Tom Wappel

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, I do not speak for the government; I speak for myself. I have no authority to speak for the government, so I will answer as best I can as the member for Scarborough Southwest.

I gave a definition of invasive species which was the definition given at the committee hearings: organisms that are not native to the area that we are talking about. If, in fact, a particular organism is not native, then it is an invasive species.

The next issue is, does the mere fact that it is an invasive species by definition cause a problem? In the examples of sea lamprey, zebra mussels, gobies, and Asian carp, it is clear. I am not so sure about the issue of Atlantic salmon in the Great Lakes. It is something that we need to study.

As far as the Atlantic salmon on the west coast, we have heard testimony in the fisheries committee on more than one occasion about the variance in scientific expertise or knowledge as to whether or not released Atlantic salmon can survive. If they can survive, can they breed? If they can breed, can the fish find their way back to rebreed?

It seems from the latest testimony that at the present time there is no evidence that Atlantic salmon can continue a viable population on the west coast. If that were true then I would think it is not the kind of invasive species I am talking about when I refer to zebra mussel, for example, which causes hundreds of millions of dollars of damage throughout the Great Lakes, including clogging the intake pipes of energy producing factories, which thereby translates to higher heating costs and energy costs to each and every one of us.

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

And sea lamprey as well.

Commissioner Gélinas, in her testimony and in her 2002 report to the House of Commons on the subject of invasive species, had some very troubling things to say. I cannot say them any better than she did, so I am not going to try. I will simply quote her. I want to get this on the record, if I may, because I think it is very important, and quite often in the very legitimate debate about fisheries on the east and west coasts we do not pay enough attention to the Great Lakes fishery.

She said:

As members may know, more than a decade ago in the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, 167 world leaders recognized invasive species as “one of the most serious threats to our health, and to our ecological, social and economic well-being. They said, “Addressing the problem is urgent because the threats increase daily.”

That was over 10 years ago.

She continued:

In signing the Convention, the Canadian government formally pledged to prevent the introduction of alien species that threaten Canada's ecosystems, habitats and other species or to control or eradicate them.

Three years later, in 1995, the federal government published its strategy for honouring its pledge. It stated, “Control or elimination of harmful alien organisms is necessary to conserve biodiversity and prevent the further destruction of ecosystems.” The government's 1995 strategy set out a number of actions it considered essential to the task.

Madam Gélinas has found a problem, though, and she stated:

The federal government has still not identified the invasive species that threaten Canada's ecosystems or the pathways by which they arrive. Human and financial resources have not been co-ordinated. There is no consensus on priorities, no clear understanding of who will do what to respond, and no capability to gauge progress on the government's commitments.

Finally, she stated:

In short, Canada has left the door open to invasive species that threaten our ecosystems.

That is troubling testimony, in my view, and indeed, she says that all Canadians should be concerned, because one of the points she wants to make in her report is that invasive species affect all of Canada, not just the Great Lakes, but I am talking mainly about the Great Lakes tonight.

She said further in her evidence to us:

Aquatic invaders not only threaten the Great Lakes but are a clear and present threat to many of our inland lakes and rivers and to the ecology and economies along Canada's coasts.

That is, the east and west coasts. She did offer some solutions. She said:

Given the threat they pose to biodiversity and the clear potential for their further introduction, alien invasive species must be targeted immediately with preventive action.

She gave three suggestions:

First, the federal government needs a concrete, adequately resourced action plan for invasive species... Second, progress toward expected results must be tracked. Third, ministers and departments must be held accountable for their performance.

I could not agree more.

We also heard from the chairs of the International Joint Commission and, lest anyone think that Madam Gélinas was perhaps overstating the problem, I would like to quote from a little bit of the evidence that we heard from the joint chairs. The Right Hon. Herb Gray said:

In the Great Lakes, costs for treatment and control of zebra mussels and sea lamprey over the last decade have exceeded $100 million dollars... The damage is at least as much environmental as economic. Since biological pollution's effects are often irreversible, any future introductions of alien invasive species could permanently harm the biological and ecological diversity of the Great Lakes, the world's largest surface freshwater ecosystem.

Mr. Schornack was equally blunt and to the point. He said:

Let me be clear, invasive species are the number one threat to the biological integrity of the Great Lakes.

They are the number one threat to biodiversity, pushing some native species to the brink of extinction.

They are the number one threat to our biosecurity, putting cultures, lifestyles and economies that are tied to the Great Lakes at risk.

In short, invasive species are the number one threat to the ecological and economic health of the Great Lakes.

That is a clarion call for action, it seems to me. It is a shame that matters have gotten to this degree in the Great Lakes. Before we know it, there is going to be a crisis. These people are telling us that we should be aware of it and that the Canadian government, along with the American government, should be taking immediate and effective action to protect the environment of the Great Lakes and thereby protect the Great Lakes fishery on both sides of the border, which generates, as we heard, something in the order of $7 billion annually to both sides and produces a great number of jobs.

It is very important that we not lose sight of the threat that invasive species pose to the Great Lakes. I want to urge those who are listening, and in particular the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, to recognize this as a problem, to recognize it as a very dangerous and growing problem, and to work with other departments, because it cannot all be on the back of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

There are other departments, notably the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport, that must also take responsibility, perhaps even the lead responsibility. I am not suggesting that this is entirely up to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, but clearly, because its responsibility is to look after fish, it must take its responsibility as well.

We need to protect all of our fisheries, not just the Great Lakes fisheries but the east and west coast fisheries as well, from invasive species before it is too late.

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, we have heard many very important speeches tonight, and we have heard talk of numerous different issues related to fisheries in Canada. We were reminded earlier that the topic of fisheries is very broad and just recently we heard it mentioned that some topics perhaps get forgotten. I would like to talk about something which I think gets forgotten, and that is the fishery of the Great Lakes. I would call the Great Lakes our fourth ocean, after the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic Oceans, and I will offer just a small geography lesson. They are bordered by eight American states and, interestingly enough, only one Canadian province, the province of Ontario, from where I hail.

Is the Great Lakes fishery important to Canada? The answer to that is very simple: absolutely. In Canada, the average landed value annually from the Great Lakes fishery is about $40 million, which translates into approximately $100 million annually to the Canadian economy. In addition to that, we have recreational angling, which provides a further $350 million a year to the Canadian economy, for a total of $450 million annually. All together, the combined value of the Canadian and American commercial and recreational fisheries in the Great Lakes has been estimated by the American co-chair of the International Joint Commission, Dennis Schornack, to be worth roughly $7 billion Canadian and 75,000 jobs.

There are three important treaties between Canada and the U.S. which help to manage and administer the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway. The first is the Boundary Waters Treaty and the second is the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. These two combine to create the International Joint Commission. Third is the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries, which created the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.

On February 11 of this year, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans heard important and, in my view, very troubling testimony from the joint chairmen of the International Joint Commission, the Right Hon. Herb Gray and Dennis Schornack, and their officials, as well as Madam Johanne Gélinas, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development for Canada, and her officials.

The gist of the testimony was that the Great Lakes fishery is gravely threatened by invasive species. What are invasive species? Very simply, they are organisms that are not native to the Great Lakes. Examples can be briefly summarized as the zebra mussel, the round gobie, which came with it, Asian carp, and in areas outside the Great Lakes, for example, the green crab.

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member, who is a very valuable member of the fisheries and oceans committee, raised a number of topics. I would like to confine myself to the issue of seals.

Just this week I received a letter from someone out in his neck of the woods urging that the seal hunt be banned entirely because there is a danger that the seal population will be wiped out.

Could the hon. member comment on the following and tell us if he agrees with it? The information that I have is that on the east coast, since he already told us there is not a commercial sealing industry on the west coast, the type of seal mainly used in the commercial industry is the harp seal. My information is that in 1970 there were approximately 1.8 million harp seals. Today there are approximately 5.2 million. That does not look to me like a harp seal population which is in danger of extinction.

It seems to me that there is a lot of misinformation out there that people rely upon and believe to be true. One can certainly understand that no one wants to hunt any species into extinction, but would the hon. member agree with me that some sort of a campaign of proper information needs to be mounted to properly educate Canadians on the true facts insofar as they relate to seals?

[Petitions, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions on the same subject matter bearing hundreds of signatures, primarily from the Chatham area of the province of Ontario.

All of the petitioners request that the government bring in legislation defining a human fetus or embryo from the moment of conception, whether in the womb of the mother or not and whether conceived naturally or otherwise, as a human being, and making any and all consequential amendments to all Canadian laws as required.

[Food and Drugs Act, February 20th, 2003]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-398, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (food labelling).

Mr. Speaker, for years I have been working to ensure mandatory information and labelling on foods in Canada and for years the Department of Health kept insisting that it should be done on a volunteer basis.

Finally, in November of 2000 the Minister of Health announced regulations to ensure mandatory nutritional labelling of food. However, not everything is covered.

The bill would amend the Food and Drugs Act to specify the type of information that is to be provided on the labels of imported and prepackaged foods, and of foods sold for immediate consumption.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Committees of the House, February 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in the House, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans on Canadian Coast Guard--Marine Communications and Traffic Services.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report. However, notwithstanding the deadline of 150 days stipulated in the Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the comprehensive response to the report be tabled within 90 days of today.

This unanimous report, prepared after firsthand visits by the committee to MCTS sites on both the west and east coasts, identifies numerous serious problems with the services, including chronic underfunding, understaffing, overwork, stress, breakdown of equipment and gaps in Canada's coastal security. It makes six concrete recommendations to help alleviate these problems.

The committee hereby urges the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to alert the Minister of Finance to these serious problems to urge the Minister of Finance to provide sufficient funds in his upcoming budget to help rectify the problems the committee has identified.

[Petitions, November 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the other two petitions I have are concerned with the protection of human life. The petitioners point out that modern science has unequivocally and irrefutably established that a human being begins to exist at the moment of conception. They call upon Parliament to bring in legislation defining a human fetus or embryo from the moment of conception, whether in the womb of the mother or not and whether conceived naturally or otherwise, as a human being, and making any and all consequential amendments to all Canadian laws as required.

[Petitions, November 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions on two subject matters. Like others, I have a petition from approximately 120 people in the Chatham area of Ontario. They call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials that promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.

[Petitions, November 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the final petition, which is primarily from people in Ontario, calls upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.