

Can you give this committee any indication of how exactly the potash chemical treatment process would work, and where it would need to be applied in order to be effective?

[Margo Jarvis Redelback]

There has been some initial research, which was done in collaboration with Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, using potash to treat irrigation pipelines. That would entail ensuring that the potash was mixed with the water in the appropriate concentration, injecting that mixture into the pipeline and holding that concentration for a minimum period of time to ensure that there would be appropriate killing of the mussels that may be in that pipeline.

We do not have any invasive mussel species present in our infrastructure yet, so when that research was conducted, it was a lot of theoretical work, but we do feel confident that it is a potential treatment option for our pipelines. However, it would be extremely costly. We anticipate that given the length of the infrastructure in place, we would not be able to treat all of the infrastructure in one season. As well, we have to coordinate with the irrigation demand of our agricultural producers. It's not simply an easy treatment option at all.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Fair enough. Who do you think would be liable for the potash costs, or the implementation of a potash program should these mussels get into the irrigation system?

[Margo Jarvis Redelback]

Most of that irrigation infrastructure is owned and operated by the irrigation districts, so we anticipate that the irrigation districts would be bearing the cost of treatment on that infrastructure.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

I understand that you're not getting any help right now from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

[Margo Jarvis Redelback]

That's correct.