FOPO Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, May 4, 2004

Á

1105

The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.))

Á

1110

Mr. Serge Labonté (Director General, Fisheries, Environment and Biodiversity Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

Á

1115

Á

1120

The Chair

Mr. Robert McLean (Director General, Conservation Strategies, Department of the Environment)

The Chair

Á

1125

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, CPC)

Mr. Serge Labonté

Mr. Sylvain Paradis (Director, Fisheries, Environment and Biodiversity Science Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

Á

1130

The Chair

Mr. Sylvain Paradis

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Serge Labonté

Á

1135

Dr. John Cooley (Regional Director, Science, Central and Arctic Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ)

Mr. Serge Labonté

Mr. Robert McLean

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Robert McLean

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Á

1140

Mr. Serge Labonté

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Serge Labonté

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Á

1145

Mr. Robert McLean

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

The Chair

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Á

1150

Mr. Serge Labonté

The Chair

Mr. Serge Labonté

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Á

1155

Mr. Serge Labonté

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Dr. John Cooley

The Chair

Dr. John Cooley

The Chair

Â

1200

Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Middlesex, CPC)

The Chair

Dr. John Cooley

The Chair

Mr. Gary Schellenberger

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Â

1205

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

The Chair

Mr. Serge Labonté

The Chair

Mr. Robert McLean

Â

1210

The Chair

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.)

The Chair

Dr. John Cooley

Mr. Paul Steckle

Dr. John Cooley

Mr. Paul Steckle

Dr. John Cooley

Â

1215

The Chair

Mr. Serge Labonté

Mr. Sylvain Paradis

Â

1220

Mr. Paul Steckle

Mr. Sylvain Paradis

Mr. Paul Steckle

The Chair

Dr. John Cooley

The Chair

Dr. John Cooley

The Chair

Dr. John Cooley

The Chair

Dr. John Cooley

Â

1225

The Chair

Dr. John Cooley

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP)

Mr. Sylvain Paradis

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Sylvain Paradis

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Serge Labonté

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Serge Labonté

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Serge Labonté

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Â

1230

Mr. Serge Labonté

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Serge Labonté

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Serge Labonté

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Serge Labonté

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Tom Morris (Manager, Environmental Protection, Marine Safety, Department of Transport)

Â

1235

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Tom Morris

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Tom Morris

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Tom Morris

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Tom Morris

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Serge Labonté

Â

1240

The Chair

Mr. Gary Schellenberger

Mr. Serge Labonté

Mr. Gary Schellenberger

Mr. Serge Labonté

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Robert McLean

Â

1245

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Serge Labonté

Dr. John Cooley

Â

1250

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Dr. John Cooley

The Chair

Mr. Paul Steckle

Mr. Serge Labonté

Dr. John Cooley

Mr. Paul Steckle

Â

1255

Mr. Serge Labonté

Mr. Paul Steckle

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

The Chair

Mr. Serge Labonté

The Chair

Mr. Tom Morris

·

1300

The Chair

Mr. Tom Morris

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Serge Labonté

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Serge Labonté

The Chair

Mr. Robert McLean

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Sylvain Paradis

The Chair

Mr. Sylvain Paradis

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

---

NUMBER 013

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, May 4, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.)): I'd like to call the meeting to order. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are continuing our study on aquatic invasive species.

    Before I introduce our panel of witnesses, I'd like to explain what I mean when I say we're continuing our study on aquatic invasive species.

    But before I do that, committee members, I just want to remind you, in case you didn't get a chance to see it at your offices, our researchers have prepared a document entitled “Follow-up on the Committee’s Report onAquatic Invasive Species”, which goes through each of the recommendations and makes some comments. If you do not have it, the clerk has copies for you. If you do have it, there are suggested questions in there as well.

    This is televised, so for those who are watching, I'll give a short preamble, which I usually don't do, and then I'll introduce the witnesses.

    This meeting is really further to this committee's unanimous report of May 2003 and the government response of October 24, 2003, delivered 150 days after we issued our report, which is the timeframe allowed by the rules. I just want to remind everybody that in that government response, the government began with the following comment:

The Government of Canada recognizes that aquatic invasive species are a threat to Canada’s environment, economy and society. Canada’s natural resources are fundamental to our economic stability, and protecting and conserving our aquatic resources is essential to ensure sustainable development.

    In September 2001, federal, provincial, and territorial ministers identified invasive alien species as a priority. They called for the development of a draft plan to address the threat, and they called for that draft plan to be ready by the fall of 2002--one year after their meetings. Yesterday, May 3, we were provided with a draft plan dated March 2004. I hope you've had an opportunity to glance at it.

    The real reason we're having this meeting flows out of recommendation 3 that this committee made, which was to have the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans table an interim report to Parliament about invasive species--which didn't occur--and then to table a report once a year to the Parliament of Canada and have that report referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans for scrutiny.

    The government response to that was that the annual departmental performance reports would describe the department's accomplishments, presumably on the subject of invasive species. The departmental performance reports, which were tabled in November 2003, I believe, contain no reference to invasive species or any accomplishments in respect of invasive species.

    I'm sure the witnesses will correct me if I'm wrong, and I hope they do.

    Because of that, and because there is no report to Parliament by the minister and there's nothing in front of us showing any progress on the issue of invasive species, the committee unanimously decided that we would have this meeting, which turns out then to be an annual meeting--one year after our report--just to get an update from a variety of departments as to what's happening on the subject of alien aquatic invasive species in Canada.

    I'm sorry for the long preamble, but I wanted our viewers and committee members to remember the purpose behind our having this particular meeting.

    Having said that, allow me to introduce our witnesses. From the Department of Fisheries and Oceans we have Serge Labonté, director general, fisheries, environment, and biodiversity directorate; John Cooley, regional director, science, central and Arctic region; and Sylvain Paradis, director, fisheries, environment, and biodiversity science directorate.

    From the Department of the Environment we have George Enei, director, conservation priorities; and Robert McLean, director general, conservation strategies.

    And from the Department of Transport, ready to talk to us about ballast water and regulations, hopefully, we have Tom Morris, manager, environmental protection, marine safety.

Á  (1110)  

    Welcome all. I presume somebody is going to lead us off with an opening statement.

    Monsieur Labonté, s'il vous plaît.

    Mr. Serge Labonté (Director General, Fisheries, Environment and Biodiversity Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today and report on government activity to address the threat of aquatic invasive species. I will take a few minutes to highlight the government's progress on this issue.

    Indeed, the government has made substantial progress in addressing aquatic invasive species since responding formally to the committee's report last fall. The SCOFO recommendations were timely and pertinent and echoed the government's feeling that aquatic invasive species are a significant threat to Canada's aquatic resources.

    While acknowledging the role of the federal department and agency, the committee was critical of federal initiatives and activities. Several recommendations were of direct applicability to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans; however, numerous recommendations also applied to other federal departments, including Environment Canada and Transport Canada, which are present today. Although the committee's report focused on the Great Lakes, the government's response took a national perspective.

    The threat of aquatic invasive species is a global issue and there is a need for national action to address this threat. This national action is being led and coordinated through the cooperative effort of a number of federal, provincial, and territorial agencies in Canada.

    Environment Canada leads the national strategy, which includes four thematic working groups: aquatic invasive species, terrestrial animals, terrestrial plants, and leadership and coordination. DFO has the lead on the aquatic invasive species. I personally co-chaired, with the Province of Ontario, the Canadian Council on Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers task group on aquatic invasive species. Transport leads Canada's participation in international initiatives, such as the International Maritime Organization.

    The government's response generally agrees with SCOFO's recommendations. When SCOFO released its report in May 2003, some action was already underway or planned, like the task group of CCFAM and the IMO ballast water guidelines. Since the fall of 2003, DFO and other government departments have made progress on commitments and have taken action to address the threat of aquatic invasive species. More specifically, DFO has taken action in three areas: leadership and coordination, control and prevention, and research and education. This presentation will highlight DFO's actions in these three areas.

    The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has taken a leadership role in the management of aquatic invasive species and DFO has been working extensively with other government departments, agencies, universities, and stakeholders. The CCFAM task group has been consulting with organizations and concerned individuals on the proposed national action plan. Participants have included representatives of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, the IJC, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, and the Canadian Wildlife Federation.

    The CCFAM national plan recognizes that effective leadership and coordination at interjurisdictional, interdepartmental, and international levels are important for success. Effective implementation of the CCFAM national plan will require cooperative efforts to avoid duplication and to monitor progress toward achieving objectives. The plan includes four implementation strategies: legislation, regulation and enforcement; risk management; education and outreach; and science.

    As you know, once they're established, it's very difficult and expensive to control or eradicate invasive species. Therefore, preventing new introduction is the primary focus. Once a species has been introduced, the priorities shift to risk-management activity, such as early detection and risk assessment.

    The CCFAM national action plan identifies a variety of risk-management activities such as risk assessment, early detection, and restoration plans. DFO has already initiated risk-management activities for the sea lamprey control program, for Asian carp, and for grass carp introduction to waterfront areas.

    DFO and Transport work closely together on the issue of ballast water. We provide scientific advice to Transport regarding ballast water standards and regulations. DFO supported Transport at the IMO International Conference on Ballast Water Management for Ships in February 2004.

Á  (1115)  

    Scientific advice was provided on site to the Canadian delegation concerning the establishment of the ballast water treatment standard and performance standards.

    At that IMO conference, participants approved the final draft of the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments.

    DFO is also conducting assessments on Asian carp and snakeheads to determine the threat posed to Canadian aquatic ecosystems. The department is using methods developed at significant cost by the U.S.

    DFO scientists are reviewing the background material and determining relevancy to the Canadian context. The risk assessments also include peer review.

    Working with the U.S in assessing the risk is important in assuring that Canada satisfies the requirements of the World Trade Organization. DFO officials will be participating in an Asian carp workshop in the U.S in May.

    In addition, DFO has been working with DFAIT and Environment Canada regarding the implication of banning the importation of Asian carp. DFO is also working with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, which is considering the prohibition of live possession of Asian carp through an amendment of the Ontario fishery regulations of the Fisheries Act.

    From a research perspective, DFO has recently created an invasive species research chair led by Dr. Hugh MacIsaac at the University of Windsor. The purpose of the research chair is to investigate new vectors and impacts on invasive species. DFO and Dr. MacIsaac are working cooperatively to develop a Canadian network of aquatic invasive species research.

    Currently, 36 scientists from government and universities, from seven provinces, are working closely in the research network, which will focus research on four themes: vectors and pathways; establishment factors; traffic disruption; prevention and remediation. The research chair and network will help to increase scientific knowledge related to the impact of aquatic invasive species and to improve the coordination of research and the sharing of research data.

    This is a great joint venture to link Canadian research initiatives with federal policy priorities.

    By the way, Dr. MacIsaac will be giving a presentation at a Bacon and Egghead Breakfast on May 13, so you should put that on your calendar.

    In 2004, for the current fiscal year, DFO is reallocating nearly $500,000 for scientific research to address invasive species. Research will be directed toward high priorities, including the effect on marine and Great Lakes fisheries. We expect further work on Asian carp, ballast water, clubbed tunicate, and codium to be carried out this year.

    The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans report was a timely document. It provides many insights into moving forward on the CCFAM national action plan to address invasive species. Consultations are ongoing and we are working collaboratively with other government departments, agencies, universities, and stakeholders to respond to the threat.

    I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. I will ask my colleague Robert McLean from Environment Canada to give a brief summary of the overall national strategy.

    Robert.

Á  (1120)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Labonté.

    Mr. McLean.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert McLean (Director General, Conservation Strategies, Department of the Environment): Thank you. I'd like to take this opportunity today to give committee members a status report on the progress made in implementing the recommendations put forward in your May 2003 report entitled Aquatic Invasive Species: Uninvited Guests.

    When we last met, the committee encouraged Environment Canada to show leadership with a view to fulfilling its commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy. Specifically, you urged us to push for the development of a national plan to address the threat of invasive alien species.

    I'm pleased to inform you that Environment Canada, in concert with its federal, provincial and territorial partners, has made important strides in developing a national plan of this nature. And last week, I submitted to the committee an actual draft of the proposed plan.

    The aim of the National Plan is to help Canada set its priorities in terms of the prevention, detection, response to and management of invasive alien species. The plan was developed using solid scientific data, risk identification and management principles, legislative studies and international collaboration. The participation of Canadians is a fundamental component of this initiative.

[English]

    The draft national strategy is complemented by three action plans currently under development, which Serge alluded to: the aquatic invasive species work; terrestrial plants and plant pests, led cooperatively by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food; and, finally, a national wildlife disease strategy, led by the Canadian Wildlife Service of Environment Canada.

    Public consultation sessions on the draft strategy are now being held in regional centres across the country. The document is being made available electronically on Environment Canada's website and through targeted mail-outs to key stakeholders. Initial consultations will be completed, we hope, by the end of May. It is anticipated that additional sessions may be held during the summer to meet with additional key stakeholders.

    The draft national strategy and action plans will be revised following the completion of public consultations and will be presented to federal, provincial, and territorial deputy ministers at a meeting planned for late June. The strategy will subsequently be presented to ministers responsible for forests, wildlife, endangered species, fisheries, and aquaculture in September for their approval and for direction on next steps, including priority pathways and action plans.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McLean.

    Does anyone else want to make an opening statement?

    Then we're ready for questions.

    Before we do, I appreciate the update, and thank you very much. Good luck with the timeframe of September, Mr. McLean, because it has been a major concern of this committee. For example, in the preamble of the government's response, we had warned about certain species of Asian carp and had asked the various departments to take action on them. The response was:

In response to this report, the Government will perform a risk assessment, to determine the threat posed by the four species of Asian carp.

    In the response to recommendation 10, the government says that risk assessment will be completed by the end of 2003.

    Mr. Labonté, I believe in your opening remarks you said that your department was conducting—present tense—a risk assessment. I have to take from that that the risk assessment that was promised to be completed at the end of 2003 on the Asian carp hasn't been completed and you are in the process of conducting it. Some of my colleagues may want to follow up on that.

    Our major concern is the time it takes to get these things done. We understand the various levels of government and provincial-federal jurisdiction. I think one of the reasons we're hoping to make this an annual event is to make sure you come back and continue to report good progress to us.

    With that, I will call on Mr. Hearn for ten minutes.

Á  (1125)  

    Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, CPC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Let me thank the witnesses for coming here this morning.

    Perhaps before I ask my first question I'll give somebody a chance to answer the one you posed, because I believe it's extremely important. If there is a study being done on Asian carp, why wasn't it completed according to the commitment, and where are we with it, more importantly?

    Mr. Serge Labonté: I will ask my colleague Sylvain Paradis to update you on the status of that work.

    Mr. Sylvain Paradis (Director, Fisheries, Environment and Biodiversity Science Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): When we responded to the report of this committee, all of the risk assessments we had reviewed--such as the Ontario government risk assessment, or the ones done by universities, like Dr. Hugh MacIsaac's--demonstrated that the biological risk had been established.

    However, as your recommendation stated, what you were asking for is to ban import, which has a major trade repercussion because it would actually have repercussions on the Americans in exporting grass carp to Canada. In reference to your recommendation to harmonize the legislation, we had to look at the trade legislation relative to NAFTA and the fisheries trade issues. At that point we found that the existing risk assessment would not be stringent enough or strong enough to actually face the World Trade Organization's standard for a ban on international trade.

    At that point, we had to go back to the drawing board and increase the level of the assessment we were doing on the four species of Asian carp and snakehead to make sure that we would actually be able to face this requirement. In parallel, the Americans are spending enormous amounts of money to assess species similar to those that this committee has recommended to do, except for grass carp, which is already established in the United States.

    What we've decided to do is to actually work very closely with the Americans to make sure that if we take their assessment, we revise it in light of Canadian conditions--like water temperature, existing prey-predator relationships--so we could actually come up with a Canadian assessment that the Americans would not be able to go against because it would actually satisfy both sides of the border. So we're actually going to the United States this month to look at the state of the American reviews, and we're having scientists apply Canadian conditions to them.

    The last of the American reviews, the silver carp, is to come later on this summer, but we believe there's great benefit to actually using the American work to support Canadian efforts.

    At the same time, the Government of Ontario has asked to prohibit possession of live Asian carp and its purchase, and we're working very closely with the Ontario government to ensure that the risk assessments are effective and can support their efforts. Our understanding is they are just about to request from the Minister of Fisheries to put it in the Ontario Fisheries Act over the next year.

Á  (1130)  

    The Chair: When will this be completed, given that it was promised to be completed at the end of 2003?

    Mr. Sylvain Paradis: Our target now is September, because all the work to harmonize the American reports to Canadian...that will be taking place over the summer in the best conditions.

    The Chair: Mr. Hearn.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: Mr. Chair, it's a bit ironic that one old cow in Alberta gets BSE and the Americans close their border to all our imports. We have carp devastating our fish stocks in the Great Lakes and we can't ban it without all kinds of consultation and follow-up.

    I can't agree that we should be pussyfooting around. It seems any time we're perceived to be at fault, even if the danger perhaps is idiotic--one cow and no other shown--boom, the industry is closed, and its closed yet.

    And yet we have proof from within our own scientific research from the university and from special interest groups that the Asian carp in particular, the different species, are devastating our stocks.

    One of the suggestions is to ban the importation, but because it's the Americans and because we don't want to ruffle any feathers, we can't do it. I can't understand that, and I know it's not a decision you make, it's a political one, but I'd certainly like your comments.

    Before we get into that and a couple of other questions, let me say I am impressed with the approach on education, and I believe in educating people as to the dangers of species that prey on our original stocks, whatever they are.

    And I can carry that from the smallest item you'd be dealing with--I don't know whether the zebra mussel is the smallest, but it certainly will be one of the smaller ones--to the seal herds off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, to devastation caused on other stocks. Even though this is not an invasive species, it's a species that is destroying a lot of our resources.

    However, education.... I believe people fully understand the need for the balance of nature and the need to control invasive species, or I suppose any species that causes that imbalance and destroys a product of ours, and I agree with, as I say, and I'm impressed at the way you're doing it. We have to do more of it.

    But the thing is, stopping more of this happening in the future is laudable, but correcting the problems we have today is a necessity. I would like to know what headway we are making. Let's pick three or four of the main ones. Let's pick zebra mussel, let's pick the Asian carp, and let's pick the sea lamprey. How far today are we ahead of where we were three years ago? I'll leave you with those.

    Mr. Serge Labonté: If I can make a comment first on education awareness, I totally agree this is probably the most important thing because most of the invaders are introduced unintentionally. People don't know about it.

    There are various vectors to that, either through boating, through live food, through aquarium pets and that kind of thing. So this is going to be a very important part of the action plan. We believe that prevention is the first thing because it is very difficult when invaders are already in control.

    You mentioned the example of zebra mussels. I don't think we will ever get rid of the zebra mussel. It's invaded lakes, watersheds, etc. It's no longer an invasive; it's basically now an inhabitant of our waters that we'll have to live with for a long time.

    But there are some others where strong steps have been taken, and the sea lamprey is a good example. I will ask Dr. Cooley to basically describe the steps we've taken since the sea lamprey program has been introduced and the kinds of success we've had since.

Á  (1135)  

    Dr. John Cooley (Regional Director, Science, Central and Arctic Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you, Serge.

    You asked where we are with sea lamprey control, relative to where we were three years ago. The answer is that we are further ahead on the control of this invader. I don't think it's the goal of the parties, which would be Canada and the U.S., in this case, to ever eradicate the sea lamprey. It's a goal, or something we would aim for, but it's unlikely we would ever do this. We're faced with an ongoing control program. The question is whether or not we can control this species in a more efficient way, perhaps based more on other ways of control and not using the TFM pesticide, which has been the backbone of the control program.

    Great progress is being made through the development of pheromones. These are attractants. They are chemicals that the lampreys use to establish relationships, to get in touch with each other, more or less, during their spawning phase. Through the efforts of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and all of its cooperators, including DFO, great progress is being made in the development of these pheromones, which we hope will form the backbone of the control program in the future, perhaps as early as 2010. There is great promise with some of the studies that have been done. We're moving forward, thanks to a successful research effort.

    The other area in which we're also making progress on control of the lamprey is through the establishment of low head barrier dams. Barrier dams are put on particularly productive rivers to prevent the upstream migration of lamprey, so you only have to treat below the barrier. In fact, there's one planned, about a mile from where I live, on Bronte Creek in Burlington.

    We are moving forward. Things are better now than they were a few years ago. I'm hopeful they'll be better again in the future.

    The Chair: That's it, Mr. Hearn, for this round.

    Monsieur Roy, s'il vous plaît, pour cinq minutes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I've perused the draft report on invasive alien species and I've noticed that you refer to a study and give a very conservative estimate of what it would cost annually to address the problem of invasive alien species. In fact, you estimate the cost at somewhere between $13.3 million and $34.5 billion. You claim to have arrived at this figure after examining 16 species on which data was available. I'm curious as to what these 16 species are. Are we talking solely about aquatic species, or about plants and so forth?

    Mr. Serge Labonté: You're referring to the overall national plan. I'll let my colleague Mr. McLean answer that question.

[English]

    Mr. Robert McLean: I don't have the full list of species with me. We could provide it after the fact. It would be a combination of both aquatic species.

    For example, we would have the estimated costs associated with zebra mussels included in those figures, and also for some terrestrial species. For plant pests, for example, we would be including the specific example that we mentioned of the thistle that impacts on the canola plant in the Canadian Prairies. Those costs are included in that particular estimate.

    One thing that we want to emphasize is that the estimate includes the cost of managing the invasives and also, if you will, the lost revenue associated with the invasive species.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: You referred to terrestrial species. Do some of these species have any bearing on the forest industry?

[English]

    Mr. Robert McLean: Yes, for example, there is the Asian longhorn beetle.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: There is quite a range in your estimate figures. You speak of anywhere from $13 billion to $33 billion. Could this amount possibly go even higher? We're in the dark somewhat, because we know virtually nothing about the actual impact of invasive species on our economy. It comes back to the question my colleague raised earlier. The agricultural sector was confronted with a problem and considerable efforts were made to address it, but losses have now been pegged at between $13.3 and $33 billion. It seems that very little time and energy has been devoted to dealing with this particular problem.

    What is DFO's budget for addressing the threat of invasive species? How much has Environment Canada earmarked in its budget for dealing with the problem of invasive species across the country?

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Serge Labonté: At present, DFO has an annual budget of $6.1 million to control sea lamprey in the Great Lakes. Obviously, this accounts for the biggest chunk of the budget. Until recently, the department made relatively modest investments in other areas.

    As you know, the department has conducted a program review and we have realigned or reprofiled some of our resources to increase capacity. We are now investing approximately $2 million in research in house and in a newly established research chair at the University of Windsor. Our goal is to create a national network to increase our overall investment. It would be comprised of university science faculty members who would perhaps receive funding from granting councils such as the National Research Council of Canada. These are the amounts currently allocated in our budget.

    Given the scope of the program, I recognize that even more funding is needed in order to make significant progress in this area.

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Earlier, someone mentioned that enough wasn't known about carp to negotiate with the US and to prove to this nation that this species was harming our economy. Basically, what you're saying is that we're not investing enough money to acquire the knowledge we need. Correct?

    Mr. Serge Labonté: That's a good question. From a scientific perspective, we receive a tremendous number of research requests having to do with the fishery, the environment and other fields. Far more importance is now being given to invasive aquatic species. They are one of the department's top priorities right now, along with finalizing the national plan on invasive aquatic species. The National Plan seen here targets all invasive species. You also have a copy of the consultation paper on aquatic species that highlights the issues of particular concern to us.

    It's not just a question of doing research. Public education issues are especially important. We need to increase public awareness of all species transfer issues. Regulatory matters are also important. What steps should be taken and what control mechanisms should be in place when species are integrated? All of these questions must be weighed and they are not solely a federal responsibility. Accordingly, we're working with the provinces and territories, because in many areas, they can play a much more effective role than the federal government. Take, for example, species sold for aquaria, products sold in markets and so forth.

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: The other part of my question had to do with Environment Canada. I was curious as to the resources allocated by Environment Canada to prevent invasive species from entering the country. Does the department have a budget for that very purpose? Does Environment Canada have in place a prevention or detection program?

Á  (1145)  

[English]

    Mr. Robert McLean: On the bulk of the prevention activities Serge just mentioned, the other agency federally is not Environment Canada but the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. It has dealt with many of the pests we have terrestrially--the plants and plant pests in both the agriculture sector and the forestry sector.

    I don't have information on their budget.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Roy.

    For the purposes of the record, I think it's important that we recognize that Mr. Roy was referring to paragraph 2 on page 2 of the draft in the English version. I'd like to read it into the record, and then we'll go to Mr. Provenzano:

A preliminary report of the economic costs resulting from invasive alien species conservatively estimated annual cumulative costs for 16 species is between $13.3 and $34.5 billion. These estimates are known to be incomplete, and it is widely estimated that the damage resulting from past introductions of harmful invasive plant pests on agricultural crops and forestry is $7.5 billion annually.

    The response was $6.1 million for lamprey control.

    Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: On pages 10 and 11 of the paper there's a more comprehensive section entitled “Economic Threats” which provides additional details.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay, thank you, Mr. Roy. I won't read that, but you've made reference to it so the record will show it.

    Mr. Provenzano, please.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a number of questions, and I hope it won't be considered rude of me when I feel the response has been sufficient to answer my questions to say thank you and to go on to another question. I'm very anxious that the time allotted to me isn't used up by parts of responses that I don't feel are relevant to the question, so--

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Provenzano. Go ahead.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I am very happy to hear that the department puts the matter of the prevention and control of invasive species in the Great Lakes at the highest priority. Do I understand that to be the case? You're nodding yes.

    I'm also happy, and I guess it's consistent with what you said earlier in your presentation, that that's why the department wants to assume a leadership role with respect to the prevention and control of invasive species.

    Now, what we're talking about is invasive species in the Great Lakes. You mentioned earlier that $6.1 million had been allocated for the prevention and control of the sea lamprey in the Great Lakes. You also mentioned that this amount was the lion's share of what the department has allocated towards the prevention and control of invasive species, generally. So I'm assuming that the whole budget is just slightly more than $6.1 million and the $6.1 million is what is dedicated to the prevention and control of sea lamprey.

    You mention that there's experimentation being done--I think you said “pheromones”--with respect to the control of sea lamprey and that perhaps by 2010 that might have gone beyond the experimentation stage and that we can expect perhaps to introduce that kind of control.

    My question, in view of that premise, is this. I've been a member of this committee for five out of the seven years that I've been a member of Parliament, and the $6.1 million has not been a stable amount, a static amount, of funding towards the program

    How do we justify, in view of the figures that the chair related to the committee, that it's possible that the real cost of controlling aquatic invasive species in the Great Lakes could be somewhere between $13 billion and $14 billion and that we're allocating approximately something over $6.1 million for the control of all invasive species at the moment?

    How do you rationalize this with your statement that it's such a high priority and such a minuscule amount of the department's budget allocated to that high priority?

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. Serge Labonté: I'll take a crack at that.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Good luck.

[English]

    Mr. Serge Labonté: I will need that, I guess.

    The $6.1 million is for the control of sea lampreys in the Great Lakes, and it's stable funding. It has been stable funding for a number of years now. The additional funding that is directed to invasive species in the department is roughly $2 million. Is that amount of money sufficient to control invasive species in Canada? From a control perspective, I would say no. It would be impossible to control species once they've been introduced with such a minuscule amount of money, as you mentioned.

    The main goal we should have as a government and as Canadians in general is to make sure we prevent their introduction. Once they're introduced, you might not be able to get rid of them, and the zebra mussel is a good example. You could invest billions of dollars trying to get rid of zebra mussels, but I don't think we would be able to do that.

    The key is, one, their prevention. Then if you are equipped or organized to detect a new species when it comes in and get it as soon as it appears somewhere, you might have a chance to control it and eradicate it.

    Here we're talking about fresh water. If you're talking about marine environment, you should know eradication in a marine environment is a dream. It's almost impossible unless it's a species that has a very specific life cycle so you can control it with the help of Mother Nature. If the strategy is to control rather than prevent, remember, it takes a huge amount of money to do that. That's how I can answer at this point.

    Of course, there's a need to make more effort in order to prevent, to educate, to research, and to get stewardship, with all Canadians addressing that issue.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I think it goes without saying, Mr. Labonté, that Canadians are very interested in addressing what might be a more serious issue, the control of invasive species that threaten our Great Lakes ecosystem, than issues about species that threaten us on land.

    I intentionally used the word “static” funding as opposed to “stable” because $6.1 million has been the figure, as I said, since I was a member of Parliament. It's been the case, Mr. Labonté, that members such as myself--Mr. Steckle, certainly Mr. Stoffer, and others such as Mr. Hearn--have made it a point to badger the department when it's estimates time. And God help anyone trying to find the figures without some help.

    In pointing out that this funding needs to be supplied in the amounts that are being requested and not the amounts that are being settled--those amounts are stated to be inadequate--I'd like your opinion on whether the amount and the current formula, especially with respect to the $6.1 million, really correspond to program delivery realities.

    While you're answering that, I understand you're telling us that the experimental program with respect to pheromones is not ready to go, that it's experimental. I'd like you to explain to the committee why we can't seem to find the money to match the request for A-base funding for just one program, the sea lamprey control program, in a budget where all of the money is allocated to the Great Lakes. And I hope you'll correct me on this, but all of the moneys for invasive species or anything else, all of the Great Lakes program, are about 8% of the department's whole budget. Tell me where I'm wrong.

Á  (1155)  

    Mr. Serge Labonté: On the funding, I can tell you that this is stable funding and it's A-base funding. On the fixed amount, John, you might want to comment on that and at the same time provide more details about the program.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I need to go back to school on this. Can you explain to me how $6.1 million in 1997 buys the same amount as $6.1 million in 2004?

    Dr. John Cooley: The amount has remained fixed at $6.1 million. I think the question is, would there be a higher level of control if that budget were increased? Our understanding of the cost of controlling lamprey--we use a very sophisticated formula--is that if you put more money into it, you would control more lamprey. The fact is we are at the bottom of the curve as to the level of control that is provided. If you were to put more money into it, you would get a bit more level of control, but you wouldn't get a lot. If you were to put a lot more money into it, you still wouldn't get very much more because of where you are on the cost control curve. That's not an excuse for not putting more money into the program, but it's the reality of where we are in terms of the level of control.

    I don't think the program is being hampered by a lack of dollars right now. You can always use more money. You're asking a researcher if he could use more money. Never ask a researcher if they could use more money because the answer will always be fairly predictable. With my researcher hat on, that certainly would be my response.

    The Canada-U.S. program on sea lamprey control is funded at an appropriate level right now. It still could use more money if more money were available. And they would use it well.

    The Chair: Mr. Provenzano, you've already had 11 minutes.

    But I will ask Dr. Cooley to address your question about the study on the pheromone and whether more money would move that along faster.

    Dr. John Cooley: The problem with the pheromone study isn't money. It's getting that particular program to where you can move it from the lab into the field. An awful lot of things have to be done on the pheromone program. Right now they're working on trying to create this thing in the lab. It's a very costly thing to do. You have to collect a lot of immature lamprey and extract the pheromone from it. Even if we had the pheromone right now, you would then have to get approval from both countries to be able to put this into the streams. You can't just create this thing and then start throwing it into the streams. It's the same sort of process as when you bring on a new drug. There's an awful long time between when the researcher creates the drug in the lab and when you can actually put it on the shelves, so to speak. That program isn't really being hampered by a lack of dollars. It's just what we have to do before we can deploy this into the streams. The best estimate is around 2010.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    We'll go to the Conservatives.

    Mr. Schellenberger.

  (1200)  

    Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Middlesex, CPC): I'm sorry I missed the first part of the presentation.

    Coming from Ontario, I can remember that a few years ago we used to catch smelt by the bushel and perch three at a time. It wasn't through overfishing that the perch disappeared.

    The pheromone issue is quite intriguing. This is a scent used during mating and their reproductive activity. If that particular program was successful with the sea lamprey, could something like that be used on zebra mussels or other invasive species?

    You catch these little guys and you extract the pheromone. How do you neuter a sea lamprey? I know what you do with dogs and cats. You make them so that they can't reproduce.

    The Chair: Dr. Cooley, how do you neuter a sea lamprey?

    Dr. John Cooley: Carefully.

    We do neuter sea lamprey, as a matter of fact. I didn't explain the other part of the control program. There are a number of ways of approaching it.

    One of the ways is to release sterile males back into the environment, then they mate with females, and the eggs don't hatch. So if you can catch enough male sea lamprey...they go through a rather painful process of neutering. I could give you pictures of the instrument of torture, but it does work.

    In fact, to be serious for a minute, releasing sterile males back into the environment is used in pest control all over the place, so it's not something new. That in itself, or the pheromones, or the TFM, or the barriers...one thing alone is not going to work, so you need a multi-pronged effort.

    Where we use the sterile males is in St. Mary's Rapids, where there is a very large population. So every male that's caught in the trapping program is taken to, I believe it's Hammond Bay in the U.S., is sterilized, and then released back into the environment. It's helped, because with the traditional methods of treatment in St. Mary's, where you have high volume and high flow, you'd need a huge amount of pesticide if you were just doing that. So you need a different approach, and the sterile male is the one that's used.

    The other question you asked was whether a pheromone approach would work on zebra mussels, and the answer is no, because of the nature of the beast. They don't move around; they're in one spot. It's not well suited to an approach such as pheromones.

    The Chair: Is that it?

    Mr. Gary Schellenberger: That's fine.

    The Chair: Okay, Mr. Hearn, you have some time left.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: Mr. Chair, with regard to cooperation among departments—we have three here today: Fisheries and Oceans, Environment, and Transport—in relation to work like this, do the departments work well together, or are you sometimes frustrated because of the way hands are tied in other departments?

    As an example, Mr. Chair, we can use the frustration we faced when we saw the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Environment openly fight in relation to the issue of the pollution caused by the Tecam Sea, the boat...the case that was going to court. It was not even thrown out of court but was cancelled at the steps because--from what we're told at least--of disagreements and lack of cooperation between the two departments.

    One other little question on top of that is, besides the three departments here, do you have the misfortune to have to deal with Foreign Affairs and International Trade in relation to any of these issues?

  (1205)  

    The Chair: The invasive species don't need passports, I don't think, Mr. Hearn.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: No, but I'm thinking about the carp, the implications of that.

    The Chair: Mr. Labonté.

    Mr. Serge Labonté: We have many mechanisms and many forums in which to work together, either on developing strategy or plans or on day-to-day business.

    I'm also going to give my colleague a chance to talk about it.

    The development of a national action plan on invasive species, not just aquatic but terrestrial animals and plants, and so on, requires a huge coordination of effort among various agencies. It's not just Transport Canada, Environment Canada, and DFO; it includes the CFIA, DFAIT, Agriculture Canada, and Natural Resources Canada in forests. There are many, many agencies involved. It also involves the provinces and territories.

    I think we have developed a coordination mechanism that starts even at the ministerial level through groups like CCFAM or ministers of wildlife, environment, and fisheries to basically coordinate that. But at the civil servant level, we have mechanisms and organizations to deal with that on an ongoing basis, either at the level of assistant deputy minister or the director general working level, and so on.

    Just on the example of ballast water, for instance, the relationship needs to exist, and exists, between Transport Canada and DFO. Transport Canada is the regulatory body on ballast water, but they need the science from DFO to develop standards there, and we're working with them.

    At the IMO meeting, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, science was there with Transport Canada in the Canadian delegation, to help Transport Canada in developing the position and responding to the various elements or the various questions that were raised during the meeting that brought, finally, the agreement on a convention. So we work on that on a regular basis.

    There are also many examples I can use with Environment Canada or other departments or provinces.

    On the issue of clubbed tunicate, which is a major issue for the aquaculture industry in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and partly for P.E.I., we are in contact and are trying to find alternative solutions and prevention, working closely with P.E.I., universities, different partners, to try to move that forward. So we work together at the working level and through the coordination.

    I can let my colleague elaborate on that, but this is a fact of life on a daily basis, almost.

    The Chair: Are there any comments?

    Mr. McLean.

    Mr. Robert McLean: I'll start off with the Tecam Sea. Very clearly that's not the vision for the future. We need as departments to work better together than we did in that situation. There have been actions taken both by Transport Canada and Environment Canada to hopefully prevent that from ever happening again.

    I think when it comes to invasive alien species it's essential, and actually the concept in my mind moves beyond cooperation, almost to an integration or an interdependence. Do the science once and let the science inform whatever the regulatory tools are, whatever the educational materials, and so on.

    There aren't enough resources. We've heard that in the earlier questioning. There won't be all the resources that anyone would want to effectively address invasive alien species, so we need more than that cooperation, but rather integration.

    The one specific example where we are trying to take a substantial or substantive step forward is that we have at the assistant deputy minister level a science and technology integration board, which is trying to develop that interdependence. As they define integration, they think of interdependence, and invasive alien species is one of the areas they're looking at. We've taken the results of our work to them. We need to do more on that front.

    It's both more effective in terms of achieving the environmental results as well as more efficient use of public funds.

  (1210)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Thank you, Mr. Hearn.

    Mr. Steckle.

    Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): I want to thank you, gentlemen, for appearing this morning. This whole subject matter is fairly close to my heart.

    I have worked with five ministers in my last ten and a half years here on sea lamprey control. You talked about it being an appropriate level of funding, the current level at $6.1 million. I don't know how you arrive at the term “appropriate”, because we do not reach, and we have not ever reached, the appropriate target level set for us by the IJC or the Great Lakes Fishery Commission in terms of our international commitment. It has been subsidized by the Americans for quite a number of years. In fact, the State of Michigan subsidized it to the tune of $1 million a year for three years, and perhaps it is still doing that.

    We need to bring it to a level. Two successive reports by this committee have recommended $8 million. As a threshold, I don't think that number is a new number to you people. This has been spoken about every time I come to the table. My colleagues have assisted...the argument being put forward that other agencies will help us bring forward more money. This is a cash cow for government. It returns huge dollars to the national coffers because of the sport fishing industry that we have in Ontario and Manitoba, and in other areas where the Great Lakes are affected, as well as in the state of Michigan. I just don't understand why we don't get it.

    One of you gentlemen mentioned, I believe, that this is an A-base funding situation. It is not A-base funding. It is not in there, because every year I have to go to the minister, or someone has to go to the minister, and encourage him to keep it there. As recently as under Mr. Thibault, I had to do that.

    Let's understand what's going on here. I'd like to know why we are not coming to some sense that we need to address this program. We have commitments by people to help us raise further moneys.

    Given that prevention is the issue that really we should all be concerned about, I'm also wondering about the Asian carp moving up the Mississippi and into other areas of the Great Lakes basin. We know that the zebra mussels have come in more recently, but the sea lamprey have been here since probably the thirties, or perhaps earlier than that. They came in via ballast water. Why have we not learned from those lessons? As someone suggested earlier, we had one animal destroy our whole beef industry in this country. Under the OIE protocol, the Americans didn't have to close borders. Why can't we have a moratorium on live Asian carp coming into Canada until we have the further review done on it?

    I see no reason why Canada can't take the initiative to stop some of these things. I know I'm fiercely adamant about this, because once they're here, it's too late.

    The snakehead is another example. They just found another example of snakeheads in a pond or a small lake in Maryland, I believe. How long before we have them here?

    Why do we allow these invasive species?

    My last question would be, what is the definition of an invasive species? Is a black cormorant an invasive species to the Great Lakes basin?

    The Chair: There's a machine-gun approach to questioning, so let's see who is hit.

    Who would like to go first?

    Dr. Cooley.

    Dr. John Cooley: Yes. Was there a specific question on the lamprey?

    Mr. Paul Steckle: Yes. When are we going to put it at A-base, at $8 million? That's the question. And adjust it.

    I can tell you I have a commitment by certain sports agencies that will help us reach higher levels. But bring us to the $8 million and I will do my part in going to those people, and I will show you that this money will be forthcoming.

    Dr. John Cooley: I think this year the $6.1 million is in A-base.

    Mr. Paul Steckle: If that's true, Mr. Cooley, then why does the minister each year come to me and say, “Listen, I've got a problem; they want to take it away from me”? A-base is not to be addressed each year in terms of what you take away from it or what you should be able to add to it. It should be a decision that does not have to be taken by the minister each year.

    Dr. John Cooley: Every year we have to make a commitment through a memorandum of understanding with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission on our budget. We have met that since I've been involved in the management of the program. We've always made our commitment to the commission. I think they'll confirm that if you check it.

    I have heard the $8 million before. And as I mentioned before, if additional moneys were put into the program, they could be usefully applied. There's no question about that at all. If it was $10 million, they could probably use that as well, and up and up and up.

    The other point to that is that the Canadian portion of funding to that binational program hindering progress on it...and I don't think it is. We are moving forward with that program.

  (1215)  

    The Chair: Does anyone else wish to comment?

    Mr. Serge Labonté: I think I'll take at least part of the second question on prevention. There are probably at least half a dozen different vectoral pathways that are key to the introduction of aquatic invasive species. Some of them are more difficult, and more expensive, than others to control. For instance, shipping, with ballast water. The change needed to the technology of the ships themselves to achieve that is a complex issue, and it's a very costly issue. My colleague from Transport, Tom, can probably go at it in more detail.

    But there are other vectors of introduction: from boating, falling through the boats, to the use of live bait by fishermen. People buy pets, put them in their aquarium, and when they don't like them any more they just throw them in the system, or in the creek behind their homes. Another is the live food fish industry, which is another area that is linked to culture and the tradition of people. And there is unauthorized introduction, people coming back from a fishing trip, or whatever; they bring species and they drop that in another watershed.

    Another issue that could be extremely expensive is linked to canal and water diversion. Everybody is probably aware of the Devil's Lake diversion in the state of North Dakota.

    How do you prevent all those pathways? It's a lot of work on different fronts. As I mentioned earlier, there is education that needs to be done there, but when the species are in, getting rid of them is very complex. You mentioned the Asian carp and what we're doing with that. I think right now we are working very closely with Ontario to try to help them achieve that. The approach, and the best approach probably in that case, is to ban possession because you are not then involved in the issue of trade repercussions. For banning the possession, all we have to do is change the Ontario regulation and support this with the amendment to the fisheries regulations and the Fisheries Act. This is something we are working with them on at this point. We are committed to helping them achieve that. There is a mix of different partners to address each and every issue. It could be different. It could be more or less difficult, or less complex, or it could be costly, or less costly in a different way.

    On the carp issue, Sylvain, you might want to add a few things on how we're trying to solve that problem.

    Mr. Sylvain Paradis: One of the issues we faced when we dealt with the trade issue was the question of interdepartmental effectiveness on that case. When we raised the issue at External Affairs, they were the ones bringing us back to previous events where Canada has tried to ban, import, or export, where court cases went on for years and years and made it far more difficult.

    Other concerns were raised. For instance, Asian carp is a very small market if we look generally, but some live fish going down to the United States, like lobster, for example, represent a far bigger market. And if we were to close the border in a quick move, the repercussions could be far bigger. The numbers of invaders, or fish health issues, that could be under the shell of a lobster are far larger than what could be found in the carp. It's where we are having this very effective interdepartmental interaction where we have to look at the legal repercussions.... Biologically, the concerns are not that big, but from an economic perspective there could be huge repercussions.

  (1220)  

    Mr. Paul Steckle: I understand repercussions on trade. This is an issue that is perhaps not as well understood by Canadians, but it is certainly understood by Americans, because they have put a huge effort into stopping the Asian carp's movement north. It's not a case of them not understanding why we would put an embargo, or a moratorium, on live carp, while not preventing dead carp in the fish market to come into Canada, for those who wish to eat carp. It's that live species. It's the live animal, the live fish, that we're concerned about. I don't see why that should create a trade issue problem.

    I think there are other issues, and I would like to know what they are. I think this is something we can do if the Americans can do it. We live by the same trade rules, or we should be. If we're not, then there is something wrong with that trade agreement.

    Mr. Sylvain Paradis: In the Lacey Act in the United States they're basically banning interstate transfer, but they're not approaching the borders at all. So if they were to cross the borders we could actually play this close binational issue. So we're very cautious. The fact that they don't deal with boundary issues makes us believe we have to be very cautious in the way we're moving. And that's advice we got from External Affairs.

    So we're moving this file as quickly as we can on the risk assessment side, and Ontario is very effective in bringing forward this change in the regulation that will not only deal with fish food for stores but also for ornamental gardens. So there's this global pathway perspective in the possession that should actually be quite effective in moving this.

    Mr. Paul Steckle: I have one question that wasn't answered.

    The Chair: Mr. Steckle, I'm sorry, it's already been 11 minutes.

    We'll go to Mr. Stoffer, but before that, I want to mention two things.

    This committee has found on another file that our experience is that the Department of Foreign Affairs is extremely conservative--small “c”--in the manner in which it acts, and this should be taken into account by other departments, because they are the slowest to move on many of these things, including, for example, protecting the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.

    Mr. Labonté, in response to recommendation 9, which dealt with the funding issue, the government said the funding formula between Canada and the United States is expected to be reviewed by the parties to the agreement in the near future. What is the definition of “near future” to the government, and when is that funding formula expected to be reviewed?

    Dr. Cooley.

    Dr. John Cooley: You may be aware that in DFO we've just gone through an assessment exercise of all our programs. One of the items for follow-up--potential follow-up--was the sea lamprey program. There was a line in there about revisiting the relationship we have with the United States on the funding of that program. I don't know if they're going to proceed with that or not, quite frankly.

    The Chair: Whose call would it be?

    Dr. John Cooley: I would think it would be the deputy's call.

    The Chair: Of Fisheries and Oceans?

    Dr. John Cooley: Probably, yes.

    The Chair: All right.

    Dr. John Cooley: I believe the deputy would decide whether we go forward with a review.

    The agreement we have with the Americans under the Great Lakes Fisheries Convention Act dates back to 1955. In 1955 I suspect that the founding mothers and fathers didn't anticipate a dollar at around 73 or 74 cents. In fact at that time I think the Canadian dollar might have even been worth a little bit more.

    But to look just at the formula I think is simplifying something that's far more complex. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission runs what I think is a terrific program, and they like to refer to the program as being border-blind. In other words, what they treat, the streams they treat in any given year, are the streams that need it the most. They're not looking for 31% of the streams to be treated in Canada and 69% of them to be done in the U.S. They have a very sophisticated assessment program whereby they determine which streams are going to get treated. So in any given year there may be more done in the U.S. or in Canada, depending on what the program needs.

  (1225)  

    The Chair: I understand, Doctor, but the government's response--these are not questions from our committee--is that the formula is old, it needs to be rationalized to reflect economic and program delivery realities, and it's going to be reviewed in the near future. That was the government response in October 2003. Is there now a retreat from that government response?

    Dr. John Cooley: No, I don't believe there is a retreat on the response. I understand it's with our policy department, with our policy people, and they will be looking at it. But what I'm saying here is it's a very complicated situation.

    Is the committee aware, for example, that all of the streams that are treated in upstate New York are done by the sea lamprey people out of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario? And the reason for that is it's more cost effective for the Canadian control program to go down and treat in New York State rather than coming from upstate Michigan, which is where the Americans have theirs.

    So there are lots of things to be reviewed, and as far as I know it's still on the books to look at that formula and to rationalize it in light of the way the program is conducted in 2004, at least.

    The Chair: The point is in 2003 the government's answer was that this would be done in the near future, and we are no closer today to having that reviewed, as far as I can understand, than we were six months ago, at the end of October 2003. Again, it's this constant, “We'll study it”, and another year goes by, and two years go by. This is the frustration. You haven't been able to help us--and I'm monopolizing time.

    I apologize, Mr. Stoffer.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    I have a very simple question. Is live Asian carp a threat to Canada in terms of an invasive species? That's a yes or no question.

    Mr. Sylvain Paradis: Well, there are more--

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: No, we've heard evidence here very clearly that it was a threat to our fisheries resources in the Great Lakes. We've heard evidence that it was unequivocal.

    My question is, in your opinion, is live Asian carp a possible threat to our aquatic species?

    Mr. Sylvain Paradis: It is a possible threat.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay, thank you.

    Is it not the responsibility of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, under their constitutional obligation--they get $1.5 billion of our tax dollars--for the protection of fish and fish habitat.

    The answer is?

    Mr. Serge Labonté: Yes.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay. So I find it very unbelievable, Mr. Paradis, and I say this with the greatest of respect, that you invoke possible lobster importations into the United States if we ban live Asian carp. I find it absolutely unbelievable that anybody in any department could tell you that if we ban live Asian carp we may start off a trade war with the United States...although you didn't use those words, but there would be trade concerns.

    Mr. Paradis, if you have any documentation from the foreign affairs department that tells you that, this committee would be honoured to have that, because we would like to call those people who you have spoken to and ask them that question.

    The other concern I have, Mr. Labonté, is this. What does your department define as an invasive species in an aquatic world? What is your definition of that?

    Mr. Serge Labonté: I'll use the definition that we have put in our action plan, so at least it will be fair. We say an invasive species is “A non-indigenous species the introduction of which into an ecosystem may cause harm to the economy, environment, human health, recreation, or public welfare.” This is the description we have.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Is it also fair to say that an invasive species is a species that is not native to a particular area?

    Mr. Serge Labonté: Effectively, yes.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: So, for example, on the west coast you have Atlantic salmon aquaculture...which are not native to the west coast. If one escapes from the pen and goes up a river, is that considered an invasive species?

  (1230)  

    Mr. Serge Labonté: An invasive species has, per the definition, come from somewhere else.

    There is a code, which has been developed under CCFAM, on the introduction and transfer of species. There are--

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: No, but without getting too bureaucratic in the answer, is an Atlantic salmon going up a west coast river considered an invasive species? It is not native to that area. It is introduced to that area. Is it an invasive species?

    Mr. Serge Labonté: Yes, as are many other species.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay, thank you.

    Mr. Chairman, I want to commend our two colleagues from Ontario, Mr. Provenzano and Mr. Steckle. I've been on this committee since 1997, and they have constantly raised the issue of increased A-base funding, and I want to thank them very much for that. It must be very frustrating to be on the government side, speaking to four ministers since 1997, and to still get the same answer, well, you're fine. It's unbelievable.

    My question is, have any of you ever suggested to the minister that A-base funding be increased to $8 million? Have you ever given him that advice at any time?

    Mr. Serge Labonté: Not personally.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: We've had four ministers in six years, and Mr. Regan, in all fairness to him, has only been there four months. I'm sure he doesn't know the complete file of the sea lamprey, so when recommendations come, he has to get his advice or recommendations from somebody. That has to be the department. So if he's getting from Mr. Provenzano and Mr. Steckle that we need to have $8 million in A-base funding, he then goes back to his department and says, I assume, “Well, what do you guys think?” So somebody has to give him advice. We've been at this since 1997.

    Has nobody from your area at all advised the minister that it would be good to have A-base funding at $8 million? Have you never done that, Mr. Labonté? And if not, why not?

    Mr. Serge Labonté: I haven't done that, personally. Why haven't I done it? If I look at it from a science perspective, if I look at the various pressures that we have, and where we've basically reduced funding on core programs in research, in monitoring, in fisheries, in different areas, it's very, very difficult to increase funding in some areas at the same time you reduce funding in a lot of others.

    I'm just stating the facts here. There is more pressure and demand on programs in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans than there is money to deal with it.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Labonté, I understand that spending allocations are political decisions that come from there. They don't come from your department. But you must at some time make recommendations. You don't say, “Okay, let's cut this program and do it over here”. You must make recommendations at some time to the minister--for example, “By the way, Minister, we're getting some pressure from local members of Parliament and the committee, and they are recommending that A-base funding go to $8 million. If it's possible, we should do that.”

    I think that's what I would do if I were in your shoes. But you've never done that. No wonder we are still stuck at $6.1 million. If the department itself doesn't make recommendations to the minister or to the deputy minister, then sorry, guys, it's never going to happen. I find it frustrating. But that's okay.

    My question, actually, is on ballast water regulations. Will that be done by the end of the year?

    The Chair: Mr. Morris, we get a chance to hear from you.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: I didn't want to leave Mr. Morris alone.

    And the reason I ask that, sir, is because we heard in testimony today that aquatic species concerns are a high priority. I'm not sure when it became a high priority, because in 1992 we signed the Convention on Biological Diversity, in 1995 the federal government said they were going to do something, and in May 2003 this committee made a report. The calendar now says May 2004. We haven't increased A-base funding, we still have the live Asian carp coming into the country, and we don't know about ballast water exchange yet.

    If this is a high priority, you're fooling me, sir, so go right ahead.

    Mr. Tom Morris (Manager, Environmental Protection, Marine Safety, Department of Transport): We commenced our formal public consultations on our proposed regulations last fall. We were proposing to bring in a ballast water exchange regulation for the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River.

    As a result of our consultations, we had recommendations from both the east and west coasts that we'd bring in national regulations. So over the course of the winter we changed our strategy a bit and now we've developed a national regulation for ballast water exchange. At this point, it's with the legal drafters. We've continued with our public consultations this spring, and people in both the shipping industry and in the community seem to be onside as to this being the way we should go.

    So at this point we do hope by the end of the year to have a national ballast water exchange regulation in place.

  (1235)  

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: By the end of the year?

    Mr. Tom Morris: That is our hope, if all goes well.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: What do you think would hold it up?

    Mr. Tom Morris: It's a priority for us. As I said, we have our legal drafters working on it. I don't see anything at this point that should slow it down.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Without giving too much away, are you going to make those regulations in a legal framework, that it must be done, and not voluntary?

    Mr. Tom Morris: We're basically replacing our current voluntary guidelines with a mandatory regulation. But there will still be provisions so that if it's not safe to do the exchange, the ship will be exempted, because there are serious safety concerns for some vessels doing these exchanges.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: With that, sir, because, as you know, the committee is interested in this, would it be possible for you to forward it to the committee when you get a draft of that nature?

    Mr. Paradis, if we could get any information you have from the Department of Foreign Affairs regarding the possible trade implications of banning live Asian carp, I'd be honoured to have that.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Okay. Just to make it clear, Mr. Paradis, if you have such information, we're requesting it.

    Secondly, Mr. Morris, you said that the regulations, you hoped, would be in place at the end of the year. Does “in place” mean “in effect”?

    Mr. Tom Morris: Yes.

    The Chair: All right. Thank you.

    We're going to someone on the Conservative side then.

    Mr. Hearn.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: I'll just ask a brief question, Mr. Chair, and then I'll pass it over to Mr. Schellenberger.

    In relation to certain of the invasive species, at least the more mobile ones, have we thought about a directed fishery? I'm thinking about the lamprey, the carp, and the green crab that's starting to become a nuisance on the east and west coasts--as you say, the mussels are entirely different, causing a major problem for you and for industry.

    Now I know if you have a concentrated fishery, there have to be returns, and if there aren't markets, then it's a bit frustrating. However, can markets be developed? I would think there would be some.

    Second, can we arrange directed fisheries, realizing that in the beginning it may not be financially viable for fishermen to gear up to fish a species that might not be prolific in certain areas, at the start at least, and as we ease into proper gear types and learn more about these new species, and as I said, develop markets, which could be slow.... But certainly, wouldn't it be better to involve the people who are affected directly through subsidization, rather than throwing away a lot of money where perhaps the result wouldn't be as good?

    I use as an example the green crab, the Asian carp, or the sea lamprey. People may say, how are we going to catch them all? Well, if you could catch a significant number, it would solve a lot of our problems. I just mention to you the fact that with one of the greatest, or probably the greatest, fish supply in the world, the northern cod, we managed to catch just about all of it.

    So if we can do that, undoubtedly we can catch what's in a confined area if we put the proper effort there.

    Mr. Serge Labonté: It's interesting that you raise that point.

    On the west coast, for example, an invasive species that's called varnished clam, which has been established now for a number of years, has had a commercial fishery introduced on it. So the potential for commercial fisheries on invasive species that get established is certainly a possibility.

    If you look at the Maritimes right now and the problem with clubbed tunicate, it's a huge problem for people who grow clams. It basically uses all the space and it's a strong competitor against clams and mussels. It basically occupies the whole thing.

    But there is a strong market for clubbed tunicate in China. What do you do in that context? Should you move from a traditional activity to something new and use it as an opportunity from an economic perspective? There is a precedent. There is certainly a possibility to do that. The issue is always how these species affect the environment, and they do change the environment overall.

    In Lake Erie--and Dr. Cooley can talk about this--the ecosystem right now is probably totally different from what it was 25 years ago. There is a carpet of zebra mussels there and there are gobies and a few things like that, which make it a totally different environment. Can you exploit that environment for a commercial purpose? I don't think there is a market for zebra mussels, but if there was one, there would certainly be a few to be collected there.

    So should you support the establishment of fisheries through subsidy? I'm not in a position to answer that. I think that's a question that you're probably in a better position than a civil servant to answer, but subsidies have been used on many occasions to help economic development in many areas, so it would be no different from many others.

    But I suspect there is a better way to address the issue than by looking at subsidies.

  (1240)  

    The Chair: I'll give Mr. Schellenberger one question.

    Mr. Gary Schellenberger: Thank you.

    One thing to initiate this program or to keep this program going.... I know you work not only with the federal ministries but also provincially. I just recently met with the Quebec coast guard people, and one thing that they say, or that I've been able to figure out, is that sometimes we get too many ministries involved in some of these things, and there's a question of whether all the right ministries are involved with this program.

    My question is, how many ministries are involved federally with the program, and is this a hindrance, or do you all have a good working relationship so that if one particular ministry decides one thing, it isn't held back by another ministry?

    Mr. Serge Labonté: Are you talking specifically about aquatic invasive species or invasive overall?

    Mr. Gary Schellenberger: Yes.

    Mr. Serge Labonté: For aquatic invasive species, the lead department, of course, is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. A key department is Transport, and this issue is related to ballast water. This one is a pretty simple relationship. It's almost a one-on-one relationship, although there is also interaction with international organizations, on ballast water with other states, etc. Sometimes it's more complex than the relationships among federal departments and it extends to various jurisdictions, and sometimes to various countries.

    Environment Canada is also a key player in the context of national coordination. There is more interaction needed to deal with the issue, in this case, with the provinces and with various stakeholders, that extends far beyond the coordination in the federal family.

    I would say it's working reasonably well. We try to nurture the relationship we have, to be as efficient as possible.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Schellenberger.

[Translation]

    Mr. Roy.

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I'd like to come back briefly to an answer given earlier by Mr. McLean. I asked him whether Environment Canada had a budget to address the problem of invasive species. You responded that this matter fell within the jurisdiction of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. I agree, in terms of these species finding their way into the country. However, does Environment Canada have in place a program to prevent the accidental , involuntary or even voluntary transport of invasive species into the country? Are funds earmarked for this very purpose at Environment Canada, to prevent the rapid movement of these invasive species within Canada?

[English]

    Mr. Robert McLean: Actually, on the aquatic side, I'd leave it to Fisheries and Oceans to respond to that. On the plant side and plant pest side, in fact, the legislative tools that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency have allows them to establish controls within Canada. We're certainly seeing that with respect to avian flu in British Columbia. I'm using that as an example simply to emphasize that they do have the tools in place to allow them and their staff to control the intra-movement of invasive alien species within the country.

    Also, the role of the provinces and territories is extremely important. In the case of live Asian carp, we've heard that Ontario is considering establishing prohibitions on the possession of live Asian carp. There's a really significant role for the provinces to play on the intra-Canada movement.

    Certainly, in the context of the national strategy, the provinces are essentially telling the federal government that it's really their job to look after the ports of entry and the external sources. Complementary to that, they think about, what I would characterize as the secondary pathways of introduction. Once here, what can be done to prevent the movement? We see, for example, initiatives around public awareness with respect to recreational boating. There are certainly things that can be done.

    On Environment Canada, you'll already have noted, in my reply, that Environment Canada doesn't play a role. It's because the lead is in other agencies, federally and provincially, because of not wanting to confuse the interdepartmental responsibilities, which could make the matter worse rather than better.

  (1245)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: I've a pretty good idea of the work done by DFO. Getting back to something you said earlier, Mr. Labonté, in response to a question from one of my colleagues, you maintained that subsidies weren't necessarily the solution to the problem. I agree with you when it comes to developing industry, but when it comes to research, the State must as a rule invest in order to support product development.

    You mentioned zebra mussels. Was there only a down side to presence of this species? Did they not have a positive effect in terms of cleaning up the environment, particularly in the Great Lakes?

    Mr. Serge Labonté: Dr. Cooley can answer that question better than I can.

[English]

    Dr. John Cooley: Some people on Lake Erie are less concerned about the zebra mussel being there because it has led to more transparent water. I don't share that opinion. The overall impact of the zebra mussel is 99% bad, because it has disrupted that ecosystem. It has changed it forever, and we're going to have to live with and manage around the zebra mussel being there.

    There may be a silver bullet out there for the zebra mussel. If so, nobody has found it. And we must remember that the zebra mussel is all over Europe as well. So I think it's more realistic to think that the zebra mussel is there to stay. The zebra mussel is particularly well suited to Lake Erie because the lake is shallow and it's productive, and the mussel thrives there. That's why we see the populations that exist within that ecosystem.

    But overall, it has changed the fishery; there is far less walleye, or pickerel, as they're often called in Ontario. It used to be the greatest walleye fishery in the world through the early part of the eighties, and it's less productive now. The reason is that the water has become clearer, and walleye don't like clear water, so they've moved into the central basin of Lake Erie, where they haven't done as well because basically they now have less habitat to work with.

    So I can't think of anything very good about the zebra mussel. I wish it had never arrived on the scene and that it wasn't distributed throughout all of the Great Lakes and all the way down through the Mississippi and the tributaries of the Mississippi. It's just one more invader that's disrupting our native ecosystem.

  (1250)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: I'd like to come back to your answer for a minute, and this will be my final question, Mr. Chairman.

    Scientists do not agree on the impact of the zebra mussel. I agree with you about the effects of zebra mussels on the environment. I agree that the overall impact has been 98 per cent bad. However, isn't it true that the zebra mussel thrives in waters that are just polluted enough to allow it to evolve and doesn't it have a beneficial impact in terms of cleaning up the water?

[English]

    Dr. John Cooley: I think “cleaning up” is probably the wrong terminology to use.

    No, I'd have to disagree with that premise. I think it shouldn't be there. The more places it establishes itself, the more chance it's going to establish somewhere else and cause the damage somewhere else.

    It hasn't caused the same damage everywhere. As I indicated, Lake Erie happened to be ideal for it. It doesn't do nearly as well up in the colder waters of Lake Superior, for example, but that's not to say it wouldn't do extremely well and cause a lot of damage in, for example, the Okanagan Valley in British Columbia, if it ever got in there.

    A few years ago there was actually a boat that was crossing the border, and one of the guards noticed that it had zebra mussels on the hull. Had those made it through.... They're a very vigorous beast and can survive out of water for a while. Anyway, had that boat made it into a place like the Okanagan, they might be facing some of the same problems we see in Lake Erie. But it didn't, and that gets back to part of our invasive species strategy that Dr. Labonté talked about. Education is key, and there is one case where it actually worked.

    The Chair: Mr. Steckle.

    Mr. Paul Steckle: I want to pick up where I left off.

    I think the response to the question on what constitutes an invasive species was what we all expected it would be.

    I asked the question, is the black cormorant an invasive species to the province of Ontario, to the Great Lakes basin?

    Mr. Serge Labonté: I cannot answer that.

    John, do you know about that?

    Dr. John Cooley: The cormorant is causing a lot of problems. It wasn't introduced. It flew there and it has established itself.

    I suspect that the cormorant had been there historically. Sometimes we look at things and we think of it in the immediacy of the way it used to be 10, 20, 30, or 40 years ago, but in actual fact, I think the cormorant has been around for a while. It has just exploded in the last few years and has become a problem.

    In that sense, it's not an invasive species. It's a nuisance species, and that's a little bit different.

    Mr. Paul Steckle: That's your interpretation, and I accept that. A lot of people would disagree, because I think it fits all the description of invasive species as you outlined earlier.

    We heard this morning, and you admitted, Mr. Labonté, that you had never taken to the minister the request or the concern of those of us on this committee--on all sides, I must say; all parties have agreed over the many years I've been on this committee--that we need to increase this funding.

    Have you been able to get a sense today that there is urgency and that there is a sincerity here of having this file finally moved to the stage where $8 million is realized? Are you prepared, Mr. Labonté, to take this back and for the next year's budget--because obviously we're into this current year--recommend the $8 million?

    I realize there are tight budgets everywhere, but this returns--and I didn't say this in my opening comments--to the federal coffers over $70 million from the province of Ontario alone, in sports fishing, in GST. Again also, there is the fact that it returns huge dollars, even greater than that, to the Province of Ontario in PST.

    This is a cash cow. I don't imagine you could find in government another program where there is that kind of return for $6.1 million or $8 million spent. I'm wondering whether we have finally been able to penetrate the minds of the department to the point and impress on you that this needs to be taken to the next level, where it becomes $8 million in A-base funding.

  (1255)  

    Mr. Serge Labonté: I have certainly taken good note and I will raise that with my deputy minister.

    Mr. Paul Steckle: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Colleagues, if you don't mind, I have a couple of questions before we complete our questioning.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: Could I please comment?

    The Chair: Yes, Mr. Hearn.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: Just to follow up, when we were talking about some invasive species that are here to stay and the change in environment--within the Great Lakes in this case, but generally within the oceans--I thought back to the early days when we were cod fishing using gillnets.

    In certain locations, when you'd pull your gillnet to try to achieve the meagre cod, the net on many occasions would be filled with crab, which would cause you all kinds of problems because they got entangled in the net and you were just jumping on them, crushing them, and doing several other things that we shouldn't have been doing, perhaps, and throwing them overboard, because they were just an invasive species, as such--a nuisance species.

    Today, we don't have a lot of cod, but the value of the crab and the shrimp is much greater than the value of the cod ever was. I'm not saying we shouldn't have both, but it goes to show that sometimes maybe there is another side to the change in environment there, and I guess we always have to be conscious of that.

    In relation to the zebra mussels, the market for shrimp and crab shells in China in particular is quite good, if we can get them there. Maybe there is a market, if not for the mussels, certainly the shell itself. So heaven knows what the future might bring. It might not all be on a downturn.

    The Chair: Mr. Labonté.

    Mr. Serge Labonté: In relation to crab, I do remember the beginning of the crab fisheries in the 1970s, and I remember the fishermen at the time who said crab was a nuisance. But now, crab licences are worth millions of dollars. So it tells a lot about what marketing of a product can do. It's all about commercialization of the product and finding a niche in the market.

    I probably agree with you that there is a need for more food on the planet and all the resources have their value, but it's a question of getting the proper niche for that.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Morris, recommendation 8 dealt with moving along the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship's Ballast Water and Sediment. The response of the government was that it fully agrees with the recommendation, which was heartening, and there was supposed to be a diplomatic conference in February 2004, which Mr. Labonté I believe mentioned in his opening remarks. The Canadian delegates at the conference, according to the government response, were to “press for minimum ratification requirements in terms of the number of signatures needed”. Could you tell us what happened at that conference? Did they press for minimum ratification requirements, and what was the result?

    Mr. Tom Morris: We certainly did make known our view that we were looking for minimal ratification requirements. There were a lot of varying views from the approximately 75 countries that showed up for the conference. A lot of people wanted a higher number. In the end, a consensus was reached that it's 30 states, with 35% of the world's tonnage. One of the main reasons for that was the fact that the European Union is expanding. The number of countries there was going up to 25, so we were looking for a number of 25 or fewer states, and a lot of the other countries who were there were not willing to have a number low enough to allow the European Union to bring these international regulations in by doing it as a block. That was basically the reason a lot of countries wouldn't accept the lower numbers we were proposing, hence the number that appears in the convention.

·  (1300)  

    The Chair: So what is the status of the ratification? How are we in respect of the 30 states at 35% of the tonnage?

    Mr. Tom Morris: It was finalized just in February, so now states take it back. In order to ratify, you have to incorporate it into your national legislation. At this point no one has ratified it that I'm aware of, and it's a slow process of getting people on side. On our part, we're proposing to develop regulations once we get our exchange regulations finalized, hopefully this year. We'll be working on amending those to incorporate new regulations under our new act, the Canada Shipping Act 2001, so in 2006 we hope to have a regulation finalized that will incorporate these international requirements. This would put Canada in a position to be one of the countries that would ratify the convention.

    The Chair: Okay. Good luck with that.

    Mr. Stoffer.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters has a proposal for $1.4 million over a five-year period. They're able to stretch a dollar a lot further than most other organizations. Has that recommendation been brought forward by you to the department, and what is the current status of that request?

    Mr. Serge Labonté: Does that relate to recommendation 14?

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes.

    Mr. Serge Labonté: That was addressed to Environment Canada from the Ontario Federation, so I'll defer to my colleague.

    The Chair: Can you shed some light on it?

    Mr. Robert McLean: We didn't provide the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters with $1.4 million. We have, in cooperation with Fisheries and Oceans and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, provided some funding that enabled OFAH to produce its pamphlet, copies of which I will leave with the clerk of the committee to be shared.

    I think the question of a broader and more strategic communications approach with respect to invasives needs to be in the context of the strategy, the individual action plans, and what it is we actually need to communicate, who the key audiences are. I'm quite sure we need a broader communication strategy, dealing not only with aquatic invasive alien species, but also with plants and plant pests. We don't have those particular priorities established. You will have seen in the national strategy the importance of adopting a number of strategies to make progress on invasive alien species, and communications is just one of those, an important one, but we also need to ensure that there's funding available for all the strategies.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: May I make--

    The Chair: We're past the 1 o'clock...I'm sorry, and I have one technical question I'd like to ask. I don't want to keep the gentlemen from the other duties they have, or us for that matter.

    In recommendation 1(g), we suggested conducting ecological surveys for early detection. The government's response was that they agreed with this but believed that ecological surveys are not the most effective way to detect aquatic evasive species and they're not a cost-effective approach to detection. My question is, do you have any studies in your possession that back up the government's belief that they're not cost effective or the most effective way to detect aquatic invasive species?

    Mr. Sylvain Paradis: We don't have such a study, sir.

    The Chair: So this is simply a belief system within the department without empirical evidence or without anything of that nature. Is that correct? It's not a trick question. I'm just trying to figure out why the government--

    Mr. Sylvain Paradis: It was based on the fact that the body of water is so large it would be very difficult to do an effective job considering that invaders are spread out in many areas.

    For example, when they found a grass carp close to Ontario earlier last year--or perhaps it was this year--we had an ecological survey right after to make sure it was only one carp and not a series of carp. So we believe this is an effective way to do business, but it should not be done all over, all the time.

    For example, we had a call when Ontario put forward its proposal for legislation on Asian carp because someone in Sudbury was saying, I think there is an invasion of carp in my neighbourhood. We followed up with that person. We called Ontario and we looked at the ecological survey that had been done where we had not found any of these fish. So it's not necessarily that we don't believe there is effectiveness in it.

    The majority of time people will call us and say, we found a new species of fish that we don't know, and then we'll go and do the assessment with people and quickly move into action. Then we can do an ecological survey, but we don't believe it should be the primary way to do business.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Gentlemen, thank you so much for your candid answers. We want to wish you well. We're pleased to hear that the departments are working well in general towards our mutual aim, which is to control and, if possible, eradicate, but certainly to control and prevent invasive species. We look forward to having you back each year to keep us informed until such time as we have nothing but good news to talk about. Thank you, again, for coming.

    The meeting is adjourned.