Evidence of meeting #144 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ais.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Philippe Morel  Assistant Deputy Minister, Aquatic Ecosystems Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Michel Marcotte
Hélène Marquis  Executive Director, Fisheries Protection Program and Major Projects, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Simon Nadeau  Senior Advisor, Ecosystem Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald

Good afternoon, everyone.

Before we get started, the bells are ringing, but we have about 21 or 22 minutes before the actual vote. I was wondering if we at least could hear the presentation of the witnesses for the seven minutes. Then we'd go to the vote and come back. That way, we'd be ready to go with the questioning if everybody's in agreement to that.

We'll hear the presentations first, then we'll suspend to go and vote, and then we'll come back. Okay? All right.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are continuing the study of aquatic invasive species.

Today we have with us officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans: Philippe Morel, Assistant Deputy Minister, Aquatic Ecosystems Sector; Hélène Marquis, Executive Director, Fisheries Protection Program and Major Projects; Brent Napier, Chief, Enforcement Programs; and, Simon Nadeau, Senior Adviser, Ecosystem Science.

You may make your opening statement, for seven minutes or less, please, when you're ready, Mr. Morel.

3:35 p.m.

Philippe Morel Assistant Deputy Minister, Aquatic Ecosystems Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're following up on where Mr. Napier is, but during the vote we will find him and make sure he is here when you come back.

I'm very pleased to be here with my colleagues to conclude your discussion on aquatic invasive species.

As you know, Fisheries and Oceans Canada recognizes aquatic invasive species as a serious national threat that can negatively impact Canada's ecosystems, economy and society. They can harm fish, fish habitat and use of aquatic resources, for example, fisheries, aquaculture or even the recreational fishing industry. They are also the second leading cause of decline for species at risk. AIS of public interest across Canada include zebra and quagga mussels, four species of Asian carp, European green crab and various species of invasive tunicates.

The department is the federal lead on managing AIS in collaboration with provinces and territories. The aquatic invasive species regulations came into force in 2015 under the Fisheries Act to provide tools for federal, provincial and territorial action and partnerships, setting significant expectations regarding Canada's collective ability to manage AIS. The AIS regulations list over 160 aquatic species as prohibited or controlled in Canada according to geographic conditions and complement other federal legislation intended to prevent AIS introduction, such as Transport Canada's ballast water management and control regulations.

To facilitate collaboration and coordination among federal, provincial and territorial governments, Fisheries and Oceans Canada co-chairs the national aquatic invasive species committee under the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada has long been involved in addressing the threat of aquatic invasive species. In 2005, the department began implementing the invasive alien species strategy for Canada. Half of the funding for this initiative was allocated to the sea lamprey control program, while the remaining balance supported the development of regulatory policy as well as science activities, including research, regional monitoring and priority biological risk assessments.

In 2017, the federal budget allocated $43.8 million over five years and $10.6 million annually thereafter for national AIS activities, including the establishment of a new AIS national core program, renewal of the Asian carp program and support for the sea lamprey control program. The AIS national core program's mission is to implement the AIS regulations and act on scientific and other advice according to four international AIS pillars, which are prevention, early detection, rapid response, and control and management. The program will focus on pathways and vectors of AIS spread rather than individual species, as it is a more efficient and cost-effective approach.

Key activities undertaken by the department include the development of training material on the AIS regulations, a national response strategy and regional response strategies; regional early detection, monitoring and control programs in high-risk areas or for high-risk species; implementation of tools and procedures for authorizing habitat modification, the deposit of deleterious substances and licensing fishing for AIS; and, various education and outreach initiatives.

To establish a national presence, aquatic invasive species national core program funding was allocated to each of the department's regions. Resources have been dedicated towards high-risk pathways, vectors and areas based on sound scientific and other advice.

Provinces and territories with international borders have identified importation as a major vector for the introduction of aquatic invasive species into Canada. However, Fisheries and Oceans Canada's enforcement resources for the Aquatic Invasive Species Regulations are low. For this reason, the aquatic invasive species national core program will fund seven new fishery officers to be deployed in the central and Arctic and Quebec regions by 2020-21, aligning with the priorities outlined in Minister Wilkinson's mandate letter to protect freshwater resources in the Great Lakes, St. Lawrence River and Lake Winnipeg basins.

Addressing the threat of AIS is a shared responsibility across federal, provincial and territorial governments. For instance, some provinces and territories are the lead for freshwater AIS, while the department leads for marine. However, the AIS national core program is not equipped to fund provincial or territorial activities, as this is not our role.

Nonetheless, in August 2018, Fisheries and Oceans Canada responded to western provinces' call for support by reallocating funds to non-government organizations to undertake activities to prevent the spread of zebra and quagga mussels in British Columbia. The outcomes of these initiatives are intended to be nationally beneficial and applicable. The department also hopes to leverage the new nature legacy fund to prevent and mitigate the impact of AIS on species at risk.

In April 2019, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development audited Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Canada Border Services Agency's aquatic invasive species-related activities from 2014 to 2018. The audit found that neither department had implemented adequate measures to prevent aquatic invasive species from becoming established in Canadian waters and recommended clarifying roles and responsibilities and developing strategies for various Fisheries and Oceans Canada activities.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada agrees with the recommendations and is actively working to address them. The department anticipates that it will be able to fully implement all of the recommendations by March 2022.

There are many other positive outcomes of Fisheries and Oceans Canada's AIS activities that were not reflected in the commissioner's conclusions, particularly for control and management. As the audit focused solely on prevention, it did not fully capture the successes of the Asian carp program and the sea lamprey control program. As a result of the activities of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, in collaboration with provincial, non-governmental and indigenous partners, Asian carp have not become established in the Canadian waters of the Great Lakes.

Meanwhile, through the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Fisheries and Oceans Canada is working diligently with counterparts in the United States to control sea lamprey populations. The audit also did not capture the ongoing science support that Fisheries and Oceans Canada provides Transport Canada regarding the ballast water pathway, which will also contribute to the upcoming amendments to Transport Canada's ballast water management and control regulations.

Finally, Fisheries and Oceans Canada will continue to make progress on its commitments to promote healthy ecosystems and build safe, secure communities towards a sustainable future. The department will continue to build relationships with provincial and territorial partners, as well as indigenous peoples and other stakeholders, to ensure a cohesive approach to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species in Canadian waters.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald

Thank you, Mr. Morel.

We'll suspend now to go and vote. We'll return as quickly as possible. I encourage everybody to try to get back as soon as they can after the vote.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald

Welcome back, everybody.

For everyone who was here for the first seven minutes of the committee meeting, we did hear the presentation of the witnesses, and we're now ready to go into our question round.

Mr. Donnelly has his hand up.

Mr. Donnelly.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Chair, if I may, is it possible to put forward my motion at this time?

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald

Is it the motion that you gave notice of on Bill S-238 ?

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Yes.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald

Yes. It has to be dealt with.

Do you want to read out your motion again for everybody?

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

I just want to make sure that everyone has it. I think it was in the minutes of the last meeting.

May 8th, 2019 / 4:15 p.m.

The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Michel Marcotte

Shall I read it?

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

If you wouldn't mind, that would be great. Thank you.

4:15 p.m.

The Clerk

It states:

That the Committee hold a meeting for the clause by clause review of Bill S-238 as soon as possible.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

I so move.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald

We've heard the motion. Is there any discussion?

Mr. Calkins.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB

The motion did not call for any committee meetings to hear witnesses. It simply suggested that we should go to clause-by-clause on the bill. However, it could be inferred that we would move to clause-by-clause as soon as possible after a timely hearing of witnesses. Is that what the mover of the motion is implying?

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald

Mr. Donnelly.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

It's at the will of the committee. The preference would be to expedite this as quickly as possible. Time is of the essence. The longer this takes.... You can look at Bill S-203. This is following a similar path, but it's behind, and in terms of this being brought back for third reading, it's critical that it get through committee. Assuming it does get through committee, it's still going to face an uphill challenge. The more committee hearings we have, the longer it takes.

I will remind the committee that this has been through the Senate for a couple of years. Senator MacDonald has spent much time on it, and the committee hearings had many witnesses. This has, I think, been studied and looked at, and testimony has been given on this bill. I would urge the committee to move this as quickly and expeditiously as possible.

Of course, it's at the will of the committee as to whether you call witnesses. At this point, I would encourage us to have as few meetings as possible to really give this bill the best chance of trying to get through Parliament before we rise in June.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald

Mr. Calkins.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB

Mr. Chair, could we get clarification either from you or from those who are advising you as to what the timeline is for a Senate-sponsored bill compared to a House of Commons private member's bill, and if there's any difference in the timelines for those bills as they appear before a House standing committee? Also, what are the minimum requirements for due diligence that a committee is obligated to undertake insofar as a private member's bill is concerned, insofar as the Standing Orders dictate? Can we get some advice on what a typical timeline would be for dealing with a private member's bill before the committee?

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald

The clerk tells me that he doesn't have that information today, but it's my understanding right now that what's before us is simply the motion. We can still vote on the motion. The committee, as the mover of the motion has stated, can dictate the timelines of what takes place here with regard to studying the actual bill. Then, of course, it has to go back to the House.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB

While that is true, I would like to make an informed decision on the motion. If there's no answer to the questions I have, then I'll have to make the assumptions accordingly.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald

Okay.

Mr. Arnold.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

In my reading of the motion, it's simply that the committee hold a meeting for the clause-by-clause review. It doesn't mention anything regarding hearing testimony or anything like that.

Is the member recommending that we simply rubber-stamp something as a committee?

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald

Mr. Donnelly.

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Chair, in answer to the question from Mr. Arnold, I don't believe that anyone is requesting that this committee rubber-stamp anything. I think there have been a good debate and a good discussion certainly through the upper House. When we heard the debate at second reading, we heard all parties speak in favour of this legislation. I don't think there is any issue with the questions of debate or witnesses. I think it's time to take a position.

The issue here, as we know, is that we are up against the clock to get this through. As for the chances of even getting it through, even if this does get through committee, it will still have to go back to the House for third reading. It will be on the September schedule, and then the issue will be whether we can move it up fast enough to actually be voted on in the House. That is going to be difficult.

I would again implore the members to consider that, as we did with Bill S-203, and hopefully expedite this thoroughly studied bill.