Fisheries Committee on May 8th, 2019

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Hearing nothing else, I'll call the question on the motion.

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you, Mr. Donnelly.

Now we'll get into our questioning of the witnesses.

For the first round, on the government side, Mr. Rogers.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Mr. Chair, first of all, I'll thank our witnesses for being here.

I was looking at some of the numbers, Mr. Morel, that you referred to in your presentation. Some of the previous witnesses talked about how there was an uneven distribution of funding across the country for dealing with invasive species. It appeared that 80% of the funding was directed at central Canada and the Great Lakes. I just wondered, have you looked more recently at redistributing some of that funding, and if so, how is it distributed today?

[Philippe Morel]

Thank you for the question.

If you look at it from a broader perspective, what you've mentioned is actually correct, but we also need to differentiate how the AIS activities in Fisheries and Oceans are distributed. Previous to budget 2017, all the funding for AIS was directed to the central and Arctic region for the Great Lakes program for the sea lamprey and for the Asian carp.

What was added in 2017 was the creation of a national program. The national program is the program that does the coordination work with stakeholders and provinces and territories on how to better manage species and prioritize them, and it's also the group that manages the regulations. For that program, the new money...because in 2017 what was done is that the Asian carp and the sea lamprey programs were renewed. They were B-base and now they're A-base. Also, part of the funding for the Great Lakes Commission was expired; that money was just reconfirmed.

For the national program, in terms of the way it's distributed, or will be, because it's a ramping-up program, the distribution of the money is quite equal between all the regions, although it's based on where the species are located. To give you an example, at headquarters we have three people on that national program, but we have one in Newfoundland, one in the Maritimes region, two in Quebec, two in the central and Arctic region, two in the Pacific region and two in the Gulf region. It's based on the number of species that they have to manage, more than an equal...because we're managing species; we're not managing the number of staff in an office.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Okay.

The other question I was wondering about is that some of the people talked about the preventive approach, of course, and trying to protect their waterways and their different regions of the country, whether it's from the zebra mussels or other invasive species. What is being done to protect regions from these invasive species being transported into our regions and our country from other sources?

[Philippe Morel]

As you said, prevention is a very important part of the program for aquatic invasive species. We know that when a species is established in an area, it's very difficult to remove it. The costs for the ecosystem and for the economy could be very high. The example of zebra mussels you use is a good one.

What you should also know is that each region has been allocated not only personnel but also some budget. Depending on the species and the risks they have to manage, they may decide to put more of the budget on prevention or on control. The Asian carp program is a good example of the type of prevention that we're doing because the Asian carp is not established in the Great Lakes. It stopped with the barrier.

Another example could be with the smallmouth bass. The early detection program monitoring downstream of tributaries in Miramichi Lake is also very efficient and helps us to better manage the species.

Usually, we do it with the province, when they manage that species, or we do it with some groups—NGOs or committee groups—and manage the species to do the prevention when possible.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

You also mentioned in your presentation the coordinated effort of Fisheries and Oceans with Transport Canada regarding ballast water shipping and so on. Is that something of major concern, or is that something that's under control, from your perspective?

[Philippe Morel]

I think we have good collaboration. The capacity is probably not as complete as it could be, but in a program like AIS, it's the kind of program where if you have more funds, you can do more.

I think what we're delivering and working on with transport or CBSA, preventing some of the establishment of species, is a good collaboration. It's working well. All of us, with more resources, will do more. We'll work better with provinces and with groups. Also, sometimes our front line can inform us of some activities with new species that are being—

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Rogers.

Now we'll go to Mr. Arnold for seven minutes or less, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here today. It's an important study, I believe, for all of Canada.

Does the aquatic invasive species component of the fisheries protection program still exist, or has it been replaced by the national core program?

[Philippe Morel]

Hélène will respond.

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

There was an aquatic invasive species component of the fisheries protection program.

[Hélène Marquis, Executive Director, Fisheries Protection Program and Major Projects, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Yes.

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

Now you're talking about a national core program.

[Hélène Marquis]

Yes.

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

Does the aquatic invasive species component still exist, or has that been replaced?

[Hélène Marquis]

It still exists. What existed in the past, starting in 2005, I believe, was funding for the sea lamprey program as well as research. A colleague from science can comment on that if you wish.

What budget 2017 provided to us was funding to do management of aquatic invasive species, permanent funding for the Asian carp program, which is very successful in prevention, as well as a little bit more funding for the sea lamprey program.

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

Okay.

[Hélène Marquis]

The science and research work continues. On top of that we have a small management program that we call the AIS national core program. As Philippe indicated, we have representative staff distributed in each of our six regions.

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

Okay, thank you.

The mandate letter says that the minister is to:

Support the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to renew our commitment to protect the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence River Basin, and the Lake Winnipeg Basin.

This mandate has been cited by the government in relation to their AIS activities. Do you know why this mandate from the Prime Minister's Office is so narrow in its geographical scope in relation to AIS risk across the country? Has this ever been explained?

[Philippe Morel]

The mandate letter is not only related to aquatic invasive species, but it's also related to the three main ecosystem initiatives, and it's to work with Environment and Climate Change Canada. There are some Great Lakes plans. There's an action plan, I think, for Lake Winnipeg also, and one for the St. Lawrence. It's for us to work with ECCC and other partners in these initiatives to provide support.

It's not dedicated to AIS, but AIS is of course one part that we can contribute to in marine environments, both to manage species at risk and also aquatic invasive species in those three priority ecosystems. As we mentioned earlier, we are also active in all the regions. We have staff and resources in all the regions to support AIS. It's just that the approach in those three ecosystems is probably more different and more integrated.

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

It's interesting that the mandate letter seems to be so narrow in scope.

As quickly as we can, because our time is very short, how are risks assessed and prioritized dealing with AIS? Who is responsible and how are they assessed?

[Philippe Morel]

I'll ask science—

[Simon Nadeau, Senior Advisor, Ecosystem Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Thank you.

It's actually the role of science to screen potential invasive species in terms of their risk to arrive and then to establish and become invasive in Canada. We've performed that work for hundreds of species, and we also do it for specific species that are known to be close to invade or have been detected.

We've produced a number of science advisory reports doing just that.

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

In earlier testimony, we heard about the incredible risk of the smallmouth bass from Miramichi Lake getting into the Miramichi River, and basically the potential of devastating the fishery in the river.

Why has DFO blocked any use of rotenone in that lake and not addressed the treatment of AIS?