Fisheries Committee on May 8th, 2019

[Simon Nadeau]

Rotenone is a very nasty product.

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

No.

[Simon Nadeau]

It will kill everything that breeds, and not just fish. It will kill invertebrates. It will kill amphibians.

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

No, no.

[Simon Nadeau]

It does. It's actually in the literature.

The main factor to consider for any invasive species action is to look at three things: the risk that the species will arrive, the risk that the species will establish itself and then become invasive. One important factor for Lake Miramichi and the smallmouth bass issue is that it's in 195 lakes in Nova Scotia and 70 lakes in New Brunswick. That's one thing to consider.

We did not produce advice specifically on the use of rotenone. It would need a project, with all the details, to be able to assess that and to look at the risk of re-establishment after treatment. That's something that would need to be considered from a scientific perspective.

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

I noticed in your introduction today that half of the funding for the initiative referred to in 2005 was allocated to the sea lamprey control program—one specific species—while the remaining balance supported science activities, I assume for the rest of the country.

Do you still consider that a fair and reasonable appropriation of resources, to have half of that investment go to one species only?

[Philippe Morel]

I think it all depends on the size of the funding.

It was $4 million in 2005. I believe it was actually less than that. It was a portion of $3 million, so $1.65 million in 2005 for the sea lamprey. I think the funding that was provided and is still provided for the sea lamprey program is well used and very efficient.

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

I don't doubt that the money for the sea lamprey program is well used, but should there be proportionate funding across the rest of the country in relation to the risks out there?

We've heard multiple times on the potential economic and ecological risks of the zebra and quagga mussels in all of our salmon rivers and water systems on the west coast, as well as the irrigation systems on the Prairies. There are incredible costs if they're allowed to enter.

[Hélène Marquis]

The investment that is done in the sea lamprey program has allowed to reduce by 90% the number of sea lamprey in the Great Lakes. In turn, it has had a very positive impact on the economy—jobs on both sides of the border. That's a very good illustration of how to manage the species when the species is established.

In some other circumstances, when the species is not established, prevention and communication are already the best tools. We have illustrations.... For example, the Asian carp program is a very good prevention program as well, because no Asian carp have established to date on the Canadian side of the Great Lakes. That means these efforts and investments are having a positive impact on the management of those species and preventing the threat.

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

But one of the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thanks, Mr. Arnold. Your time has gone way over.

The lights are blinking, so I guess the bells are ringing.

Do I have unanimous consent to continue for another 15 minutes?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Okay.

Ms. Mathyssen, you're up next. You have seven minutes or less, please.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, in relation to Bill S-238, I've been advised that in order for the clause-by-clause to be held on May 27, I need to put forward this motion:

That the proposed amendments to Bill S-238 be submitted to the Clerk of the Committee in both official languages by noon on Wednesday, May 22, 2019, at the latest.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Calkins, do you want to speak to that motion?

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

Again we find ourselves with the precedent set by Mr. Rogers' motion a few days ago. We saw Mr. Donnelly put a notice of motion forward on Monday, which was certainly in order.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Chair, that if Ms. Mathyssen were simply putting a notice of motion before the committee, that would be one thing. I don't see how we would associate relevance of this motion to the study currently before us. I would ask you to rule on whether or not moving the motion is actually in order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

It's not germane to our discussion, so I guess it's not in order, per se. I'll rule it not in order.

Would you like to change it to a notice of motion, Ms. Mathyssen?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Yes, Mr. Chair. I will certainly change it to a notice of motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Okay. Thank you.

Please continue with your questioning.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you very much.

I do not pretend to be expert at all in terms of DFO's work in invasive species, but a colleague of mine some years ago was doing quite a lot of research for the University of Western Ontario. It was in regard to Asian carp. Apparently, from what I hear today, that research was effective. It paid off in terms of addressing the issue and prevention. Of course, prevention is far more effective than remediation.

What kind of research is being funded, if any, by DFO in collaboration with universities or other entities at this point? How do you see that research proving effective?

[Simon Nadeau]

For a good 10-year period up to 2014, I believe, we had two research networks in place, co-funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. We still benefit from that program, a few years after the end of it. It created a network across the country that continues to generate some outstanding publications in the area of aquatic invasive species in terms of better understanding them and methods to control them. That was very effective.

We have in DFO a partnership program for science, which may fund activities in the area of aquatic invasive species. We also have our core program where we conduct research ourselves. A lot of times this research is done in collaboration with university partners.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Obviously, there are lessons learned in terms of what's going on in the Great Lakes. I'm from the Great Lakes region and I'm very concerned about that. We've heard from others that there are other areas that are at risk. I'm thinking of Lake Winnipeg, I believe, and of course the Miramichi River. Is the research you're able to do supported? Do you need more support in terms of investment from government? Where is it going in regard to both Lake Winnipeg and the Miramichi?

[Simon Nadeau]

We have our core program, which started to be funded in 2004. We received some new influxes of money through budget 2016 and science in general. We have different funding mechanisms. We have our dedicated funds for aquatic invasive species, but we also have our broader research funds that will allocate resources to different priorities, including aquatic invasive species. We have a genomics fund that helps us develop state-of-the-art detection tools. We dedicated personnel back in 2004, who are still working on aquatic invasive species across the country in each region, to develop the science, to do the proper monitoring for a suite of species and to perform risk assessments in order to inform management decisions.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Okay.

Do you need more people doing this work? It sounds very intensive in terms of the human component.

[Simon Nadeau]

Yes. Actually, if you ask other scientists if they need more money, they will always take it.